Woah! What's risky's secret??!!

[BillB]

Risky says he runs $425-$637 through a video poker machine every hour.

"I don't recall ever claiming to be a high roller but I bet 2 or 3 times that much [$850] in 4 hours, not an election cycle."

I asked him if his expected return on investment for running $850 through a video poker machine could be as high as 1%. That 1% number is based on my understanding that perfect play on the most generous machines results in an approximate 101% long-term payout. I wasn't including any comps the casino might provide, but I don't think that adds up to much on a percentage basis. A 1% ROI would result in long-term profit of approximately $4-$6 per hour (according to risky's self-reported rate of play).

However, risky replied that his ROI is not 1%, but "50%-200%"!!!

How is this possible?? He won't tell me.

That means his LOWEST expected ROI is $212-$318/hour profit. His HIGHEST expected ROI would be $850-$1274/hour profit. I don't really understand that massive range, but I suppose it depends on the chosen game and the progressive jackpot involved? You tell me. He won't.

If we average out all the ranges, we can estimate that risky is making about $660/hr playing video poker. As a standard full-time job, that would translate to about $1.32 million/yr salary.

As risky pointed out, I know less (much less) about video poker than I do about real poker. Can someone please tell me how he is pulling off this (almost) unbelievable ROI? I want to get on that gravy train! For $1,000,000/year I am willing to move to Las Vegas.

[Mossingen]

"BillB" wrote in message
news:dec35ab7-0cbf-4604...@googlegroups.com...

_________________


The dude thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old. I doubt he's any more
knowledgeable at math.

[popinjay]

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 9:51:29 AM UTC-7, Mossingen wrote:



>
> The dude thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old. I doubt he's any more
> knowledgeable at math.

I doubt if Bill understood what Risky said, and if Bill didn't understand, then I don't have much hope that you would understand.

[BillB]

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 11:35:22 AM UTC-7, popinjay wrote:

> I doubt if Bill understood what Risky said, and if Bill didn't understand, then I don't have much hope that you would understand.

The comprehension problem is mine??

I asked him what his expected ROI on $850 would be. He responded "50%-200%". So what did he mean? Does he not understand what ROI is?? A gambler who does not understand ROI? Seriously??

I asked him at least three times to explain his answer and he just kept changing the subject. Maybe you can explain it for us?

He was also having a difficult time understanding why I would not buy shares in Kamala Harris (or anyone else, for that matter) if I thought her shares were fairly priced. He doesn't seem to comprehend even the most fundamental concepts of gambling.

[Mossingen]

"popinjay" wrote in message
news:151232aa-fa98-470a...@googlegroups.com...

Do you understand it? If so, what is your understanding?

[popinjay]

I'd have to see what he said. First of all, the Earth is 6000 years old. Regarding video poker, 1% is mediocre. 2% I'd kill for. But I've played video keno with an 11% edge, where I was putting through over $2000 coin-in per hour. Speaking for myself, I can coast at 800 hands per hour on video poker. Risky is playing a wide variety of advantage plays, not just standard video poker. Risky is an all-around Machine Pro and Advantage Player. I'm sure the misunderstanding is with Bill, because Risky knows what he's doing, and don't forget the IQ gap. But don't expect Risky to let the cat out of the bag. We need to guard our secrets. Don't be jealous. Advantage play can be mundane. Profitable, but mundane. Except for the beautiful women that Risky and I attract. It's hard to shake them off.

[VegasJerry]

It's hard to shake any of that off..

[Tim Norfolk]

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 4:21:39 PM UTC-4, popinjay wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 12:48:45 PM UTC-7, Mossingen wrote:

<snip>

> First of all, the Earth is 6000 years old.

<snip>

Based on what, exactly?

[popinjay]

Pat Robertson.

[Mossingen]

"popinjay" wrote in message
news:69dcb161-e009-43d2...@googlegroups.com...

I'd have to see what he said. First of all, the Earth is 6000 years old.
Regarding video poker, 1% is mediocre. 2% I'd kill for. But I've played
video keno with an 11% edge, where I was putting through over $2000 coin-in
per hour. Speaking for myself, I can coast at 800 hands per hour on video
poker. Risky is playing a wide variety of advantage plays, not just
standard video poker. Risky is an all-around Machine Pro and Advantage
Player. I'm sure the misunderstanding is with Bill, because Risky knows
what he's doing, and don't forget the IQ gap. But don't expect Risky to let
the cat out of the bag. We need to guard our secrets. Don't be jealous.
Advantage play can be mundane. Profitable, but mundane. Except for the
beautiful women that Risky and I attract. It's hard to shake them off.

_________________________________



You're very wise, paul.

[risky biz]

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 9:51:29 AM UTC-7, Mossingen wrote:

~ The dude thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old. I doubt he's any more
> knowledgeable at math.

I don't recall ever claiming, saying, or even implying that I believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. If you can provide any reference where I have please do so. I would be interested in seeing it. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've posted scientific articles here which imply anything but that.

I suspect that the impetus of this nonsensical claim of yours is that you're still butthurt that I illustrated how ignorant you were about the Islamic religion after you claimed to be a 'scholar' on the subject.

