Scoreboard

[rolanddude]

I finally get it!!!I have just learned that most of you bought his book... That means you have given him more money than I ever have... I have never bought any of his books nor have I ever given or been asked for any money by him...This is funny...really!!!I came to this forum, at first,  to ask legit questions about progression betting....Little did I know that there was a swarm of bees in the room ready to attack anything that sounded, resembled, or reminded everyone of Rob...  You guys BOUGHT THE BOOK....hehehehehehe!!!   I have NEVER read, bought, or have been given either one of his books...My questions all derived from my two trips to Vegas last year when I finally came home ahead for a change....This is funny!Shadow, all the posts have been by me...Joe Carter.  OEJ, I don't work at Walmart... Just visit...showtimemusiccenter.com to see for yourself.Tedlark, I asked Damule "IF"  he was stupid.  Big Difference!  That was only after he followed one of my example posts with "special play" nonsense that didn't relate and only detracted from the point I made.Mickey,  rotten fish?  You have done more advertising for him and his books in your last post than I could think to do.  You even know the prices...wow!   Your business plan seems doable ...  maybe you should become his agent or something....???Oh by the way webman,  very nicely done banners on the homepage and at the top of this page.  I see that Dancer must be selling alot of books to the 22,000 members here at the site.   Mickey.... WHO IS SELLING here?So funny it is hilarious...  A clone....???  hehehehehe...funny.... I've got to go take a leak now....see what you all've done....Joe

[rolanddude]

Mickey,I have no clue about NPD...I can however tell you all you want to know about Hodgkin's Disease and Lymphoma....and Malignancy...As far as low blows and splitting hairs between your narcissism and whatever you said I had "MN?".  I have no clue what you're talking about.BTW,  nobody has yet explained to me how I keep getting more credits on VPFW by progressive betting than what the stats show me I've won... could someone please finally explain this anomaly...?  Go back and read my original post on it if you have too.  I really want to know...

[Webman]

Rolanddude, I don't think Bob Dancer has ever stated that people should only bet a single amount. He would have no beef with your progression, only argue that there is no gain in expected return. Which is the same thing everyone here has stated, without selling anything. If you fail to see that your expected return does not change if you bet different amounts in any order, then I guess you never will. But it's time to start talking about something else because this has clearly run its course.  You have taken 173 posts to discuss this one idea, everyone has heard it, you have received your response.The only direction this will go is an increasing hostility by both sides of the issue and that isn't what we're about here. I think it's time to move on to something else.

[EDC1977]

Don't be so quick to knock him Webman. He's much more defensive of argentino than scorpio was and a much more proficient speller too! If he loses the Jekyll and Hyde complex, he'll even stop getting accused of being an alias. I just don't understand why he keeps asking the perpetual question already knowing both the answer and the responses he'll get.

[cddenver]

I have just learned that most of you bought his book... That means you have given him more money than I ever have... I have never bought any of his books nor have I ever given or been asked for any money by him...This is funny...really!!!

 
Lighten up, Joe.  I borrowed a copy from a friend and read it.  I made up the doorstop jest - so you've caught me in a fib on that.  My bad. 
 

Oh by the way webman,  very nicely done banners on the homepage and at the top of this page.  I see that Dancer must be selling alot of books to the 22,000 members here at the site.  

 
As with any subject, there are good books and bad ones.  I'm a book nut, and I couldn't tell you the number of times I've made a book purchase based on an interesting "teaser" or written by a favorite author and then been disappointed by the actual content.  So, making the purchase doesn't necessarily mean that the buyer is going to be satisfied with the content.  Your friend's first book was already out of print when I started looking for it.  If I'd found it in the discount section of a bookstore I probably would have picked up a copy, and it would now be sitting on a shelf I have with the other VP books that I consider to be bad ones.
 
I don't see anything wrong with selling information of any kind, VP or otherwise.  The question is the quality of what you're paying for - just because something appears in print or online doesn't mean it's good.
 

[faygo]

Rolanddude, I don't think Bob Dancer has ever stated that people should only bet a single amount. He would have no beef with your progression, only argue that there is no gain in expected return. Which is the same thing everyone here has stated, without selling anything. If you fail to see that your expected return does not change if you bet different amounts in any order, then I guess you never will. But it's time to start talking about something else because this has clearly run its course.  You have taken 173 posts to discuss this one idea, everyone has heard it, you have received your response.

The only direction this will go is an increasing hostility by both sides of the issue and that isn't what we're about here. I think it's time to move on to something else.
 
Capital idea Webman.

