Will 98steps prevail?

Quote: Wizard

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.

Wizard, if you've visited any of the vp forums, you'd see that once anyone comes on to even partially agree with anything Singer has said or believes in, it's only a matter of hours before word gets out and the people who don't agree with him begin accusing the poster of BEING him. I see it all the time. There has got to be such paranoia about the man that goes beyond reason. I'd think that if you know him then you might contact him about the proof issue.

My understanding is he always withdrew a certain amount prior to his trips, recorded his play on that log, then returned and deposited the original amount plus any winnings. If he lost then of course less would be deposited. What fascinated me about this was how he stated everything (bank activities, gaming log, and IRS reported income/loss) were all correlated to one another by time and date. I've therefore always had the question that, how then could he be doing anything other than what he said he was doing, given that the IRS does require (based on my own audit a few years ago) bank statement records to support wins or losses. Try to slip that by an auditor and they will disallow anything claimed as a loss. Also, if he were being deceitful in any way, how and why would he be willing to put it all into the hands of an independent arbitrator with final decision authority? It's all right there in the Gaming Today article.

By the way, when I write "IRS" I am NOT saying "I Rob Singer"

Quote: mkl654321

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.

I win maybe 20% of the time I play. If you're an AP then you say you win 40% of the time. RS says his rate is 80%. I'd like to see how you're so certain he can't do that. Are you that familiar with how he does it? From what he says on his site, no one really knows everything even though he's offerred to show anyone who asked for a complete explanation. Have you done that, and if you do, would you man up to the guy and admit you were wrong after he explained it?

He sends out video e-newsletters these days and one of his raps on AP's is their UNWILLINGNESS to comprehend his strategy because it would end his critic's ability to attack him. They lose, he wins, they are sore about it, he also wins the argument, and it goes on and on.

Here's something of a tip for you: Save you $10 bills. All that stuff Mr. Dancer sells is simple mathematics available in high school workbooks. He, and others, have made a living off of selling it by applying the concept of gambling to it. I don't buy his pitch just as much as I don't care to study Singer's pitch. I'm a simple vp junkie who plays like the majority of players. But listening to and reading them has its moments.

Quote: JerryLogan

Wizard, if you've visited any of the vp forums, you'd see that once anyone comes on to even partially agree with anything Singer has said or believes in, it's only a matter of hours before word gets out and the people who don't agree with him begin accusing the poster of BEING him. I see it all the time. There has got to be such paranoia about the man that goes beyond reason. I'd think that if you know him then you might contact him about the proof issue.

My understanding is he always withdrew a certain amount prior to his trips, recorded his play on that log, then returned and deposited the original amount plus any winnings. If he lost then of course less would be deposited. What fascinated me about this was how he stated everything (bank activities, gaming log, and IRS reported income/loss) were all correlated to one another by time and date. I've therefore always had the question that, how then could he be doing anything other than what he said he was doing, given that the IRS does require (based on my own audit a few years ago) bank statement records to support wins or losses. Try to slip that by an auditor and they will disallow anything claimed as a loss. Also, if he were being deceitful in any way, how and why would he be willing to put it all into the hands of an independent arbitrator with final decision authority? It's all right there in the Gaming Today article.

By the way, when I write "IRS" I am NOT saying "I Rob Singer"

Uhhhhhhh.....how are his bank deposits correlated with his actual results? Suppose he kept the money on him for three or four days? Suppose he only deposited some of the money he supposedly "won", or deposited excess cash to make it LOOK like he won?

I've conversed with Singer in the past. He dissembles when challenged to provide proof of his method's efficacy. The reason that he is so ruthlessly attacked is that knowledgable players KNOW he is completely full of shit. He subverts the VP community's genuine efforts to help people win at VP.

I've never seen any of Singer's supposed "evidence", nor have I heard of anyone else seeing it. Until he produces incontrovertible evidence that he's not lying about his win rate/results, I will remain skeptical. No, scratch that. I will remain convinced that he's a liar and a fraud who is talking out of his ass.

Quote: JerryLogan

Wizard, if you've visited any of the vp forums, you'd see that once anyone comes on to even partially agree with anything Singer has said or believes in, it's only a matter of hours before word gets out and the people who don't agree with him begin accusing the poster of BEING him. I see it all the time. There has got to be such paranoia about the man that goes beyond reason. I'd think that if you know him then you might contact him about the proof issue.

My understanding is he always withdrew a certain amount prior to his trips, recorded his play on that log, then returned and deposited the original amount plus any winnings. If he lost then of course less would be deposited. What fascinated me about this was how he stated everything (bank activities, gaming log, and IRS reported income/loss) were all correlated to one another by time and date. I've therefore always had the question that, how then could he be doing anything other than what he said he was doing, given that the IRS does require (based on my own audit a few years ago) bank statement records to support wins or losses. Try to slip that by an auditor and they will disallow anything claimed as a loss. Also, if he were being deceitful in any way, how and why would he be willing to put it all into the hands of an independent arbitrator with final decision authority? It's all right there in the Gaming Today article.

By the way, when I write "IRS" I am NOT saying "I Rob Singer"

I didn't accuse you of being Rob Singer; I just said that I don't rule it out. Maybe it was a remark I shouldn't have made. However, since you are such an ardent fan, I thought perhaps you at least communicated with him.

I've already asked Singer directly for his evidence. This was a while ago, but I recall that he only offered to show me bank statements. Since that would not convince me of anything, I didn't see the reason to waste the time of both of us. I would really prefer to see 1040 forms. I don't know what Gaming Today article you're referring to said, but I suspect it was his challenge to bet that he could prove his winnings. Maybe I'll bet $100 on that, but it isn't something I take very seriously. If he wants to back up his winning claims, I don't see why he wouldn't volunteer tax forms for free.

Quote: Wizard

I didn't accuse you of being Rob Singer; I just said that I don't rule it out. Maybe it was a remark I shouldn't have made. However, since you are such an ardent fan, I thought perhaps you at least communicated with him.

I've already asked Singer directly for his evidence. This was a while ago, but I recall that he only offered to show me bank statements. Since that would not convince me of anything, I didn't see the reason to waste the time of both of us. I would really prefer to see 1040 forms. I don't know what Gaming Today article you're referring to said, but I suspect it was his challenge to bet that he could prove his winnings. Maybe I'll bet $100 on that, but it isn't something I take very seriously. If he wants to back up his winning claims, I don't see why he wouldn't volunteer tax forms for free.

Actually, a few years ago, I offered to bet him $10,000, and he weaseled out of the challenge.

Quote: JerryLogan

I win maybe 20% of the time I play. If you're an AP then you say you win 40% of the time. RS says his rate is 80%. I'd like to see how you're so certain he can't do that. Are you that familiar with how he does it? From what he says on his site, no one really knows everything even though he's offerred to show anyone who asked for a complete explanation. Have you done that, and if you do, would you man up to the guy and admit you were wrong after he explained it?

