Offer to Fa La La La La.... La la la la: Results (5th card flip)

[New2vp]

It only makes sense that after a horrid 10+ hand losing streak that you increase your bet so that a modest hit gets you back to scratch or better...DUH   What do you guys think?  I believe r-dude is a reasonable person, perhaps a bit misguided, and would be willing to exchange his theories for more sensible ones when the light bulb finally goes off in his head.  But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong (with credit for the last statement given to Dennis Miller)!Maybe it's the math that's throwing him off.  I'll try to make this example simple by using as little math as possible."We all agree and understand that no dealt hand is influenced by any that have come before or by any that have yet to come."  Now we know that Fa La La La La.... La la la la believes this since its a quotation from a current column, and by extension, so does r-dude.  And of course, one logical fallacy in the quote from r-dude's post is that having a history with "a horrid 10+ hand losing streak" is good information on which to base a bet on future hands.  If future hands are not influenced by the past, having a recent losing streak is irrelevant to what will occur in the future.  Conversely, if it is a good idea to increase the bet size for the next few hands after "a horrid 10+ hand losing streak," it would also be a good idea to increase the bet size for the next few hands if you had no such losing streak.  The losing streak will have no effect on the hands to come.Let's put this in a story format and put a slightly different twist on it.  Let's say that r-dude and I go a casino and play identical games (sort of like Webman and Fa La La La La.... La la la la did) at identical denominations, let's say quarters.  Let's also assume that we play identical strategies.(1)  I start with $2000 and r-dude starts with $3000 and presume that neither of us are planning on losing more than $2000 in this session.  After the same amount of play, we can expect that r-dude will have $1000 more than me...because he started with $1000 more.  I do not expect to win more or less than r-dude simply because we started with different amounts in our pocket.  I would not play a different strategy simply to catch up with what r-dude had in his pocket.  Does that make sense?(2)  Now let's change the scenario a bit.  Let's say we both start with $3000 but 1/2-way through the session due to bad luck, I've lost $1000 while r-dude has broken even.  Are you getting ahead of me?  Now, once again, I have $2000 and r-dude has $3000.  ARTT now says that it's better for me to play a different strategy and increase my bet size because I now have $1000 less than r-dude.  But that is just like what occurred in the previous paragraph when it was appropriate for us to play the same strategy.  Do you see the logical fallacy here?  Since the correct strategies in the two scenarios are different according to ARTT, but the starting conditions in paragraph (1) are the same as the conditions in paragraph (2) 1/2-way throught the session, we pretty much have to say that ARTT is an inconsistent, if not illogical way to play...unless we are unusually good at doubletalk and unusually bad at facing the truth.The only difference is that I'm chasing the myth that since I've lost money during that session, I need to increase my bet size to give me a better chance of breaking even....that session.  Of course, if you remember previous examples, we know that this session may take multiple days to complete according to ARTT's methods, so there really is no magic to winning or losing in any one session; it's just a matter of how you count winning sessions.Go ahead and play this way if you like.  If you play negative expectation games and double the bet size, when you win you will have double the wins, but you can expect double the losses. Summarizing, what this means is that it makes NO sense to use past history like a horrid 10+ hand losing streak to determine future bet sizes  DOUBLE DUH.  Do you think this makes things any clearer for him?

[cddenver]

OK...so far we have...

cddenver         NO
shadowman    NO
New2vp           NO
Ed da Cat        NO
Eduardo           NO
Oej (via PM)     YES  but Rob was drunk and played every hand for me and
                                I lost, lost, lost.    BooWhooo BooWhooo


 
I never said that I haven't tried it.  Your question was whether we'd tried it in a casino.  Since these discussions started, I've modelled several different progression strategies on my PC (including ARTT) to see what I could anticipate for long term net $'s compared to more conventional AP.  Setting up simulations to generate long term numbers is quicker (and cheaper!) than trying to determine the longer term effectiveness of any strategy by real casino play.  I have no reason to think my long term net $ results from a simulation would be different in any meaningful way from those I'd see in a casino.
 

[oej719]

Pianojoey
here is the pm get it right if you are quoting.

I played them all with rs drunk beside me. Lost my ass. Even with the special plays and all. It was like rs was playing because he told me the holds every hand.
Lost lost lost.

[cddenver]

"We all agree and understand that no dealt hand is influenced by any that have come before or by any that have yet to come."  Now we know that Fa La La La La.... La la la la believes this since its a quotation from a current column, and by extension, so does r-dude. 

 
New2vp, I'll try to beat rolanddude to the punch with a big "Get your facts straight!". 
 
A few days ago I used that same quote in another context, contrasting it with previous statements on un-randomness by RS (hot/cold cycles and patterns).  Shortly thereafter I was soundly and thoroughly chastised in an e-letter from RS because I hadn't paid any particular attention to the use of the word "dealt" in that quote.  His argument was that:
 
Deals are random.  Draws are not.  Hence, results of hands are not random.
 
We'll go ahead and assume that rolanddude agrees with Rob on that as well.  So that, of course, tosses everything you said that assumes results of hands are random out the window.  Sorry!
 
Since this is the first time that I've ever caught you in an error I'm going to print this out, frame it, and put it on the wall. 