If you can't provide the reference requested above, just silently jump in the clown car that BillB is careening around in since my little note about his predictit.com reference.

[risky biz]

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 1:21:39 PM UTC-7, popinjay wrote:

LOL, Paul, at BillB and 'mossingen's' ROI.

I just calculated my hands per hour and it's 540 but that included a 10-minute bathroom break and getting up to pour coffee, etc. I thought it was even slower than that.

You also bring up a good point. When it comes to advantage play it's good to have the staff on your side if possible. It isn't possible sometimes but there are women in several high limit rooms who don't bother me when I scan machines openly. I was sitting in a high limit room at about midnight once when one came by rearranging chairs before she started her shift. She asked how I was doing and I said I was losing a little (not true) and she said, 'Wait 'til the shift change and you can take all their money.'

Check your e-mail. I just sent you and 'C' info on a new exploitable slot machine.

[risky biz]

I come back after a couple of days of not looking at RGP and you're STILL having your spastic attack over my little note about the unreliability of your predictit.com reference.

First of all your complete ignorance of video poker is revealed by your seeming lack of belief of the amount of wagering required for a nickel denomination. Here is a recent session in which I recorded the elapsed time and amount wagered on a three-hand nickel machine:

elapsed time 5 hours 31 minutes
hands per hour 540
amount wagered $3,331
amount wagered per hour $600.18
amount wagered per minute $9

I put a $100 bill in the machine. Elapsed time vs. profit:

ET: 7 minutes Credit balance: $114.90
ET: 20 minutes Credit balance: $128.10
ET: 12 minutes Credit balance: $220.15
ET: 22 minutes Credit balance: $229.90
ET: 35 minutes Credit balance: $241.20

You seem to be not only a gambling expert but also an investment expert. Calculate my 'ROI'. 'mossingen' can help. He talks like he's a mathematical scholar.

And, LOL@ 'standard full-time job'.

[risky biz]

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 12:43:17 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 11:35:22 AM UTC-7, popinjay wrote:
>
> > I doubt if Bill understood what Risky said, and if Bill didn't understand, then I don't have much hope that you would understand.
>
> The comprehension problem is mine??
>
> I asked him what his expected ROI on $850 would be. He responded "50%-200%". So what did he mean? Does he not understand what ROI is?? A gambler who does not understand ROI? Seriously??
>
> I asked him at least three times to explain his answer and he just kept changing the subject. Maybe you can explain it for us?
>

~ He was also having a difficult time understanding why I would not buy shares in Kamala Harris (or anyone else, for that matter) if I thought her shares were fairly priced. He doesn't seem to comprehend even the most fundamental concepts of gambling.

You seem to be completely unaware of the well-known fact that shares are always fairly priced. If you don't know, don't type. You don't want to put your money where your mouth is so let's leave it at that.

I also never mentioned 'ROI' at all, at any time. That's something you keep trying to inject.

Your basic problem is that you aren't any kind of gambler whatsoever yet you seem intent on everyone here believing that you are an experienced and well-versed gambler.

You didn't recognize the glaring difference between a stud hand and a hold'em hand and after that was excruciatingly explained to you you kept insisting that a bluff can be induced in stud when you have a 4-card straight on your board with 3 hole cards. You can't see how ridiculous that is?

Throw some more names in your attempt to demean. It impresses a lot of people, I'm sure.

[BillB]

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 2:58:42 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:

> I come back after a couple of days of not looking at RGP and you're STILL having your spastic attack over my little note about the unreliability of your predictit.com reference.
>

Stop making a fool of yourself. Predictit is not "unreliable". It is a marketplace. I've wasted enough time trying to explain that to you. It is obviously far beyond your ability to comprehend. Everyone knows the favorite does not win every time. All you were doing is wasting bandwidth.

> First of all your complete ignorance of video poker is revealed by your seeming lack of belief of the amount of wagering required for a nickel denomination. Here is a recent session in which I recorded the elapsed time and amount wagered on a three-hand nickel machine:
>
> elapsed time 5 hours 31 minutes
> hands per hour 540
> amount wagered $3,331
> amount wagered per hour $600.18
> amount wagered per minute $9
>

I had no lack of belief. I took your word for it.

> I put a $100 bill in the machine. Elapsed time vs. profit:
>
> ET: 7 minutes Credit balance: $114.90
> ET: 20 minutes Credit balance: $128.10
> ET: 12 minutes Credit balance: $220.15
> ET: 22 minutes Credit balance: $229.90
> ET: 35 minutes Credit balance: $241.20
>
> You seem to be not only a gambling expert but also an investment expert. Calculate my 'ROI'. 'mossingen' can help. He talks like he's a mathematical scholar.
>

Your expected ROI is APPROXIMATELY 0%. As I surmised, you aren't knowledgable enough about gambling to know what expected ROI means. lolol

> And, LOL@ 'standard full-time job'.

By which I meant eight hours a day, five days a week, fifty weeks per year. duh.

[BillB]

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 3:12:39 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:

> You seem to be completely unaware of the well-known fact that shares are always fairly priced. If you don't know, don't type. You don't want to put your money where your mouth is so let's leave it at that.
>

It depends what you think I m eant by fairly. I obviously meant reflecting real world probabilities.