[Webman]

Tell you what everyone... like I said, this topic is played out. There is no need for hostilities to increase any further.While I think these short-term strategies have been analyzed successfully by New2vp and others to show no change in expected return, out of respect for rolanddude for bringing what I consider a useful topic before us, I will let him have the last word on this subject and then close the thread. It has simply gone on longer than it ever needed to and has continued to degrade on both sides.I appreciate the good parts of the discussion but everything from here on is entirely predictable so let me save you all 10,000 more posts on the subject.Rolanddude, thank you for keeping your head for so long while under a lot of fire. For the most part you are to be commended beyond others who have discussed these teachings. Please prepare your final remarks on this matter and post them here, then I will be closing it and we must all move on to other topics not related to your friend in any way. He's had his day in the spotlight. Thank you.

[New2vp]

Sorry, been away trying to run a little bracket pool.  I guess I should get in some last words before this is closed down.New, 
In my recent "dare" to everyone and in my little 3 hand sample
(which was too short and only included a 3oak winner) Rd, this was the example used by you to promote ARTT.  I just completed it so that all the trees in the forest were counted, rather than just the ones that showed ARTT as a winner. (I'm using the popular metaphor here because it seems appropriate; there are some who can't see the forest for the trees, with each single simulation being a "tree."  But let's see if we can separate them here.)As I showed in my post with the charts, the results exactly balanced out.  This was a case with only 8 "trees" in the forest with only 4 different probabilities, so that someone could see what was going on.  We get 8 because there were only 2 possibilities and 3 hands.2 x 2 x 2 = 8.  After looking at all possibilities and weighting them by the appropriate probabilities, we find no mystery and no magic, both methods are expected to reveal identical results.  Of course in any one example, one method will likely yield different results than the other.This could be more realistic.  If we considered all possible payoffs in Double Bonus, over 3 hands, we would have 10 x 10 x 10 = 1000 trees in our forest.*  I fear that if you cannot work through an example with only 8 possibilities, you might get lost with 1000.  But math assures us and I will work it out later to find the exact numbers, that here the level $1 bettor will come out ahead of the dime, quarter, half ARTT player.  If you don't think 3 hands are enough to make the point, the 4th hand increases the possibilities to 10,000.  Of course after a few more hands, most people might not be able to handle all the numbers.  That is why a lot of mathematics was invented.  It allows more efficient methods for doing things that would take too long to handle by brute force.Now that I think about it, maybe I was uncharitable towards your mentor in a previous post when I said you were hoodwinked by him.  Possibly he didn't know any better and really believed what he taught you.  In that case, maybe he should follow along in what follows as well. All I know is that in the last week I have played sporadically on
VPFW.  Every time I play I reset the stats to 0 "zero".  I play ARTT...without a goal in mind, without switching games, only on 10/7 DB.  
I put in 400 credits at the $2 level and then start playing at the
Quarter level.  I play either until I get tired or I lose 400 credits.
(not counting any gains made).

 

EVERY TIME after I am finished I open up "analyze session" from the menu.  I click on "coins"...and EVERY TIME win or lose the coins won/lost displayed in the stats are sub-par to my actual performance...If it shows I won coins it ALWAYS shows less than what I really won.  If it shows I lost coins it ALWAYS shows more than what I really lost.  Why?

 

Why does it do that New?

 

I tried it on other "negative" games....same result....Why?

 

Is there something wrong with my VPFW?

 

Or ....   ????

 

Regardless of "average bet" and all the other math lingo you are an expert in...Aren't the   NET  RESULTS  more important?