[New2vp]

Yeah, cd, I saw that in his column as well...as the only way he could salvage the illogical conclusions that he was making.  But, if you check, you will see that I did cover that in my post...when I mentioned the caveat, "unless we are unusually good at doubletalk".Who believes that draws are not random?  Certainly, Fa La La La La.... La la la la could see in his experiment with Webman that if they were not random, they masqueraded as something so close to random that predictions could be made as if they were random.But, if you recheck my story example, you will see that nowhere do I assume that deals or draws are random.  I just presume that we are playing identical machines with identical strategies.  I do assume that both deals and draws are independent of what has occurred previously, but they do not have to be random in the sense that we understand that all possibilities are equally likely for the logic in the story to hold.Lastly, I was talking about r-dude here not Fa La La La La.... La la la la.  You don't think that r-dude would use the exact same argument as Fa La La La La.... La la la la, do you?  After all, r-dude's only met Fa La La La La.... La la la la twice and doesn't converse with him in order to influence the posts r-dude makes in this forum.  Isn't that right? 
 Since this is the first time that I've ever caught you in an
error I'm going to print this out, frame it, and put it on the wall.  Yeah, I know, and following the poor jokes in the other section, if what you hung on a wall had no arms and no legs, we would call him Art.cd, I take your statement as a compliment, but I make lots of errors; that's why I have to use the edit button so often.

[rolanddude]

New,Correct me if I am wrong on the following...A 3 oak happens in JoB, BP, and DDB roughly every 13 hands according to the math.  If I have played any amount over 13 hands without a 3 oak or higher...Am I due one based on the math?  If still I am skeptical and play on another 13 hands without a 3 oak or higher?...Not impossible, but wouldn't you say I am really due one now?  Math says probably so...  Although it does NOT guarantee it.  As a matter of fact math guarantees nothing in VP, it only says what to expect on average over a long undefinable period of time.  Both of your scenarios above are senseless to your math arguement.  Scenario one infers that you want to play higher denoms to catch up to me because I started with $1000 more than you even though we would both not let ourselves lose over $2000....Wha?  Scenario 2 makes a little more sense in that you admit that bad luck caused you to lose more than me...But here is where you don't seem to get it...What happened on your steady journey down?  Was there a time when you could have capitalized on a short good run after a long bad one?  Would you have lost less if only you were aware of certain opportunities?Now, who thinks it is a dumb idea in my scenario above that after 26 hands of betting quarters with nothing more than pairs and two pairs to show for that now I jump up to the $2 denom (8 times higher than quarters) on the same machine and play for a while.  I do this if there has not been an out of the ordinary amount of pairs and two pairs to keep me relatively even.  In other words,  I use common sense to decide if I change my bet.  The conditions have to be right and all signs need to point in that direction.  I cannot hurt myself like some suggest would happen by betting higher because I will not allow myself to lose more than I am willing to per session.  A huge key to this is how you play the game...not how long you play the game.

[cddenver]

Yeah, cd, I saw that in his column as well...as the only way he could salvage the illogical conclusions that he was making.  But, if you check, you will see that I did cover that in my post...when I mentioned the caveat, "unless we are unusually good at doubletalk".

Who believes that draws are not random?  Certainly, Fa La La La La.... La la la la could see in his experiment with Webman that if they were not random, they masqueraded as something so close to random that predictions could be made as if they were random.

 
 
We-e-e-ll, ok, I'll accept that "out" you gave (but I'll still save space on the wall for possible future use).
 
As to the WM/RS test, Rob and rolanddude have already offered several possible explanations for the apparent randomness shown on the test:
 
1) Those particular machines were new ones (newer software).
2) The un-randomness may not be as widespread as first supposed.
3) The initial widespread un-randomness may be in the process of being removed.
 
Webman needs to arrange another meeting, with the play to be done on two of the actual machines Rob's claimed to have seen unusual "flip" rates on.
 
EDITED:  No one was mentioned by name in the e-letter from Rob that I referred to in my previous post, pointing out his use of the word "dealt" in what was quoted.  I recall that Shadowman made a similar post at about the same time.  Since you already have so many mentions, SM, would you be a pal and let me claim that one?  I'm still waiting on my first mention and I'm tired of all the "slacker!" PM's that I get.  I'd really appreciate it.
 

[Deloradeuces18]

I try to stay quiet in these train wrecks but thank you all for some entertainment.

When someone brings up the WEATHER to defend their video poker strategy (30% chance of rain, REALLY?!?! ) then they are either trying to sell you on a theory that cannot be defended mathematically or just plain nucking futs. You sound like a nice guy rolanddude but either cut out the act or get some sense in you.

Now back to my corner to watch the downward spiral. Thanks again for the laughs everyone. But this game really isn't as mystical as some people would like it to be.

[rolanddude]

I try to stay quiet in these train wrecks but thank you all for some entertainment.

When someone brings up the WEATHER to defend their video poker strategy (30% chance of rain, REALLY?!?! ) then they are either trying to sell you on a theory that cannot be defended mathematically or just plain nucking futs.  I wasn't defending my poker play with weather Delora...I was just giving my opinion on computer sims, expectation sciences, and predictions all based upon mathematical calculations like the regs here so adamantly bow to...Poker is luck...at least I can look outside and tell what it is doing with the weather.  Some insist on ignoring what it is really doing outside and rely upon their simulation models to tell me what it should be doing...

[damule]

I try to stay quiet in these train wrecks but thank you all for some entertainment.

When someone brings up the WEATHER to defend their video poker strategy (30% chance of rain, REALLY?!?! ) then they are either trying to sell you on a theory that cannot be defended mathematically or just plain nucking futs. You sound like a nice guy rolanddude but either cut out the act or get some sense in you.

Now back to my corner to watch the downward spiral. Thanks again for the laughs everyone. But this game really isn't as mystical as some people would like it to be.


Sounds like a YES vote...that makes 11, once again RS's and RD's figures are wrong, LOL.