hot /cold machines

[shadowman]

Why am I not suprised to see Shadowman/Archimedes/Mathematical Genious/Addicted Loser/Dick M. show up on a thread about this subject with his usual remarks of "...your silly... I hope you fail miserably... THE MATH is settled..."  along with your usual small army of rambling, addicted players who justify their gambling problem by saying it is "only" entertainment and that they "expect" to lose.  Who are these people... The Chicago Cubs?
 
Good grief folks... grasp REALITY!!!  Since Dick has not watched any of my follow-up videos on the hypocrisy of this sight or my insights to understanding the two schools of thought represented on this thread,  I figured I would have to be boring and type this post for his benefit.  You know, I am glad that thinkers, innovators, and inventors do not espouse Dick's seemingly unwillingness to budge or adapt to modern approaches to problems.  I guess that according to Dick "The Math Is Settled" M....ain everything is already solved in this world, there are no problems left to solve, and all that is left for us to do is wait to die.  May as well spend the time we have left sitting, shriveling up in a casino breathing smoke where we can find a winning rhythm in the buttons to somehow stay ahead.  AAaaCHHooooo!!!  Oh ****, I sneezed!!!   Now I am going to lose for sure.... 


 
Sorry, RD but there's a difference between true innovators and con men. Hopefully, in the future you will able to tell the difference. It could save you some money.
 
The nice thing about math is it hasn't failed for centuries. While many scientific theories come and go, math still operates as it always has for one simple reason. It's the foundation of reality.
 
Good luck with your attempts to undo centuries of math and overturn the foundation of the universe. Please let all the scientists of the world in on your discoveries. You should get a Nobel Prize easily.

[cddenver]

Good grief folks... grasp REALITY!!!  Since Dick has not watched any of my follow-up videos on the hypocrisy of this sight or my insights to understanding the two schools of thought represented on this thread,  I figured I would have to be boring and type this post for his benefit. 
 
The second school of thought in this thread has given us a sum total of:
 
1)  Assertions by optimalf that RNG's in VP machines are flawed.  No details have been provided on what these flaws are or how they can be taken advantage of.
 
2)  Assertions by optimalf that he's developed a non-AP strategy to VP that results in long-term winnings.  No details have been provided on how to do this, either.
 
3)  Some knocks on AP.  That is irrelevant since the question here is not AP, but whether any strategy gives better long-term dollar results when all play is included.  Just wishing it to be so doesn't make it so.
 
That's not much of a "school of thought", unless one assumes that any kind of unconventional play will give better results than AP.  Since he's included the subject of unrandomness in his posts, I assume that it's required for success with his approach, and that it wouldn't lead to better long-term dollar results than AP if a simulation were to be set up on a PC, or played on a casino machine operating in a random fashion.  He really hasn't given us much meat here on the superiority of his approach over AP.
 
Game designers model their games in a pure math fashion and with simulations before the actual game software is written.  They obviously believe that the math reflects reality.

[royal flush]

buy a tape or has elvis left the bldg

[shadowman]

CD, you pretty much have to claim VP machines are non-random to get anywhere with alternate theories. The math that proves expert play strategies are best for normal VP play is no more difficult than the math that proves tic-tac-toe will always end in a tie when a simple strategy is employed. Addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. That's it.
 
The two require equivalent math. So, essentially what RD and optimalf are saying is that there exists a way to beat you playing tic-tac-toe no matter what strategy you use. Pure and simple nonsense. 

[royal flush]

the good thing is one of the few sure things in life is that math always prevails

[rolanddude]

Shadow,
Maybe if this was a perfect world and "math" is the foundation of reality you could explain to me why we all have to put an extra day in the calendar every 4 years (Feb. 29).  This is just a simple example of how not even "Math" can make things come out equal.  Even adding a day every 4 years is off a few thousandths of a second.  The "reality" is that we can get close to perfect with math but we cannot attain perfection by using and applying it to anything and everything.  (splitting hairs here,...but I'm just saying...what's a thousandth, millionth, or less amongst friends?)  Our very existence now is based on so many random acts within this galaxy that to ever imagine that it is possible to formulate a mathematical equation that is the foundation for "reality" is not only ludicrous, but naive as well.  Hell Dick, even Mr. Spock from Star Trek would summarize your statement as "Illogical".
 
(My apologies to Webman again for mentioning something that "may" cause someone to indirectly profit from the mentioning of an industry such as Star Trek and maybe inducing someone here to attend their convention in Vegas so as someone reading this may benefit from it.)

[Eduardo]

Math is not always right. If i weigh 275 pounds and I eat 5 pounds of burritos, will I weigh 280 pounds? I think not!

[cddenver]

The math that proves expert play strategies are best for normal VP play is no more difficult than the math that proves tic-tac-toe will always end in a tie when a simple strategy is employed. Addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. That's it.
 
Technically, you don't even need to get into the math other than the four basics (+, -, *, /).  I can determine game returns and E.V. just by repetitive plays in a model.  Not the prettiest or quickest way of doing it, but it works.

[faygo]

Math is not always right. If i weigh 275 pounds and I eat 5 pounds of burritos, will I weigh 280 pounds? I think not!
 
I think in the short term you might spike to 280 but not in the long term.

[Eduardo]

[QUOTE=Eduardo]Math is not always right. If i weigh 275 pounds and I eat 5 pounds of burritos, will I weigh 280 pounds? I think not!
 
I think in the short term you might spike to 280 but not in the long term.[/QUOTE]


 
So the secret is to cash out before you visit the restroom?