Hello LVA

Bernoulli is The Man.

Let me give you an analogy. You're essentially asking how many legs does a dog have and you will only accept the answer from a dog trainer. It's absolutely hilarious that you think the math will come out different if someone else does the addition.

If you are going to utilize Frank's expertise at least ask questions that aren't mind-numbingly obvious. For example, what would he do if he brings 5 people to the casino and only 4 seats are open. What does the other one do and how is the money distributed? That would actually utilize his experience.

Unfortunately, I only know how my son did with his system. When he gets back from his Alaskan cruise next week I'll ask him his current results. Rob has told me stories about how people did while he was instructing them. One story that he told was about a guy who was using his system and the guy was progressing up(while losing) and refused to continue playing although he had the money to continue. Rob took over at that level, and wound up hitting a royal. Doesn't mean the guy would have hit the royal, but at least Rob put his money where his mouth was. I really don't know any of the people that Rob schooled in his system, but I have heard him tell stories of how some people did using his system. Of course this is all hearsay as they say in the courtrooms, and I wasn't there to verify any results. But I'm sure that Rob could ask some people that he taught to come to this forum and tell their tales of woe or success. That's up to him. But I'm sure the naysayers will say that Rob used some "ghosts" to prove his point. So what good would it do?

If Rob's system works as advertised and he trained 10 people, 8 might tell you they won and 2 might tell you the lost. Would the 8 winners win more than the 2 losers lost? Therein lies the problem with Rob's system. The two losers will probably lose more combined than the 8 winners won combined. Realistically, how can a poll validate a gambling system?

But 8 out of 10 people are happy and the other 2 chalk their losses up to gambling and bad luck.

I cant comment. I dont play by his system. I also dont bet hardways at craps, but some players do.

Ahhcraps hasnt posted here in a while, but a few months ago he was at a table at Caesars where one player bet $100 on hard ten, it hit and he parlayed... now $800 on hard ten. It hit and he parlayed again. If I recall that guy walked away from the table with something like 40K.

Singer is the VP equivalent of the hardways bettor at craps. The math tells you not to bet the hardways. In fact, the math tells you that the hard 4 and hard 10 are poorer bets than the hard 6 and hard 8.

But dont try to tell that to the guy at Ahhcraps table.

I hope you all realize I like to read an entire thread before replying to important and sensitive posts. I have now begun the process of catching up on this thread and expect to finish by winter.

Holly guacamole Batman...you folks post a lot more than videopoker.com or vpfree. Good thing I'm still single. g'night.

P.S. arcimedes is expecting me to agree but use kinder words. Hmmm...not setting the bar too high are we. LOL

Frank, Arcimedes gave me another question to ask.

Arcimedes wrote: "If you are going to utilize Frank's expertise at least ask questions that aren't mind-numbingly obvious. For example, what would he do if he brings 5 people to the casino and only 4 seats are open. What does the other one do and how is the money distributed? That would actually utilize his experience."

Good idea, Arc. So Frank: if you put together a team working for an investor who pays the players, do you think the investor would want to put his team to work in a casino with poor pay tables like those at the M and with many more chairs than members of your team so that there is a risk that a non-team member might hit the royal, leaving your players without a royal on those poor pay tables?

Let's say your team has 5 players, and there are a total of 20 chairs available. Would you accept that risk?

(Arc, is that better?)

No Money, I already explained it does not matter how many chairs are available. The equation is simple. The return is the edge multiplied by the amount of money (coin-in) played. By filling all the chairs you end up putting more money through the machines which over times increases the total money won. Of course, that money is now spread between more players. So, the income of each player is not changed by filling all the seats.

There is no additional direct risk. There may be indirect risks. Maybe one player needs money to pay his rent and if he isn't paid today he will drop off the team. Things like that. And, it could also effect the team managers income if that is based off a percentage of the total take. The more players he has playing the faster the progressives will be hit and the more income that is generated. But that's no different than someone managing a group of Amway salespeople.

So, to net it out. The return percentage does not change no matter how many people are on the team nor is the return of the non-RF portion a factor. However, the total income of the team increases with more players as long as there are good return progressives available.

I think the question is valid but more based on: If only x% of the total seats are available to the team, would the team still play a progressive +EV game.

The paytable is the paytable. Of course, once the Royal hits, the paytable changes. But, it's not a poor paytable if the game is +EV. it's not a poor paytable if the game is +EV. it's not a poor paytable if the game is +EV.

it's not a poor paytable if the game is +EV.

DonDiego actually prefers games with a negative expected value.

That way his hopes are never dashed, . . . as he has no hopes.

But he does prefer low-limit games with just a slight negative expectation, so that he can play longer.