Nearing Completion of Evaluation of RS system (not)

Then why would anyone ever play -EV VP? There has to be something beyond the math. Vegas would be a ghost town if people just adhered to the math because most of the games are -EV. What do they know that we don't know? Or do just a few people know the undeniable truth and millions of others are being led astray?

Would you believe 30,000 and counting. Has anybody got any aspirin?

I'll try to edit it some before posting. Still on schedule for about a week.

Kaypea good point. One of the basics of the Singer system is to quit when you reach a win goal but only the APs can't understand that.

I hope you added in some gratuitous sex and violence.

Why 30,000? We want quality and not quantity. In college our term papers were not graded by weight. LOL

APs understand that. What they don't understand is why you would ever go back in a casino once you've reached that goal.

There are advantage players (AP) and there are recreational players (RP). Each group has different goals, objectives, and priorities and choose different games to meet those objectives. Sure, both want to win. The AP want to win before the rent is due and winning is a high priority for them. The RP wants to win before dinner so he can buy the first round, but more important than winning is having a good story to tell over dinner.

Like with many walks of life, it's sometimes hard to understand the motivations of another group or individual without walking in their shoes for awhile (and, no, I am not seriously suggesting we start literally exchanging footwear).

If arcimedes and marcus could claim MoneyLa was Singer without looking stupid to at least 3 people, they'd do it. A quick look at Alanbestbuy forum shows a clearly irritated and disgruntled arcimedes running for the narest cover available because marcus refuses to go over there to back his puffy cheeks up.

You guys do have a problem, and the other guy is winning.

LMAO!!

Well said snidely. I for one understand perfectly well what Alan is saying, he's simply using non-dictionary definitions of words like, "quitting" and "winning".

He defines "quitting" as: walking out of the casino for that day.

I would define "quitting" as: never playing again.

He defines "winning" as: A momentary upswing in cash that results in a refund of previous loses.

I define "winning" as: Being ahead money overall.

I translate his comment to mean: When I experience a predetermined refund of previous loses, or reach a self imposed limit to additional daily loses, I take a short break from playing.

Where the disconnect lies is that though we are able to see it from his perceptive, he does not seem able to see it from ours. What he calls winning and quiting we consider to be neither. I have tried and failed to explain it to him. I have further tried to explain to him that whether one takes a one second break between hands or goes home to sleep, the machine doesn't know the difference and the next hand starts back exactly where you left off, which is always in the middle of a series of independent random trials that only understands one form of "quitting", which is to never play again.

Now to defend Alan, science tells us that people's sense of time is very different from person to person and that some people regardless of intelligence simply cannot perceive, understand, or comprehend randomness. It is somewhat cultural and effected by environment, but it is mostly genetic. You will never succeed in explaining these types of concepts to people without the proper mental infrastructure to comprehend it.

Their perception of time and randomness is so different from ours it is literally beyond their comprehension or ours to see it from each others perspective. The problem is organic and related to brain structure. There is no need to think ill of Alan because he is different as he is actually in the majority. Some studies put his way of thinking at about 85% of the world wide population.

Being able to correctly understand randomness is actually a genetic mutation that makes one prone to Type II errors and from an evolutionary standpoint is poor for survival.