Las Vegas Advisor Menu
« LVA Forums « Vegas Free-for-All

Hello LVA

FrankKneeland
FrankKneeland
Jul 2, 2011
5:31am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: damule56
Here is the whole problem with the conversations here: There are two very different camps:

Those who support Singer and Money are aiming for short-term goals.

Those supporting Arcimedes and Frank are aiming for one long-term goal.

The long-term folks trust the math and KNOW they will be ahead over time playing over 100% expected games.

The short-term folks ignore some of the math and HOPE they will get lucky and be ahead over time.

My opinion on this is in the short-term (probably less than 1,000,000 hands) it is POSSIBLE to get lucky and be ahead using unorthodox methods. In the long-term (over 1,000,000 hands) when trusting the math and playing optimum strategy on games that return over 100%, one does not need luck and will DEFINITELY be ahead.
-Mule


Several points:

1. Please don't form sides with me and Arcimedes against Rob. I'm not on either side.
2. I do not yet know the Singer system well enough to have come to any conclusions. It will take me at least a month if not longer to learn it.
3. If as an impartial judge of anything I had already drawn my conclusions in advance I would have already failed.
4. It is very hard for me to understand the short term perspective, because I have had no experience with it. Therefore, any insight is appreciated.
5. It is also possible to get lucky playing orthodox methods as well. Unless you have some way to predict luck in advance of results, I would recommend not including it in an evaluation of any system. It sounds like you aren't and this is good.

With enough hands out "luck" becomes nothing more than an unneeded and unwelcome guest at the dinner table one can ignore except when it asks you to pass the salt.

~FK

P.S. I have no idea what that last metaphor means. Just sounded good.
jpcos5
jpcos5
Jul 2, 2011
5:41am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: FrankKneeland
Quote
Originally posted by: MoneyLA


When I designed the M progressive I intentional set it up so it wasn't a progressive that ever needed to be locked up and played by a single team (if hypothetically one even existed). Going in and playing at one's convenience and leaving when you get tired works just fine and that's the only method we intend to adopt.

Word on LVA roughly 1 or 2 months or so ago, was that Dancer designed the M progressive. What gives?

FrankKneeland
FrankKneeland
Jul 2, 2011
5:51am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: snidely333
But, I do tend to agree with Money that the business model is better if you control a larger % of the seats.


Once that was true. Now more players = more casino heat.

A small highly skilled coalition of partners is the only model that works really well.

Locking up entire banks of machines is simply non-viable.

I also found that it takes about 6 team players to equal what a good player can make by themselves. A lot of headache for very little extra income. Do you have any idea the management issues involved in having 6 full time VP team players??? Just say no!!!

Are you all getting it now. I wrote my book to save a lot of people the hassle I lived (almost not) through.
FrankKneeland
FrankKneeland
Jul 2, 2011
5:57am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: jpcos5
Quote
Originally posted by: FrankKneeland
Quote
Originally posted by: MoneyLA


When I designed the M progressive I intentional set it up so it wasn't a progressive that ever needed to be locked up and played by a single team (if hypothetically one even existed). Going in and playing at one's convenience and leaving when you get tired works just fine and that's the only method we intend to adopt.

Word on LVA roughly 1 or 2 months or so ago, was that Dancer designed the M progressive. What gives?


Not sure. I wasn't involved in "the word on LVA a couple of months ago".

It was my idea. I designed it. Bob helped set up the meeting where we pitched it to M. Nothing more on his side.

Also, I thought it up in response to a direct request from someone on vpFREE to try to find a way to get casinos to bring back fast progressives. If not for the vpFREE poster it would not exist.

I adapted it from a casino mistake I had seen elsewhere that came and went. My innovation was to formulate a game structure that was hopefully sustainable for the casino and alleviate the need for "here today gone tomorrow".

damule56
damule56
Jul 2, 2011
6:00am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: FrankKneeland
Quote
Originally posted by: damule56
Here is the whole problem with the conversations here: There are two very different camps:

Those who support Singer and Money are aiming for short-term goals.

Those supporting Arcimedes and Frank are aiming for one long-term goal.

The long-term folks trust the math and KNOW they will be ahead over time playing over 100% expected games.

The short-term folks ignore some of the math and HOPE they will get lucky and be ahead over time.