> I also never mentioned 'ROI' at all, at any time. That's something you keep trying to inject.
>

I asked you if your expected ROI on $850 could be as high as 1%. You replied that it was 50%-200%. LOLOLOL Pure comedy. Your ignorance is truly astonishing.

> Your basic problem is that you aren't any kind of gambler whatsoever yet you seem intent on everyone here believing that you are an experienced and well-versed gambler.
>

I am a very experienced (and highly successful) gambler. But no, I do not waste my extremely valuable time on nickel video poker, if that's what you mean. lol

> You didn't recognize the glaring difference between a stud hand and a hold'em hand and after that was excruciatingly explained to you you kept insisting that a bluff can be induced in stud when you have a 4-card straight on your board with 3 hole cards. You can't see how ridiculous that is?
>
> Throw some more names in your attempt to demean. It impresses a lot of people, I'm sure.

You're dumb, but I'm certain you aren't dumb enough to think that someone who has played poker for 50 years (and tens of millions of hands) does not know the difference between stud and holdem. Stop trying to cover up your extreme embarrassment by changing the subject.

[BillB]

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 3:54:50 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:

> I asked you if your expected ROI on $850 could be as high as 1%. You replied that it was 50%-200%. LOLOLOL Pure comedy. Your ignorance is truly astonishing.
>

Let's be as precise as possible. The exact questions were:

"And what would your expected ROI be on that $850 you put through that machine? Could it be as high as 1%?"

But no, according to risky:

"Try 50-200% in 4 hours or less, numbskull"

LOLOLOL....just unbelievable stupidity. We're talking firkin-level.

[popinjay]

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 3:54:50 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:



>

> You're dumb, but I'm certain you aren't dumb enough to think that someone who has played poker for 50 years (and tens of millions of hands) does not know the difference between stud and holdem.

Yet you didn't.

[Tim Norfolk]

Pat Robertson says that the idea of a Young Earth is stupid.

[risky biz]

LOL. He's operating on the assumption that no one saw it. And no official comment on this:

'..you kept insisting that a bluff can be induced in stud when you have a 4-card straight on your board with 3 hole cards. You can't see how ridiculous that is?'

[risky biz]

You didn't have to quote it. Everyone can see in the thread that I never mentioned 'ROI'. Exactly as I said. Anyway, I gave you the raw data below. Calculate the 'ROI'. You don't know how to do that, do you?

[risky biz]

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 3:46:52 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 2:58:42 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
>
> > I come back after a couple of days of not looking at RGP and you're STILL having your spastic attack over my little note about the unreliability of your predictit.com reference.
> >
>
> Stop making a fool of yourself. Predictit is not "unreliable". It is a marketplace. I've wasted enough time trying to explain that to you. It is obviously far beyond your ability to comprehend. Everyone knows the favorite does not win every time. All you were doing is wasting bandwidth.

Uh, huh. That's why the title of your post was 'Woah (sic)...Warren rockets into lead'.

> > First of all your complete ignorance of video poker is revealed by your seeming lack of belief of the amount of wagering required for a nickel denomination. Here is a recent session in which I recorded the elapsed time and amount wagered on a three-hand nickel machine:
> >
> > elapsed time 5 hours 31 minutes
> > hands per hour 540
> > amount wagered $3,331
> > amount wagered per hour $600.18
> > amount wagered per minute $9
> >
>
> I had no lack of belief. I took your word for it.
>
> > I put a $100 bill in the machine. Elapsed time vs. profit:
> >
> > ET: 7 minutes Credit balance: $114.90
> > ET: 20 minutes Credit balance: $128.10
> > ET: 12 minutes Credit balance: $220.15
> > ET: 22 minutes Credit balance: $229.90
> > ET: 35 minutes Credit balance: $241.20
> >
> > You seem to be not only a gambling expert but also an investment expert. Calculate my 'ROI'. 'mossingen' can help. He talks like he's a mathematical scholar.
> >
>

~ Your expected ROI is APPROXIMATELY 0%. As I surmised, you aren't knowledgable enough about gambling to know what expected ROI means. lolol

Really? 0%? Show me the figures you used to calculate that. What did you use as the amount of my 'investment'? What figure did you use for the returned amount? Everyone needs your brief explanation because ROI is a calculation commonly understood only by mathematics virtuosos.🤣

> > And, LOL@ 'standard full-time job'.
>
> By which I meant eight hours a day, five days a week, fifty weeks per year. duh.

You think I play video poker 'eight hours a day, five days a week, fifty weeks per year'? What were you basing that assumption on?

BTW- do you think I should ask the staff if I can just leave my cashout voucher in the machine so my 'investment' can keep working for me while I'm otherwise occupied?🤣

[BillB]

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 7:15:01 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:

> Really? 0%?

More or less, yes.

>Show me the figures you used to calculate that.

Ask your boyfriend to explain it to you.

> What did you use as the amount of my 'investment'?

The amount you ran through the machine. duh. Seriously, are you really this fucking stupid??

