Will 98steps prevail?
Poll
 | 16 votes (39.02%) | ||
| | 3 votes (7.31%) | ||
| | 13 votes (31.7%) | ||
| | 10 votes (24.39%) | ||
| | 1 vote (2.43%) | ||
| | 3 votes (7.31%) |
41 members have voted
I'm sure many here have read the back and forth between 98steps and Michaelbluejay. The Wiz himself has waded in and a number of you have made your feelings about the whole thing known. (The thread is "Craps Strategy Investment Opportunity")
In case you haven't been enjoying the show, 98steps believes he has found a... method... that will consistently win at craps. He has gone so far as to accept the "$30,000 betting system challenge" (originally conceived by The Wiz I believe) that Michaelbluejay has on his fine site Vegasclick.com.
I have to admit, I've been watching with interest and it seems we may be near the finish line. 7craps seems to think the program is just about ready to go and then it's a just matter of 98steps and Michaelbluejay sorting out the finer details.
Without the unnecessary negative personal attacks toward 98steps (who has conducted himself in an exceptionally forthright and humble manner throughout this - the gibberish notwithstanding), if you'd like to comment on this I know I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. I think we've all beaten the "you can't beat the house at a negative EV game" angle to death; I'd just like to know what you think will be the outcome of this whole process. I apologize if I'm prolonging what should have been dead long ago but morbid curiosity has got the best of me.
Simply vote if you want or leave a comment.
I agree that the treatment of 98steps has been a little harsh, but he HAS stuck his head into the lion's mouth. It's pretty much like somebody logging onto the PETA website discussion board and asking what is the best way to prepare freshly killed baby harp seal.
Quote: clarkacalWhere can I catch up on what this bet is about?
See Craps Strategy Investment Opportunity?
Quote: mkl654321I don't think MichaelBJ will ever receive something in his hands that is empirically testable. Since any "system" that truly asserts that it can beat a -EV game must contain at least one (usually, more than one) logical fallacy, it follows that the methodology that purports to prove it must be similarly flawed.
You may misunderstand what 98steps is supposed to deliver. It isn't evidence that he can beat the challenge. It is just instructions on how it should work. If it were the Martingale he might say "Keep doubling your bet until you win or run out of money. After each win, restart at one unit. "
My prediction is that it fails the WinCraps test and 98steps declines the MB challenge.
Quote: TheNightflyHe has gone so far as to accept the "$30,000 betting system challenge" (originally conceived by The Wiz I believe) that Michaelbluejay has on his fine site Vegasclick.com.
This confuses me. If you have a system that can win the challenge, its worth a hundred times more than 30K. Thats why nobody has done it, anybody who has a winning system would never give it away for such a paltry amount.
Quote: EvenBobThis confuses me. If you have a system that can win the challenge, its worth a hundred times more than 30K. Thats why nobody has done it, anybody who has a winning system would never give it away for such a paltry amount.
I totally agree that it is worth way more than $30k. But the beauty is, I am NOT selling it at this time. I retain ownership, and victory in the challenge will only add to the value of my system when it is time to sell it.
Quote: 98stepsAlright, You all know which vote was mine.
I totally agree that it is worth way more than $30k. But the beauty is, I am NOT selling it at this time. I retain ownership, and victory in the challenge will only add to the value of my system when it is time to sell it.
You're giving it to the person running the challenge. Why do you think he's doing it? He has absolutely nothing to lose. He gets your money if you can't do it, and he gets a winning system for a lousy 30K if you win. Win/Win for him.
Quote: EvenBobYou're giving it to the person running the challenge. Why do you think he's doing it? He has absolutely nothing to lose. He gets your money if you can't do it, and he gets a winning system for a lousy 30K if you win. Win/Win for him.
Per the challenge rules, and part of the contract, is that Mr. Bluejay Promises NOT to lay ownership to, or even use the system. He gets a winning system ONLY if his word is not valid. Mr. Bluejay has given me no reason to question his integrity.
Perhaps I am naive. After all, I was raised by simple people who taught me the value of a man's word. Therefore, my belief in people and in my own assessment and judgement of people, compels me to accept that risk.
Quote: 98stepsPer the challenge rules, and part of the contract, is that Mr. Bluejay Promises NOT to lay ownership to, or even use the system. He gets a winning system ONLY if his word is not valid. Mr. Bluejay has given me no reason to question his integrity.
Perhaps I am naive. After all, I was raised by simple people who taught me the value of a man's word. Therefore, my belief in people and in my own assessment and judgement of people, compels me to accept that risk.
