Discuss the strategy in this Video

[moneyla]

The reason why I approached Mr S to do the interviews with me -- and I stated it right at the start of the first interview -- was because I was intrigued by his claim that the machines are rigged or "intentionally not random."  Everything else came later.  He was never able to substantiate his claim despite all of his stories of being tipped off by engineers, claims of secret handshake agreements between the industry and regulators, etc. Honestly, if the machines were intentionally not random and there were secret handshake deals wouldn't some whistle blower have come forward by now? On my forum I suggested that an independent third party such as Consumers Union investigate.  It is worthy of an investigation since so much money is involved and so many people play. The machines can be bought on the open market.  Tests can be run.  And I mean real tests -- not just the single machine he tested in his garage but failed to put the data on a hard drive or disc but only printed out reams of paper of hand results. I am more interested in the claims of rigged machines.  We all play.  We all want to know that we are playing a fair game.  Unfortunately his claims are not proven. By the way he says even if the games are not random you can use that info to better your results.  So his claims of non random games is the essence of his special plays as well.

[Eduardo]

The only claim of his that we have reason to believe is that he declared bankruptcy as a result of his gambling. Now there is an acheivement that stands apart from almost everyone else.Everything else he says is the promotion of theories and strategies that you can hear from any drunk at a bartop in vegas. Have a basic understanding of strategy and go for the big one when it feels right. The game is rigged, blah blah blah, have another beer and play some more to outsmart them at their own game. (Did I mention he declared bankrupcy as a result of gambling?)  He think his theories work because he's playing the way the "casinos don't want him to." Which, he says, is according to the math. The truth is, most players are very bad at playing mathematically (and have never even heard of bob dancer or video poker training software) and then end up playing about the same way rs does. Casinos love you to play this way. In case I forgot, this is a guy who declared bankruptcy from gambling. There is never any real data or evidence, just loud mouth blabbering and self-proclaimed "expertise" and winning arguments in some mysterious manner that only he can understand as "victory." I have no problem with alternate theories and bankroll management suggestions. But claiming to be an expert and ridiculing people who clearly display superior knowledge ends up looking sad and pathetic.

[faygo]

Eduardo,did I read you right ? He went bankrupt?

[Eduardo]

Yes, but he didn't file for bankruptcy much more often than he did file for bankruptcy. So he has that going for him.
 A very high percentage of non-bankruptcy filing days.

[BillyJoe]

[QUOTE=billy joe]
YIKES !! I think that I have said that, too.  I was told, though, that "'professional players think that Win/Loss Stops are silly" .  
 
Win/loss goals are perfectly fine when playing negative machines. They really do provide a benefit in limiting the amount of play. You play less ... you lose less.
 
They do not make sense when playing positive return machines for the same reason. In general the more you play when you have an edge the more money you will make. That is why pros think they are "silly".
 
The fact is win/loss goals do not change the return of a machine. That is mathematically impossible.[/QUOTE]
The 'edge' that you describe, though, is probably less than one percent, with PERFECT play ALL THE TIME. What I am hearing is that I may need a virtually unlimited bankroll through hours and hours of play on what I consider a boring game (JoB or NSU) to squeeze out a meager profit. If you fall behind early, unless you get a slew of natural RFs, how do you ever get back to profitability with those pay tables? Play more boring hours, I suppose.   
 
The return on a machine for me as a player is a function of what I receive in profit over the time that I play. I do not play a lot, so for me, if I can extend my play time on a machine, I have the 'opportunity' for a larger win in the short time that I have. "Losing less' is not the goal. 
 
So when you say 'mathematically impossible', I think you are ignoring the fact that larger payouts are possible in more volatile, albeit non-positive EV games with perfect play over a long time. One quad aces, even without a kicker, is 800 credits, versus 125 on J0B. The more games that I can get out of a fixed bankroll on that pay table, the better the opportunity for one of those bigger hands to hit. So if I am behind, I have a chance to catch up and profit. If that premium hand does not hit, then the Loss Stop keeps me afloat for the trip.   

[moneyla]

Mr S claims his bankruptcy was a result of trying to be an "advantage player" and playing by the book.  It is when he started to play his own system -- his way -- that he won nearly a million dollars.

[Eduardo]

Mr S claims his bankruptcy was a result of trying to be an "advantage player" and playing by the book.  It is when he started to play his own system -- his way -- that he won nearly a million dollars.
 Yes, that is how the legend goes. It is very wonderful. Anyone who can stick to advantage play long enough to actually go bankrupt is worthy of our respect. One time I was out fishing with friends and they kept telling me to use their bait. I fished all day and got nothing. Then I dipped the bait in Aunt Alejandra's beans and I reeled in a yacht. The owner was so impressed that he let me keep the boat and asked for seconds. That is when my urine bean bait theory was born but the sharpies keep saying that science says yachts don't grow on beans. But they do.

[shadowman]

"silly"???
 
I'll never cease to be amazed how easy it is for people to blur, or ignore the line between theory and reality.  
 
I'd have to say that even for billionaires, a "bankroll" designated for gambling is not unlimited (actually what I just said was redundant, a billionaire even has a "limit" to his/her funds, namely "a billion" or thereabouts, duh.)
 
If what the pros really are saying is "play until your BANKROLL is exhausted" instead of "it makes no sense to EVER stop when playing plus-side expectation games", then ok, but then they really should clarify.
 
The pros understand bankroll rquirements or they wouldn't be pros. Have a little appreciation for their skills man.
 

[shadowman]

The 'edge' that you describe, though, is probably less than one percent, with PERFECT play ALL THE TIME. What I am hearing is that I may need a virtually unlimited bankroll through hours and hours of play on what I consider a boring game (JoB or NSU) to squeeze out a meager profit. If you fall behind early, unless you get a slew of natural RFs, how do you ever get back to profitability with those pay tables? Play more boring hours, I suppose.  
 
Not according to Frank. You do remember Frank, right? He claimed he played with a 2-4% edge. 
 
The return on a machine for me as a player is a function of what I receive in profit over the time that I play. I do not play a lot, so for me, if I can extend my play time on a machine, I have the 'opportunity' for a larger win in the short time that I have. "Losing less' is not the goal. 
 
So when you say 'mathematically impossible', I think you are ignoring the fact that larger payouts are possible in more volatile, albeit non-positive EV games with perfect play over a long time. One quad aces, even without a kicker, is 800 credits, versus 125 on J0B. The more games that I can get out of a fixed bankroll on that pay table, the better the opportunity for one of those bigger hands to hit. So if I am behind, I have a chance to catch up and profit. If that premium hand does not hit, then the Loss Stop keeps me afloat for the trip.   


 
No, mathematically impossible means exactly what the words mean. No more no less. While you may believe you are creating some kind of edge for yourself, it simply is not true. Sorry.

[moneyla]

You do remember Frank, right? He claimed he played with a 2-4% edge. 


Wasn't Frank's edge from the size of the progressives?