Gold Exclusive
My Favorites
Thank you MikeA and shadowman both for your explanations. It helps to see it explained with the actual numbers to know what is good or bad and how good or bad. Just saying "there is a chance" does not say how good a chance or how smart or unsmart a play it is.
It is tempting to throw all when you might at least break even after throwing them but that is always the case if you throw all five (that means sweep i guess?). Here we have a chance to win bigger than even and on average will win more than throwing all five. I think it is good to break the math and go for big sometimes especially when betting with a small amount like me because I need to win big and be lucky to win in the end. But I would do that on plays where my odds of hitting big are at least better than throwing all five cards. I would at least want part of the big hand I want to go for in order to go for a big win. Otherwise I might as well throw all cards when i have something that is not going to get me quad (4 cards) or royal. There are times to break the math I think but this seems like a silly one just because you "might" win big. Here I would play the math and try to earn another hand that can win much better than throwing all five.
I still want bubba to explain math behind why he thinks the other way is better.
Or maybe he can learn from me the great Eduardo who has never had a losing casino trip and not many other people here can say so.
Do you hold some numbers more than others for fun?
-
Eduardo
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 2963
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:19 pm
-
babybubba
- Senior Member
- Posts: 291
- Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:18 pm
[QUOTE=babybubba]
I think this response by bubba is very informative. The answer to Eduardo's question is clear. On average you will do better going for the inside straight. That has been proven mathematically. Naturally, Rob could never ADMIT that one of his special plays is WRONG so he cranks up the rhetoric in response to pure facts. He also throws in an insult at the end because that is the type of person he is.
Let's look at some of Rob's statements more closely.
1) "it says you are giving yourself an opportunity that did not exist by going for the inside straight."
Humerous. An absolutely content free sentence. You'd give yourself a chance for a RF by tossing dealt quad deuces too. Wait ... maybe that is another one of Rob's special plays.
2) "you have no idea if you'll fare better by making either play"
This is an example of Rob trying to avoid the FACT that you WILL do better on average by going for the inside straight. His words are chosen carefully to limit the situation to one hand. However, we will all run into this situation many, many times. If we want to succeed then what IS important is how well we do on the sum total of all the tries. For this the math is CLEAR (and Rob knows it). Go for the inside straight.
3) "the odds are not wrong but the math you're referring to does not say that by sweeping you are likely to lose more"
This is an outright lie. That is why I saved it for the last. The MATH says you will "lose more" over time. Any responible VP player that calls himself a professional (because no one else will) would never make such a grossly inaccurate statement unless they had ulterior motives.
You served yourself well in twisting the facts again. It's amusing that you don't think anyone sees your agenda.
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. Someday you'll learn, and it will be especially satisfying watching your cheeks turn red when and IF you show up to review the math that probably made you afraid to apply for graduate school.
Your take on this issue is the same as the denial you claim in having an extreme addiction to play. 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. And by definition, no one so consumed with playing so often who believes in long-term strategy nonsense would ever recognize the mathematical benefits of deviating from optimal play at calculated times. The math that verifies this is right under your nose only you'll never see it until I'm there to make you.
I think this response by bubba is very informative. The answer to Eduardo's question is clear. On average you will do better going for the inside straight. That has been proven mathematically. Naturally, Rob could never ADMIT that one of his special plays is WRONG so he cranks up the rhetoric in response to pure facts. He also throws in an insult at the end because that is the type of person he is.
Let's look at some of Rob's statements more closely.
1) "it says you are giving yourself an opportunity that did not exist by going for the inside straight."
Humerous. An absolutely content free sentence. You'd give yourself a chance for a RF by tossing dealt quad deuces too. Wait ... maybe that is another one of Rob's special plays.
2) "you have no idea if you'll fare better by making either play"
This is an example of Rob trying to avoid the FACT that you WILL do better on average by going for the inside straight. His words are chosen carefully to limit the situation to one hand. However, we will all run into this situation many, many times. If we want to succeed then what IS important is how well we do on the sum total of all the tries. For this the math is CLEAR (and Rob knows it). Go for the inside straight.
3) "the odds are not wrong but the math you're referring to does not say that by sweeping you are likely to lose more"
This is an outright lie. That is why I saved it for the last. The MATH says you will "lose more" over time. Any responible VP player that calls himself a professional (because no one else will) would never make such a grossly inaccurate statement unless they had ulterior motives.
You served yourself well in twisting the facts again. It's amusing that you don't think anyone sees your agenda.
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. Someday you'll learn, and it will be especially satisfying watching your cheeks turn red when and IF you show up to review the math that probably made you afraid to apply for graduate school.