A secret is only a secret if you tell nobody. I wouldn't do what you're doing for a penny less than 250K, which is still chump change if you really have an unbeatable system. I trust nobody where a lot of money (or potential money) is at stake.
O_o
No offence 98 steps, but you seem pretty gullible to me. 10 minutes of fame is worth nothing. Tomorrow you are just part of history.
Of course all this is assuming that you actually have something worthwhile.
Quote: JerryLoganThe whole argument behind "you can't beat a -EV casino game" is flawed right from the start. Of course you can, if you don't fall into the casino trap of going into the long term in order to do it. Most vp games these days are -EV, and I walk out of many a hotel with a small profit. My problem is I'm caught up into that long term rut and they always get it back plus some.
That's not what "beat" means as people use it to describe systems. "Beat" doesn't mean getting lucky and having a result above the expected negative result - it means changing the expected result so that if you get it, you're ahead of the casino.
When done properly, VP can be a +EV game. There are some VP games that are +EV by themselves (e.g. Deuces) but more frequently it requires taking comp dollars into account. The practical effect of that is playing VP for basically free and getting discounted or free meals to boot. Not bad, but you won't get rich from free meals. It's getting rich that the "beat the casino with my system" crowd is selling, and that's the part that's hogwash.
Quote: JerryLoganThe whole argument behind "you can't beat a -EV casino game" is flawed right from the start. Of course you can, if you don't fall into the casino trap of going into the long term in order to do it. Most vp games these days are -EV, and I walk out of many a hotel with a small profit. My problem is I'm caught up into that long term rut and they always get it back plus some.
Yeah, I agree. Sometimes it works that way for me, too, taking the small hits. But then, the odds don't know that I took a break in between sessions. What I find happening is that I'll cash out some small wins, then I'll have a series of sessions where I basically do a bankroll dump, with one or no wins, that sets the real world numbers back to what they are predicted to be. I had a nice 3 Card hit and cashed it out; the next two sessions I dumped $400 each time, without getting even a pair. $400 was my stop limit, but thing is, I hit it hard and fast. That grabbed 2/3 of my hit from 2 weeks earlier.
The best I've done is when I got a nice hit, and instead of putting it back in the casino budget I went out and bought a new lens for my camera. That way I had something to show for my win, instead of winning money that I could use to gamble I won a lens that I would have never bought otherwise. Tangible goods!
Remember guys, the thread was started looking for investors. If 98steps does have a winning idea (and of course I doubt he does) this isn't the sort of thing a venture capitalist is likely to set up a meeting to inquire about.
Quote: MathExtremistThat's not what "beat" means as people use it to describe systems. "Beat" doesn't mean getting lucky and having a result above the expected negative result - it means changing the expected result so that if you get it, you're ahead of the casino.
When done properly, VP can be a +EV game. There are some VP games that are +EV by themselves (e.g. Deuces) but more frequently it requires taking comp dollars into account. The practical effect of that is playing VP for basically free and getting discounted or free meals to boot. Not bad, but you won't get rich from free meals. It's getting rich that the "beat the casino with my system" crowd is selling, and that's the part that's hogwash.
Second para. first: I'm a hard core vp player and I understand the concept of +EV positive games and all that. I also know how advantage players use comps and slot club benefits as a prop for their + part. Some may and some may not be "eating for free" but the amount of time they spend seems hardly worth it, and I'm not really buying into those who've made a name for themselves by selling optimal strategy while portraying themselves as winners.
Your 1st para. is what intrigues me more. I'm sure there's plenty of players who've experienced some luck and can't lose overall because of it. It happens, although not that often for the casinos' sake. Along with that, those who sell the "beat the casino with my system and get rich" schemes that have no basis in math is beyond hogwash because it can and does hurt those who are not yet astute enough to see the difference.
I don't follow all the casino games/names/purported "systems" that much and I'm learning alot more about that by reading this forum, but I do keep a keen eye on the video poker crowd. There's a controversial guy who I believe the Wizard interviewed, Singer, who says he has won a high 6-figure take over the last decade WITHOUT the use of slot club add-ons etc., his system is grounded in math but only 95% of the time because of some deviation plays he makes based on risk analyses he's done, he plays as little as he has to in order to reach his preset win (or loss) goals, he says he's learned how to walk away when most of us just cannot, he openly admits that luck plays the most important part of his strategy and he does give it plenty of opportunity to appear, and what is the most impressive point I see in him: he doesn't sell his strategy, videos, strategy cards, or charge anyone a fee for training sessions, meets, or advice. So he's not selling a system and he seems to be an anamoly to the gambling community in more ways than one. As a saide note, I've tried to play as he teaches and while I have the proper bankroll, I don't have the discipline not even close. To me it seems impossible to do as he does and maybe it's a one in a million shot?