My opinion on this is in the short-term (probably less than 1,000,000 hands) it is POSSIBLE to get lucky and be ahead using unorthodox methods. In the long-term (over 1,000,000 hands) when trusting the math and playing optimum strategy on games that return over 100%, one does not need luck and will DEFINITELY be ahead.
-Mule


Several points:

1. Please don't form sides with me and Arcimedes against Rob. I'm not on either side.
2. I do not yet know the Singer system well enough to have come to any conclusions. It will take me at least a month if not longer to learn it.
3. If as an impartial judge of anything I had already drawn my conclusions in advance I would have already failed.
4. It is very hard for me to understand the short term perspective, because I have had no experience with it. Therefore, any insight is appreciated.
5. It is also possible to get lucky playing orthodox methods as well. Unless you have some way to predict luck in advance of results, I would recommend not including it in an evaluation of any system. It sounds like you aren't and this is good.

With enough hands out "luck" becomes nothing more than an unneeded and unwelcome guest at the dinner table one can ignore except when it asks you to pass the salt.

~FK

P.S. I have no idea what that last metaphor means. Just sounded good.




Sorry Frank, just trying to make the coversation into simpler terms. Just seems to be a basic difference in principles between long-term and short-term thinkers here. From everything I've read and heard from you I would consider you to be a long-termer such as Arcimedes, Dancer and even myself. I consider Singer and Money to think as short-termers. That's all, not forcing you onto a side.


-Mule
FrankKneeland
FrankKneeland
Jul 2, 2011
6:13am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: damule56

Sorry Frank, just trying to make the coversation into simpler terms. Just seems to be a basic difference in principles between long-term and short-term thinkers here. From everything I've read and heard from you I would consider you to be a long-termer such as Arcimedes, Dancer and even myself. I consider Singer and Money to think as short-termers. That's all, not forcing you onto a side.


-Mule


Oh thank goodness. If you do put me on a side could you please make it the one with the most single attractive females!
jpcos5
jpcos5
Jul 2, 2011
6:52am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: FrankKneeland
Quote
Originally posted by: jpcos5
Quote
Originally posted by: FrankKneeland
Quote
Originally posted by: MoneyLA


When I designed the M progressive I intentional set it up so it wasn't a progressive that ever needed to be locked up and played by a single team (if hypothetically one even existed). Going in and playing at one's convenience and leaving when you get tired works just fine and that's the only method we intend to adopt.

Word on LVA roughly 1 or 2 months or so ago, was that Dancer designed the M progressive. What gives?


Not sure. I wasn't involved in "the word on LVA a couple of months ago".

It was my idea. I designed it. Bob helped set up the meeting where we pitched it to M. Nothing more on his side.

Also, I thought it up in response to a direct request from someone on vpFREE to try to find a way to get casinos to bring back fast progressives. If not for the vpFREE poster it would not exist.

I adapted it from a casino mistake I had seen elsewhere that came and went. My innovation was to formulate a game structure that was hopefully sustainable for the casino and alleviate the need for "here today gone tomorrow".


Thank You for the clarification. After reading Dancer's article about it, It was easy to get the impression that he was a major factor in the design and developement.
FrankKneeland
FrankKneeland
Jul 2, 2011
7:13am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: jpcos5
Thank You for the clarification. After reading Dancer's article about it, It was easy to get the impression that he was a major factor in the design and developement.


Clarification. I just remembered Bob did pick a couple of the game types over my suggestions. Like KoB JKR instead of Two Pair or Better JKR because more people know the game.
FrankKneeland
FrankKneeland
Jul 2, 2011
7:22am
Block User
Could someone explain "short-term-play" to me?

I need us to reach a consensus on a number of hands to signify "short-term".

Without a fixed number the calculations become difficult or impossible.
damule56
damule56
Jul 2, 2011
8:56am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: FrankKneeland
Could someone explain "short-term-play" to me?

I need us to reach a consensus on a number of hands to signify "short-term".

Without a fixed number the calculations become difficult or impossible.


Frank, in my opinion, I believe less than 1 million hands to be short-term, possibly very short-term. I believe it's like a tangent curve: the more hands played, the closer you are to achieving the mathmatical expectation without ever finitely reaching it.

There are some players that play sessions of several hundred hands at varying denominations and believe that those "short-term" sessions will add up to an expected value over the life of the game as long as they quit when they are ahead by managing their win/loss parameters. Hmmmm, does that sound like a martingale possibly?


-Mule

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now