Your take on this issue is the same as the denial you claim in having an extreme addiction to play. 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. And by definition, no one so consumed with playing so often who believes in long-term strategy nonsense would ever recognize the mathematical benefits of deviating from optimal play at calculated times. The math that verifies this is right under your nose only you'll never see it until I'm there to make you.
-
babybubba
- Senior Member
- Posts: 291
- Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:18 pm
Thank you MikeA and shadowman both for your explanations. It helps to see it explained with the actual numbers to know what is good or bad and how good or bad. Just saying "there is a chance" does not say how good a chance or how smart or unsmart a play it is.
It is tempting to throw all when you might at least break even after throwing them but that is always the case if you throw all five (that means sweep i guess?). Here we have a chance to win bigger than even and on average will win more than throwing all five. I think it is good to break the math and go for big sometimes especially when betting with a small amount like me because I need to win big and be lucky to win in the end. But I would do that on plays where my odds of hitting big are at least better than throwing all five cards. I would at least want part of the big hand I want to go for in order to go for a big win. Otherwise I might as well throw all cards when i have something that is not going to get me quad (4 cards) or royal. There are times to break the math I think but this seems like a silly one just because you "might" win big. Here I would play the math and try to earn another hand that can win much better than throwing all five.
I still want bubba to explain math behind why he thinks the other way is better.
Or maybe he can learn from me the great Eduardo who has never had a losing casino trip and not many other people here can say so.
The Great Eduardo:
What the geniuses didn't want to tell you is you will do a sweep for many other hands dealt besides an inside straight draw. I would also add that if
you have never had a losing trip then why ask so many silly questions. Unless, of course, you're trying to get a long-winded reply from shadow (which makes him feel as if he "belongs") to which he will ALWAYS oblige
and in which case I totally understand.....
It is tempting to throw all when you might at least break even after throwing them but that is always the case if you throw all five (that means sweep i guess?). Here we have a chance to win bigger than even and on average will win more than throwing all five. I think it is good to break the math and go for big sometimes especially when betting with a small amount like me because I need to win big and be lucky to win in the end. But I would do that on plays where my odds of hitting big are at least better than throwing all five cards. I would at least want part of the big hand I want to go for in order to go for a big win. Otherwise I might as well throw all cards when i have something that is not going to get me quad (4 cards) or royal. There are times to break the math I think but this seems like a silly one just because you "might" win big. Here I would play the math and try to earn another hand that can win much better than throwing all five.
I still want bubba to explain math behind why he thinks the other way is better.
Or maybe he can learn from me the great Eduardo who has never had a losing casino trip and not many other people here can say so.
The Great Eduardo:
What the geniuses didn't want to tell you is you will do a sweep for many other hands dealt besides an inside straight draw. I would also add that if
you have never had a losing trip then why ask so many silly questions. Unless, of course, you're trying to get a long-winded reply from shadow (which makes him feel as if he "belongs") to which he will ALWAYS oblige
and in which case I totally understand.....
-
anonymous1
- Forum Rookie
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 12:39 am
[QUOTE=Eduardo]Thank you MikeA and shadowman both for your explanations. It helps to see it explained with the actual numbers to know what is good or bad and how good or bad. Just saying "there is a chance" does not say how good a chance or how smart or unsmart a play it is.
It is tempting to throw all when you might at least break even after throwing them but that is always the case if you throw all five (that means sweep i guess?). Here we have a chance to win bigger than even and on average will win more than throwing all five. I think it is good to break the math and go for big sometimes especially when betting with a small amount like me because I need to win big and be lucky to win in the end. But I would do that on plays where my odds of hitting big are at least better than throwing all five cards. I would at least want part of the big hand I want to go for in order to go for a big win. Otherwise I might as well throw all cards when i have something that is not going to get me quad (4 cards) or royal. There are times to break the math I think but this seems like a silly one just because you "might" win big. Here I would play the math and try to earn another hand that can win much better than throwing all five.
I still want bubba to explain math behind why he thinks the other way is better.
Or maybe he can learn from me the great Eduardo who has never had a losing casino trip and not many other people here can say so.
The Great Eduardo:
What the geniuses didn't want to tell you is you will do a sweep for many other hands dealt besides an inside straight draw. I would also add that if
you have never had a losing trip then why ask so many silly questions. Unless, of course, you're trying to get a long-winded reply from shadow (which makes him feel as if he "belongs") to which he will ALWAYS oblige
and in which case I totally understand.....[/QUOTE]
If you did your homework bubba you would know that Eduardo has never been to a casino. It must be fun for you to show your ignorance to large audiences. Jacka*s!