Quote: 7crapsAnd cant lose after a lifetime of play.
Most experts claim no one can beat the house edge in the long run and that is the truth as the long run meaning infinity.
Since NO player EVER could play in the long run...
But many people take that as meaning no player can ever "come out ahead" in the long run.
That is wrong to think that way.
But many people that start gambling at age 21 and die at age 85 can and do show a lifetime profit from gambling.
Of curse it also depends on how often and how much they gamble. Normal life's variables.
It is a small percentage, but still a real percentage and enough people that it takes to fill all the pro football stadiums can die thinking they "beat the casino" to their graves.
We can argue with them on their death bed that if they played longer they would eventually lose, but in the end, they were the winners.
After running simulations for 98step's system, without giving out exact data, I can see there does exist a probability greater than 0 that he can win his Craps challenge.
His complete system still has to be verified as correctly programmed and any corrections to be made before he does accept the challenge.
I would wager my 2 cents that after 98 sees the final results from my sims or other programmer sims, that have yet to happen- but coming sooner than later,
he will accept the challenge as long as he has data showing a probability greater than 0 has been accomplished to win the challenge.
The plot thickens. Someone should put start a book for "honor" units on the outcome.
Quote: JerryLoganThe whole argument behind "you can't beat a -EV casino game" is flawed right from the start. Of course you can, if you don't fall into the casino trap of going into the long term in order to do it.
I think I agree with you.
This craps challenge by 98steps seems to have a billion resolved wagers as the test limit goes but they can happen in many, many sessions as my understanding from the posts. I wonder how may sessions 98 plans on using?
Maybe 98steps has found a way to beat the challenge with the rules agreed upon, but not the casinos since actual play may take more than a lifetime of play to show profits.
I voted for the challenge to take place, I be rooting 4u 98, but I think you will come up short.
And what happens if he can last 1,2,3 million sessions before he cant get out of the hole, and fails the challenge, but sells his idea as did the Wizards blackjck challenger who showed a profit up to 200,000 hands did.
I think we all agree this should have died days ago, but there is something tugging at me to see it end with a challenge.
I agree, but should one who purely sticks to the math ever expect to outgun the casinos, who LIVE by the math, over any amount of time or play, without a good dose of luck?
Also, I believe you were referencing the fellow whom I brought up and his method as best as I understand it. In it I did say that he abides by the math around 95% of the time. So he is not gambling without math. All guessing aside, my sense says that by his altering of some of the plays some of the time according to his analysis, where he gives himself the best opportunity to hit the larger winners every so often, he just may be onto a "system" that can turn the -EV games positive, at least for the time that he's actually playing them.
Quote: JerryLoganThe whole argument behind "you can't beat a -EV casino game" is flawed right from the start. Of course you can, if you don't fall into the casino trap of going into the long term in order to do it. Most vp games these days are -EV, and I walk out of many a hotel with a small profit. My problem is I'm caught up into that long term rut and they always get it back plus some.
The above can be summarized as "the Rob Singer argument". (If you don't know who he is, do some Google searches and enjoy reading some of the most dissembling, fraudulent, delusional, and illogical ravings out there today. It's sort of like an enema for the mind.) Roulette can't be beaten. Nonetheless, I could waltz into a casino, plunk down $5000 on "red", win, and then snatch up my winnings and run out of the casino. I could then publish a book about "How I Beat the Casino". But would I have "beaten" the game? Obviously not (though some of the more obtuse would agree that I had). The definition of having "beaten" a game would therefore have to be, "having established a long-term and sustainable advantage". A competent card counter can "beat" the game of blackjack, but nobody can "beat" roulette.
Quote: JerryLogan"gambling without math is crap!"
I agree, but should one who purely sticks to the math ever expect to outgun the casinos, who LIVE by the math, over any amount of time or play, without a good dose of luck?
Also, I believe you were referencing the fellow whom I brought up and his method as best as I understand it. In it I did say that he abides by the math around 95% of the time. So he is not gambling without math. All guessing aside, my sense says that by his altering of some of the plays some of the time according to his analysis, where he gives himself the best opportunity to hit the larger winners every so often, he just may be onto a "system" that can turn the -EV games positive, at least for the time that he's actually playing them.
You can't turn a -EV game for 'the time you are playing it'. The game is either positive or negative expectation. You can live on the upside of the probabilty distribution, and sometime for far longer than you'd expect (I posted elsewhere that a craps player could have up to a 25% chance of being above the water after 40 years play).
