KasinoKing's SlotBeater Strategy

[Pulver]

edit.

 

[DiamondGeezer]

was that your back up guess Pulver?

 

[Pulver]

Excuse my French - but what total bollocks!

It's nothing to do with what colour the sides are, or which side you chose to show me.
You said there are 2 chips in the bag and you pick one at random.
The chance of picking either chip IS 1 in 2.

And people say my maths is way out!

KK

Yeah, but the important thing to remember is that you are shown one side, leaving 3 sides unknown, you know that 2 of the sides are red, and 1 of the sides are green, hence the odds are 1\3. (One out of 3 unknown sides are green)

If he did not show you any of the sides before you had to choose, the odds would be 1\2.

The tricky part is that you are shown 1 side.

 

[Pulver]

There is another riddle that deals with the same concept, all I remember is that it has something to do with that gameshow with the briefcases were one of them contains a million or something. (What was the name of that show again?).

Does anyone remember that riddle?

 

[3Dice]

Excuse my French - but what total bollocks!

It's nothing to do with what colour the sides are, or which side you chose to show me.
You said there are 2 chips in the bag and you pick one at random.
The chance of picking either chip IS 1 in 2.

And people say my maths is way out!

KK

KK, at least you are proving that you honestly don't understand what is wrong with your reasoning. Once you are shown that one side you KNOW it is red. Thats an absolute given. The odds for that side to be red are ONE at that point. You have to take that into account. If I showed you a side that was green, you would say the odds are 1 that I'm holding the chip with the green right - and not 1/2 ..

This is literally a schoolbook example by the way.

 

[Jasminebed]

Enzo, the question asked was "What are the odds that I picked the chip with the green ?"

I maintain two chips in the bag, 1/2 (or 50/50) odds that you picked the chip with the green.

Had the question been "What are the odds of you guessing correctly which chip I picked" that would have been a different answer.

 

[Pulver]

** to see why, put it like this .. I have 4 sides in my bag, 3 are red and 1 is green. I show you one side. its red, what is the chance that for any of the remaining sides to be green ?. one in three. Three sides left, one is green so one in three.

The crucial factor.

 

[elscrabinda]

There is another riddle that deals with the same concept, all I remember is that it has something to do that gameshow with the briefcases were one of them contains a million or something. (What was the name of that show again?).

Does anyone remember that riddle?

I'm reluctant to bring this up, as whenever I've tried it on people it ends up with them swearing blind (and often swearing) that they are right, so goodness knows what will happen on here! (Its worth it though for the penny dropping moment that does usually occur when they realise they're wrong though)


Three boxes on a game show. One has a prize in, the other two are empty. You, the contestant, chooses one, but before it is opened to see if you win the gameshow host opens one of the other boxes that he knows to be empty (it is important to understand that the host knows where the prize is). He then gives you the choice to stick to your original guess, or to switch to the other remaining closed box. What should you do, or does it make no difference?

 

[3Dice]

Enzo, the question asked was "What are the odds that I picked the chip with the green ?"

I maintain two chips in the bag, 1/2 (or 50/50) odds that you picked the chip with the green.

Had the question been "What are the odds of you guessing correctly which chip I picked" that would have been a different answer. This makes the assumption for the one in three answer to be correct that you have the ability to choose which side to show.

How is

"what are the odds that I picked the chip with the green"

different from

"what are the odds that the backside of this chip I picked, which I have not yet shown you the backside of is the one green side from the remaining three sides you didn't see ?"

Jasmine ?

The answer is 1/3, I was very careful in how I posed the question. There is no room for discussion. The answer is 1/3.

It is however contra-intuitive, like the type of statistics that we deal with all the time in gambling.

Cheers,

Enzo

 

[3Dice]

I'm reluctant to bring this up, as whenever I've tried it on people it ends up with them swearing blind (and often swearing) that they are right, so goodness knows what will happen on here! (Its worth it though for the penny dropping moment that does usually occur when they realise they're wrong though)


Three boxes on a game show. One has a prize in, the other two are empty. You, the contestant, chooses one, but before it is opened to see if you win the gameshow host opens one of the other boxes that he knows to be empty (it is important to understand that the host knows where the prize is). He then gives you the choice to stick to your original guess, or to switch to the other remaining closed box. What should you do, or does it make no difference?

