Flipovers aren't the only myth

[New2vp]

This is under the category, “Be careful what you wish for.”   I have been disparaged in consecutive columns by silly man (seagreen, you’ll either have to look these up on the Web or take my word for it).  He pretends somehow to have won some argument, daring me to continue to criticize under the pretense of some obsession that I have with him or to remain silent and accept his criticism of me.  Silly man evidently thinks it is important to direct his “thousands” of followers to videopoker.com to see how important he is.  If they are all tuned in now, I would encourage them to go to see silly man’s Free Strategy under the topic Single Play Video Poker before he decides to change it as I expose another of his inconsistencies calling into question (1) whether he has ever put these strategies into practice and (2) if he has, why he feels that he has to misrepresent the results.  R-dude recently tried to resurrect strategies based on this theme.Some of you may wonder why it was so easy for me to find errors in r-dude’s statistics.  It is not because I have a gift; it is because r-dude and silly man suffer from the same malady.  They have no problem posting fictitious results and they evidently do not have the math background to determine if the fictitious results are even reasonable.Here goes.  In his own words, which have been on the Net for several years now, he says, “Losing has happened very seldom - less than 7% of the time, and my average loss is around $7000.”  How do I know that this is untrue?  After all, even if the system is a bad one, couldn’t he be incredibly lucky?Well, let’s try an easy arithmetic problem to get you started first.  If I tell you that every one of 6 numbers is at least 14000, can you tell me that the average has to be well over 7000, at least double 7000?  The answer is “of course,” even if you don’t know any of the numbers.  This is not hard math.  The average has to be at least as large as the smallest number in the list and it is larger than the smallest number in the list unless all the numbers in the list are the same.Ok, let’s start with the basics in the strategy.  Again in his own words, “I take $17,200 as my minimum on each trip, my baseline denomination is dollars, and I have a win goal of $2500.”  “My final goal is to accumulate $2500 minimum profit and end the trip's session.”  “I never deviate from strategy. Never.”I agree that trying to follow the strategy is a bit difficult for some because it is convoluted with pocketing many small wins.  But it is not too difficult to analyze any session that ends in a loss.  Let’s try to keep the pile of pocketed wins off to the side.  What do we know about them?  Well, we know that they must be less than $2500.  Why?  If they were $2500 or more, we would have attained our goal and we would quit.What do we know if we had a losing session?  It means we would have run through 400 credits each at $1, $2, $5, $10, and $25 machines.  He mentions that he sometimes proceeds to $100 machines, which I will deal with later.So his losses on any losing session are easy to calculate if we temporarily ignore the pocketed small wins.400 × $  1 =  $     400400 × $  2 =  $     800400 × $  5 =  $  2,000400 × $10 =  $  4,000400 × $25 =  $10,000                        $17,200You can see that the total matches his trip bankroll of $17,200.  But then his net losses for any one session have to be at least $17,200 minus $2,495 = $14,705.Remember, if he had pocketed $2500 or more, he would have stopped with a winning session.  And he doesn’t quit and admit a losing session until he has progressed through all levels up to the $25 machine.  If he had a losing session and included the $100 machines, his losses would be supplemented by 400 × $100 = $40,000, turning the $17,200 loss into a $57,200 loss…all chasing a $2500 win goal.So, every single one of his losses would have to be at least $14,700.  So, how can he say that the average loss is $7000?  One answer is that the numbers are made up.  He never bothered to record his actual losses, or he decided to misrepresent them, thinking that no one would ever catch him in this indiscretion.  Now, what is he going to say to counter this, since we know that the truth never gets in his way when he’s trying to save face?  Did he just sort of forget to mention that maybe the average loss was nearer to $16,000?  If it was $17,000, he would have to say that the average pocketed winnings were only $200.  That’s hardly plausible.Do you think he'll change the claims in his column, claiming that the numbers that I quoted never existed there?  I've copied the column as it currently is and ask that anyone reading this do so as well (I've also given some a heads up to copy it before this posting).Actually, the most logical explanation is he didn’t figure anyone would actually be able to check his figures and, like r-dude and seagreen, he would just say that the results happened even if they were unlikely.  Here, however, the probability of a $7000 average is zero.  Can’t happen!Recall when I called r-dude on a similar error, he said that when he won, he couldn’t resist gambling even more, which is how he explained an impossible-to-arrive-at result.  He changed the rules to something different than what he claimed.  I suppose that will happen again.  But, then I would direct you to the last quote, “I never deviate from strategy. Never.”  Ok, which is it going to be?  Did he misrepresent his system?  Or did he misrepresent that he never deviated from it?Well, wait a minute!  Isn't this ancient history?  After all, this has been out there for a while.  Seagreen might say it is outdated.  If we find results that he has posted to validate one system and we know it to be untrue, what would be a likely conclusion about other results that he would post?You can decide that one on your own.  I think the answer is obvious.  I can hardly wait for the twisted logic that is bound to follow.I’m done.  I’m convinced beyond any doubt as to the total lack of authenticity of…of…well, I don’t know how to say it any other way…this silly man.What does he have left?  Flipovers are a flop.  His posted results of short-term strategy are not credible.  About all that’s left from his ramblings are the incessant insults that he directs at anyone who has the ability to see through the façade.  And given him as the source, such insults are welcome; they are likely largely in error as well.I wonder if even his reflections are smart enough to dissociate themselves from him as he becomes increasingly trivial, irrelevant and laughable.  Or will they be like rats going down with a sinking ship?  Is there anything left to discuss?Alright, let him explain away.  If it was an oral explanation, it would probably start with “Uh…uh…”  Let him put my screen name in his next column as he obsesses about me, someone he has never met and knows nothing about, and directs his followers, dwindling as they are, to read another documented untruth that he has tried to make a reputation on.If anyone thinks this criticism is too harsh or unwarranted, remember he put my name in his column as an object of ridicule...twice.  The difference here is that I have backed up my criticism with facts, most of which were of his own fabrication (double entendre intended).