This doesn't stop it being an -EV game, and there is the flip side... the losses can be large too! Thats what happens when you spread out the standard deviation from the EV... (the same craps player could be much further in the hole than expected by the EV after 40 years).
Quote: mkl654321The above can be summarized as "the Rob Singer argument". (If you don't know who he is, do some Google searches and enjoy reading some of the most dissembling, fraudulent, delusional, and illogical ravings out there today. It's sort of like an enema for the mind.)
If I understand you right, what you're saying is there's no such thing as anyone who doesn't play enough as to theoretically get into the long term, is that correct? I was under the impression that the casinos win overall because it is they who have a stronghold on the long run once they lump everyone's play together. It's a fact that anyone "having established a long term and sustainable advantage" has not beaten anything unless they have made a monetary profit and not a theoretical one.
You have your opinion about RS and mine isn't exactly the same after having read much of what he's written for years. I can see how disagreeing with someone would lead to 3 of your descriptions, but exactly how is he "fraudulent"? By the way, for many gamblers especially us vp players, enemas for the mind aren't a totally bad idea.
Quote: 98steps
Perhaps I am naive.
Or perhaps you have an ulterior motive. Time will tell.
Quote: JerryLoganIt's a fact that anyone "having established a long term and sustainable advantage" has not beaten anything unless they have made a monetary profit and not a theoretical one.
You have your opinion about RS and mine isn't exactly the same after having read much of what he's written for years. I can see how disagreeing with someone would lead to 3 of your descriptions, but exactly how is he "fraudulent"? By the way, for many gamblers especially us vp players, enemas for the mind aren't a totally bad idea.
He's a fraud because he says he NEVER LOSES. That is total horsecrap.
Short term results are insufficient to prove anything one way or another. A person has not "beaten the game" because he happens to have won. However, someone can "beat the game" without placing a single bet, if he has figured out a true and reliable method to obtain an advantage. So what matters is the theoretical advantage, not short-term profit.
In other words, in the short term, results don't matter. The guy whose ticket is drawn hasn't "beaten the lottery".
Quote: mkl654321He's a fraud because he says he NEVER LOSES. That is total horsecrap.
Short term results are insufficient to prove anything one way or another. A person has not "beaten the game" because he happens to have won. However, someone can "beat the game" without placing a single bet, if he has figured out a true and reliable method to obtain an advantage. So what matters is the theoretical advantage, not short-term profit.
In other words, in the short term, results don't matter. The guy whose ticket is drawn hasn't "beaten the lottery".
If I go to LV and gamble 4 times a year or even 10 times, you'd better believe the short term matters to me. In fact, each trip is one event period and if I don't win then I've failed. I really don't care what my lifetime results add up to because when I play in my 30's, winning a few thousand might mean a lot more than winning ten thousand in my 70's. If I win on a visit then I've beaten the game; if not then the game bested me.
Your 2nd para. is so odd one might be persuaded to believe you did it for a rise. Singer regularly mocks advantage players who claim to walk away with "phantom bucks" of some absurd amount just because they put X amount of dollars through a machine where they had a 1.75% "edge" or whatever. He says the only important aspect of gambling is whether you win money or not, and not how much "advantage" a player has. I happen to agree with that. If I take a bi-monthly trip to LV and come home with $1300 more than I left the house with, I have beaten that -EV game. But according to what I think you're trying to say, I didn't win a thing and actually LOST money because I wasn't playing with an advantage!
I beg to differ with your first statement. If anyone said they never lose I'd agree with you. I've looked all over his website and through his articles, and I can find nowhere where he states he does not lose. In fact, he has a report of play link that shows how often he's won and lost. It's right there in black & white. By the way, have you EVER seen or read about one of the other math names in video poker say they've lost, without adding in "but a few days later I won it all back and more" at the end?
Quote: JerryLogan
Your 2nd para. is so odd one might be persuaded to believe you did it for a rise.
What MKL is saying is that if you've beaten the game and can prove it on paper, with math, you've beaten the game. You don't have to run to the casino to 'prove it.' Conversely, if you go to the casino and win, you haven't beaten the game unless you can prove you can do it over and over and over on paper, or for real. Just because I hit the target a few times, that doesn't make me a marksman.
Quote: EvenBobYou're giving it to the person running the challenge. Why do you think he's doing it? He has absolutely nothing to lose. He gets your money if you can't do it, and he gets a winning system for a lousy 30K if you win. Win/Win for him.
Then why is Blackjack still in most all casinos if it can be beaten?
because they have done a good job on changing the rules because of the card counters.
Blackjack can be at times a +EV game, but not all the time. It is even +EV for players that do not count, but they do not know what to do at those times.
