Do you hold some numbers more than others for fun?

[Eduardo]

Eduardo,
Have not you been insulted enough. He was mean to me one time but we made up. I can not stay mad long.  I know you guys do not think he can prove it but I think maybe he can so let him answer please just this one example with the math that shows it that he has thank you.Bubba please show them who is boss by proving this one and I will laugh so hard at them! Let's go!

[oej719]

Math is math. 2+2 =4 always has always will.
Maybe I am wrong 2+2= royal flush.

[anonymous1]

 all you guys are doing is exactly as I want you to do
 
 
Not exactly. I still have my $28.95 in my pocket. Scott tissue offers a much better toilet paper value at about 90 cents per roll. How many pages of a**-wiping paper are you giving for that $28.95?????

[anonymous1]

[QUOTE=oej719]Eduardo,
Have not you been insulted enough.
He was mean to me one time but we made up. I can not stay mad long.  I know you guys do not think he can prove it but I think maybe he can so let him answer please just this one example with the math that shows it that he has thank you.

Bubba please show them who is boss by proving this one and I will laugh so hard at them! Let's go!


[/QUOTE]
 
Well bubba???

[Minn. Fatz]

If you had the ability to calculate the risk involved in using a special play vs. the inside straight draw, or the math involved in determining when any of the special plays which are slightly negative long-term but advantageous short-term instead of blindly quoting textbook and/or making believe the player is doing something in one play that "averages out" in a long-term situation, you'd likely be scolding yourself more than I am now.
 
What the math tells me is that, say, when I hold four low cards to a straight in DB and throw away one high card, I have a better chance of drawing the straight than if I keep the high card. However, I sacrifice the chance of getting four of a kind, a four-card Royal draw, or even just a high pair. Would you say the straight draw is "advantageous short-term" but "slightly negative long-term?"
 
How about one example you cited, breaking a pat three of a kind to go for a two-card Royal draw?
 
I'm interested in knowing what kind of plays you make when the machine is in one of your "cold" cycles. Would you, for example, hold four to a flush with two high cards in DB rather than draw to suited QJT if the machine was "cold?"
 
Indian casinos in Mn. and you moved part-time to LV just to be closer to the machines. Spin that any way you want but to normal people it spells problem gambling.
 
By that definition Minn. has an awful lot of problem gamblers. Looks like the Governor should call a Special Session and either raise taxes in order to fund a chapter of Gamblers Anonymous on every block or shut down the state's casinos, which I've heard notched yet another year of record takes.
 
Seriously, it seems like you're saying anyone who's set foot in a casino has a gambling problem. I'd think the definition of problem gambling would hinge more on things like the amount of money one puts through the machines compared to the amount of money one earns, one's discipline and money management in winning as well as losing sessions, etc. rather than by where, how much or how often one plays.

[babybubba]

 
What the math tells me is that, say, when I hold four low cards to a straight in DB and throw away one high card, I have a better chance of drawing the straight than if I keep the high card. However, I sacrifice the chance of getting four of a kind, a four-card Royal draw, or even just a high pair. Would you say the straight draw is "advantageous short-term" but "slightly negative long-term?"
 
How about one example you cited, breaking a pat three of a kind to go for a two-card Royal draw?
 
I'm interested in knowing what kind of plays you make when the machine is in one of your "cold" cycles. Would you, for example, hold four to a flush with two high cards in DB rather than draw to suited QJT if the machine was "cold?"
 
By that definition Minn. has an awful lot of problem gamblers. Looks like the Governor should call a Special Session and either raise taxes in order to fund a chapter of Gamblers Anonymous on every block or shut down the state's casinos, which I've heard notched yet another year of record takes.
 
Seriously, it seems like you're saying anyone who's set foot in a casino has a gambling problem. I'd think the definition of problem gambling would hinge more on things like the amount of money one puts through the machines compared to the amount of money one earns, one's discipline and money management in winning as well as losing sessions, etc. rather than by where, how much or how often one plays.

1. The inside straight draw is a negative play short-term because when the risk assessment is calculated in relationship to a goal-oriented strategy that progresses in both denomination and game volatility, it's opportunity is diminished by it's own pay back. In the "long-term"--an indefineable term other than equating it to the term "infinity"-- it is an advantageous play.
 