I guess I'm not allowed to answer

 

[DiamondGeezer]

The thing is Jaz, if a feature has a 1 in 100 chance of hitting, and you have just done 300 spins without it, you gotta admit you've been pretty unlucky, no?
Do another 100 and still nothing, you've been very unlucky.
Another 100, you've been very very unlucky.
And so on...

I suppose it depends on just how unlucky you think you can be!

KK

This is where conceptually you are going wrong KK!

This has no bearing on your profit expectation. Your profit expectation is the formula Enzo posted in his long post above.

It is not hitting a feature on a raised bet that determines the profitibility of your system but the bonus and WR you do.

Enzo there are a few casino's I hope you never join . I hope you are happy at 3DICE and will stay forever

 

[DiamondGeezer]

There is another riddle that deals with the same concept, all I remember is that it has something to do with that gameshow with the briefcases were one of them contains a million or something. (What was the name of that show again?).

Does anyone remember that riddle?

The Monty Hall problem.

 

[RobWin]

Enzo, the question asked was "What are the odds that I picked the chip with the green ?"

I maintain two chips in the bag, 1/2 (or 50/50) odds that you picked the chip with the green.

Had the question been "What are the odds of you guessing correctly which chip I picked" that would have been a different answer.

Jazzy, if one chip were totally green and one chip were totally red then the answer would be 1/2 or 50/50 chance...
____
____

 

[Pulver]

The Monty Hall problem.

Bang! Thank you for that DiamondGeezer :notworthy

(There is a really long wikipedia post about this problem for those interested)

 

[Jasminebed]

Okay, let's talk semantics and not math.

The odds of you picking the chip with the green side are 1/2. Your choice of the word "I show" implies that you decided which side to reveal.

I'd have to say if you "showed" the green side, the odds were 100% you picked the one with the green side. But what would be the fun in that

 

[LaHutti]

I have to disagree on the Chip quiz thing as well.
If the question was "What are the odds, that the SIDE you can't see, on the chip you're holding is green" ? odds would be 1/3 since you have 3 unknown SIDES, and it can only be one of them.
The question was "What are the odds, that you picked the CHIP with one green side" and the odds of that is obviously 1/2, since you only have 2 CHIPS to choose from.

You know my username Enzo ... LOL

 

[3Dice]

Okay, let's talk semantics and not math.

The odds of you picking the chip with the green side are 1/2. Your choice of the word "I show" implies that you decided which side to reveal.

I'd have to say if you "showed" the green side, the odds were 100% you picked the one with the green side. But what would be the fun in that

It has little to do with semantics. I don't need to have decided which side to show.

What matters is that it was red. Whether random or picked makes no difference (in this sample). I'm pulling it random, we look at it at the same time and we simply see its red. That however is information you cannot simply ignore. Before we looked chances that it was red were 3/4 but after we looked, and saw it was red, the chance for it is 1.

This is the very mistake that inspires KK's thinking and strategy. Statistics are a very peculiar field in mathematics - one can be a genius at calculus, algebra, geometry .. and be a noob at statistics. Compared to other fields of maths it is very very very contra-intuitive. You cannot trust your common sense there you have to trust the numbers and the formula's.

KK, did someone mention the bomb example here yet ? The chance to have a bomb on an airplane is one in a million, the chance to have two bombs is 1 in (million * million). So I always take a bomb on the plane. I'd have to get super-unlucky then instead of normal unlucky . Of course if you take the bomb in the plane, the chance of that is 1, and the chance of a second bomb is 1 in a million again. If you search a random plane, and you find a bomb, the chance of a second bomb is also just one in a million. Before you start searching the chance of finding a second bomb is one in a (million*million).

If the chance of having an unlucky session is 9 in 10, then before you play the chance for two unlucky sessions is 81 in 100 or 8.1 in 10. So if you lose one we call it unlucky, if you lose both we call it very unlucky.

you play one session.