The experts have a proven system in card counting. No expert denies that. All players know that blackjack can be beat with card counting, if you can get away with it before being asked to flat bet or leave.
But for one to be successful at blackjack requires a large starting bankroll, the discipline and the knowledge of playing a perfect system plan and the proper amount of time to play. And for most, those requirements are too hard to do. Most would rather play slots instead.
Now...
Getting back to the thread, and for those who hijack threads knowingly or not, it is much easier to just start one yourself.
I voted that the challenge will take place but 98steps will fail in his attempt. Maybe he can do a best out of 3!
I have assisted 98steps along with 7Craps working only to program the system to be able to run computer simulations. So, I know what it is all about, but you will not find me running to a Craps table. It takes a good amount of proper effort and discipline again to play any system that can win at times.
Since ALL craps bets carry either a 0% house edge OR lower, it make the game a -EV game. The only way to win in the short or long run,(not infinity) is to increase your win rate. And there are many ways for that to be accomplished.
98steps has actual data from live Craps tables he has played at and his data shows a 95% win rate.
You can read more if you wish in his thread.
I personally think he has a slight chance to win the challenge, but using his system in a casino my prove to be the ultimate challenge for the rest of us.
We may say, ah, yes it can make money, but it is too hard to keep track of every bet I make so I will go do something else. and a high starting bankroll ( relative to a $100 buy in that is) would also eliminate most from the attempt.
good luck 98steps.
FYI>I have been to Spain and back and leaving to go back again.
Quote: nope27Since ALL craps bets carry either a 0% house edge OR lower, it make the game a -EV game. The only way to win in the short or long run,(not infinity) is to increase your win rate. And there are many ways for that to be accomplished.
98steps has actual data from live Craps tables he has played at and his data shows a 95% win rate.
You can read more if you wish in his thread..
Win RATE is meaningless. If I win $1 99% of the time but lose $1000 the other 1% of the time, I have a "99% WIN RATE!!!!!". I will also soon be broke.
All martingales, D'Bozos, or other such systems distort results by paying undue attention to the win rate. They fool the unwary by pointing out how OFTEN the systems win. And indeed, using any kind of progression system you can dig up, you WILL win the majority of the time. The catch, of course, is that your losing sessions, while rare, will be horrendous; your winning sessions, though frequent, will be trivial.
High win-rate betting progression systems are like Russian Roulette. Most of the time, the hammer falls on an empty chamber, and you "WIN".
Quote: EvenBobWhat MKL is saying is that if you've beaten the game and can prove it on paper, with math, you've beaten the game. You don't have to run to the casino to 'prove it.' Conversely, if you go to the casino and win, you haven't beaten the game unless you can prove you can do it over and over and over on paper, or for real. Just because I hit the target a few times, that doesn't make me a marksman.
So the point is, a player can go to a casino and win, but if he cannot prove it on paper then he hasn't really "beaten" the game; or, you can say you've beaten a game if you can prove it mathematically over & over again on paper--there's no need to play that game for real in order to make that claim.
Isn't that what advantage players claim all the time because they only play when they have a mathematical edge? I believe that's what you're saying, correct?
Now let's go to Singer. On his website (and these numbers are taken directly from there) he writes that he has played a total of 427 sessions and is 353-74, with an overall profit of about $985k. He doesn't say on the stats page but I believe this covers around 10 years, and he does not add slot club benefits into that number. But because he tells that he plays mostly -EV games and says he plays about 95% optimally because of certain plays he deviates from purposely, there's no way he could possibly PROVE that he's got a winning strategy mathematically (or at least it seems to appear as such) so he has not really "beaten" the game, right? Actual winning does not equal "beating".
I think I'm understanding this, but my head is spinning.
Quote: JerryLoganActual winning does not equal "beating".
I think, 985k over ten years would make a pretty good argument ... if he had anything besides his word to prove it. Words are not proof.
Quote: weaselmanI think, 985k over ten years would make a pretty good argument ... if he had anything besides his word to prove it. Words are not proof.
Well of course, but how does one prove such a thing? However, as vp players we're asked to sit back and believe celebrities like Jean Scott and Robert Dancer whenever they make claims of beating the machines year after year without question, or else you will get raked over the coals on places such as vpfree etc. I would tend to more believe someone like Singer for the simple fact that, unlike the others, he does not charge anyone for his time and he does not have a product line of items for sale. A prudent person should have trouble believing those who SAY they only play when there's an advantage (if they really do, which is doubtful right off the bat) and therefore, they MUST WIN, as being proof that they absolutely DO win.