He sends out video e-newsletters these days and one of his raps on AP's is their UNWILLINGNESS to comprehend his strategy because it would end his critic's ability to attack him. They lose, he wins, they are sore about it, he also wins the argument, and it goes on and on.

Here's something of a tip for you: Save you $10 bills. All that stuff Mr. Dancer sells is simple mathematics available in high school workbooks. He, and others, have made a living off of selling it by applying the concept of gambling to it. I don't buy his pitch just as much as I don't care to study Singer's pitch. I'm a simple vp junkie who plays like the majority of players. But listening to and reading them has its moments.

Obviously you haven't read Dancer's strategy reports, which makes it kind of amazing to hear you criticize them. If you are a "vp junkie", you would benefit by reading them, and I strongly suspect that your uninformed sneering at them is based on your being too lazy to apply yourself to study such material. Your choice, but don't put down what you don't even know.

Being right or wrong isn't a matter of manhood. It's about the truth of your claims. Singer has never actually explained his "system" to anyone. This leaves his claims in the realm of unsupported assertions. Anyone can say he wins 80% of the time. Talk is cheap. At best, Singer's claims of an 80% win rate are based on some kind of Martingale, which would have the same fatal flaw all Martingales share.

I also don't see how he could accuse APs of being "unwilling to comprehend" his strategy when he has never outlined that strategy in detail to anyone. What those APs actually are is unwilling to agree with him in the absence of any proof. Skepticism is NOT "unwillingness to comprehend"; it is unwillingness to endorse. That's a large distinction, one that Singer pretends not to understand.

Like any fortune-telling swami, you can choose to believe in or not believe in Singer. The truth is that VP mastery takes discipline and hard work, and yes, mathematical knowledge that goes FAR beyond the "high school workbooks" that you sneer at. There is also the matter of the APPLICATION of that mathematics, a subject Singer doesn't seem to want to bother with.

Quote: mkl654321

Uhhhhhhh.....how are his bank deposits correlated with his actual results? Suppose he kept the money on him for three or four days? Suppose he only deposited some of the money he supposedly "won", or deposited excess cash to make it LOOK like he won?

I've conversed with Singer in the past. He dissembles when challenged to provide proof of his method's efficacy. The reason that he is so ruthlessly attacked is that knowledgable players KNOW he is completely full of shit. He subverts the VP community's genuine efforts to help people win at VP.

I've never seen any of Singer's supposed "evidence", nor have I heard of anyone else seeing it. Until he produces incontrovertible evidence that he's not lying about his win rate/results, I will remain skeptical. No, scratch that. I will remain convinced that he's a liar and a fraud who is talking out of his ass.

Are you able to understand basic math? Good, so try this which isn't hard, and he clearly spelled it out. You withdraw $15,000 before leaving on a trip. You play one of his sessions and win $3100. I will assume there's multiple or at least one W2g involved and his entire casino activity, if done properly, will be recorded on his gaming log. In this case it shows how a net win of $3100 came about. Then he returns to Az. and re-deposits, but it's not the $15k he took out...it's now $18.1k. At the end of the year I imagine it all adds up and correlates to his schedule C, and each number can be broken down in trackable detail relating back to the bank statements and gaming log. To me that's foolproof record-keeping for the IRS.

Yes I've seen all the "what ifs" associated with that on the forums whenever this comes up, believe me. I've seen the one about him keeping "excess cash" hanging around, supposedly just to dupe critics after he did all that "losing". So he has all that cash just lying around for such a purpose, good enough in fact for TEN YEARS of record-keeping chicanery? And he shows he played 427 sessions. That type of deception is beyond even the powers of the MIT BJ team.

I get it, you don't have a very high opinion of him. I kind of do. We do have one thing in common however. We both believe what we're saying, albeit without proof either way. But he does say in various spots on his site and in his videos that he has indeed offerred to show any critic interested exactly how he does what he does. It may have been in the form of a bet, I can't remember, but if you had the money and you had to put up with a very vocal bunch of critics who tell unsubstantiated lies about him as he puts it, what better way to make them eat their words afterwards? I like the concept. Put up or shut up, just like he did with that sports bettor.

Quote: mkl654321

Obviously you haven't read Dancer's strategy reports, which makes it kind of amazing to hear you criticize them. If you are a "vp junkie", you would benefit by reading them, and I strongly suspect that your uninformed sneering at them is based on your being too lazy to apply yourself to study such material. Your choice, but don't put down what you don't even know.

Being right or wrong isn't a matter of manhood. It's about the truth of your claims. Singer has never actually explained his "system" to anyone. This leaves his claims in the realm of unsupported assertions. Anyone can say he wins 80% of the time. Talk is cheap. At best, Singer's claims of an 80% win rate are based on some kind of Martingale, which would have the same fatal flaw all Martingales share.

I also don't see how he could accuse APs of being "unwilling to comprehend" his strategy when he has never outlined that strategy in detail to anyone. What those APs actually are is unwilling to agree with him in the absence of any proof. Skepticism is NOT "unwillingness to comprehend"; it is unwillingness to endorse. That's a large distinction, one that Singer pretends not to understand.

Like any fortune-telling swami, you can choose to believe in or not believe in Singer. The truth is that VP mastery takes discipline and hard work, and yes, mathematical knowledge that goes FAR beyond the "high school workbooks" that you sneer at. There is also the matter of the APPLICATION of that mathematics, a subject Singer doesn't seem to want to bother with.

I've read some of Dancer's stuff. My only criticism is that it's not necessary to give him your money to get that info. Simple mathematics is all it takes. I am, however, a little lazy when it comes to applying any of that to my game. Maybe if I wasn't doing so well in my career I'd be more motivated.

You keep claiming that Singer hasn't explained anything to anyone, yet you ignore what he says about offerring it up to anyone who wants it. Have you met with him or even tried to set a meet? In a newsletter this summer he mentioned how he tried to get a live debate/learning session in LV with his most vocal critics on videopoker.com, and they wanted nothing to do with it. He calls them hacks and that's presisely how they appeared after backing away from such a meeting. I would have LOVED to see it in person.

To me Martingale is a sure thing loser. But I'm not sure that's what he does. Isn't that doubling of one's table bet until it wins? That invites bankroll problems and house limits problems. I can't speak much to this, but how in the world can that be done playing video poker? Especially with the number of credits he uses at each denomination?

One important thing you need to be aware of so you don't keep making silly assertions about the man: He does understand the math, it's very easy to see when you read more of his writings, and he applies it to 95% of his play. Further, think of the math understanding and application it must have taken to do the risk analysis on those other 5% plays. I think that's where the math types start to dislike him, because isn't a set of plays designed to give the player the most opportunity at the most opportune time, exactly what the casinos do not want to face from the masses, especially when they're disciplined enough to get up and leave upon hitting certain win goals? I believe this to be a genius approach, but it's also where he loses me. I don't have the patience for expert play, let alone understanding when not to make a hold in favor of some other one.

