Common Sense vs. An "Educated" Guess

[Deloradeuces18]

Your talking about hot and cold streaks is precisely where you fail to add anything meaningful. These are among the oldest superstitions in the book. These streaks are only observable in the past, not in the present. You never know when your next hand will be a continuation of an existing streak or the start of the opposite. Basing your play on this is a fallacy. Plain and simple. People have fallen for "feeling due" to their ruin since the beginning of gambling itself.

If you fail to acknowledge these basic principles, then there is nothing more to say.

[oej719]

This also works on 3 reel slot machines I here.

[New2vp]

AMAZING!!!New2vp had nothing to say to try and refute anything I said.  (because it would make no sense)  Instead he says I am running and hiding...wha? 
Hey, I had an idea for Fa La La La La.... La la la la and you.  Since you can't make any money at video poker with these theories, why don't you write the book "Debating for Dummies"?  It doesn't matter whether you are in a corner with no hope of escape.  Just restate what your opponent said, act dense, and say "Wha?"  I mention this because this is not the first time that you have used it, even this week.Oh, I see I misstated the title.  That would be "Debating by Dummies."  "Wha" does not really gain you debating points in the eyes and ears of most.In addition to the "starting a new thread" technique, I should have included your use of the old misdirection play.  Need I point out that you started restating the already debunked ARTT claims in your posts in the 5th card flipover thread.  Why didn't you start a new thread when reintroducing bet-sizing instead of putting these re-half-baked claims in the flipover thread?  It wasn't by any chance to take the subject away from the 5th card flipovers?  Clearly that subject is at best an embarrassment to Fa La La La La.... La la la la and those few personalities that defend his views.I said you ran and hid because you did that months ago, not today; with this statement I was reminding others; my audience wasn't you, though I would have presumed that with your abundance of common sense you would have been able to apply the words in the appropriate context to derive the proper meaning from them.As for refuting anything that you said in your post, I really was going to leave the boat ramp analogy die on its own.  For the other things, I'm sure I have refuted these things in earlier posts as they've all been mentioned and debunked before, most in multiple ways.  You may recall my earlier observation that you haven't learned much since you started posting.Lastly, while you may see this as a debate, I don't see it exactly that way.  You may choose to debate an issue from either side even if you know your point of view is flawed; but, in this case, I would rather choose the correct side and then explain why that choice is correct.  Determining optimal strategies involves weighing all the evidence and making correct choices, regardless of what your initial uninformed hunches tell you.  If some random statement in a post of yours goes unanswered or even unread, that statement is no more true or false because of that.I do try to be patient in answering questions to help people get to correct conclusions, but sometimes you just have to write a big red "F" on the paper and advise that the recipient direct their efforts to a less taxing subject.Sad to say that's where we are.

[rolanddude]

Your talking about hot and cold streaks is precisely where you fail to add anything meaningful. These are among the oldest superstitions in the book. These streaks are only observable in the past, not in the present. You never know when your next hand will be a continuation of an existing streak or the start of the opposite. Again, you are not seeing the forest for the trees...your preconceived notions are appreciated but look at what I really say in my first post...After understanding that you are not trying to ride a continuation of a streak or predict the end of one, you realize Your only goal is just to overcome a dry spell by making a well timed (based on my stated and similar criteria only) press to recoup a small easily recoverable amount.  Not to bet the farm on feeling due something.  You have severely misinterpreted this strategy by your comparisons.

[Deloradeuces18]

What is your objective here with this strategy?

Win individual sessions more frequently?

Win more money in a given amount of play?

Increase your edge over the casino?

What do you believe are the risks that balance the gain?

[rolanddude]

New...You still haven't had the pleasure of trying to refute anything I said or quoted in my post.  I laid it out in plain english which is hard sometimes for those who are educated beyond common sense to understand.  By the way the "boat ramp" story wasn't an analogy to playing anything...It was a true story I shared to demonstrate pure un-common stupidity of people I encounter often who can't think or react to things unless it is within a framed scope of "educatedness".   The man was convinced something was wrong with his trailer; Not that he might have to change his method of launching to adjust to the situation. I guess since it happened in the past that it doesn't matter anyways according to your and shadow's line of thinking .Open your eyes and relax your pride and then really read my first post objectively (if possible).  The way I framed my statements in relation to your quotes...hard to refute...common sense is hard to accept sometimes...too easy I guess!As I said before to oej...I started this post because shadowman is quoted in the other thread as saying that this subject deserves alot of attention.  Not to get away from some conspiratorial change of message BS or whatever you were trying to say in your educated non-informative musings.To be honest I did really want to expose your opinion of yourself which comes through as an arrogant know-it-all.  I had always just assumed it was so and then you unapolegetically admit that you feel far too educated to rely on "just" common sense.  I suggest you actually read the book by Thomas Paine as I have and then maybe you will see the error of your ways.  (Glen Beck's new version of the book isn't too bad either.) 

[rolanddude]

What is your objective here with this strategy?