And I'm as greedy as the next guy, I love the comps, cashback and freeplay and all that. But to include that stuff as a part of your winnings or to offset your losses? I pile up the miles (points) on my airline cards and at times we take free trips. But the tickets I do pay for cost exactly the same, and those free trips are only taken because the points are there. I am not reducing my expense account by the theoretical value of my points, and I am not coming home from LV telling people I lost $1200 when in reality I lost $1600 either.
Just my take.
Quote: JerryLoganhow does one prove such a thing?
He could start with his 1040's. After all, all gambling winning are legally required to be reported on the individual's tax return.
1. Bet 1 million dollars on the pass line. If it wins then bet 5 dollars on the pass line until you are even. If you drop below even repeat.
2. If you lose original bet "martingale' it until you are up 1 million dollars. Then go to step one.
Since as best i can tell there is no upper bankroll limit I can see this system being possibly (likely) ahead after 1 billion rolls, while, of course, having no chance with infinity rolls.
By the way, I am willing to sell my system for one starbucks double latte mocha frappucuno.
Quote: JerryLoganWell of course, but how does one prove such a thing?
Well, one way would be to participate in a controlled experiment, like MichaelBluejay's challenge where the profit can be demonstrated (I know, VP is not included into his challenge, but that's a technical problem. I could volunteer to write a simulation program for a reasonable fee (nothing to mention, compared to $985k) if there was a need for example).
Another way is to offer a theoretical proof that your system turns the game into +EV.
Finally, like another poster suggested, he could publish his tax returns. Consistently hiding ~100k of income from IRS year after year, bragging about it all over the internet and getting away with it sounds even less likely than actually making that money on a -EV game :)
Quote:However, as vp players we're asked to sit back and believe celebrities like Jean Scott and Robert Dancer whenever they make claims of beating the machines year after year without question, or else you will get raked over the coals on places such as vpfree etc.
I don't know who these people are, and what claims we are "asked" to believe. When I am "asked" to believe a claim like this, I either believe it or not based on the facts being claimed, not who makes it (I mean, the person's credibility does come in at some point, but it's not the decisive factor).
Quote:A prudent person should have trouble believing those who SAY they only play when there's an advantage (if they really do, which is doubtful right off the bat) and therefore, they MUST WIN, as being proof that they absolutely DO win.
I don't actually care if they win or lose. It's their money. The question to be asked is how likely it is that I will win if I follow their strategy, and if following their strategy makes it more or less likely compared to some other strategy. As to their actual winnings ... I honestly don't see any reason for me to care about that.
Quote: SanchoPanzaHe could start with his 1040's. After all, all gambling winning are legally required to be reported on the individual's tax return.
That makes sense. But if you're not a vp player who follows this stuff then you might not know the rest of this.
I've seen the tax return point argued on the forums lots of times and it always ends up going nowhere. The guy has offered to show them but then someone comes on and says he could be producing revised ones just for this purpose so what good would that do. I don't think any of those guys want to trust each other.
Quote: weaselmanWhen I am "asked" to believe a claim like this, I either believe it or not based on the facts being claimed, not who makes it (I mean, the person's credibility does come in at some point, but it's not the decisive factor).
In the case of the video poker figure, he has a long history of unanswered questions and inspired not only heated arguments in other arenas at other times, but also a web site devoted to debunking him. VP forums reined him in eventually, along with mere mentions of his name.
Quote: JerryLogansomeone comes on and says he could be producing revised ones
Presenting fake returns in public would probably get some attention at the I.R.S. And a paid preparer's certification would add to the legitimacy. If he reports, say, $100,000 in gambling revenues, he must be reporting some sort of significant losses (expenses, or whatever). Much of this just doesn't pass the smell test.
Quote: SanchoPanzaPresenting fake returns in public would probably get some attention at the I.R.S. And a paid preparer's certification would add to the legitimacy. If he reports, say, $100,000 in gambling revenues, he must be reporting some sort of significant losses (expenses, or whatever). Much of this just doesn't pass the smell test.
Since these last few posts have "hijacked" this thread about 98steps challenge,
since members want to talk about video poker and Rob singer, please start a new thread to continue your discussions.
It is a very difficult thing to read a thread with 2 totally different topics woven within.
I and, I am sure, The Wizard would agree on that point.
Quote: SanchoPanzaPresenting fake returns in public would probably get some attention at the I.R.S. And a paid preparer's certification would add to the legitimacy. If he reports, say, $100,000 in gambling revenues, he must be reporting some sort of significant losses (expenses, or whatever). Much of this just doesn't pass the smell test.
Not sure how the returns would get out to the general public. I also wouldn't expect the IRS to bother with anything outside of their realm.