What figure did you use for the returned amount? Everyone needs your brief explanation because ROI is a calculation commonly understood only by mathematics virtuosos.🤣
>

You're speaking for everyone now? I'm pretty sure you are wrong, but I don't have the time or ability to ask everyone.

> You think I play video poker 'eight hours a day, five days a week, fifty weeks per year'?

I didn't say or suggest any such thing. The more you write, the more obvious your lack of intelligence comes through loud and clear.

>What were you basing that assumption on?

My assumption of what constitutes full-time work hours? Life experience and general knowledge.

> BTW- do you think I should ask the staff if I can just leave my cashout voucher in the machine so my 'investment' can keep working for me while I'm otherwise occupied?🤣

No, I wouldn't recommend that. Another dumb question.

[risky biz]

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 7:23:37 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 7:15:01 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
>
> > Really? 0%?
>
> More or less, yes.

You don't know how to calculate ROI, do you? Either that or you want to avoid showing the calculation. I gave you all the figures.

> >Show me the figures you used to calculate that.
>
> Ask your boyfriend to explain it to you.

You don't know how to calculate ROI, do you? Either that or you want to avoid showing the calculation. I gave you all the figures.

> > What did you use as the amount of my 'investment'?
>
> The amount you ran through the machine. duh. Seriously, are you really this fucking stupid??

You don't know how to calculate ROI, do you? Either that or you want to avoid showing the calculation. I gave you all the figures.

> What figure did you use for the returned amount? Everyone needs your brief explanation because ROI is a calculation commonly understood only by mathematics virtuosos.🤣
> >
>
> You're speaking for everyone now? I'm pretty sure you are wrong, but I don't have the time or ability to ask everyone.
>
>
> > You think I play video poker 'eight hours a day, five days a week, fifty weeks per year'?
>
>
> I didn't say or suggest any such thing. The more you write, the more obvious your lack of intelligence comes through loud and clear.
>
> >What were you basing that assumption on?
>
> My assumption of what constitutes full-time work hours? Life experience and general knowledge.
>
>

~ ~ BTW- do you think I should ask the staff if I can just leave my cashout voucher in the machine so my 'investment' can keep working for me while I'm otherwise occupied?🤣

>
> No, I wouldn't recommend that. Another dumb question.

No dumber than your ROI 'answer'.

[BillB]

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 7:01:03 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:

> You didn't have to quote it. Everyone can see in the thread that I never mentioned 'ROI'.

LOL...what a goofball.

The questions asked of him were:

"And what would your expected ROI be on that $850 you put through that machine? Could it be as high as 1%?"

His answer was, "try 50%-200%"

It's amazing the backflips people will do to try to avoid admitting the obvious: that they didn't know what the fuck they were talking about.

[risky biz]

The only thing missing from your quote is any reference by me to 'ROI'.

But I gave you some figures. So show us how you calculated your preferred metric of ROI (which you apparently believe that gamblers consider crucial) from the figures I gave you. You don't want to do that, do you?

[BillB]

See how he's trying to play stupid? He was asked directly what his expected ROI was, and I was suggested that it might be as high as 1%. His response to that question was "try 50%-200%"

But he didn't type "ROI" in his answer, so it means nothing!! LOLOL!! Is this the dumbest defense ever offered in the history of RGP? It has to be. A new record! Stupid Susan has nothing on this guy!

[risky biz]

[Mossingen]

"risky biz" wrote in message
news:effbecab-a4fe-4a2a...@googlegroups.com...

>I gave you some figures. So show us how you calculated your preferred
>metric of ROI (which you apparently believe that gamblers consider crucial)
>from the figures I gave you. You don't want >to do that, do you?

Why don't you first acknowledge that you misspoke when you typed the
"50%-200%" nonsense, and then just clarify what you meant. How hard is
that? This is the kind of crap you pull all the time, playing coy, being
cute with responses, parsing words, all obfuscation instead of just
admitting a mistake or offering a clarification.

[VegasJerry]

Says the guy that refuses to reply when HIS mistakes are pointed out...

[risky biz]

On Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 11:13:05 AM UTC-7, Mossingen wrote:

There was nothing 'misspoken'. What I choose to say doesn't operate under any requirement to refer back to what he said.

It should also be obvious, especially to anyone who presents themselves as being far more versed than I in mathematics, that the abundantly evident reason what I said would NOT refer back to what he said is that his 'expected ROI' is asinine as a means of evaluating video poker. 'Expected ROI' requires a calculation of the weighted average of all possible returns which can run into millions of possible returns in video poker. Nor is ROI an NPV calculation which additionally makes his verbiage about yearly income asinine. A game of chance is not an asset in which a single investment is made.

The simple fact is that BillB threw a spurious mathematical term into the discussion to try to appear supremely knowledgeable about a subject of which he is woefully ignorant. The effort failed.

And that's without even getting into the possibility that evaluation of a video poker game from the perspective of paytable evaluation alone could be inadequate.

And not to mention that I'm freakishly lucky and have extra good karma.

[BillB]

On Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 11:53:14 AM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:

> There was nothing 'misspoken'. What I choose to say doesn't operate under any requirement to refer back to what he said.
>

OMFG...he's working soooo hard to replace firkin as RGP's town clown.