Quote: mkl654321

Actually, a few years ago, I offered to bet him $10,000, and he weaseled out of the challenge.

Now that would be something interesting to get with him on. Is there somewhere this can be verified, like on a forum or something? I read all the forums and I don't remember seeing this, but that doesn't mean a whole lot.

Quote: JerryLogan

Are you able to understand basic math? Good, so try this which isn't hard, and he clearly spelled it out. You withdraw $15,000 before leaving on a trip. You play one of his sessions and win $3100. I will assume there's multiple or at least one W2g involved and his entire casino activity, if done properly, will be recorded on his gaming log. In this case it shows how a net win of $3100 came about. Then he returns to Az. and re-deposits, but it's not the $15k he took out...it's now $18.1k. At the end of the year I imagine it all adds up and correlates to his schedule C, and each number can be broken down in trackable detail relating back to the bank statements and gaming log. To me that's foolproof record-keeping for the IRS.

Yes I've seen all the "what ifs" associated with that on the forums whenever this comes up, believe me. I've seen the one about him keeping "excess cash" hanging around, supposedly just to dupe critics after he did all that "losing". So he has all that cash just lying around for such a purpose, good enough in fact for TEN YEARS of record-keeping chicanery? And he shows he played 427 sessions. That type of deception is beyond even the powers of the MIT BJ team.

I get it, you don't have a very high opinion of him. I kind of do. We do have one thing in common however. We both believe what we're saying, albeit without proof either way. But he does say in various spots on his site and in his videos that he has indeed offerred to show any critic interested exactly how he does what he does. It may have been in the form of a bet, I can't remember, but if you had the money and you had to put up with a very vocal bunch of critics who tell unsubstantiated lies about him as he puts it, what better way to make them eat their words afterwards? I like the concept. Put up or shut up, just like he did with that sports bettor.

SURELY YOU UNDERSTAND...well, maybe you don't...which is kind of unbelievable...that Singer's bank account nonsense would only have validity if that account never received or disbursed funds EXCEPT from Singer's gambling activities, and....AND, that he faithfully deposited all of his winnings, and used only money withdrawn from that account to gamble with? I mean, come ON...you can't be so naive as to not perceive how that account might be manipulated..can you?

Actually, I have more than enough proof than Singer is a liar, because he claims to do be able to do something that no one else in the world has been able to do. I somehow doubt that he has uncovered a winning method that overcomes the laws of mathematics.

If Singer really had a winning system, he would indeed, as you put it, "put up or shut up". What better way to prove himself than to publish the details of his sure-fire Rob Singer Winning System? Yet, he never has.

(His online comments hint that he uses some kind of Martingale, which woould not exactly put him in the realm of original thinkers.)

Quote: JerryLogan

Now that would be something interesting to get with him on. Is there somewhere this can be verified, like on a forum or something? I read all the forums and I don't remember seeing this, but that doesn't mean a whole lot.

It was several years ago, I don't remember exactly when, on one of the precursors of the present VPFree forums. There's no way they would still have the archives, especially since the sites themseves haven't existed for a while.

Quote: mkl654321

SURELY YOU UNDERSTAND...well, maybe you don't...which is kind of unbelievable...that Singer's bank account nonsense would only have validity if that account never received or disbursed funds EXCEPT from Singer's gambling activities, and....AND, that he faithfully deposited all of his winnings, and used only money withdrawn from that account to gamble with? I mean, come ON...you can't be so naive as to not perceive how that account might be manipulated..can you?

Actually, I have more than enough proof than Singer is a liar, because he claims to do be able to do something that no one else in the world has been able to do. I somehow doubt that he has uncovered a winning method that overcomes the laws of mathematics.

If Singer really had a winning system, he would indeed, as you put it, "put up or shut up". What better way to prove himself than to publish the details of his sure-fire Rob Singer Winning System? Yet, he never has.

(His online comments hint that he uses some kind of Martingale, which woould not exactly put him in the realm of original thinkers.)

I'm hardly naive. He made it clear in his article that his withdrawal/deposit account was ONLY used for his vp activity for the sole purpose of having valid records for any future IRS audits. Sure he could have multiple accounts to withdraw from, but then we're right back to the same critic-busting rationale that this account was said to have been set up for in the first place: the possible IRS audit trail. I went through one of those audits as I said, and the IRS comes into it with full knowledge of all your bank accounts.

On the contrary, he details his entire strategies on his site, and as I've said, if you want to know more he's said all it takes is a meeting! How simple is that? Are you afraid to have to face him after calling him a liar here? But since you've never asked before then what are the chances of THAT happening?

Quote: JerryLogan

You keep claiming that Singer hasn't explained anything to anyone, yet you ignore what he says about offerring it up to anyone who wants it. Have you met with him or even tried to set a meet? In a newsletter this summer he mentioned how he tried to get a live debate/learning session in LV with his most vocal critics on videopoker.com, and they wanted nothing to do with it. He calls them hacks and that's presisely how they appeared after backing away from such a meeting. I would have LOVED to see it in person.

To me Martingale is a sure thing loser. But I'm not sure that's what he does. Isn't that doubling of one's table bet until it wins? That invites bankroll problems and house limits problems. I can't speak much to this, but how in the world can that be done playing video poker? Especially with the number of credits he uses at each denomination?

His "method", as far as he's explained it, seems to be to keep on increasing and increasing your bets, moving up in number of coins and in denomination, until you win enough to put you back ahead. He then, apparently, stops his play dead, considering it to be a "session" (even if it was only one hand), and crows about how he "won" that session and "always wins, every session" (a claim which he has since modified to some extent).

And yes, I did try to set up a meeting several times with Singer when he was in Las Vegas, in conjuction with my challenge to him. He was always "busy" (winning huge sums at VP, no doubt, preferring that money to the ten grand I was offering him).

Quote: mkl654321

It was several years ago, I don't remember exactly when, on one of the precursors of the present VPFree forums. There's no way they would still have the archives, especially since the sites themseves haven't existed for a while.

Of course.....

Quote: JerryLogan

Of course.....

Don't be an asshole, Jerry. I doubt that you or anyone else could resurrect postings from an internet discussion board from six months ago, let alone several years, unless you had owned the site.

Quote: mkl654321

His "method", as far as he's explained it, seems to be to keep on increasing and increasing your bets, moving up in number of coins and in denomination, until you win enough to put you back ahead.
He then, apparently, stops his play dead, considering it to be a "session" (even if it was only one hand), and crows about how he "won" that session and "always wins, every session" (a claim which he has since modified to some extent)

always wins, every session" (a claim which he has since modified to some extent)????

I have followed Rob Singer for a number of years, do not agree with everything he says,
and never have I seen him in writing say "he always wins, every session"


His webpage below I have seen updated for the past few years.
http://www.vptruth.com/stats.cfm

and I am not he.

You now have to prove your written words to be true.

Good Luck!