It is tempting to throw all when you might at least break even after throwing them but that is always the case if you throw all five (that means sweep i guess?). Here we have a chance to win bigger than even and on average will win more than throwing all five. I think it is good to break the math and go for big sometimes especially when betting with a small amount like me because I need to win big and be lucky to win in the end. But I would do that on plays where my odds of hitting big are at least better than throwing all five cards. I would at least want part of the big hand I want to go for in order to go for a big win. Otherwise I might as well throw all cards when i have something that is not going to get me quad (4 cards) or royal. There are times to break the math I think but this seems like a silly one just because you "might" win big. Here I would play the math and try to earn another hand that can win much better than throwing all five.
I still want bubba to explain math behind why he thinks the other way is better.
Or maybe he can learn from me the great Eduardo who has never had a losing casino trip and not many other people here can say so.
The Great Eduardo:
What the geniuses didn't want to tell you is you will do a sweep for many other hands dealt besides an inside straight draw. I would also add that if
you have never had a losing trip then why ask so many silly questions. Unless, of course, you're trying to get a long-winded reply from shadow (which makes him feel as if he "belongs") to which he will ALWAYS oblige
and in which case I totally understand.....[/QUOTE]
If you did your homework bubba you would know that Eduardo has never been to a casino. It must be fun for you to show your ignorance to large audiences. Jacka*s!
-
Eduardo
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 2963
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:19 pm
anonym is right bubba, i was joking because i have never played for real in a casino so I have never lost. I am trying to learn and save up for my first trip so i can play well.Now please just answer simply since you say "The math that verifies this is right under your nose" to shadow, please please please just help me understand why the math example i have shown is wrong and how there is another math example that shows you are right that "deviating" from math strategy at right times will pay off. yes I know my bank roll is too small to play how you teach but I want to see that you are right with actual numbers. I know you can not list everything here like you said before but show me just this one. It will help a lot I think. Pretty please?
-
anonymous1
- Forum Rookie
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 12:39 am
anonym is right bubba,
I am the king, bubba is the peasant.
I am the king, bubba is the peasant.
-
Eduardo
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 2963
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:19 pm
Please do no distract anonmumous I just want bubba to be able to answer please thanks!
-
oej719
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 1777
- Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 5:46 pm
Eduardo,
Have not you been insulted enough. He talks to you in circles and you mist be dizzy by now. If this man had a answer he would of gave it. All con guys talk in unclear and open ended phrases. He makes believe and adds fluff and gibberish.
Do you not read his post? Can you not see what type are are dealing with. Hurling insults and calling people names and poking fun at me a successful blackman.
And now you are begging him to tell you that throwing away an inside straight will for certain hit you a big win. Wise up.
Have not you been insulted enough. He talks to you in circles and you mist be dizzy by now. If this man had a answer he would of gave it. All con guys talk in unclear and open ended phrases. He makes believe and adds fluff and gibberish.
Do you not read his post? Can you not see what type are are dealing with. Hurling insults and calling people names and poking fun at me a successful blackman.
And now you are begging him to tell you that throwing away an inside straight will for certain hit you a big win. Wise up.
-
shadowman
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 3587
- Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:42 pm
I still want bubba to explain math behind why he thinks the other way is better.
That's a good one. You are are soooooo funny.
Or maybe he can learn from me the great Eduardo who has never had a losing casino trip and not many other people here can say so.
That puts you in a unique position on this board, oh great one. However, you may want to avoid monestery.com.
That's a good one. You are are soooooo funny.
Or maybe he can learn from me the great Eduardo who has never had a losing casino trip and not many other people here can say so.
That puts you in a unique position on this board, oh great one. However, you may want to avoid monestery.com.
-
shadowman
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 3587
- Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:42 pm
You served yourself well in twisting the facts again.
Name one.
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. Someday you'll learn, and it will be especially satisfying watching your cheeks turn red when and IF you show up to review the math that probably made you afraid to apply for graduate school.
Your take on this issue is the same as the denial you claim in having an extreme addiction to play. 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. And by definition, no one so consumed with playing so often who believes in long-term strategy nonsense would ever recognize the mathematical benefits of deviating from optimal play at calculated times. The math that verifies this is right under your nose only you'll never see it until I'm there to make you.
More R-B-L from bubba. Let me count the facts .... uh .... zero.
Eduardo, replies like this one from Robbie demonstrate you will NEVER see anything to support his assertions. I commend you for trying to understand his ideas and giving him the benefit of the doubt. However, it is truly a waste of your time. Rob has been doing this for many years. In all those years he has yet to provide a SINGLE mathematical basis for his assertions. He will continue to indulge in R-B-L as that is the only thing he knows.