Q. "And what would your expected ROI be on that $850 you put through that machine? Could it be as high as 1%?"

A. Try 50-200%

> It should also be obvious, especially to anyone who presents themselves as being far more versed than I in mathematics, that the abundantly evident reason what I said would NOT refer back to what he said is that his 'expected ROI' is >asinine as a means of evaluating video poker.

Is that why the term "return on investment" and "video poker" appear together on over 150,000 web pages? Is that why the term "ROI" and "video poker" appear together on almost one million web pages? lol What a fucking moron. EVERYTHING in gambling is about ROI, you fucking clueless idiot.

>> 'Expected ROI' requires a calculation of the weighted average of all possible returns which can run into millions of possible returns in video poker. Nor is ROI an NPV calculation which additionally makes his verbiage about yearly income>> asinine. A game of chance is not an asset in which a single investment >>is made.
>

LMFAO...More proof he doesn't even begin to understand the concept of ROI. As if we needed it.

[popinjay]

On Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 12:32:24 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:



>
> LMFAO...More proof he doesn't even begin to understand the concept of ROI. As if we needed it.

And you have proven you haven't a clue about casino vulnerabilities.

[risky biz]

On Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 12:32:24 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> On Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 11:53:14 AM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
>
> > There was nothing 'misspoken'. What I choose to say doesn't operate under any requirement to refer back to what he said.
> >
>
> OMFG...he's working soooo hard to replace firkin as RGP's town clown.
>
> Q. "And what would your expected ROI be on that $850 you put through that machine? Could it be as high as 1%?"
>
> A. Try 50-200%
>
>
> > It should also be obvious, especially to anyone who presents themselves as being far more versed than I in mathematics, that the abundantly evident reason what I said would NOT refer back to what he said is that his 'expected ROI' is >asinine as a means of evaluating video poker.
>

~ Is that why the term "return on investment" and "video poker" appear together on over 150,000 web pages? Is that why the term "ROI" and "video poker" appear together on almost one million web pages? lol What a fucking moron. EVERYTHING in gambling is about ROI, you fucking clueless idiot.

search term: 'return on investment' 'video poker'

Uh, yeah, here's one:
'ROI is short for "return on investment." This is a poker term that is used to measure the profitability of one's play in poker tournaments. ROI is calculated as (100 * total profit/total buy-in). Thus, if one received a prize of $150 in a tournament with a buy-in of $100+$9, one's ROI is calculated as 100 * $41/$109= 37.61%.'
ROI is short for "return on investment." This is a poker term that is used to measure the profitability of one's play in poker tournaments. ROI is calculated as (100 * total profit/total buy-in). Thus, if one received a prize of $150 in a tournament with a buy-in of $100+$9, one's ROI is calculated as 100 * $41/$109= 37.61%.'

Wow. That's one sophisticated calculation. Gain or loss divided by buy-in x 100 = ROI. LOL.

But what happened to your 'that would translate to about $1.32 million/yr salary'*? Why didn't that poker term explanation explain what the tournament win would translate to on a yearly basis? Because they aren't as ignorant as you.

You've been spastic for about 4 days now over your 'predictit.com' post. Stop behaving like a numbskull. 'predictit.com' prices don't mean shit. Give it up.

The explanation above is based on actual results from a single tournament. I gave you my results from a single session at one casino and invited you to do the calculation. You ran away from it because any calculation of ROI, your supposedly sophisticated metric, would confirm the truth of what I originally said: 'Try 50-200%'. It would actually be way, way higher than what I said if calculated only on total bets at risk on either of the examples I provided. And that's by what YOU think is a whiz-bang analysis tool.

Here's a hint: those explanations you got yourself wrapped up in are for utter n00bs.

I evaluate the utility of a game, say STP DB, by the amount I'm willing to lose before pulling up if the machine turns out to be in a negative state. That would generally be 2,000 credits. On a nickel machine that's $200. In the majority of cases that never happens. I generally get a max drawdown of about $100 - $150. If I then run up to $241.20, as I did in the provided example I consider that a good return on my risk. Whether I continue to play is dependent on observational evaluations that you don't get to know.

I will sometimes purposely continue playing when I expect to lose for reasons I won't elaborate. I consider that a research investment. At some point, I will determine if my observations are reliable enough to move up to dollars and higher.

> >> 'Expected ROI' requires a calculation of the weighted average of all possible returns which can run into millions of possible returns in video poker. Nor is ROI an NPV calculation which additionally makes his verbiage about yearly income>> asinine. A game of chance is not an asset in which a single investment >>is made.
> >
>

~ LMFAO...More proof he doesn't even begin to understand the concept of ROI. As if we needed it.

You're clownishly trying to portray a penny as a silver dollar.