2. The 3-of-a-kind I broke was to go for a 3-card royal, not 2. In this case the special play trumped the optimal play simply because of goals. A quad would not have allowed a goal attainment while a RF would. This was in BP, and had it been in any of the advanced BP games a 250 credit quad (or 600 for four Q's as in the SDBP game I usually play) would almost always have been the right play to go for.
 
3. A "cold cycle" does not change the special play policy. I would change machines instead. In your example, I would never hold the 4-card flush over a suited QJT under any circumstance in any game.
 
4. If the Mn. casinos set a record for take then that says a lot about what the players go through--esp. the regulars. Every casino entertains a high rate of problem gamblers--even more so in a state like Mn. where the only option is Indian casinos who run rigged machines on top of the addiction factor. If you read Elliott Fromme's article in this week's Gaming Today you'll see where he went to one of them last week and found nothing but 98% pay tables. That means nothing to me but to a self-proclaimed "AP" who rarely plays anyway, that's a heart attack.
 
5. I associate "gambling problem" not with the general playing public-but with those who go to casinos as often as they can, with those who like to claim theiy're some kind of "AP" who only "play with an edge", with those who've moved to a casino city obviously because there's more opportunity to gamble, who chase casino promotions at the snap of the casino manager's whip, with those who would jump out of their seats (and I've seen Jean Scott do this) upon spotting the card reader say "REINSERT CARD!", or with those who have forced their "significant others" into the gambling pickle that they're in and can't get out of. People know if they're pathologically addicted but you'll get nothing but denial day and night when it's brought up. It's embarrassing, and what you'll normally get as a response is either "I don't gamble I play for income" or "It's just entertainment to me" or "I'm not like everybody else because I make a little money from it". All total BS of course, but it feels better than telling the truth--especially to a forum.

[shadowman]

1) Note the absence of any factual information. Rob's reason's can never be pinpointed because then it would be obvious they are baseless. Fatz was absolutely correct that the inside straight draw is more likely to hit in short term than a redraw. Rob's response is ridiculous.
 
2) A RF always reaches a goal in Rob's system. If you follow his (attempted) logic here that should mean he'd throw away pairs and trips for a single face card.
 
3)
 
4) Casinos all over the country are setting records every year. They are expanding to meet the demand and making more money as a result. Rob's statements are pure rubish. The compact between MN and the Indians requires them to provide "fair" games. It also limits the VP to 98%. The Indians would be foolish "rig" their games. They have plenty of reasons not to rig them ($$$$) and no reason to do it.
 
5) Rob's jealousy of advantage players (APers) is obvious. Many have succeeded where he failed. Hundreds if not thousands of folks are making money at gambling all over the country. Few of these people are having problems since gambling problems are almost always tied to money problems. One constant you will see out of Rob is his hatred for anyone who wins at at gambling.

[babybubba]

1. I'd say you're slipping up with the statement: " Fatz was absolutely correct that the inside straight draw is more likely to hit in short term than a redraw." With all that self-proclaimed intellect and punch-card-era ability, one would be led to believe that you'd know a redraw would be far more likely to produce a winner than drawing to an inside straight. Looks like your slide rule failed you this time Mr. Wizard.
 
2.
 
3.
 
4. And just where would your sanity be if you did not deny what the Mn. Indian games are really like? Picture yourself comprehending that. What would you do with yourself going forward? Oh, I know! You'd MOVE TO LV FULL-TIME!
 
5. Please, Mr. "all-facts/no-assertions" provide actual verifiable proof that there are "hundreds if not thousands" of APers all over the country winning. And for extra credit prove how you nor any of them are pathological gamblers.

[shadowman]

1) Once again Rob show his lack of knowledge of anything related to VP. While a redraw will produce more small winners, it will not provide the total number of credits you'd expect from hitting the inside straight druing any session. This is intuitively obvious since there are rare big winners available on the redraw that will seldom hit during any session. This brings down the results you'd expect in the short term. Try again ... and this time try to think before posting.
 
2) and 3)  Looks like Rob has no response. I did not expect him to. I could ahve taken his "goal" based logic even further. How often would holdong 4 for an open straight or flush reach a goal? How about a dealt flush or straight? According to his logic he'd toss these as well.
 
4) Yawn. Nothing to refute the facts ... again.
 
5) Prove that there aren't.