9 times this is unlucky. (9/10)
1 time its lucky (1/10)

we play a new session

9 times its unlucky (9/10)
1 time its lucky (1/10)

the combined outcomes will be p1 * p2

so 9/10 * 9/10 that both are unlucky so we are very unlucky.
and 1/10 * 1/10 that both are lucky
and 1/10 * 9/10 first lucky, second unlucky
and 9/10 * 1/10 first is unlucky, second is lucky.

between the two sessions, if you lost the first one, the chance of becoming very unlucky is 9/10 AND NOT 81/100. You already have unlucky, that is certain. you need another unlucky to become very unlucky .. coming at exactly the same odds as your first unlucky.

so before you play you have 81% chance of becoming very unlucky, but after one session this chance goes either to 0 (if you won the first we cant become very unlucky anymore), or 9/10 .. if we lost the first we now have 90% chance of becoming very unlucky ( and not 81% even tho only 81% of any two consecutive sessions would be very unlucky).

Cheers,

Enzo

 

[Scooter7]

I'm enjoying this thread now. It was a little tedious before, but has turned into a good discussion. Here is what Wiki has to say about the Monty Hall Problem:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

I liked the section that takes the number of doors/boxes to 1,000,000. The scale of that example as a type of limit equation gives more clarity.


Increasing the number of doors

It may be easier to appreciate the solution by considering the same problem with 1,000,000 doors instead of just three (vos Savant 1990). In this case there are 999,999 doors with goats behind them and one door with a prize. The player picks a door. The game host then opens 999,998 of the other doors revealing 999,998 goatsimagine the host starting with the first door and going down a line of 1,000,000 doors, opening each one, skipping over only the player's door and one other door. The host then offers the player the chance to switch to the only other unopened door. On average, in 999,999 out of 1,000,000 times the other door will contain the prize, as 999,999 out of 1,000,000 times the player first picked a door with a goat. A rational player should switch. Intuitively speaking, the player should ask how likely is it, that given a million doors, he or she managed to pick the right one. The example can be used to show how the likelihood of success by switching is equal to (1 minus the likelihood of picking correctly the first time) for any given number of doors.

Stibel et al. (2008) propose working memory demand is taxed during the Monty Hall problem and that this forces people to "collapse" their choices into two equally probable options. They report that when increasing the number of options to over 7 choices (7 doors) people tend to switch more often; however most still incorrectly judge the probability of success at 50/50.

 

[KasinoKing]

Say I have a closed bag with in it two colored chips. One is red on two sides, and the other is green on one side and red on the other. I take one chip out of the bag and show you one side. You see red. What are the odds that I picked the chip with the green ?

This is the critical point, as Pulver said.

"I take one chip and show you one side" implies to me that you chose which side to show me.

I don't know what you are trying to achieve with these semantics, but I am not amused.

KK

 

[3Dice]

KK,

I'm trying to explain the flaw in your thinking. I'm not trying to offend you but to help you.

It doesn't matter if I pick or not. What matters is that you see it. You KNOW its red. that's what matters. What matters is that once you know it, its an event in the past with a probability of one.

If I chose the red side and show you the odds are 1/3
if I pick a random side and show you, and its red, the odds are still 1/3

makes no difference. the difference is showing you.

If I dont show you the odds are 1 in 2
if I show you its either 1 (if green showed, we're sure) or 1 in 3 (if red showed).

Cheers,

Enzo

 

[LaHutti]

I have to disagree on the Chip quiz thing as well.
If the question was "What are the odds, that the SIDE you can't see, on the chip you're holding is green" ? odds would be 1/3 since you have 3 unknown SIDES, and it can only be one of them.
The question was "What are the odds, that you picked the CHIP with one green side" and the odds of that is obviously 1/2, since you only have 2 CHIPS to choose from.

You know my username Enzo ... LOL

You can ignore it, but it won't go away ...lol

 

[3Dice]

Ok guys,

I'm not giving up yet ..

for those who are good in mathematics .. this may work better ..

Ai = chosing two color chip.
B = showing red.
Aj = chosing one color chip.