[cddenver]

Alright, let him explain away.  If it was an oral explanation, it would probably start with “Uh…uh…”  Let him put my screen name in his next column as he obsesses about me, someone he has never met and knows nothing about, and directs his followers, dwindling as they are, to read another documented untruth that he has tried to make a reputation on.

 
Another nice post (), but wasted on RS.  As you said, math isn't one of his strengths.  You'll probably get a fluff-but-no-stuff response (more insults) then he'll move on to something else, considering the issue settled.  He might choose to simply ignore it.  He certainly won't answer it in any meaningful way.  I don't think he'll bother changing the information on his site, but he might surprise me.  I think his safest bet for changing it would be to remove his Golden Rule for never changing strategy.  That would open up a veritable plethora of options for keeping people like yourself from examining that strategy too closely.  Specifically, he could tie "patterns" into it that would allow him to change his Golden Rule to more of a Golden Guideline.  I made a copy of it for myself for future reference just in case he does and we want to see what "tweaks" he's made to correct the errors. 
 
Maybe your post will be the one that forces him to acknowledge his shenanigans over the years...naaahhhhh!

[New2vp]

This is not for silly man's consumption but for the "thousands" of followers who read his column.  After all, he knows that he never recorded a loss near $7000 following his advertised strategy.  I don't know if his reflections know that or not.  Do you think any of them will be embarrassed by their support for someone making such provably wrong claims?  Can they all be writing from a single mind?When he makes references to the victories of his reflections in posting at videopoker.com, I want any interested readers to have something meaningful and true to digest so they'll think more than once about whether they are reading fact or fiction when reading about his theories and exploits.  This was simply an uncompensated public service announcement.

[shadowman]

Where do you get the idea that he will quit with greater than $2500 in small pocketed wins? I thought he $2500 was a net win. Small 40 credit wins plus whatever he has won after some big jackpot. Therefore, he could accumulate more than $2500 in 40 credit wins while still being behind during the overall play. Of course, if this happens and he hits a jackpot that gets him even overall, then he would quit.


 
Am I misunderstanding what you are saying? I did some simulations of the 6 level progression and the average loss was in the $40-50K range. Much more than $2500. I would expect the 5 level progression to be somewhat symmetric and lead to losses of $12-15K on average.
 
Still significantly higher than $7K.