*https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.poker/nX4P4B6OIUw/X3uAmoe9AwAJ

[risky biz]

On Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 11:13:05 AM UTC-7, Mossingen wrote:

> "risky biz" wrote in message
> news:effbecab-a4fe-4a2a...@googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >I gave you some figures. So show us how you calculated your preferred
> >metric of ROI (which you apparently believe that gamblers consider crucial)
> >from the figures I gave you. You don't want >to do that, do you?
>
>

~ Why don't you first acknowledge that you misspoke when you typed the

> "50%-200%" nonsense, and then just clarify what you meant. How hard is
> that? This is the kind of crap you pull all the time, playing coy, being
> cute with responses, parsing words, all obfuscation instead of just
> admitting a mistake or offering a clarification.

BTW- shouldn't you be busy finding the quotes where I say or imply that the Earth is 6,000 years old as you claimed I did?

[Mossingen]

"VegasJerry" wrote in message
news:8b52efd6-0734-4312...@googlegroups.com...

>Says the guy that refuses to reply when HIS mistakes are pointed out...

Show me a list.

Knew you couldn't.

[BillB]

On Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 2:59:47 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:

> Uh, yeah, here's one:
> 'ROI is short for "return on investment." This is a poker term that is used to measure the profitability of one's play in poker tournaments. ROI is calculated as (100 * total profit/total buy-in). Thus, if one received a prize of $150 in a tournament with a buy-in of $100+$9, one's ROI is calculated as 100 * $41/$109= 37.61%.'
> ROI is short for "return on investment." This is a poker term that is used to measure the profitability of one's play in poker tournaments. ROI is calculated as (100 * total profit/total buy-in). Thus, if one received a prize of $150 in a tournament with a buy-in of $100+$9, one's ROI is calculated as 100 * $41/$109= 37.61%.'
>
> Wow. That's one sophisticated calculation.

Nobody suggested it was sophisticated. It is fundamental. That's why everyone is so shocked that you had no clue what it meant.

>Gain or loss divided by buy-in x 100 = ROI. LOL.
>
> But what happened to your 'that would translate to about $1.32 million/yr salary'*? Why didn't that poker term explanation explain what the tournament win would translate to on a yearly basis? Because they aren't as ignorant as you.
>

You are once again demonstrating you don't understand the difference between ROI and expected ROI. The above is a simple calculation of ROI for 1 poker tournament result. That is virtually useless information for calculating expected ROI. You really don't get it, do you?

Now, if you had a statistically significant number of tournaments to go on to calculate a meaningful past ROI, you could use that number as an expected ROI to figure out approximately how much you would likely have to spend in tourney entries to reach an arbitrary end goal (ex. $1.35 million/yr). Or you could go the other way and multiply your expected ROI by your annual tourney budget for a reasonable (or at least most likely) prediction of your year-end earnings.

> You've been spastic for about 4 days now over your 'predictit.com' post. Stop behaving like a numbskull. 'predictit.com' prices don't mean shit. Give it up.
>

So we're back to where we started. A full circle of idiocy! lol If market prices "don't mean shit," that is the same as saying they bear no relation to real world probabilities. If that is the case, then you should be in there exploiting the unlimited free money, rather than wasting your time and money playing for nickels on a video poker machine with an approximately 0% expected ROI.

> The explanation above is based on actual results from a single tournament. I gave you my results from a single session at one casino and invited you to do the calculation. You ran away from it because any calculation of ROI, your supposedly sophisticated metric, would confirm the truth of what I originally >said: 'Try 50-200%'.

You mean I ignored you because it was clear you had no fucking clue what you are talking about. Any third grader can calculate ROI if given all the requisite information.

>It would actually be way, way higher than what I said if calculated only on >total bets at risk on either of the examples I provided. And that's by what YOU >think is a whiz-bang analysis tool.

LOL...what?? Come again, in English this time. Your expected ROI on a video poker machine would be "way higher" than 50%-200% if...what???

NO! It will NEVER be 50-200%. Not now, not tomorrow, not in a million years. You are as confused as ever.

> Here's a hint: those explanations you got yourself wrapped up in are for utter n00bs.
>
> I evaluate the utility of a game, say STP DB, by the amount I'm willing to lose before pulling up if the machine turns out to be in a negative state. That would generally be 2,000 credits. On a nickel machine that's $200. In the majority of cases that never happens. I generally get a max drawdown of about $100 - $150. If I then run up to $241.20, as I did in the provided example I consider that a good return on my risk. Whether I continue to play is dependent on observational evaluations that you don't get to know.
>
> I will sometimes purposely continue playing when I expect to lose for reasons I won't elaborate. I consider that a research investment. At some point, I will determine if my observations are reliable enough to move up to dollars and higher.
>

There you have it folks. Those last three paragraphs are ironclad proof risky HAS NO CLUE WHATSOEVER. This level of stupidity deserves its own thread. Stay tuned.

> You're clownishly trying to portray a penny as a silver dollar.

I don't know what that means. What I am trying to do is explain extremely basic gambling principles to a very confused individual (you).

[VegasJerry]

On Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 8:14:39 PM UTC-7, Mossingen wrote:
> "VegasJerry" wrote in message
> news:8b52efd6-0734-4312...@googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >Says the guy that refuses to reply when HIS mistakes are pointed out...
>
>
> Show me a list.

So you're pretending you didn't even read them?

> Knew you couldn't.

You know I already did.