Singer has said he files as a professional gambler and he files his own returns. His winnings are posted as NET, not GROSS. Schedule C does take into account revenue, losses and expenses because I used to file one when I had a small business.
From my own returns as a casual gambler, I can attest to the fact that with $600,000 in W2G's one year, I had at least that much in losses to write off against it.
I found something that is interesting to me and may shed more light on his claims. He was a writer for Gaming Today for a while and I remember reading this about 5 years ago. He actually offerred to produce tax returns to some sports bettor named Fezik? and Anthony Curtis in a large wager. But it didn't stop there. He also offerred to produce corresponding IRS audits & conference calls to prove validity, along with his gambling log and, even more intriguing to me anyway, a password protected review of his corresponding bank withdrawals just prior to going to Nevada for his sessions, as well as his re-deposits immediately upon returning to Arizona (which I assume must have been bigger much of the time by the amount he claimed as winnings on his log if he won so often). I also recall that if there was still doubt for whatever reason, he'd pay for a state arbitrator to come in and make a final and binding decision. To me this is strong stuff but the bet never materialized, I think because of the amount or something.
Edited: I just read the post about not continuing this here and I agree. My apologies.
Quote: JerryLoganWell of course, but how does one prove such a thing? However, as vp players we're asked to sit back and believe celebrities like Jean Scott and Robert Dancer whenever they make claims of beating the machines year after year without question, or else you will get raked over the coals on places such as vpfree etc. I would tend to more believe someone like Singer for the simple fact that, unlike the others, he does not charge anyone for his time and he does not have a product line of items for sale. A prudent person should have trouble believing those who SAY they only play when there's an advantage (if they really do, which is doubtful right off the bat) and therefore, they MUST WIN, as being proof that they absolutely DO win.
And I'm as greedy as the next guy, I love the comps, cashback and freeplay and all that. But to include that stuff as a part of your winnings or to offset your losses? I pile up the miles (points) on my airline cards and at times we take free trips. But the tickets I do pay for cost exactly the same, and those free trips are only taken because the points are there. I am not reducing my expense account by the theoretical value of my points, and I am not coming home from LV telling people I lost $1200 when in reality I lost $1600 either.
Just my take.
You're showing a fundamental misunderstanding of how this all works.
Jean Scott and Bob Dancer sell books, but they also offer a lot of information for free. What makes them legitimate in my eyes is that Dancer posts a number of pretty rigorous analyses of various VP games/strategies/promotions (on casinogaming.com) and Scott has a blog on lasvegasadvisor.com that offers some very useful advice. They both obviously put a LOT of effort into being winners, though their chosen methods are different (Dancer: math, PERFECT play; Scott: expert play + comps and promos).
No one (except Singer) who says that they play at an advantage also says that they always win. In fact, an expert VP player knows that he will lose about 60% of the time. What makes the whole thing profitable is that the winning sessions are greater in magnitude than the losing sessions.
Comps are worth whatever you would have otherwise paid for what you get with the comp. If I get a room comp, it's worth to me exactly what I would have been willing to pay for the room in the absence of the comp. If I get a comp for a $25 buffet, but I would only have been willing to pay $18, that comp is worth $18. Free play, however, is worth very close to its face value, because I can run it through a machine and turn it into cash. I will pay the house advantage while doing that, but if I play VP, that will be less than 1%. So comps and free play, though properly valued at somewhat less than face value, are a legitmate part of a player's total return.
Singer is much less believable than Scott, Dancer et al because his reported win frequency is ridiculously unrealistic. He also refuses to show his methodology, which destroys his credibility. Of course, he has a reason for doing that--his methodology could no doubt be easily refuted. Bleating "I always win, I always win" is no substitute for a demonstrated, effective method.
Quote: mkl654321Win RATE is meaningless. If I win $1 99% of the time but lose $1000 the other 1% of the time, I have a "99% WIN RATE!!!!!". I will also soon be broke.
All martingales, D'Bozos, or other such systems distort results by paying undue attention to the win rate. They fool the unwary by pointing out how OFTEN the systems win. And indeed, using any kind of progression system you can dig up, you WILL win the majority of the time. The catch, of course, is that your losing sessions, while rare, will be horrendous; your winning sessions, though frequent, will be trivial.
High win-rate betting progression systems are like Russian Roulette. Most of the time, the hammer falls on an empty chamber, and you "WIN".
I agree that the 99% Win Rate alone is absolutely meaningless. Win Rate only becomes valuable if the Ratio of Winnings to Losses is sufficient to offset the horrendous loss and still show a large enough NET PROFIT to justify/compensate you for the time invested.