P(Ai after B) = P(Ai) * P(B after Ai) / ( P(Ai)*P(B after Ai) + P(Aj)*P(B after Aj) )

P(two color chip after red shown) =

P(choosing two color chip) * P(showing red if two color chip is chosen) / ( P (choosing two color chip) * P(showing red if two color chip is chosen) + P (choosing one color chip) * P(showing red if one color chip is chosen))

= 1/2 * 1/2 / ( 1/2 * 1/2 + 1/2 * 1)

= 1/2 * 1/2 / ( 3/4 )

= 1/2 * 1/2 * 4/3

= 4/12 = 1/3

 

[LaHutti]

ok Enzo....that's Russian to me, but if by math, I can make 2 coins 3, I'm done gambling, and will learn that, and do it all day

 

[3Dice]

La hutti.

two coins yes. But I didn't show you a coin. I showed a side. there are 4 sides.
3 you havent seen. 1 of those 3 sides you didn't see is green.

asking if I'm holding the two color chip is the same as asking if the side you didn't see yet is green.

the odds are NOT 1 in 2.

Cheers,

Enzo

 

[KasinoKing]

Post in haste - repent in leisure. Me that is!

I went for a shave, thought about it, and finally got it.
It's sort of a trick question due to the clever wording - and I fell for it!
(The key being it's past tense).

Before you show the side, the odds of the chip having 1 Green side are 2/4.
After showing it's red, you have removed a 1/1 chance of it being red.
Therefore 2/4 minus 1/1 = 1/3.

There is a 1 in 3 chance of the other side of the picked chip being Green.

Enzo, you are too clever for me!
Sorry for any offense.
KK

 

[love2winalot]

refund me.

Hiya. OK, I just tried KK slot method. It failed. I put .25 into the machine, and lost. Then i put in .50 and lost. Then i made the max bet of .75 and lost. I want my $2.25 back. ..............hehehe

Oh, if you say i lost less then that, i am counting on KK not being good at math, and just paying me what i said......

 

[jod5413]

Great Thread this turned out to be. Thank you, everyone.

However, Enzo, please stop! You are sounding like my mean, old algebra teacher in tenth grade! I kept saying I don't get it, he kept saying you will get it. Nope, never did. Not a good memory, ya know?

 

[3Dice]

lol jodi, he should have stopped

unless

you were trying to teach your fellow students your way.

(by all means, if not down your alley then don't read on lol - I'll continue for those who want to understand tho - I'd expect the same to be done for me).

KK,

You're getting closer, but no cigar yet. It has nothing to do with clever wording. It has everything to do with events in the past and how their odds are always 1 or 0. We call this conditional probabilities.

From your response I can tell you're getting close to that aha-erlebnis, but your numbers are all off. 2/4 - 1/1 = -2/4. To calculate the probability after you know one side is red you need Bayes' theorem like I did above.

And returning and applying this to your progressive betting strategy do you start to see that yes, 100 unlucky spins is much more unlikely than 50 unlucky spins. But after 50 unlucky spins, your odds to hit 50 more, and so 100 unlucky spins in total are the exact same odds of a new player playing 50 unlucky spins, or you playing them the first time. Upping your bet is totally useless.

Cheers,

Enzo

 

[brutaldeluxe]

I like the example done with playing cards to illustrate the point.
I spread out a 52 deck of cards and ask you to try and pick out the queen of hearts. So you take a card out and are not allowed to look at it.
I then look through the other 51 cards and show to you that 50 of them are not the queen of hearts. I have 1 card left myself.
So either the card you have is the queen of hearts, or the card I have is the queen of hearts. Which is more likely to be the queen of hearts ?


It becomes confusing when there's only three things to start off with. As soon as you add more possibilities you begin to see more clearly that you should always change your guess to increase your chances of getting it right.


I remember the example with the boxes was done on the Christamas lectures here in the UK before, interesting stuff.

 

[Jasminebed]

Upping your bet is totally useless.

Cheers,

Enzo

Shhhh Enzo, you manage a casino. Don't be telling players that, or you won't be seeing my recent play on Payola anymore

 

[vinylweatherman]

Remind me NEVER to try "advantage play" at 3Dice


Anyway, to add.

Whilst the KK method is nowhere near optimal, using the optimal strategies of max possible bet using the best bonuses is ONLY better IF THE CASINO DOESN'T VOID YOUR WINNINGS for trying it.
This would mean that every time you WIN, you get it confiscated for "bonus abuse", but when you LOSE, you don't normally get your deposit back, despite attempting the SAME strategy deemed as "abusive".

Flat betting with min bet on a low variance game, supposedly the WORST possible strategy, is ALSO considered "bonus abuse" by MANY casinos when it comes to table games, and a few even with SLOTS.