That is how I understand his system too. Pretty much a Martingale on video poker. So of course he probably has session wins most of the time.

Quote: nope27

always wins, every session" (a claim which he has since modified to some extent)????

I have followed Rob Singer for a number of years, do not agree with everything he says,
and never have I seen him in writing say "he always wins, every session"


His webpage below I have seen updated for the past few years.
http://www.vptruth.com/stats.cfm

and I am not he.

You now have to prove your written words to be true.

Good Luck!

I'm sorry, I haven't saved every piece of drivel Singer has written over the years. Anyone who has read any amount of his diarrhea knows what I'm referring to--he used to claim he always wins, now he only claims to win 80% of the time. That's moving from completely ridiculous to merely ridiculous.

Quote: mkl654321

I'm sorry, I haven't saved every piece of drivel Singer has written over the years..

I do not think you are sorry.
All I require is just 1 "piece of drivel" NOT EVERY PIECE!

In a court of law one must provide evidence, you have only provided your words.

Quote: mkl654321

Anyone who has read any amount of his diarrhea knows what I'm referring to--he used to claim he always wins, now he only claims to win 80% of the time. That's moving from completely ridiculous to merely ridiculous.

"he used to"???
come on now. where is your proof?

I have read his articles at his website and the one he wrote for other publications over the past years and have not seen what you claim.

So, now you are calling me a "Liar" without any proof that would hold up in a court of law in your country.

Your posts for the most parts here at WoV are very good and entertaining to read. Your math you present is excellent.

You need to learn how to lower your personal attacks towards people,
but I know that you are perfect.
Good Luck!

Quote: JerryLogan

Singer has said he files as a professional gambler and he files his own returns. His winnings are posted as NET, not GROSS.

Excellent. Let him post his last two or three Schedule C's. We don't really have to see every other detail of his personal life.

Quote: nope27

I do not think you are sorry.
All I require is just 1 "piece of drivel" NOT EVERY PIECE!

In a court of law one must provide evidence, you have only provided your words.

"he used to"???
come on now. where is your proof?

I have read his articles at his website and the one he wrote for other publications over the past years and have not seen what you claim.

So, now you are calling me a "Liar" without any proof that would hold up in a court of law in your country.

Your posts for the most parts here at WoV are very good and entertaining to read. Your math you present is excellent.

You need to learn how to lower your personal attacks towards people,
but I know that you are perfect.
Good Luck!

1. This forum is not a court of law.
2. You are not a liar for disagreeing with me about Singer; you may not have read his more outrageous claims. You also may not remember reading them, or may be engaging in the process of selective memory.
3. I am not perfect. I do not feel, however, that I need to be in order to criticize Rob Singer.

Quote: JerryLogan

I'm hardly naive. He made it clear in his article that his withdrawal/deposit account was ONLY used for his vp activity for the sole purpose of having valid records for any future IRS audits. Sure he could have multiple accounts to withdraw from, but then we're right back to the same critic-busting rationale that this account was said to have been set up for in the first place: the possible IRS audit trail. I went through one of those audits as I said, and the IRS comes into it with full knowledge of all your bank accounts.

On the contrary, he details his entire strategies on his site, and as I've said, if you want to know more he's said all it takes is a meeting! How simple is that? Are you afraid to have to face him after calling him a liar here? But since you've never asked before then what are the chances of THAT happening?

I HAVE asked to meet with him, on one of the realtively few occasions when it would have been physically possible, i.e., we were both in the same city at the same time. He has avoided doing so. In any case, I don't need to see him face-to-face to refute his strategies. I am certainly not "afraid" to do so (neener neener neener!), but there definitely are a couple of million things I would RATHER do.

His having been audited by the IRS, even if you assume he is telling the truth about that, doesn't mean his bank account records are accurate reflections of his play results. I won't bother to state why not, since a child could figure that out.

I'm rather tired of discussing this charlatan, so I'll stop now. You can believe in him if you wish.

Quote: mkl654321

1. This forum is not a court of law.
2. You are not a liar for disagreeing with me about Singer; you may not have read his more outrageous claims. You also may not remember reading them, or may be engaging in the process of selective memory.
3. I am not perfect. I do not feel, however, that I need to be in order to criticize Rob Singer.

Yeah, Rob Singer in the past seems to say one thing then a bit later says another.
I do not know your definition of "outrageous claims" but Singer has made statements in the past that are very hard to believe. And why would he want us to believe him?
It would be easy just to prove one's claim at the time it is made. Singer has , as far as I know, never done that.

But, my world has never been any different because of him.

How would a Martingale work for VP? Someone please explain that to me.

I agree with the point that having a winning session does not mean you have beaten a game. Read somewhere once that you can't say you won a session because everyone's "session" is in reality the entirety of their life. Say you play for two hours and are ahead, but keep playing for two more hours, and end up in the hole. Why not call that first two hours a session and declare that you had a winning one? Silly right?

One life time session. That's the math of it. Of course we as gamblers will denote arbitrary periods of time where we are ahead because we like to feel like winners at least some of the gawd damn time!

Quote: BigTip

How would a Martingale work for VP? Someone please explain that to me.

an example can be found at Singers site
http://www.vptruth.com/stratsingleplay.cfm

It is not a martingale as so many people claim.

I have actually played it and found it way to much effort for how much you win.
One must play at a multi-denomination machine. Play starts at say, $1 level for x hands, then if no wins to show a profit, play continues to $2 level for x hands, if no win to show a profit, then continue to $5 level (all on the same machine) continue for x hands and so on.

You still play normal strategies but he then changes some of them, and then it starts to get even more complicated.

It seems Martingale like to me. Not exactly, of course, but the way he progresses up through the denominations from $1 to $100.

Quote: mkl654321

Don't be an asshole, Jerry. I doubt that you or anyone else could resurrect postings from an internet discussion board from six months ago, let alone several years, unless you had owned the site.

Then what was the point of bringing up something that turned out to be nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion?

Quote: JerryLogan

Then what was the point of bringing up something that turned out to be nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion?

The "point"? I mentioned it because I wanted to. I have also mentioned quite a few other things that have occured in my life for which I have no documentation. So have you. So has everyone else here. No one is tasked with providing proof that everything that they say happened to them is actually true. It is therefore an act of assholery, when someone says, "I did such and such", to say, "WELL, PROVE IT". In the first place, you are calling that person a liar; in the second place, you are demanding something that that person is unlikely to have. "I've been to Alaska." "THEN SHOW ME SOME PICTURES." "I ate at the Wynn buffet." "SHOW SOME PROOF OF THAT." Et cetera.

Some people, including myself, ask others for evidence of claims that they make, especially when those claims are "out there", but asking someone to show proof of their personal experiences is unwarranted. All I am willing to do is assure you that I did, in fact, converse with Singer on the subjects I mentioned, as I described. You're going to have to take my word for it, and if your rather creepy love for Singer prevents you from doing that, well, all I can say is: 1. It's your right to disbelieve me 2. Piss off--I don't like being called a liar.