You really should not start out arguments with "All I know is...".  That sets you up for retorts like, "If you had read and considered my other posts, you would know more," and in fact, my post with the charts contains enough information to upgrade what you know so you could understand this phenomenon."There is nothing wrong with the coin counter in VPFW.  By switching denominations, although it keeps an accurate count of the coins in and coins out in the "Analyze Session" area, in each play the types of coins in and out vary.  This is the way a 3-year-old counts money.  If he has 4 pennies and 6 dimes, he may think that these 10 coins are equal in value to 7 nickels and 3 quarters.But VPFW also internally keeps a count on the value left in the machine, switching the displayed number of credits depending on the denomination that you are playing.You say that the phenomenon works out in ARTT's favor every time you play.  As I said before this is in fact often the case.  But when you do not take into account every possibility, you are going to miss something.  And if you give these times their relevant weights, you will find no difference in the 3-hand 2-possibility example that we already worked through. Rather than have me work this out for you, I think it would be instructive if you worked it out for yourself.  I know cddenver, shadowman, and others could easily look at the charts in my previous post with the different font colors and determine that if you looked at all possibilities you would find several in which VPFW's coin count would come out different than you say.Here is a hint.  In my example, there would be 27 different examples at 15 coins each.  That would be 27 x 15 coins = 405 coins that would be put in the machine and, lo and behold, if you do the arithmetic accurately, you will find that 405 coins will come out....with ARTT....and with level betting.  Of course, the user of ARTT method will have to use the 3-year-old's method of counting the coins when using VPFW's coin counter or he could simply refer to the credits and cash out for an accurate amount.You should do yourself a favor and work through the examples rather than continuing to suggest that ARTT always comes out ahead.  It seems foolish since there are easy counterexamples to what you say.  Level betting will ALWAYS come out ahead in your 3 hand example (when all possibile payouts from loser to royal flush are considered) when trips or better are hit in the first hand followed by two losses, two pushes, or one of each.  I know...you think this isn't going to happen often enough to matter.  Well, the relevant weighting here is 11.58% x 88.42% x 88.42% = 9.05%, about 1 time in 11.  Now to be certain, there are other times that level betting also will beat ARTT, but I thought in the short time we have left, these examples should suffice to help your understanding that ARTT will not win every time and in fact with a positive machine it will hurt your profitability.If you run say 30 simulations since you don't like to just use math, you will be 94.2% certain to find at least one such example.  (I cheated...I used the binomial distribution to help me with this rather than working out all the possibilities longhand.)  I wouldn't call you a liar but I would be suspect of whether you did what you said if you didn't find an example after trying this 30 times.  If you run 100 simulations, it is more than 99.99% certain that you would find an example.  If you don't find an example, you should really check your arithmetic rather than blaming software or luck.And the wins by level betting here are significant enough to more than make up for the losses to ARTT in other situations.  The difference between this fact and the claim in ARTT that the big wins make up for the big losses is:The first phrase is true.  The second phrase does not stand up to reality, with every ARTT loss wiping out multiple average-size ARTT gains as I've shown in both examples that you promoted.Hey, it's time to enjoy betting on basketball now rather than video poker.  Hope your brackets are going well.  No place for math there either...or maybe...if you know enough, there is. *You might think there are 12 possible outcomes with Double Bonus and you would be right; however, we can combine High Pair and Two Pair since they have equal payouts; we can also combine Straight Flush and Quads of 5-K since they payout the same.

[oej719]

May he rest in pieces. Gulp Gulp.

[rolanddude]

 
Rolanddude, thank you for keeping your head for so long while under a lot of fire. For the most part you are to be commended beyond others who have discussed these teachings. Please prepare your final remarks on this matter and post them here...
Thank you Webman for your hospitality.  And thanks to all who participated in the threads.I want to start by saying that I REALLY DO understand all of the points that have been made by New and Shadow...I understand ER, EV, and that in a perfect world... Advantage Play in positive expectation situations is recommended.  I have always contended however that if a person doesn't have access to playing VP all year long,  you don't have the luxury of waiting for the math to come around to your favor.  You can still have some devastating losses even though you played perfectly on a positive machine.  The math says that even after that devastating loss that somewhere at some point in time things will even out.  That's great if you can play anytime you want...not so great if you only have a few days a year to play.  As I have said before,  I had a terrible six year run in which I lost over $30k...I did play the last year or so on "bad" 9/6 DDB and 7/5 BP machines. Believe it or not I lost less on those trips than when I was pounding the full pay deuces the previous years...After almost having enough, I went searching the net for other strategy, viewpoints, and advice on VP.  I really had just about swore it off and was going to just "sports bet".  That's when by chance I learned about playing shorter, goal oriented sessions while betting progressively.  The experience for me has been great!  The man that is obviously so despised here... kinda took me under his wing and showed me personally how to play this way on two different trips last year...once on ARTT and the other time was, upon my request, RTT.I come home a winner each trip!!!I love playing VP and had alot of fun playing for free at home while I was sick .  When I go to Vegas from now on, I don't want to think that I have to "get my hands in" to try to acheive the the seemingly unreachable "promised land" we call ER.Instead,  I will take a bankroll of $2,400 (1/4 of what I used to take) and play ARTT, or at least use the betting progression that it uses.  By using only $800 per session I'll have enough to sustain 3 total wipeouts. (which will be unlikely)  I will be playing much shorter sessions than I used to, giving me much more time to enjoy what that great town has to offer...fun, fun, fun... it's really something for me to look forward to.  This way of play suits me best.  I don't want to be chasing anymore.  I want to get up out of my seat a winner...Math guys... just beware of the fact that all of the conclusions derived from the probabilities, expected values/returns, and averages applied to different games and bet amounts...they never work out perfectly because of that little dirty word in all of mathematics....VARIANCE....the one single thing that can't be accurately accounted for in any situation.In closing,  I believe that since I would sit and play at a $1 or $2 machine anyway,  I can't lose as much as I normally would have (even if the difference is just a few dollars).  When I win I have greater chance than not of winning more than I would have playing any other way...I really believe this from my personal experiences on both my sims at home and the result of my past two trips to Vegas...Everybody ... It's been fun...Joe