The KK strategy, whilst not optimal, does NOT set off too many of those "bonus abuse" flags, therefore he is offered MORE and BETTER bonuses, and for LONGER. This gives more time for his slim positive expectation to grow into a sizeable lifetime profit.

The party may end for him some time, as casinos get ever tighter with the rules. It already did at Intercasino, when they got rid of the regular monthlies, and replaced them with ones weighted to 25% up front, and 75% post wagering, meaning the FULL WR had to be completed to get the bonus, and it thus COULDN'T be utilised beforehand to "bust trying".

The Martingale aspect of the KK system comes into play when you get VERY, VERY UNLUCKY INDEED. I have known slots that are supposed to give bonus rounds go many SDs beyond the mean, and then give a "crap" one. That could "bust" a great deal of earlier profit, if not everything. This is the Martingale problem, there is a very low probability that you will embark on such a spectacular run of misfortune, but if you do, you are finished off completely because of the escalation of bets.

When I won so much at Spin Palace on Munchkins, I may well have used a Martingale type strategy, this time one of INCREASING bets after a bonus round, but MOSTLY, I was SPECTACULARLY LUCKY, that upon my FIRST spin at a DOUBLED bet of 67.50, I got one of those rare multiple retriggering bonus rounds. It would not have taken too many fruitless bets at 67.50 to have LOST more than the 10K I gained on that bonus round. I even tried it in "fun mode", and in the cases I tried, 10K went pretty quickly.

I also recall KK's responce to MY "strategy" for Treasure Ireland, posted ages ago one April 1st (He didn't pay too much attention to the date, did he). KK complained that he "did his ********" trying it with some of his profits, betting a STAGGERING (at the time) 2 per spin.
Funnily enough, my TI strategy was to start low, and step up a coinsize when a certain level of feature was showing, such as 50 winspins offered = move bet up a notch.
My TI strategy is probably just as useless as the KK Slotbeater one, because although it DOES work sometimes, as I have posted on "winner screenshots", it often FAILS MISERABLY, and it eventually pays a fraction of what, in total, it has taken.
Again, at 32Red I was SPECTACULARLY LUCKY, I had the HIGHLY IMPROBABLE event of SIX consecutive high paying feature rounds, the first FIVE of which paid WAY over the expected "mean" for similar selections of the same feature in the past. Since then, I have LOST on TI at 32Red, putting IN almost 4K, but getting OUT a little under 3K - and even that was a bit lucky, because the INITIAL win was boosted by a bit of "afterplay" that saw it rise another 800.

 

[LaurieJim]

Laurie's Logic to gambling

(A)Put your money in

(B)Pick your game

(C) Cross your fingers

(D) Hope like hell you hit a decent run from the start.

If (D) should fail, repeat steps (A) (B) and (C) over and over again till you get it thru your head that there is no real formula to gambling , except cashing out while your ahead of the casino and thats if you get real lucky..................laurie

 

[jetset]

Really good to see an initially unpleasant and accusatory thread turned into a truly informative and deeply interesting discussion - thanks to the mature and courteous approach of all concerned.

And kudos especially to Enzo, who has shown me a different way to perceive things mathematical!

 

[gambblex]

I don't know anybody here personally.

I'm sure KK is a great guy.Maybe I've even downloaded couple Rivals from his site.

And it was a very wise decision to lock the thread for some time.

I thought it could contain only two posts:OP's and KK's.

Actually,it's typical JHV's thread:touching upon a serious issue,I would say,sophisticated.And REALLY LONG!!!(many people could hate him only for this).

He could expect a reply in similar tone or being ignored.

If someone could explain him why he is ... and...and...in original OP's style no doubt OP would become a devoted fan of this "someone"

And here are people who could do this easily.

And typical destiny of his threads: expecting some sort of discussion he receives a bunch of direct personal insults and not much about topic of thread.

I'm not sure if posts of many of his "opponents" are perfect in meeting forum rules.

Somebody takes OP's manner of speaking as an insult I guess.

Somebody may take posting a screenshot of slot pull at $10 or higher as an insult as well,I guess.

In this case he'd chosen a fake "letter from a fan" style and it was pure LOL, ROFL and ROFLMAO to imagine a person like OP doing things he "described".