[New2vp]

Where do you get the idea that he will quit with greater than $2500 in small pocketed wins? Thanks, shadowman, for challenging the results and allowing me to explain.  The answer is in the sentence directly before the sentence when he says his average loss is $7000.  I've added the colors so you can see the options."Rule #6:
I will continue this process right up through the $100 machines as required
(I've had to go to them few times, and I will risk up to an additional
$40,000 at this level) - until either all the 40+ pocketed wins add up
to my profit goal of $2500 minimum, I attain or surpass my goal with one
big hit or several smaller ones, or I lose my bankroll."The blue words are where I get the idea that he will quit with greater than $2500 in small pocketed wins.  If he surpasses the goal, it would be a win and could not average into his losses.Whenever he has a pocketed win (whenever he says I pocket 40+ credits) he is in a net win position and he starts over again at the lowest level.  This means that in order to lose, he must lose all $17200 in credits at all 5 levels of the machine.  He could lose all $17200 if he never had any pocketed wins, which is possible.  Or he could lose $14705 if he had pocketed $2495.  Or he could lose any amount in between.  He could not lose $7000 (or any amount less than that), because that would mean he would have pocketed over $10000 before he went through his losses on each of the five levels.Am I misunderstanding what you are saying? I did some simulations
of the 6 level progression and the average loss was in the $40-50K
range. Much more than $2500. I would expect the 5 level progression to
be somewhat symmetric and lead to losses of $12-15K on average.
 
Still significantly higher than $7K.All his losses at the 6 level progression would be between $54,705 and $57,200, so the average loss would be in that range.All his losses at the 5 level progression would be between $14,705 and $17,200, so the average loss must be in that range.None of them would be as low as $7000.You are correct that the average loss must be significantly higher than $7000.

[oej719]

Bravo new2vp. You knocked him on his butt. All 3 of them.

[rolanddude]