Quote: mkl654321

His "method", as far as he's explained it, seems to be to keep on increasing and increasing your bets, moving up in number of coins and in denomination, until you win enough to put you back ahead. He then, apparently, stops his play dead, considering it to be a "session" (even if it was only one hand), and crows about how he "won" that session and "always wins, every session" (a claim which he has since modified to some extent).

And yes, I did try to set up a meeting several times with Singer when he was in Las Vegas, in conjuction with my challenge to him. He was always "busy" (winning huge sums at VP, no doubt, preferring that money to the ten grand I was offering him).

I guess I'm not reading the strategy like you are. I understand it as some complex format of increasing denomination while using some combination of semi-volatile & volatile games until he hits a pre-set win goal, where that goal is first to be able to go back down in denomination for continued play starting at Bonus Poker, but only if some kind of what's called a "soft profit" is made. It's only when all these soft profits equal or surpass his session win goal that he stops his play dead for the trip or session. I do believe as you pointed out, that if he hits a Royal Flush on his very first hand at dollars, he will stop dead there too.

I think your "wins every session" claim is born out of frustration with the guy, because I've followed his site for years and it's always shown a win rate % of being in the 80's.

It would be interesting if you told us who you are so in case Singer does join this group we can hear both sides of the story about that LV meet up you're saying you & he never had. Also, could it be because you're in LV or only go certain times, and his schedule didn't match yours? As an outsider I'd have to say that since he gambles (or gambled) for a living then it would have been up to you to meet HIS schedule, no?

Quote: BigTip

How would a Martingale work for VP? Someone please explain that to me.

I agree with the point that having a winning session does not mean you have beaten a game. Read somewhere once that you can't say you won a session because everyone's "session" is in reality the entirety of their life. Say you play for two hours and are ahead, but keep playing for two more hours, and end up in the hole. Why not call that first two hours a session and declare that you had a winning one? Silly right?

One life time session. That's the math of it. Of course we as gamblers will denote arbitrary periods of time where we are ahead because we like to feel like winners at least some of the gawd damn time!

Well, of course, that's true. Breaking off play at any arbitrary point and calling the session a "winner" is utterly meaningless. But doing that is exactly what constitutes Singer's modus operandi. I don't believe that he is even ahead lifetime, let alone believe that he has a winning system. He's a giant stinking pile of fraud.

Quote: JerryLogan

I guess I'm not reading the strategy like you are. I understand it as some complex format of increasing denomination while using some combination of semi-volatile & volatile games until he hits a pre-set win goal, where that goal is first to be able to go back down in denomination for continued play starting at Bonus Poker, but only if some kind of what's called a "soft profit" is made. It's only when all these soft profits equal or surpass his session win goal that he stops his play dead for the trip or session. I do believe as you pointed out, that if he hits a Royal Flush on his very first hand at dollars, he will stop dead there too.

I think your "wins every session" claim is born out of frustration with the guy, because I've followed his site for years and it's always shown a win rate % of being in the 80's.

It would be interesting if you told us who you are so in case Singer does join this group we can hear both sides of the story about that LV meet up you're saying you & he never had. Also, could it be because you're in LV or only go certain times, and his schedule didn't match yours? As an outsider I'd have to say that since he gambles (or gambled) for a living then it would have been up to you to meet HIS schedule, no?

I offered to meet him any time of day, any day of the week. This was when I lived in Vegas. I was a part-time VP pro, so I could have met him at any one of half a dozen casinos.

He used to claim he "wins every time", most egregiously when promoting his tub of vomit, "The Undeniable Truth" (technically, it's a book).

His strategy is based on Bonus Poker. Bonus Poker, played optimally, yields a return of 99.17%. This means that the game cannot be beaten (unless one earns comps or other benefits that exceed 0.83%). Period. No matter how much you razzle and dazzle it.

I'm sorry, but I have learned the hard way not to provide personal information on an internet discussion board, or anywhere else on the internet for that matter.

Quote: BigTip

How would a Martingale work for VP? Someone please explain that to me.

I agree with the point that having a winning session does not mean you have beaten a game. Read somewhere once that you can't say you won a session because everyone's "session" is in reality the entirety of their life. Say you play for two hours and are ahead, but keep playing for two more hours, and end up in the hole. Why not call that first two hours a session and declare that you had a winning one? Silly right?

One life time session. That's the math of it. Of course we as gamblers will denote arbitrary periods of time where we are ahead because we like to feel like winners at least some of the gawd damn time!

What you're saying is why I have a difficult time changing the way I play for either advantage play or Singer style play. I play maybe a dozen times a year if I can. I like the concept of setting goals and just going home when reached, but who can do that especially if you're in from out of town and you're checked in for 2 or 3 nights with free food? As a vp junkie I have to say that if Singer is able to do that then he has more self-control and discipline than anyone I've ever known, and that would make his winning claims even more believable. It also would go pretty damn far in validating his constant preaching about how we all play in only short term sessions, even AP's. He also is probably at a higher denomination by the time he gets his big win, but when he starts up another session the next day or week or whatever, he does so at his lowest denomination. I think that's right. That sounds like each session is an individual event to me.

On the flip side, advantage play by definition requires way too much play for me to get interested in, and I'd never be able to locate all those small casino edges anyway. Too much work and I haven't the patience. The Singer strategy seems like a lot less work, but it has complexities I'm not interested in learning. I just wanna play and win! (and I know casinos love that attitude)

Quote: mkl654321

I offered to meet him any time of day, any day of the week. This was when I lived in Vegas. I was a part-time VP pro, so I could have met him at any one of half a dozen casinos.

He used to claim he "wins every time", most egregiously when promoting his tub of vomit, "The Undeniable Truth" (technically, it's a book).

His strategy is based on Bonus Poker. Bonus Poker, played optimally, yields a return of 99.17%. This means that the game cannot be beaten (unless one earns comps or other benefits that exceed 0.83%). Period. No matter how much you razzle and dazzle it.

I'm sorry, but I have learned the hard way not to provide personal information on an internet discussion board, or anywhere else on the internet for that matter.

Well, maybe if and when he chooses to join assuming he gets an invite, you can tell him what your handle was on whatever forum you guys did battle in the past? We'll just have to wait.

What I read about his strategy is it starts with 100 credits on BP but then uses 3X the credits on SDBP or other more volatile games, within each denomination. He calls them "advanced BP games". But I see your and his differences already and I see it all the time on the forums whenever his name surfaces. He shows up in a Nevada casino, plays a few hundred credits of BP in any given session, and if he gets lucky on it at any denomination he leaves. Goes the same for his advanced games. That 99.17% you quoted assumes many hundreds of thousands or even millions of hands played perfectly, when we all know that anything can occur at these machines at any moment of play. Essentially, his repeated quote that "one cannot apply long term strategy rules to short term play" is the jist of the argument for both sides. I for one would love to see that discussed in detail from both points of view if he were to show up.

