Singer System - Challenge?
I've taken it off the Overhaul thread at MB's request, and I don't think (despite JL's comment otherwise) that there's any case of it being people avoiding the subject or sweeping it away. From my point of view, I doubt his system works, but I don't have the money or the time to prove it otherwise, so am just an interested third party. I have an idea how he might get the results he does, but I'm pretty sure it comes down to variance in the end.
Quote: thecesspitHere's a thread for people to discuss Singer's VP system, and if there would be a challenge to it... or not...
I've taken it off the Overhaul thread at MB's request, and I don't think (despite JL's comment otherwise) that there's any case of it being people avoiding the subject or sweeping it away. From my point of view, I doubt his system works, but I don't have the money or the time to prove it otherwise, so am just an interested third party. I have an idea how he might get the results he does, but I'm pretty sure it comes down to variance in the end.
I suppose this thread would need a detailed explication of his system, from an unimpeachable sourse, such as Singer himself, or a direct quote from one of his books. All I've seen on this site is "bet more and more until you win something big", which, amazingly, seems to be more than enough for the faithful. But I think that's the real reason why people don't want to discuss it; based on what they know about it, it isn't worth discussing.
I actually read his first book: "The Incoherent Babbling of a Loon". About 5% of the book was devoted to a description of his "system", and that description was vague and disjointed. The rest of the book was a tour de force about all the casino dragons he's slain, and a repetition of his mantra, "I play until I win, then I quit". There was also some diarrhea attacking video poker authors and advantage players. Whenever I've criticized this book publicly, I've been accused of having some kind of vendetta against Singer, and that is the true motivation behind my "attacking" him. Well, first of all, Singer is a pretty nice guy in person. Second of all, I strongly suspect that he actually believes what he's saying to some extent. What I criticize is the material and not the man---his "system" is worthless.
If there's more to Singer's system than "keep increasing your bets until you hit something big", I wouldn't mind hearing about it in this thread. However, what I DON'T want to hear is utter crap like his claim to "win 80% of the time". Aside from its being meaningless even if it WERE true, it's patently impossible to have that kind of win frequency. Even players who play only +EV games lose 60% of their sessions.
Quote: mkl654321I suppose this thread would need a detailed explication of his system, from an unimpeachable sourse, such as Singer himself, or a direct quote from one of his books. All I've seen on this site is "bet more and more until you win something big", which, amazingly, seems to be more than enough for the faithful. But I think that's the real reason why people don't want to discuss it; based on what they know about it, it isn't worth discussing.
I actually read his first book: "The Incoherent Babbling of a Loon". About 5% of the book was devoted to a description of his "system", and that description was vague and disjointed. The rest of the book was a tour de force about all the casino dragons he's slain, and a repetition of his mantra, "I play until I win, then I quit". There was also some diarrhea attacking video poker authors and advantage players. Whenever I've criticized this book publicly, I've been accused of having some kind of vendetta against Singer, and that is the true motivation behind my "attacking" him. Well, first of all, Singer is a pretty nice guy in person. Second of all, I strongly suspect that he actually believes what he's saying to some extent. What I criticize is the material and not the man---his "system" is worthless.
If there's more to Singer's system than "keep increasing your bets until you hit something big", I wouldn't mind hearing about it in this thread. However, what I DON'T want to hear is utter crap like his claim to "win 80% of the time". Aside from its being meaningless even if it WERE true, it's patently impossible to have that kind of win frequency. Even players who play only +EV games lose 60% of their sessions.
Well, I've gone and done it. I took a shot with what I thought was a very small possibility of a positive outcome and low and behold, I did it right.
I live in Peoria, Az. and Rob lives in North Phoenix. I wondered why he wasn't responding to these threads so I e-mailed him and he got right back to me. Then we talked, and I wanted to talk a lot more so my wife and I invited them over for dinner tonight. They graciously accepted and I am thrilled. He recently sent me comped copies of both his books so I feel the ice has been broken.
