It's Vegas Baby!!

[Vman96]

vman, I would like to hear your opinion on whether a math player who states they 'should win', is cutting it pretty close to the line, as one should expect to win.

and, keep in mind, that if some novice player makes a statement that they 'felt' they would win or declare if they wore green undies, they win, some of the math players 'belittle' the heck of that person.


If one plays long enough on a positive machine perfectly, they should be winning. But "long enough" can be a significant amount of hands, especially if the expected return is barely over 100%. Even at full pay deuces, which is a healthy 100.76%, it's about 98.5% likely to be ahead after 1 million hands with perfect play (20,000 hours for a 500 hand/hr player). So at this point one "should" be ahead, but it's also not a "guarantee".

As for underwear, I've actually banned myself from wearing a pair with images of $100 bills on them at a casino. Does the underwear actually have influence on my results? It shouldn't (see what I did there? haha). But I had enough poor sessions in a row with them a while back that no longer wearing that pair to the casino gives me more "peace of mind".

[case]

If one plays long enough on a positive machine perfectly, they should be winning. But "long enough" can be a significant amount of hands, especially if the expected return is barely over 100%. Even at full pay deuces, which is a healthy 100.76%, it's about 98.5% likely to be ahead after 1 million hands with perfect play (20,000 hours for a 500 hand/hr player). So at this point one "should" be ahead, but it's also not a "guarantee

[/QUOTE]


Thank you. This exactly what we have been saying (and saying).

Notes always wants a guarantee. If you read his posts he has been mentioning the word guarantee over and over. We keep telling him there is no guarantee in life but he wants 100% or nothing. Like Vman has said they SHOULD be winning. What more do you want?

See I have no problem with those who refuse to use the math and play how ever they want. It is their money and their enjoyment. BUT I have a problem with those who argue against the math and try to make it look like it can't be trusted and does not work.

There are those who understand the math and choose not to you use it to their advantage...fine. And there are those who really don't understand math and probability (but pretend they do)

[notes1]

I never asked for guarantees, I have a problem with those who use language, that implies a guarantee. and, I have no problems with those who play and believe in the math. it is their money.

vman, appreciate the response. I will remind you that in a previous post you said small mistakes were not likely to cause much long term damage.

case, I see you respond to posts that suit you, but when you misquote someone, you avoid answering.

someone mentioned, not sure if accurate, that it could take 5 million or more hands, playing with real money, for the math probabilities to work out. for any player that plays 700 hands per hour, plays 6 hours each visit and goes a couple dozen times a year to the casino, it could take 20 years or more for that math to work out. and, that is presuming that every player will end up with the math working out exactly as predicted, which I do not believe.    

in the meantime, some poor sucker, keeps playing, keeps losing and keeps telling himself, I should be wining, I should be wining, .....

[markinca]

I never asked for guarantees,

...

someone mentioned, not sure if accurate, that it could take 5 million or more hands, playing with real money, for the math probabilities to work out. for any player that plays 700 hands per hour, plays 6 hours each visit and goes a couple dozen times a year to the casino, it could take 20 years or more for that math to work out. and, that is presuming that every player will end up with the math working out exactly as predicted, which I do not believe.    



LOL....

[notes1]

I will rephrase to suit those who desire/demand accuracy, I do not expect guarantees, but I do expect language that does not imply a guarantee.

who was it that said, on aug 31, 'as I've said before countless hundreds thousands of times', is that accurate?

LOL

[markinca]

I will rephrase to suit those who desire/demand accuracy, I do not expect guarantees, but I do expect language that does not imply a guarantee.

who was it that said, on aug 31, 'as I've said before countless hundreds thousands of times', is that accurate?

LOL

Ok i submit. Your mastery of trollism is one I have not encountered in all my years of internetting. I will not rehash the EXACT SAME THINGS that have already been said countless times by me, case, vman, etcetcetc.

NONE OF US HAVE EVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT GUARANTEES, EITHER IMPLIED OR EXPLICITLY. Do you notice that you're the only one going on about this guarantee nonsense? This is because the other rec players are smart enough to realize what is being said.

[Lionqueen]

Case, I really haven't heard anyone argue against the math. What some of us just don't get is why the Math's are so uptight about us that change things up a bit just because we like to play the game the way we choose. I don't think there is one of us that would advise another player (when asked) to go against the correct play. Math is math but there is also just plain luck which I believe should factor in also.

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=lionqueen] Math is math but there is also just plain luck which I believe should factor in also.[/quote]In every VP math scenario there is a possibility of a wide assortment of possible outcomes. There are no "can't lose" video poker games in any casino I have seen so far.   Even if you stumbled across a 200% game, it is possible you could lose on any given day.   Some people say luck can be overcome by math in time.  Personally, I believe the more hands are played the closer your results will approach the game's odds.  I also believe the vast majority of VP players will never play that many hands making luck a bigger factor than math.

[case]

Case, I really haven't heard anyone argue against the math. What some of us just don't get is why the Math's are so uptight about us that change things up a bit just because we like to play the game the way we choose. I don't think there is one of us that would advise another player (when asked) to go against the correct play. Math is math but there is also just plain luck which I believe should factor in also.

I hear ya. While some don't say they disagree with the math, they word it so it sounds like the math does not work or is wrong.

Many on here don't believe Bob Dancer is on the plus side from video poker. They say he needs the book and product sales to show a profit. The books and products add to his overall success but I am confident he is ahead money on video poker alone.

To say Bob Dancer is not ahead on video poker is to say the math does not work. So if they believe this than they are telling us the math is wrong. Dancer works out every play BEFORE he attempts them. Sure many do not work out but over time if the math is right, he will be ahead.

I have said many times that I don't care how anyone plays, but except the fact that people can and do beat video poker.

I know some are critical of those who don't play the way they do. They are wrong for saying this. To each his own when they put their own money in a machine. I also understand your frustration when people try and correct your or anyone else's play. But understand the frustration is on both sides.

This argument will never be resolved but damn we all have fun discussing it. It brings us back to the forum and we all learn something.

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=case]To say Bob Dancer is not ahead on video poker is to say the math does not work.[/quote]This is actually not accurate.  Bob Dancer is playing two games, one of which most players will never see.  He plays video poker very well, but he is a master of the "comp" game.   I believe both math and luck are required to win long term in video poker.   It took Dancer years to learn the comp game and that's where a significant portion of his profits are made.   I believe there are players on this forum that could play VP even with Bob Dancer.  I doubt anyone could beat him in game #2.