Questionable? Oh yeah,it is.Could he PM KK before? Yep.

Do the positive answers automatically eliminate the problem(s) itself?

Maybe OP is a most vicious person in the world.I don't know.Do you?

I still think that despite(or thanks to) his manner along with criticism JHV deserves a lot of thanks.

 

[paulyt]

This is one of the best threads I've ever read. Thumps up to the OP and the brilliant replies from all involved.

 

[deucebag]

From having a look at KK's results log, it seems the vast majority, if not ALL his profits, come from Ladbrokes.

Ladbrokes has a lot of lucrative bonuses with very low wagering requirements, as little as 4x bonus. With the general increase in wagering requirements over the last few years, it would be interesting to know if KK would have made any profit at all lately, were it not for Ladbrokes.

 

[BingoT]

Amen to that type of strategy
And cash out and take it home with you.

Strategy
It's Pure Luck in my eyes.
Look at all them suckers that buy books on all this crap.

Laurie's Logic to gambling

(A)Put your money in

(B)Pick your game

(C) Cross your fingers

(D) Hope like hell you hit a decent run from the start.

If (D) should fail, repeat steps (A) (B) and (C) over and over again till you get it thru your head that there is no real formula to gambling , except cashing out while your ahead of the casino and thats if you get real lucky..................laurie

 

[zanzibar]

From a long time reader but very rare poster that feels so incensed at the treatment of the OP after reading through this that I could not resist throwing in my 2c...

JHV deserves an apology from many who attacked and insulted him personally without addressing the argument even after he repeatedly asked to keep discussion on topic. I have no idea why he attracted such hate, his first post was witty and hardly over the top with insults. He did go a bit far later but I thought he showed admirable restraint in the face of a barrage of unwarranted criticism. There is obviously some history there that I am unaware of and perhaps the critics entered the discussion with preconceived points of view.

JHV is correct that the KK "strategy" is garbage, and I am surprised that there are so many keen posters/players on this board of all places who could not understand that without being given an elementary maths lesson. Kudos to 3Dice for the explanations that should not have been necessary - you have admirable patience (and tolerance)!

Frankly after seeing KK say that 2/4 - 1/1 = 1/3, I am not convinced he was joking when he said he knows 2 + 2 = 5 ! But that being the case I am convinced that KK actually believes his "system" works and is unlikely to be a cunning scheme to extract commission from the stupid.

To KK and others who believe that the probability of gambling events change over time have a read about

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

and acquaint yourself with the concept of statistical independence of events (3Dice kind of explained this to you without naming it).

On the Monty Hall problem, the most interesting thing about it is not the answer that you should always change doors due to the probability of the other door having the prize being 2/3 (its easy to understand once you do the 100 or million doors exercise like someone mentioned). The real interesting bit is that this answer is only correct if you know that the game show host is deliberately picking a door without a prize behind it, and therefore revealing information. If he randomly picks a door without knowing what is behind it and it happens to have no prize, then the odds of your original door containing the prize do in fact change to 1/2 rather than 1/3! Bizarre and maybe unintuitive but true.

So here is another problem... you're playing Deal or No Deal. There's 20 suitcases with values ranging from 1 cent to $1 million in them. You choose suitcase #1 at the start then randomly eliminate the others one at a time until you have two left: suitcase #1 and suitcase #20. You know one of them contains $1m and the other contains 1c. Which one do you choose and why?

 

[KasinoKing]

Ladbrokes has a lot of lucrative bonuses with very low wagering requirements, as little as 4x bonus. With the general increase in wagering requirements over the last few years, it would be interesting to know if KK would have made any profit at all lately, were it not for Ladbrokes.

I'm sure I wouldn't have made so much - that is certain in my eyes.
I've made profit from Lads every month for years - definitely more to do with their low WR's than any 'strategy'.

Looking back at my logs, I started playing the Ladbrokes promos every month from October 2007. Up to then in 2007 I actually made a small loss at Lads (-$22). In 2006 I only played at Lads in 5 months - and lost in one of those. But I made profit in 10 months of that year. In the whole of 2005 I made a nett loss there (only -$20), but only had one losing month in the year.
So yes you are right that recently (since Oct 07) it has had a big influence, but then again, if I wasn't playing at Lads every single day I would have loads more time to play other places, so who knows?