Well, Well!  What is this?  I come home from work and check in to see if OEJ has manned up on his lies about me and what do I find...?  New2vp has left himself "WIDE-OPEN" to be schooled by me..(a fairly bright ol' country boy) in the subject of MATH & STRATEGY.I'll start out by saying to New that, "Man, You are way wrong here.  Your "math" is correct as YOU have framed it.  But everyone should be warned that you DO NOT understand the system you have so incorrectly represented within your "figurin'".  I'll give a simple example of the pitfalls of "your math" before I correctly explain why you are terribly wrong in your "interpretation" of RS's Single Play Strategy.Let's pretend that I put 2 apples in a bucket yesterday and 2 more in the bucket today.  Now I tell everybody that the math is irrefutable that I have 4 apples in the bucket.  (2 + 2 = 4)  I go on to say that anyone who tries to tell me I'm wrong is a silly man who would be insane at best if he were to refute this math.  BUT...even though no one could reasonably argue my conclusion based on the facts given, something is WAY WRONG with my conclusion and arguement.  What is it?  There are actually 10 apples in the bucket... an important piece of information was witheld from everyone because there were already 6 apples in the bucket before I added mine.  LESSON LEARNED>>>  if you do not know and or understand all the facts then you cannot categorically and undeniably PROVE anything with correct mathematic calculations.Alright, now for where you're WRRRRRRONG!!!In your example the starting bankroll is $17,200.  This is also what is printed in the written strategy example on the website being questioned.  This much is AGREED.Now, the profit goal is $2,500/session.  Here is where you begin to not understand.  This figure isn't the "total-cashout" amount.  It is the profit goal.  ($17,200 + $2,500=$19,700)  He wants at least this much in his pocket before quitting for the week.Here is how it is done...Start out with 400 credits at the $1 level.  Play 100 credits on Bonus Poker.  You cash out and start over any time your credits are 140+ giving you at least a $40 "soft profit" at this level.  After starting over and or losing 100 credits then switch games to Double Double, Triple Double Plus, Etc... and risk the other 300 credits at the $1 level.  You cash out any time your credits are at 340+.  If you are lucky enough to recoup the 100 credits you lost plus an additional 40 credits, then you go back to BP and start over with 100 credits and repeat the cycle.  Wheew,  that's alot of words...It is important to understand this!  I Might Have Cashed Out 1, 2, 5, 13, or however many times with a "soft profit" of 40 or more dollars each time.  It is conceivable that I may lose 400 credits and go on to the $2 level after having over $500 in "soft-profit" in my pocket.  This means that even though I lost $400 worth of credits at this level...I am ahead $100 overall.  $500 soft profit - $400 real loss = $100 overall profit.  (remember the apples that were already in the bucket?)This example can repeat itself over and over up through the $25 per credit level.I might get to the $5 level and lose the 100 credits in Bonus Poker and then lose 210 credits playing Double Double before hitting 4's with a kicker for an 800 credit win.  (a $4000 hit)  I don't quit my session here.  I have accrued a $2,750 real loss to this point.  After this hit I am now ahead $1,250 bucks.  Here I return to the $1 level and try to work my way up to my goal if together with my "soft profits" I haven't yet reached it.So let's now take another example and say that we play on through to the $25 level.  I have soft-profit cash-outs totaling $3,795 in my pocket.  ($675 @ $1 level;  $470 or 235 credits @ $2;  $550 or 110 credits @ $5 level; and $2,100 or 210 credits at the $10 level)  My "real loss" at this point is $3,405.  ($7,200 - $3,795).  If I could win 237+ credits at this level I will reach my session goal of $2,500. (recoup my real loss "3,405/25=136.2 + my goal of 2500/25=100")  I play but I only manage to cash-out twice at this $25 level.  Once for 180 credits and once for 45 credits for a pocketed soft profit of $5,625 for this level.   SO LET'S ADD THIS LOSING SESSION UP... $17,200 IN REAL LOSS MINUS $9,420 IN POCKETED SOFT PROFIT  =  SESSION LOSS OF...DRUM ROLL PLEASE...  $7,780!!!NEW2VP...YOU HAVE NOW BEEN SCHOOLED!!!  YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT MANY THINGS BECAUSE YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ARE FLAWED.It was refreshing to learn by reading his reply to your post that even Shadowman knows that you are wrong here.  Your arrogance in "knowing" that your "math" can't be challenged is so funny.  Side-spitting!!  You have managed to discredit all of your previous assertions by proving to all that you DON'T REALLY KNOW what you are talking about.  Now take this advice to heart...Look in your own mirror and question your motives, arrogance and lack of understanding.  After self-reflecting for a bit you might want to apologize to all here for your "know-it-all" persona that you project through your posts.  You REALLY DON'T KNOW do you!!!???OEJ...CD...????   Sorry to burst your bubbles and prove your "math-god" to be totally wrong, which is not unusual.Maybe this will WAKE YOU GUYS up!!!YOUR ALLEGED MYTH IS NOW PROVEN TO BE "The Truth".  Hmmmmm!!!     Respectfully,Joe Carter

[New2vp]

