I Just Don't Get It ~ VP Systems

Quote

---

Originally posted by: MoneyLA The problem is that there are many who don't understand that even Dancer needs a huge bankroll... he was risking $375 on every push of the button to have an income of $250,000 a year.

I didnt ask Dancer then because I was new to VP, but I would like to know this now. And perhaps one of our math guys here can provide the answer:

Assuming he played a DW game with the best possible paytable, how much money did he have to risk in order to win over the course of one year $125,000 plus get another $125,000 in cashback.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: melbedewy

Quote

---

Originally posted by: mrmarcus12LVA

No one has ever claimed that a person who plays with an edge can't lose; that's just stupid. And your bald face lie, that APs claim they can't lose, is just, again, testimony of an idiot.

---

Actually no "AP "on this board will ever admit that, over a lifetime, they can lose-or at best break even. But with the games available in the 2011 Realworld, where the "pro's" are reduced to playing NEGATIVE games and hope to turn a profit on welfare checks, jeejaws, sweepstakes, gas cards, etc. they sure can. And do.
Believe it.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: arcimedes

Quote

---

Originally posted by: surf87
I perceive much of this discussion to be likened to a "paradigm shift," which is used to describe a profound change in some of the basic or fundamental assumptions (ie., The world was flat as opposed to being round, or the planets revolving around the earth rather than the sun in the pre-Galileo era, etc) as it pertains to VP. I like to keep an open mind about things and I'll be the first to admit that I'm learning valuable information from both camps.

---

How can there ever be a "paradigm shift" in a game as simple as VP. I think you're going to be very disappointed if you believe there's anything more to this than simple mathematics.

But hey, please tell what "valuable information" you are learning from those who essentially claim 2+2 = 5.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: alexlifeson
TomdougSinger, how was your vacation in Hawaii?

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: MoneyLA
Gee tomdoug... I don't really think I am a "loser" ... but I am showing a financial loss on video poker. LOL

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: MoneyLA
mrmarcus: I have never criticized Dancer for not explaining that VP is high variance. I have never praised Singer for advocating a system that actually increases that variance. So, to refresh your memory, the answer to your question about which I have done more-- the answer is neither.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: surf87

Quote

---

Originally posted by: arcimedes

But hey, please tell what "valuable information" you are learning from those who essentially claim 2+2 = 5.

---

For instance in the Dancer camp I learned about the need to have a large enough bankroll to weather the storms of the video poker variances and in the long term expected value should be realized. This meant having to play video poker for hours upon end grinding away or as Tomdoug puts it "15 hours in a casino."


In the Singer camp he talks about setting a win goal or a loss limit. When either is attained walk away from the video poker machine and enjoy a show, or have a nice meal, or what ever interests you. Singer's recommendation is liberating compared to the "ball and chain" philosophy of having to play video poker long term which can also be very addicting.

---

Nothing you mentioned originated in the "Singer camp". Win goals and loss limits are simply good gambling advice that has been around for decades. Also, nothing in expert play philosophy claims you have to play long hours. The statistical fact that one approaches the ER over time really has nothing to do with VP per se. It is just well known statistical information. It happens to players using any strategy including Singer.

I suspected you were simply confused.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: surf87
I can see why Singer gets bashed for his ideas. Sometimes the truth hurts (LOL).

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: tomdoug

Quote

---

Originally posted by: arcimedes

Quote

---

Originally posted by: surf87
I perceive much of this discussion to be likened to a "paradigm shift," which is used to describe a profound change in some of the basic or fundamental assumptions (ie., The world was flat as opposed to being round, or the planets revolving around the earth rather than the sun in the pre-Galileo era, etc) as it pertains to VP. I like to keep an open mind about things and I'll be the first to admit that I'm learning valuable information from both camps.

---

How can there ever be a "paradigm shift" in a game as simple as VP. I think you're going to be very disappointed if you believe there's anything more to this than simple mathematics.

But hey, please tell what "valuable information" you are learning from those who essentially claim 2+2 = 5.

---

Please quote any post that I have made on this forum that supports your claim that I am a proponent of any strategy or system.
You can't because I have not.
The only thing I have done is to question a few AP'ers who never lose.
Bottom line, I think you are all a bunch of bullshitters.
MoneyLA is the only one with balls enough to post that he is an overall loser.
Because I don't believe the stories of win,win,win,win, I get branded as a Singer advocate or even Singer himself. If it were that easy, everyone would be winning.

---