You need to lighten up with your personal attacks on the guy. I looked back and you seem to be a prolific poster after having joined while I was in Australia for 2 months. Don't waste it on bad-mouthing, and at least wait until he can shoot back.

Quote: JerryLogan

Well, maybe if and when he chooses to join assuming he gets an invite, you can tell him what your handle was on whatever forum you guys did battle in the past? We'll just have to wait.

What I read about his strategy is it starts with 100 credits on BP but then uses 3X the credits on SDBP or other more volatile games, within each denomination. He calls them "advanced BP games". But I see your and his differences already and I see it all the time on the forums whenever his name surfaces. He shows up in a Nevada casino, plays a few hundred credits of BP in any given session, and if he gets lucky on it at any denomination he leaves. Goes the same for his advanced games. That 99.17% you quoted assumes many hundreds of thousands or even millions of hands played perfectly, when we all know that anything can occur at these machines at any moment of play. Essentially, his repeated quote that "one cannot apply long term strategy rules to short term play" is the jist of the argument for both sides. I for one would love to see that discussed in detail from both points of view if he were to show up.

You need to lighten up with your personal attacks on the guy. I looked back and you seem to be a prolific poster after having joined while I was in Australia for 2 months. Don't waste it on bad-mouthing, and at least wait until he can shoot back.

I really don't remember what my handle was then. In any case, I doubt very much those posts could be resurrected.

His quote is actually meaningless nonsense. "Short term play" is an illusion! If you are going to play again at some point in your life, then there is no significance to when you temporarily stop playing. If you win $15, then win $20, then win $5, then win $40, then lose $200, by any rational standard, you are down $120. But using Singeresque logic, you have won "80% of the time!!!!!!". For what it's worth, he also seems to ignore proper strategy, such as the proper plays when holding a four flush, two high cards, etc. etc. Following the optimal strategy on each hand is how you get that 99.17%; failing to do so will result in a lower return. This makes his claim of being ahead over half a million dollars even more spurious. The "anything can occur" rationale doesn't apply over the long term---the results will converge on expectation as the sample size gets larger (in other words, you are less and less likely to encounter an unusual result, and vanishingly unlikely to encounter an extremely unusual result, like the one Singer claims to have achieved).

I am not inclined to "lighten up" on the guy, because he's something I abhor--a fraud and a huckster. Many novice players won't know the difference between his snake oil and sound advice that is offered by others. His books and his columns MAKE PEOPLE LOSE MONEY, every day of every year. His message is seductive: don't think, don't plan, don't learn how to play the hands, just find a Bonus Poker machine, start doubling your bets, and win win win!!! It's much easier to follow Singer over a cliff than to take the time and make the effort to play optimally, seek out the best machines, and play under the best conditions--that all sounds too much like work, as another Singer advocate here remarked.

A skilled VP player DOES have a "long-term strategy"; that strategy is to always have the advantage, and to make that advantage as large as possible. For instance, he may play 10/7 DB (which gives a slight advantage), and then make sure that he only plays on triple point days (which would greatly increase that advantage). The "short-term strategy" is to play each individual hand optimally. The two strategies are complementary, and contrary to what Singer says, one MUST apply BOTH strategies AT THE SAME TIME to be a winning player.

One way to easily verify Singer's claims would be to examine his win-loss statements from the various casinos he's played at. HOWEVER, he says he doesn't play with a slot card!!! This, of course, makes it conveniently impossible for his results to be tracked (except via his unverifiable claims)--if it's true, that is. Since not using a slot card is throwing away money, I find it very hard to believe that he doesn't use one. If it's true that he doesn't, then he's a complete idiot.

What it boils down to is that Singer uses that most tired and hoary of all gambling "systems"--the Martingale. He's just dressed it up in fancy new clothes. He may indeed have a high session "win" rate if he stops playing every time he gets ahead. However, I absolutely do not believe his claim that he is massively ahead, lifetime. There is essentially NO chance that anyone can play a negative expectation game--and, by his own admission, badly--and come out as far ahead as he claims. Since he's playing .25/1.00 denominations, he's saying that he's ahead several hundred thousand bets, lifetime. The chances of that happening in reality are one in several trillion.

Quote: mkl654321

What it boils down to is that Singer uses that most tired and hoary of all gambling "systems"--the Martingale. He's just dressed it up in fancy new clothes. He may indeed have a high session "win" rate if he stops playing every time he gets ahead.

However, I absolutely do not believe his claim that he is massively ahead, lifetime. There is essentially NO chance that anyone can play a negative expectation game--and, by his own admission, badly--and come out as far ahead as he claims. Since he's playing .25/1.00 denominations, he's saying that he's ahead several hundred thousand bets, lifetime. The chances of that happening in reality are one in several trillion.

Remember, Singers system is NOT a true martingale, double up after every loss. It still is a negative progression type system or systems, that you do wager more $ trying to hit a win that finally gives you a profit.
I doubt his claims of lifetime wins, he has many times said he hits royals and large 4Kind in the same day and has done it on many occasions.
It takes me sometimes 5 years to see a royal, a year to see a BIG 4Kind.

I doubt it is by the system he plays. or claims to play.

Quote: guido111

Remember, Singers system is NOT a true martingale, double up after every loss. It still is a negative progression type system or systems, that you do wager more $ trying to hit a win that finally gives you a profit..

That's what makes it a Martingale. If you're wagerering more and more dollars in the attempt to "finally hit a win that gives you a profit", then you are behind up to that point, right? So you bet more and more as long as you're losing---the essence of a Martingale.

The basic reason why Martingales don't work applies to Singer's system as well.

I think you'd get more out of a discussion on his strategy and results/deviation plays with him rather than me. Let's hope he shows. I only know what he's written, and he's written a lot about those who criticize him for that 80% win rate. I always see his critics claim exactly what you did, that he'd win four sessions of smaller amounts then have it all wiped out by a large loss. And he always responds with a simple statement that none of you ever want to deal with, that there are large wins also, and those large wins are much larger than the occasional large loss.

There's no such thing in my book as a 99.17% BP game when you only play it for an hour or three. You keep skirting that issue also by continuing to make up that he plays in the long term just like you. Then, who are you to say that altering about 5% of the plays that could or will produce a smaller winner for a chance at a large hit, wouldn't be the right thing to do when you're playing for a win goal in order to get up and leave? He doesn't do those willy-nilly because he did a risk analysis on each of them and to him they make sense. All you can do is say "if you make a less than optimal play you lower that 99.17%" or something to that effect. Maybe for some sicko who sits at the machines 8 hours a day and even then all that means is the player is approaching expectation.