Hey r-dude, take a breath here. I hope all that bold print was therapeutic for you, because it's a bit difficult to read.  Do you think the insults are somehow stronger and sting more when the print is bold?  Are you answering for silly man here or is he channeling through you?  You seem quite worked up as if I had attacked your livelihood.  I didn't mention anything about people boycotting piano purchases did I?You also seem like you have been through this argument before maybe on freevpfree, but that was silly man, not you right?  So, is this the best argument you've got?  Because if it is, you may want to check again with your hero, because you'll see below it's not quite good enough and you might be embarrassing him further.Ok, I know from experience that most people are not going to go through the detail that you have laid out, especially because it's in that awfully angry bold print, and they're likely not going to go through mine either, but both sides will be laid out for everyone to see and judge.  If you read this...I mean if you point this out to silly man, it may help him with additional arguments that he will no doubt have over this very issue or at least allow him to be more careful with future claims.I have no doubt that I will get another reference in an upcoming column
for this and the fact that some supporter who some think is related to
silly man has "schooled" me or some such thing.  And of course he will
neglect to provide any semblance of the evidence that I presented.  I
expect as much.  But when he continues to refer people to videopoker.com, I want them to be able to read something beyond insults and platitudes.  And as for "schooling," I've had that course before.  Hopefully you're not surprised to find out that I, too, have had "some college." It is interesting that you have full understanding of every nuance of this strategy even with the distant infrequent relationship you have indicated you have with silly man.  It's also interesting that you seldom visit here, but you're right there anytime silly man feels he needs a defense.  Does he have you on speed dial?  But back to the argument.You really shouldn't continue to underestimate the views and understanding of others.  It leads to overconfidence and a bit of sloppiness in analysis.  I hope this doesn't cost you too much loss of self esteem since you seemed so proud of yourself with your post, but I did consider the interpretation that you tried to present.  Unfortunately for your hero and you, there
were logical inconsistencies with that approach as well, which are laid
out below.  If that approach had been used with any regularity in live
casino play, it likely would have been modified due to its lack of ability to achieve the desired results; i.e., the minimum win goal of $2500.  Remember r-dude, that is what we need to keep our eye on with this strategy.  It's the entire point of having such a short-term strategy.  Check with your hero on this if you don't believe me.If you don't mind, I'll rely on my own schooling rather than what you have purported to deliver.  My own schooling compels me to stand by my conclusion, that the numbers quoted
as averages never occurred with this methodology.  Although, I suppose they could have happened if he wasn't able to follow his own algorithm.  With the interpretation you are indicating, one of the
logical inconsistencies that we reach is that he would need another option
for quitting, namely quitting with a profit of less than $2500. 
I'm sure he, like you, will take as much advantage as possible of any ambiguity in the words,
but the interpretation you have chosen here sets you up with another different dead-end.  A better interpretation than the one that you have chosen is that there is a difference
between "cashing out" and "pocketing winnings never to be risked again" as is stated in the printed strategy.  The latter blue phrase necessitates being in a net positive position (I'll call this Pocket) while the former red phrase does not (I'll call this Temp).  Having two different pots of money is superfluous, but
maybe in the days of coins and tokens, he liked the jingling that
occurred with cash outs.  Notice that at some times if Temp gets big enough, some of the money goes into Pocket with the rest of it going back into Bankroll.  Otherwise, with those higher level wins that recoup his losses, he would not have enough Bankroll to start over again at the $1 level with the ability to progress on to the $25 machines.  If  Temp were the same as Pocket, AS YOU ARE INDICATING WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION OF PLOWING TEMP INTO SOFT PROFITS, why would we have that extra step when we would convert some of it from Temp to Pocket?But let's go down that road for another situation using your interpretation where one treats cash outs as pocketed
and see where it leads us.  One can see that with some real live
experience with this method, it would be changed to a more logical
method.  More evidence that real results from this method, purportedly resulting in an average loss of $7000, were not
booked systematically.With the interpretation that the cash outs are the same as "pocketed never to be risked again,"
this progression scheme makes no sense (because, as we'll see later,
instead of simply doubling the denomination after losses, we could
sometimes be essentially sending out 25 times the denomination to chase
losses) and he would require another ending option which he never
considers:  Ending the session with a win of less than $2500.  And why would he leave the casino in a positive position that was less than his minimum win goal?  It would mean his bankroll is still intact but he had given up on the $2500 goal and settled for something smaller.  Is that always doing what he says?Consider an example in which he has accumulated pocketed wins at the $1 level of $1610 before he loses 400 credits and needs to move on to $2 to risk $800 to get his $400 back.  Let's say that he never gets ahead enough to move back to the $1 level but accumulates $790 in Temp before going through his $800 at the $2 level; now he still has $790 but if you insist on pocketing these small wins (which you need to do to get to any $7000 loss), he has exhausted his $2 level bankroll simply by moving it to another pocket.  If he moves onto the $5 level without re-using his Temp money at the $2 level, he essentially has a loss of only $410 to recoup ($400 from the $1 level + the $10 loss at the $2 level), but he is required to go to the $5 level and risk $2000 to recoup the $410. 
Well it might make sense to recoup $1200 by going to the $5 level but
it makes no sense to move to $5 when the loss level is only $10 more
than the level required to move to the $2 level.  Here he has simply
renamed money from Bankroll to Temp.But let's take your interpretation further and consider that he is done with the $2 level and he thinks he has lost $1200 of his bankroll, because he has renamed some of the money as Temp. 
Clearly from his statements if he is at the $5 level, he needs to
recoup $1200 (400 credits at $1 and 400 credits at $2) PLUS $200 (40
credits at $5) before he is satisfied and able to move down from $5. 
If instead, he puts $1975 in Temp and believes that he has blown through his 400 credits at $5, he will move on the $10 machines.  Again here, he has simply renamed most of his bankroll for $5 machines from Bankroll to Temp, which causes a premature move to the $10 machines.  I agree that this is silly, but this is your interpretation, not mine.Now he is out $400 + $10 + $25 = $435 and according to that interpretation requires a move to the $10 machine to risk $4000 from Bankroll to get back $435.  This is clearly crazy.But moving on first to the $10 machine and then to the $25 machine, which he says is the usual course, he could run through his bankroll ($10,000)
and essentially only lose $50 at the $10 machines and $125 at the $25
machines and still be done gambling.  So his losses, not including what is pocketed, would have been
$400 + $10 + $25 + $50 + $125 = $610This means his original Pocket of $1610 would have been depleted by only $610 but the bankroll would have been run through.  Instead of a loss he would have to leave with a gain of $1000.Clearly someone bringing $17,200 to a casino with a minimum win goal of $2500 would not go home with a gain of $1000, which is less than the minimum win goal.  Remember, he likes to say that most of the wins are bigger
than the losses.  We know that is not true but he says it just the
same, citing example after example of hitting quads at high levels. 
Now, remember if he is not using those Temp
funds for additional gambling but instead is pocketing them, he is reducing the amount of coin-in
before he depletes his funds, and with a decrease of coin-in comes a
decrease in the probability of hitting one of those elusive quads (once
every 400 hands or so).And if he was indeed happy with a $1000 gain, he could have just taken the original Pocket amount of $1610, moved his money from his Bankroll pocket to his Temp pocket and got out of the casino a lot earlier.You or he may have interpreted this method differently, but the logic in that
interpretation is necessarily flawed and would have been uncovered with
actual repeated play in a casino.r-dude, I know someone as brilliant as you is at least a step ahead or thinks he is, but do you really expect people to believe that he would continue to use a method which depletes his bankroll (by moving it to another pocket) and forces him to leave more often without actually reaching the minimum win goal of $2500?OK, which is it?  Do you use the logical method that increases your chances of attaining your win goal and admit that the $7000 average was made up?  Or do you take your interpretation that reduces your chances of walking out with a minimum win?  Remember, he's quoted as attaining the win goal 93% of the time.  Based on experience, you'll ignore this logic, go off on some other tangent, answer it with "Wha?" because you're unable to follow the flow of the argument, or go back to insisting that you yourself are not silly man when that's not really the point of the discussion.  Oh, that's right...you have another option.  Go back to insulting oej719 and complain that he's insulting your hero and it's not fair.  But that won't change the conclusion.It's quite easy to conclude that the results were fabricated.  If you don't see it, you need to reread my posts. As a style sidenote, is it just my observation or is it impossible for either your hero or you to write an opinion without hurling insults?And why the different colors in my post?  The steps in your hero's strategy are unnecessarily convoluted and I was hoping that it would be easier for those interested to follow along and see how the different values developed, with each color consistently indicating which variable is changing.