Back to the original subject, I have read all the posts and taken it all on board and I will look next week to see if the wording on my site could give anyone the wrong impression. If I feel that is the case then I will tweak it for clarification.
The main problem here I think was JHV (and others) were concentrating too much on just one aspect of the strategy - the progressive betting part. I agree that this in itself is not a winning formula. If it was I would be a millionaire by now! The most important parts of the strategy are the use of bonuses and 'money management'.

KK

 

[big_mac]

Frankly after seeing KK say that 2/4 - 1/1 = 1/3, I am not convinced he was joking when he said he knows 2 + 2 = 5 !

I very much doubt that they were meant as fractions.
I'm sure that he means if there are two chances of red out of four, and you have seen a red, you can take away one red (the two becomes a one), and you can take away one of the unknowns (hence the four becomes a three)

The 'system' is not really a gambling system, it is primarily a system of taking all good-value bonuses. The progressive element is fairly minor and can realistically be ignored. There are also good reasons for playing low value bets (to reduce risk) and increasing bet sizes on low balances (minimum withdrawls etc.)

Although the reasoning is flawed, the 'system' actually isn't, although I wouldn't go so far to call it a system partly because of the connotations with other gambling 'systems' when it's mostly just bonus hunting .

 

[Jufo]

Frankly after seeing KK say that 2/4 - 1/1 = 1/3, I am not convinced he was joking when he said he knows 2 + 2 = 5 ! But that being the case I am convinced that KK actually believes his "system" works and is unlikely to be a cunning scheme to extract commission from the stupid.

Or it could be double-bluff: he pretends to be clueless so that it frees him from accusations of deliberately extracting commission from the stupid.

 

[LaurieJim]

Or it could be double-bluff: he pretends to be clueless so that it frees him from accusations of deliberately extracting commission from the stupid.

I dont think thats the case for one moment, KK is in this line of biz to make a living yes, but not to take adavantage of players, its anyones right to use his system or not, just as its anyones right to download a casino, he offers what works for him, doesnt mean it will work for everyone, no one person can tell you how to beat the house, i dont care how many books you read or how high your math skills are as far as slots go, now on card skill games, i think thats a whole different ballgame and playing arena imo.

If you dont like his system, dont read it and use it, plain and simple


laurie

 

[BingoT]

I dont think thats the case for one moment, KK is in this line of biz to make a living yes, but not to take adavantage of players, its anyones right to use his system or not, just as its anyones right to download a casino, he offers what works for him, doesnt mean it will work for everyone, no one person can tell you how to beat the house, i dont care how many books you read or how high your math skills are as far as slots go, now on card skill games, i think thats a whole different ballgame and playing arena imo.

If you dont like his system, dont read it and use it, plain and simple

laurie

Laurie right on.
Did that BingoT's book on how to be a millionaire help out I know I sent you the book in the mail.
Are you living in Beverly Hills or some tropical place by now.

 

[suzecat]

I dont think thats the case for one moment, KK is in this line of biz to make a living yes, but not to take adavantage of players, its anyones right to use his system or not, just as its anyones right to download a casino, he offers what works for him, doesnt mean it will work for everyone, no one person can tell you how to beat the house, i dont care how many books you read or how high your math skills are as far as slots go, now on card skill games, i think thats a whole different ballgame and playing arena imo.

If you dont like his system, dont read it and use it, plain and simple


laurie

Yep!

As far as JHV's history is concerned, there's a load of that too. He was given promptings, then warnings, to chill out from the start of his time in this forum. He did not heed any of those and instead decided to start this thread about KK Ok, dude's a gambler and this time he lost. Guess he didn't do the math before he started this thread.

 

[KasinoKing]

Or it could be double-bluff: he pretends to be clueless so that it frees him from accusations of deliberately extracting commission from the stupid.

My SlotBeaters strategy just details the methods I have personally used for casino play since 2005.
From Jan 2005 to September 2009 is 57 months. I made profit in 50 of those months.
My average profit works out to $655 per month.

So how is telling people how I've made $655/month for over 4 years "deliberately extracting commission from the stupid"?
I don't get it.