I'll leave you with thoughts on one example of a play that he deviates with that's been around the boards lately and that he's talked about in his videos. 9/7 TDBP, the game where trips pays 10 and Aces with the kicker pays 4000. Dealt AAA26 the math says that the optimal hold is AAA2. I would never hold anything but the 3 Aces because I'd like the best chance at getting at least four of them to keep me playing, but what I do is of no concern. What Singer does is, and he has a special play for this which is hold only the 3 Aces. The math people hate that he advises that hold, I've seen and heard them. But they use the same weak argument you do, that in the "long run" the player will end up losing more because of it.

But what I see is Singer is making a very smart play for his strategy, because he says he wants the most opportunity to get those four Aces, and besides the kicker still isn't out of the equation. Why is this smart? Well to you it's a give up in game expectation, but to him if he hits the four Aces even without the kicker and at any denomination in his strategy it reaches his win goal and he can go home. By holding just the three he has 2 out of 47 chances to get that fourth Ace. The math way is no different than going for that 5th royal flush card. You cannot argue with his logic and I like how he does this.

Quote: guido111

Remember, Singers system is NOT a true martingale, double up after every loss. It still is a negative progression type system or systems, that you do wager more $ trying to hit a win that finally gives you a profit.
I doubt his claims of lifetime wins, he has many times said he hits royals and large 4Kind in the same day and has done it on many occasions.
It takes me sometimes 5 years to see a royal, a year to see a BIG 4Kind.

I doubt it is by the system he plays. or claims to play.

guido, you should watch some of his video e-newsletters if you want to feel worse over your 5 year royal droughts. Myself, I've always had at least one each year and I may average a dozen trips a year where I play 10 or more hours a day for 2 or 3 days. In one video earlier this summer he explains how he's played 5 hours to date this year and had four RF's, also explaining how odd and lucky that was. I think there were two $2 royals and a couple dollar ones and I believe all were from freeplay??

Quote: JerryLogan

But what I see is Singer is making a very smart play for his strategy, because he says he wants the most opportunity to get those four Aces, and besides the kicker still isn't out of the equation. Why is this smart? Well to you it's a give up in game expectation, but to him if he hits the four Aces even without the kicker and at any denomination in his strategy it reaches his win goal and he can go home. By holding just the three he has 2 out of 47 chances to get that fourth Ace. The math way is no different than going for that 5th royal flush card. You cannot argue with his logic and I like how he does this.

There's nothing inherently "wrong" about making a suboptimal play with higher hit frequency, but you have to recognize that's what you're doing. There are lots of ways to increase hit frequency at the expense of EV, and that's true on many games: E.g. craps - just place the 5/6/8 and throw money on the field for an 83% hit frequency and a terrible edge. At the end of the day, either you're making the optimal EV play or you aren't.

And by the way, throwing away the 2 is a *terrible* play. You lose almost 19 credits on average every time you do that.

Quote: JerryLogan

guido, you should watch some of his video e-newsletters if you want to feel worse over your 5 year royal droughts. Myself, I've always had at least one each year and I may average a dozen trips a year where I play 10 or more hours a day for 2 or 3 days. In one video earlier this summer he explains how he's played 5 hours to date this year and had four RF's, also explaining how odd and lucky that was. I think there were two $2 royals and a couple dollar ones and I believe all were from freeplay??

So then, most of his net lifetime profit that he has claimed to make is from just plain old dumb luck, not his style of play. Anybody can have luck. It is wrong when one says it is NOT luck, but my skill and my system.

So Singer seems to put himself right in the middle.
he wins big because of his system but also wins big because of his luck.
His claim of his largest loss being well over $30,000 in one session seems to go against his written systems.

Sounds like a dice setter at a Craps table. "I won because of my dice controlling skills" but I lost because my skills are not perfect all the time, like a baseball pitcher"

Quote: JerryLogan

And he always responds with a simple statement that none of you ever want to deal with, that there are large wins also, and those large wins are much larger than the occasional large loss.

There's no such thing in my book as a 99.17% BP game when you only play it for an hour or three.

But they use the same weak argument you do, that in the "long run" the player will end up losing more because of it.

But what I see is Singer is making a very smart play for his strategy,

You cannot argue with his logic and I like how he does this.

All this is an argument from BELIEF, which by definition cannot be dealt with by logical argument. If you BELIEVE something ferevntly enough, no amount of reason can convince you otherwise.

The various comments you make show such a basic lack of understanding that I do not think you can be educated otherwise. The debate isn't Singer vs. me, or Singer vs. internet boards, or Singer vs. "math types". It's Singer vs. reality. He claims to be able to do something that is logically impossible. He is wrong.

By the way, why is it a "weak argument" that a given play is wrong because it loses more (or wins less) than the alternative? Never mind, I don't actually want your answer--it would be ridiculous.

Quote: MathExtremist

And by the way, throwing away the 2 is a *terrible* play. You lose almost 19 credits on average every time you do that.

There's that long term argument being applied to a play designed to have the most opportunity of hitting 800 credits in order to leave the casino with a minimum pre-set win goal again! Tell me, do you think such a player would care about that theory you just quoted as he's leaving with say $3165 in net profit upon hitting the 4 Aces.

I'd absolutely LOVE to get a 4000 credit win, but even a player like me won't give myself such a poor chance of getting a 4th Ace.

Quote: guido111

So then, most of his net lifetime profit that he has claimed to make is from just plain old dumb luck, not his style of play. Anybody can have luck. It is wrong when one says it is NOT luck, but my skill and my system.

So Singer seems to put himself right in the middle.
he wins big because of his system but also wins big because of his luck.
His claim of his largest loss being well over $30,000 in one session seems to go against his written systems.

Sounds like a dice setter at a Craps table. "I won because of my dice controlling skills" but I lost because my skills are not perfect all the time, like a baseball pitcher"

Close. He seems to say he has had such success mainly BECAUSE of taking maximum advantage of the luck that he is afforded (words taken from his website) and that his method was developed to do just that. I kind of see the point. When good fortune comes to me I usually run it all back through the machines again by the time I go home a loser.

I too see where his biggest loss is a little over $30k. But his written system says the bankroll needed for a single play strategy is a little over $50k in order to play up to the $100 machines.

Quote: mkl654321

All this is an argument from BELIEF, which by definition cannot be dealt with by logical argument. If you BELIEVE something ferevntly enough, no amount of reason can convince you otherwise.

The various comments you make show such a basic lack of understanding that I do not think you can be educated otherwise. The debate isn't Singer vs. me, or Singer vs. internet boards, or Singer vs. "math types". It's Singer vs. reality. He claims to be able to do something that is logically impossible. He is wrong.

By the way, why is it a "weak argument" that a given play is wrong because it loses more (or wins less) than the alternative? Never mind, I don't actually want your answer--it would be ridiculous.

What is logically impossible about him getting large wins that overshadow the large losses? Surely you can see that with an 80% win rate, in 100 sessions he's going to play 80 winning sessions. And surely you believe he will hit a bunch of big winners in that many sessions. He has to because of the denominations he plays. You did not address the specifics but rather, put together an argument based on generalizations and selectiveness.