[New2vp]

  You have managed to discredit all of your previous assertions by proving to all that you DON'T REALLY KNOW what you are talking about.  Careful with this logic.  If anyone makes one error, everything they say is in error?  C'mon you're smarter than that.  As a matter of fact, this is one of your logical errors.  So, should we not believe anything else you say?Actually my purpose here is a shorter post without the detail.I chose the interpretation that I did because your hero said it had been designed to maximize the chance of attaining the short-term goal of winning $2500.  The interpretation that you chose to defend him has a lower chance of attaining that goal because it moves money more quickly from bankroll to pocketed winnings (or offsets to losses), thus making it less likely to hit those magical quads that get to the win goal.Either he chose a method that was worse at attaining the win goal and actually stopped with wins short of the win goal (your interpretation; is that how he got to 93%?) or he would be unable to support the average loss numbers that he advertised (my interpretation).I'm sure you'll want to spin away, ignoring the points most injurious to your arguments and I'll get to answering you if you do so, but it probably won't be for a while as I tend to other duties.As always, it's been fun...at least for somebody.

[oej719]

I have no doubt at all that this fake 3 dollar bill pianoboy is rs and the penning is being done by rs.

I know rs and NO ONE uses terms exactly like that and becomes obnoxious and writes using the same name calling terms which are his trademark.

Pianoboy is rs or is his whore. Which is it?