Ever since I discovered online forums all I have ever done is try to help other players to win. The information on my websites is an extension of that. I don't proclaim to be a maths or gambling expert, and maybe I don't always give the optimum advice, but I have never and would never deliberately mis-inform anyone.

KK

 

[bryand]

I too am in favor of reinstating OP as a member of this forum based on the content of his posts. Maybe from now on, OP will try to get his point across without being so offensive. He should learn from Enzo who has the ability to tell you to your face that you're totally full of shit without offending you Seriously, i've met very few math geniuses with the ability to convey complex theories with humility and patience.

 

[KasinoKing]

I too am in favor of reinstating OP as a member of this forum based on the content of his posts. Maybe from now on, OP will try to get his point across without being so offensive. He should learn from Enzo who has the ability to tell you to your face that you're totally full of shit without offending you Seriously, i've met very few math geniuses with the ability to convey complex theories with humility and patience.

Believe it or not, despite the personal attacks & insults, I agree with that.
And just for the record, despite of what the OP posted, I never submitted any sort of complaint against him, gave him negative reps, or asked for him to be banned.
I believe everyone should be entitled to express their opinions, however, I do respect Bryan's judgment that unjustified personal insults should not be tolerated on the forum. It's his "house" and we should all respect his rules.

KK

 

[4 of a kind]

From what I gather reading all the different posts and threads throughout this forum for months, the only players that seem to always win playing online slots at this forum seem to be affiliates that promote them, along with the most unlikely and proven (for the rest of us) useless strategies.

Except for the couple affiliates that always seem to win here it would appear that everyone else is a loser, including me.

If you play online and could afford to piss your money away for some quick entertainment under the pretense of (you never know) like that lottery saying, and the expectation of being a winner like the lottery (35 million to one or whatever it is) then good for you.

For everyone else looking for a fair chance to win, not having to worry about alleged online casino bullshit maneuvers that would include percentage changes at will, bans, hopes of getting paid, etc.etc.etc..., you should save you money and travel to a real casino, where all this nonsense don't exist. I don't mean the fleabag casinos some of you posters mentioned in other threads either.

Of course this post will now be attacked with arguments of the comfort of playing in your underwear, and all the great bullshit advantages that comes with being locked up in your room.

I really don't care what KasinoKing says or anyone else when it comes to systems to beat any casino. It's all bullshit. If in fact KK is winning 8 years in a row with this bogus system then good for him. He has to be the luckiest player I ever had the pleasure to talk to in over 35 years of gambling all over the world. I certainly don't wish KK or anyone else bad luck and hope this works out for him to infinity.

But if there was any way to beat the system the system can not exist.

Like I said if you could afford to piss your money away with no care for quick entertainment online under the pretenses I mentioned above then knock yourself out and take your expected financial lumps with a smile.

But if you want to take this stuff serious and treat it like an investment for the future, may I suggest you contact Gamblers Anonymous now while your young and still have some money.

PS. I also vote to have JHV reinstated.

 

[KasinoKing]

From what I gather reading all the different posts and threads throughout this forum for months, the only players that seem to always win playing online slots at this forum seem to be affiliates that promote them...

I really don't care what KasinoKing says or anyone else when it comes to systems to beat any casino. It's all bullshit. If in fact KK is winning 8 years in a row with this bogus system then good for him. He has to be the luckiest player I ever had the pleasure to talk to in over 35 years of gambling all over the world. I certainly don't wish KK or anyone else bad luck and hope this works out for him to infinity.

Thanks!

Just for the record (again), I won from casinos for 5 straight years BEFORE I became an affiliate.
How do you explain that - am I really the luckiest player on the planet?
I hope so!
KK

 

[bryand]

Thanks!

Just for the record (again), I won from casinos for 5 straight years BEFORE I became an affiliate.
How do you explain that - am I really the luckiest player on the planet?
I hope so!
KK

With all due respect, KK, it is a fallacy to believe 2 unrelated events are correlated. There are thousands of books out there using this erroneous logic. Someone lives to be 100 years old and professes that eating popcorn every day lives to longevity - just because it was their experience. Some books claim the key to happiness is to simply believe you are happy - just because it is their experience.

Of all slot players, I would bet 5% are well ahead, 5% lost nearly every bet and 90% are somewhere in the middle. You are simply in the top 5% and erroneously believe that your strategy is the reason behind your success.