[risky biz]

On Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 9:56:22 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> On Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 2:59:47 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
>
> > Uh, yeah, here's one:
> > 'ROI is short for "return on investment." This is a poker term that is used to measure the profitability of one's play in poker tournaments. ROI is calculated as (100 * total profit/total buy-in). Thus, if one received a prize of $150 in a tournament with a buy-in of $100+$9, one's ROI is calculated as 100 * $41/$109= 37.61%.'
> > ROI is short for "return on investment." This is a poker term that is used to measure the profitability of one's play in poker tournaments. ROI is calculated as (100 * total profit/total buy-in). Thus, if one received a prize of $150 in a tournament with a buy-in of $100+$9, one's ROI is calculated as 100 * $41/$109= 37.61%.'
> >
> > Wow. That's one sophisticated calculation.
>

~ Nobody suggested it was sophisticated. It is fundamental. That's why everyone is so shocked that you had no clue what it meant.

I think it's more likely that everyone is shocked that you keep saying I had no clue what it meant in the spurious belief that repetition has confirmatory value.🤣

> >Gain or loss divided by buy-in x 100 = ROI. LOL.
> >
> > But what happened to your 'that would translate to about $1.32 million/yr salary'*? Why didn't that poker term explanation explain what the tournament win would translate to on a yearly basis? Because they aren't as ignorant as you.
> >
>

> You are once again demonstrating you don't understand the difference between ROI and expected ROI. The above is a simple calculation of ROI for 1 poker tournament result. That is virtually useless information for calculating the expected ROI. You really don't get it, do you?

And yet my video poker play is profitable every month, month in and month out. Go figure.

> Now, if you had a statistically significant number of tournaments to go on to calculate a meaningful past ROI, you could use that number as an expected ROI to figure out approximately how much you would likely have to spend in tourney entries to reach an arbitrary end goal (ex. $1.35 million/yr). Or you could go the other way and multiply your expected ROI by your annual tourney budget for a reasonable (or at least most likely) prediction of your year-end earnings.

That kind of makes sense for someone with Phil Ivey talent (like you🤣) playing against run-of-the-mill opponents and they're really confident, for some unknown reason, that the opponents they face in future tournaments will be no more challenging than the ones they faced in past tournaments.

BillB has apparently read something that told him REAL gamblers do this calculation at the beginning of every year so they'll know how much money they're going to make in the following year.🤣

> > You've been spastic for about 4 days now over your 'predictit.com' post. Stop behaving like a numbskull. 'predictit.com' prices don't mean shit. Give it up.
> >
>

~ So we're back to where we started. A full circle of idiocy! lol If market prices "don't mean shit," that is the same as saying they bear no relation to real world probabilities.

Which is exactly correct for someone who has observed large, efficient financial markets with the slightest clue what they are looking at. And 'predictit.com'? Don't make me laugh. Read the 'slightest clue' comment again to help you understand how humorous your 'full circle of idiocy' comment is.

~If that is the case, then you should be in there exploiting the unlimited free money, rather than wasting your time and money playing for nickels on a video poker machine with an approximately 0% expected ROI.

The disconnect between efficient markets and subsequent real-world results doesn't mean it's exploitable. You have not the slightest clue what you're talking about. That would be less evident if you talked less.

There is unlimited free money available in video poker and you are the one who doesn't know how to exploit it.

It's also cute how you keep referring to nickels in the belief that it's demeaning. It isn't and, in any case, I play denominations far, far higher than that. Denominations which it is likely you would fear. I haven't seen you posting any photographic evidence of your gambling as I and Paul do. That's something I'm going to stop doing. Why post that at a newsgroup inhabited by someone like you? For what purpose?

> > The explanation above is based on actual results from a single tournament. I gave you my results from a single session at one casino and invited you to do the calculation. You ran away from it because any calculation of ROI, your supposedly sophisticated metric, would confirm the truth of what I originally >said: 'Try 50-200%'.
>
> You mean I ignored you because it was clear you had no fucking clue what you are talking about. Any third grader can calculate ROI if given all the requisite information.

No. What I mean is that the example proves you are dead wrong and that my comment was more than correct and that you don't want to do the calculation because it would embarrass you.

> >It would actually be way, way higher than what I said if calculated only on >total bets at risk on either of the examples I provided. And that's by what YOU >think is a whiz-bang analysis tool.
>

~ LOL...what?? Come again, in English this time. Your expected ROI on a video poker machine would be "way higher" than 50%-200% if...what???

Your little 'expected ROI' in gambling is asinine. How many times do I have to tell you that?

> NO! It will NEVER be 50-200%. Not now, not tomorrow, not in a million years. You are as confused as ever.
>
> > Here's a hint: those explanations you got yourself wrapped up in are for utter n00bs.
> >
> > I evaluate the utility of a game, say STP DB, by the amount I'm willing to lose before pulling up if the machine turns out to be in a negative state. That would generally be 2,000 credits. On a nickel machine that's $200. In the majority of cases that never happens. I generally get a max drawdown of about $100 - $150. If I then run up to $241.20, as I did in the provided example I consider that a good return on my risk. Whether I continue to play is dependent on observational evaluations that you don't get to know.
> >
> > I will sometimes purposely continue playing when I expect to lose for reasons I won't elaborate. I consider that a research investment. At some point, I will determine if my observations are reliable enough to move up to dollars and higher.
> >
>
>
> There you have it folks. Those last three paragraphs are ironclad proof risky HAS NO CLUE WHATSOEVER. This level of stupidity deserves its own thread. Stay tuned.
>
>
> > You're clownishly trying to portray a penny as a silver dollar.
>

~ I don't know what that means. What I am trying to do is explain extremely basic gambling principles to a very confused individual (you).