Quote: mkl654321You're showing a fundamental misunderstanding of how this all works.
Jean Scott and Bob Dancer sell books, but they also offer a lot of information for free. What makes them legitimate in my eyes is that Dancer posts a number of pretty rigorous analyses of various VP games/strategies/promotions (on casinogaming.com) and Scott has a blog on lasvegasadvisor.com that offers some very useful advice. They both obviously put a LOT of effort into being winners, though their chosen methods are different (Dancer: math, PERFECT play; Scott: expert play + comps and promos).
No one (except Singer) who says that they play at an advantage also says that they always win. In fact, an expert VP player knows that he will lose about 60% of the time. What makes the whole thing profitable is that the winning sessions are greater in magnitude than the losing sessions.
Comps are worth whatever you would have otherwise paid for what you get with the comp. If I get a room comp, it's worth to me exactly what I would have been willing to pay for the room in the absence of the comp. If I get a comp for a $25 buffet, but I would only have been willing to pay $18, that comp is worth $18. Free play, however, is worth very close to its face value, because I can run it through a machine and turn it into cash. I will pay the house advantage while doing that, but if I play VP, that will be less than 1%. So comps and free play, though properly valued at somewhat less than face value, are a legitmate part of a player's total return.
Singer is much less believable than Scott, Dancer et al because his reported win frequency is ridiculously unrealistic. He also refuses to show his methodology, which destroys his credibility. Of course, he has a reason for doing that--his methodology could no doubt be easily refuted. Bleating "I always win, I always win" is no substitute for a demonstrated, effective method.
How this all works is very, very clear, and I am completely open-minded about it because I don't play either method.
Mr. Dancer is about one thing and one thing only: hmself and how he can make enough money to keep on playing. He still works, and he does nothing for free. His information dissemination is via paid-for columns, being paid by casinos (now that's a good one) to teach how he says will make you a winner, and through his video poker product line of items. Ms. Scott and her frugal comps and advice etc. etc., to me is a joke. The only info she's ever provided is what's either readily available just about anywhere else, or via the common sense method. But these two do have something in common. They are the only two players on the face of the earth who can constantly write about where they won, how much they won, and how many benefits they collected in the process, and then tell about doing the same thing over and over again at the same casinos for years on end. The verdict? Either humbled casinos just love to keep on handing out money and gifts to the same people while the whole gambling world watches....or these two are full of it.
I agree Singer has a sky high reported win rate, but if you read my other post he's also given the opportunity to others to see proof if they really wanted it. I'd have to see it to believe it, yes, but that doesn't mean it's not true. He also says and does a lot of things that the others can't or won't do with and for the players and himself, and most of it has to do with spending money. If he weren't winning and those others were, HE'd be the one working and not Dancer. Bottom line: How can anyone believe someone who says they win millions yet charges for everything they do? Or, how can anyone NOT believe someone who offers up all that stuff at no charge and at the same time, in my mind, is far more in touch with the everyday player?
Quote: JerryLoganI agree Singer has a sky high reported win rate, but if you read my other post he's also given the opportunity to others to see proof if they really wanted it.
When I met Rob Singer I broached this subject. As I recall, he said his evidence was mostly in the form of bank withdrawals and deposits before and after casino trips. That would not be very convincing, because how would I know the reason the deposits are more, other than his word? Since you seem such a big fan, and I don't dismiss the possibility that you ARE Rob Singer, please let it be known I'd like to see what he's got. I don't want to make any wager on it, which I think he has held out as a condition in the past. Whatever he shows me I will fairly report back on.
Quote: JerryLoganOr, how can anyone NOT believe someone who offers up all that stuff at no charge and at the same time, in my mind, is far more in touch with the everyday player?
How? Very easily. First of all, I've played VP at a professional level for many years, and I know for a certainty that it is impossible to win at the rates he represents. Second of all, what "stuff" has he "offered up" that is of any use? He won't even explicate his own "system" (or whatever he calls it), not even after repeated requests. So he offers nonsense for free. Why does that make what he's offering any less nonsensical?
Re Dancer: I don't actually like the man, and I think that some of his tactics in unrelentingly pursuing his goal of maximizing his winnings have been ethically questionable. But there's no denying his rigorous efforts in analyzing and beating VP. I paid $10 for one of his strategy reports, and it was money well spent. It was a VERY thorough and deep analysis. It took quite a lot of effort to understand everything he was saying, but it was ultimately worth the trouble.
Bottom line: you want to work and apply yourself at VP, you take the time (and spend the money) to buy or otherwise obtain strategy charts, software, and other aids. You don't want to work at it, you read Rob Singer columns.