 What do you believe are the risks that balance the gain?I believe this...If you play with a "level" bet all the time you are at the mercy of expected return.  Which is OK if that is all you are hoping for.  Since luck is 99 percent of the game you may either start out winning fast, losing fast, or gradually building or losing your credits.  Great!If I perceive that an opportunity to bet higher is upon me because of my criteria and I jump up in denom for let's say...40 credits max risk for example... If I in fact hit a hand or hands that give me back some of my lost credits (or as often happens, many more than I had) I immediately return back down to my original level of betting.Now whether I win or lose, if I have access to my stats on this set of hands played (such as on Dancer's VPFW software) I can look at coins won or lost stats and see that it is a different total than what I have won or lost.  That means that I have altered the actual return value that I would have had through level betting.  Example:  I am down 70 credits playing dollars due to consecutive losers and pushes (ie 18 or 19 hands).  I decide to risk my remaining 30 dollars plus up to 100 additional dollars playing at the two dollar level.  I play 4 hands and then hit a full house on a machine that pays 7 to 1.  Now stop here and analyze...if I remained at the dollar level and won on a full house after 4 hands I would now be 55 dollars down.  But, because I pressed it up to 2 dollars I am only down 40 dollars.  Now I go back to dollars and hopefully get more back or play till I'm down 70 dollars again and then assess whether I should press or "tread water".It is very important to note that I have gained 15 credits more than level play would have at the dollar level (3 more hands of play...if you want to look at it that way).  Many different paths could have been taken after the FH...I could have played risky and stayed at the $2 level and who knows if I would have recouped the other $40.  It would have only been 20 more credits at that level.  That is another advantage when you press to try to make up losses...you only need to win half as many credits as you lost at the last level.That to me is why the risk is balanced by the gains.

[New2vp]

Your post is way too long and your mischaracterizations of what I said are way too numerous for me to have an interest in going through them one by one and once again pointing out your errors.I will let my post stand on its own rather than waste more time in that regard.  If you or others think I've made mistakes, I'll live with that, but I didn't see anything that I needed to change.  I've answered way too many questions for you already both this time and the last time you decided to make numerous posts.Instead, let me try to understand your latest attempt at logic.  If I become more educated in some subject, I have no hope of understanding video poker as well as you because you simply apply your own perception of what you consider to be common sense to the problem?And in order for me to understand better how your less educated take on the subject is superior to mine, you suggest that I become as informed as you on one of Thomas Paine's writings, the one that suggests that the United States seek independence from Great Britain?  You know, I think I had to read that in 8th grade American history, but I really don't remember a lot about video poker being written there.  I probably cheated and just looked through the Cliff Notes version.  As I recall, it is also more often referred to as a pamphlet than a book, but I congratulate you on your attempts to better yourself by reading books...or pamphlets...or even informative posts.  Upon further review, if I see any application to video poker in it, I'll get back to you.But, here's the kicker.  You're suggesting that I educate myself further to try to catch up to your level (or is it down to your level), but by your definition, that would make me even more educated and, by extension, less able to understand how your theories are superior.You further go on by saying that my opinion of myself "comes through as an arrogant know-it-all."  Of course, that may be other's opinions of me, including yours, but it is not my self opinion.  What you may be sensing is contempt for and ridicule of some of your posts.  Yes, I admit it.  I've used sarcasm here and there in an attempt to lighten things up.  And when sarcasm is directed your way, you may feel hurt by that.  But since you dish it out, I don't feel too much remorse in sending some of it back your way.And if you think I come across as being too full of myself, an arrogant know-it-all as it were, what would you think of someone who frequently punctuates his posts with a "Joe Cool" emoticon, complete with a self-satisfied smile and sunglasses, when he thinks he's just landed a zinger?  Sound like anyone we know??Nevertheless, I may be too arrogant for your tastes, but that doesn't make me wrong.  And it's possible that I'm more educated than you; we've really never been able to nail that one down from your perspective (some college vs. being degreed in accounting and business law) , but I don't rely on education as support for my arguments.  I have never said, "trust me, I have more degrees than you."  And simply being educated on a subject, whether it's about the best way to put a boat in the water, whether or not the United States should seek independence from Great Britain, or even whether it is useful to apply knowledge about statistics to video poker doesn't make me wrong.  By the way, do you think your degrees in accounting and business law made you less able to understand how to play video poker?You seem to see common sense as what you have and what other's lack, judging by your superior attitude to the poor Michigan boater (By the way, I never saw what type of degree he held that prevented him from understanding how to put a boat in the water).Instead, I see common sense as what most people understand.And I don't think that common sense alone is generally enough to know whether it is better to hold a high pair or 4 to a flush in video poker.This may be wrong (sarcasm warning here), but I don't want to regress and forget any more than I've already forgotten from education that I've had just so I can understand video poker as well as you.  I also don't think that the way you developed your betting strategy was common sense that is shared by most people, educated or not.  You got at least some of your strategy by being educated by Fa La La La La.... La la la la...or so you said.  You wouldn't have needed that if common sense alone was all that was necessary to formulate a strategy.Don't lose too much more sleep over this.  Why don't you try your hand at the July contest and see if you can win a hat or something?   

[faygo]

new2vp, I'm glad you touched on the boat issue. I believe most here could give two farthings about the "Bass Boat". I suspect the gentleman from Michigan felt the same way.
If I read correctly, I am to increase my bet size every 13 hands because I just might get 3oak at the higher level? Whoop de doo!!
DD18, I think you drove the nails in deep.

[Deloradeuces18]

Didn't you already try promoting a similar approach in the ARTT topic, where a couple of members were able to break it down to show the benefits and cost you can expect by using this approach?

You do not advocate any strategy changes here that would decrease your casino edge, so I say go for it if it suits you. But I think you would do well to learn from the things New2Vp is sharing with you instead of being critical. It makes sense to 99% of us.

All you are doing here is adjusting the volume of unpredictable events at a given time. This may change variance but will not positively affect your return. The benefits are just a toned-town progression.

The BLWF (boat launch weather forecast) approach is more entertaining than the ARTT was though, I will give you that.