The "weak argument" you presented is weak because you're again stuck in your rut of talking long term THEORY when his strategy depends on short term LUCK every time he plays it. It does not seem you are capable of arguing the point, so you ramble on with theory once again.

As for the ability to convince me otherwise, I admit I'm not able to do anything more than read his site and see if it passes the smell test. I'm a common sense guy, and what he talks about FOR THE WAY HE DOES IT makes a lot more sense to me than either how I play or how AP's play.

Quote: JerryLogan

What is logically impossible about him getting large wins that overshadow the large losses? Surely you can see that with an 80% win rate, in 100 sessions he's going to play 80 winning sessions. And surely you believe he will hit a bunch of big winners in that many sessions. He has to because of the denominations he plays. You did not address the specifics but rather, put together an argument based on generalizations and selectiveness.

The "weak argument" you presented is weak because you're again stuck in your rut of talking long term THEORY when his strategy depends on short term LUCK every time he plays it. It does not seem you are capable of arguing the point, so you ramble on with theory once again.

As for the ability to convince me otherwise, I admit I'm not able to do anything more than read his site and see if it passes the smell test. I'm a common sense guy, and what he talks about FOR THE WAY HE DOES IT makes a lot more sense to me than either how I play or how AP's play.

First of all, there's no such thing as luck. When you get up off the floor, read that again.

Of course he will have SOME big winners. That doesn't mean that the sessions in which they occur will necessarily be big winners. In fact, the vast majority of his winning sessions will be small winners, because by his own admission, he quits the moment he gets ahead by ANY amount.

Do you truly not see that the AGGREGATE TOTAL of his 20% losing sessions will EXCEED the AGGREGATE TOTAL of his 80% winning sessions? That's exactly the reasons Martingales don't work. I guess you truly don't see that!

Jerry, you are NOT a "common sense" guy---you are a sucker and a moron, to boot. Persist with your delusions if you wish. I've taken FAR more trouble to explain reality than you deserve. Go back to the Church of Singer, where everybody wins 80% of the time. We're done talking (and feel free to tell yourself that the reason I'm refusing to talk to you any more is that I CAN'T REFUTE YOUR IRONCLAD LOGIC). As another blocked poster is wont to say, LOL.

Quote: mkl654321

First of all, there's no such thing as luck. When you get up off the floor, read that again.

Of course he will have SOME big winners. That doesn't mean that the sessions in which they occur will necessarily be big winners. In fact, the vast majority of his winning sessions will be small winners, because by his own admission, he quits the moment he gets ahead by ANY amount.

Do you truly not see that the AGGREGATE TOTAL of his 20% losing sessions will EXCEED the AGGREGATE TOTAL of his 80% winning sessions? That's exactly the reasons Martingales don't work. I guess you truly don't see that!

Jerry, you are NOT a "common sense" guy---you are a sucker and a moron, to boot. Persist with your delusions if you wish. I've taken FAR more trouble to explain reality than you deserve. Go back to the Church of Singer, where everybody wins 80% of the time. We're done talking (and feel free to tell yourself that the reason I'm refusing to talk to you any more is that I CAN'T REFUTE YOUR IRONCLAD LOGIC). As another blocked poster is wont to say, LOL.

No such thing as luck....no such this as God. Same argument depicting an unhappy, pessimistic life/diferrent day. Tell the guy who won Power Ball last month that there's no such thing as luck. Go ahead and try to convince him that he just happened upon a statistic of the math and see how small he'll make you feel.

Yes, the vast majority of his winning sessions will be small winners, duh! What you don't want to see or be, and I can only guess because of your deep-seated envy of the guy, is that his big winners outnumber his big losers. Oh that AGGREGATE TOTAL? He doesn't report it the way you'd like it to be does he. You also need to read his strategy before sticking your foot into your mouth once again. Read where it says his minimum profit where he will quit is $2500....not, "quit the moment he gets ahead by ANY amount". Have you ever tried to outsmart a rock and lost there too?

Here's the funny part: How many times are you going to keep making a fool of yourself, first by losing control and calling me or Singer names and cursing along the way, then by whining how you're "done with this and not coming back"? So who's the moronic sucker now.....But please don't feel bad. I've read some of your short history here, and you've been taken out to the woodshed more than once. And all that proves is I'm not as special as I thought!

Does Mr. Singer sell anything? If he does, then I know for sure his results are fabricated. The bank statements are probably the results of proceeds from his sales.
If he does not sell anything, then he probably does it for his '15 minutes of fame'. But my simplest question to you, Jerry, is- If you believe his system works, have you tried it yourself? If not, why not? If so- how much money have you made? You seem to be such a staunch defender of his it would seem counterintuitive if you have NOT used his system.

Quote: SOOPOO

Does Mr. Singer sell anything? If he does, then I know for sure his results are fabricated. The bank statements are probably the results of proceeds from his sales.

Yes.

But, he does not sell his systems!
Never has, never will.


You can go to his website at any time. You do not have to be a member to see all his systems or even ask him to show you a system of play at a real casino.
UNlike the "other" vp experts that charge BIG $$$ for doing the same thing.

He has 2 books for sale. More stories in them.
That is what I dislike about Singer. Too many stories. Why not just "prove" once and for all, that he has a net profit at this point in time from all of his play. Those are his claims.

Everyone did not believe Albert Einstein in 1905 when he published his first papers, because nothing had been proven. Einstein said many times, his theories did not have to be proven to be true.
But going back 250 years to Newton, everyone proved their theories by experiments, but not Einstein.

No wonder people thought he was a quack and were very vocal about it!.

He became famous, as the story goes, after the 1919 eclipse "proved" his theories to be true AND the "god" newton to be wrong! Sure made Einstein into an instant "God"

So. is Singer a "quack" or a "god"?
can he be both??

yes, football time is here!

Quote: guido111

Everyone did not believe Albert Einstein in 1905 when he published his first papers, because nothing had been proven. Einstein said many times, his theories did not have to be proven to be true.

You use "proven" and "true" in a different sense here. Einstein's theory was mathematically consistent, and everybody (who wasn't himself a "quack") knew that. The controversy was not about weather or not the theory was "true", but weather or not it reflected the physical reality (which is an elusive thing, not everyone is actually even sure exists) more closely than the ether theory that was in use previously.

The betting systems are different in that they are mathematically proven to be wrong. You can't find sufficient "proof" for any of them within the realm of mathematics. You would have to demonstrate that all the contemporary sciences (math, physics, chemistry, geology etc.) is wrong, and invent your own replacement math first.

This is soooo much bigger than Einstein.

Quote: 98steps

Alright, 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.

I would like to see you win the challenge, but truly you must know you can and will not.

You may be able to win 95% of your sessions and still show a net profit, but the longer you keep playing "your system", the more likely the big losses will swamp the small wins.
That is what the D'Alembert betting system is all about. The Wizard has also stated the exact same idea many times at the WoO site.

I wish you the best in your endeavors.