And yet I make money gambling every month, month in and month out, doing it on only a part-time basis, and all you do is shoot off your mouth on a newsgroup.🤣

[Tom Slick]

On Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 11:59:47 PM UTC+2, risky biz wrote:
> On Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 12:32:24 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 11:53:14 AM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> >
> > > There was nothing 'misspoken'. What I choose to say doesn't operate under any requirement to refer back to what he said.
> > >
> >
> > OMFG...he's working soooo hard to replace firkin as RGP's town clown.
> >
> > Q. "And what would your expected ROI be on that $850 you put through that machine? Could it be as high as 1%?"
> >
> > A. Try 50-200%
> >
> >
> > > It should also be obvious, especially to anyone who presents themselves as being far more versed than I in mathematics, that the abundantly evident reason what I said would NOT refer back to what he said is that his 'expected ROI' is >asinine as a means of evaluating video poker.
> >
> ~ Is that why the term "return on investment" and "video poker" appear together on over 150,000 web pages? Is that why the term "ROI" and "video poker" appear together on almost one million web pages? lol What a fucking moron. EVERYTHING in gambling is about ROI, you fucking clueless idiot.
>
> search term: 'return on investment' 'video poker'
>
> Uh, yeah, here's one:
> 'ROI is short for "return on investment." This is a poker term that is used to measure the profitability of one's play in poker tournaments. ROI is calculated as (100 * total profit/total buy-in). Thus, if one received a prize of $150 in a tournament with a buy-in of $100+$9, one's ROI is calculated as 100 * $41/$109= 37.61%.'
> ROI is short for "return on investment." This is a poker term that is used to measure the profitability of one's play in poker tournaments. ROI is calculated as (100 * total profit/total buy-in). Thus, if one received a prize of $150 in a tournament with a buy-in of $100+$9, one's ROI is calculated as 100 * $41/$109= 37.61%.'
>
> Wow. That's one sophisticated calculation. Gain or loss divided by buy-in x 100 = ROI. LOL.
>
> But what happened to your 'that would translate to about $1.32 million/yr salary'*? Why didn't that poker term explanation explain what the tournament win would translate to on a yearly basis? Because they aren't as ignorant as you.
>
> You've been spastic for about 4 days now over your 'predictit.com' post. Stop behaving like a numbskull. 'predictit.com' prices don't mean shit. Give it up.
>
> The explanation above is based on actual results from a single tournament. I gave you my results from a single session at one casino and invited you to do the calculation. You ran away from it because any calculation of ROI, your supposedly sophisticated metric, would confirm the truth of what I originally said: 'Try 50-200%'. It would actually be way, way higher than what I said if calculated only on total bets at risk on either of the examples I provided. And that's by what YOU think is a whiz-bang analysis tool.
>
> Here's a hint: those explanations you got yourself wrapped up in are for utter n00bs.
>
> I evaluate the utility of a game, say STP DB, by the amount I'm willing to lose before pulling up if the machine turns out to be in a negative state. That would generally be 2,000 credits. On a nickel machine that's $200.

2000 credits x $.05 = $100.
Math is hard.

[risky biz]

~ 2000 credits x $.05 = $100.
> Math is hard.

I mistyped 2,000 credits when I should have typed 4,000 credits. That was obvious from the next sentence you EDITED OUT:

'In the majority of cases that never happens. I generally get a max drawdown of about $100 - $150.'

But at least it added some excitement to your soon to be blue life.

[Tom Slick]

If you can't count nickels accurately how am I supposed to follow your math later?

[da pickle]

On 8/21/2019 12:09 PM, Mossingen wrote:
> "popinjay"  wrote in message
> news:69dcb161-e009-43d2...@googlegroups.com...
>
>
> I'd have to see what he said.  First of all, the Earth is 6000 years
> old. Regarding video poker, 1% is mediocre.  2% I'd kill for.  But I've
> played video keno with an 11% edge, where I was putting through over
> $2000 coin-in per hour.  Speaking for myself, I can coast at 800 hands
> per hour on video poker.  Risky is playing a wide variety of advantage
> plays, not just standard video poker.  Risky is an all-around Machine
> Pro and Advantage Player.  I'm sure the misunderstanding is with Bill,
> because Risky knows what he's doing, and don't forget the IQ gap.  But
> don't expect Risky to let the cat out of the bag.  We need to guard our
> secrets.  Don't be jealous. Advantage play can be mundane.  Profitable,
> but mundane.  Except for the beautiful women that Risky and I attract.
> It's hard to shake them off.
>
> _________________________________
>
>
>
> You're very wise, paul.

Indeed


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com