What I'm going to do after dinner is see if he'll agree to answer some of the questions here and how far he'd like to take it. Maybe I'll see if he'll even write some things right here before he leaves tonight. I have no idea how it'll turn out but please stay tuned.
Mkl, from the little I know about his strategy it looks like you know even less than me from what I'm reading here. I hope he comes on and clears at least some of this up!
Quote: SOOPOOWhy would a positive EV blackjack player lose 60% of their sessions?
I was referring to video poker.
First off, expert strategy players can expect to lose at least 70% of their sessions, not 60%. You commonly see multiple figures bantered about when it comes to the optimal play crowd, and that's because most of them really aren't optimal players. Another confusion they always have is in trying to describe what it is that constitutes the long-term. Some say it's 4 royal cycles, some say it's 400,000 hands, some say it's within each person's lifetime, others say you NEVER get there--you just get closer and closer with each hand you play. Of course the true answer is infinity, which is a moot point anyway because people who play video poker always and only play in short term bursts whenver it is that they go into a casino. I think I saw Jerry correctly call that one in a thread. There is no such thing as theoretically "adding all your lifetime play up" in order to get to that mythical long-term. The only long-term there is belongs to the casinos and their machines. Period. The math is and has always been only on the side of the casinos. I do not win by the math, it's simply a part of my overall structured strategy. If I at times did not deviate from it I would fall into the same trap the advantage players find themselves falling into.
MKL mentions my book, which is NOT a good source of my strategy. I purposely did not put it in there because I did not want to appear to be selling strategy like all the other gurus do for an income. There is no such thing as "bet more and more until you win something big". There are layered win goals that incorporate 40 credit cashouts as I go up and down the 6 levels (denominations, from $1 to $100) that I've played. Those "big wins" of course do come, and when they do as long as they get me ahead by a minimum $2500, I immediately pack up and drive home, regardless of the time, the weather, or how tired or hungry I am. I have won approximately 85% of my sessions playing that particluar strategy, and it is the major contributor to my having made a net profit directly from the machines of around $986,000 from when I started it part time in 1997 until I quit as a professional in 2009.
MKL, I have never known anyone other than myself to play it at the levels I have, and I have never fully described all details of it to anyone. Most of my "students" train on my easier, less stressful strategies such as Romp-Thru-Town (RTT) and Advanced RTT (ARTT). I also have developed a 5-play strategy and a Multi-Strike strategy. But as JL pointed out from my many articles and videos on it, many times the critics have pretended to show interest or set up meetings to review the strategy or strategies, and they either did not show or they dropped it so they could simply go on attacking it without knowing the facts.
When my book came out I did attack the other authors because they mislead me when I was an AP. But I clearly state that it was my fault alone for allowing myself to get involved in something that stupid because I'm much smarter than that. It shows just how strong an addiction to play video poker blindly for that intermittent hit of satisfaction, really is.
MKL if you know me then who are you, or where do you live because that's how I remember the hundreds and hundreds of players I've met and/or trained over the years? And of course I believe in what I'm doing and saying because I've been very successful with it and it works just as it was supposed to work. I've seen "worthless" many times and that's not uncommon for people who simply like to think that if it's a negative game then the player will lose and if it's a positive game the player should win. I've never seen anything so shortsighted and stupid, and it shows me there's people who just don't understand how to gamble and win consistently. I saw JL put up a paragraph earlier in this thread that said something about how I just might have developed a way to stay on the plus side of the Bell curve during my short time playing, or something like that. That was a brilliant statement because it is exactly what I have done.
Yes I've won over 80% of the time and players who lose are irritated by it and call it "crap" as you do MKL. Laying out the entire strategy with all its variable here would take me hours, and there would be hours and hours of questions to follow and type that I just don't spend on the computer at home these days. I've skimmed over the parts about my past public bets and people here wanting money to look at the strategy. I'm not making bets any more and I'm not going to let Jerry pay for someone to review what I developed. If anyone want to TRULY understand it all then I'll be happy to SIT with them for as long as it takes so they have everything they need to analyze it over whatever amount of time they'd like to take. I'll also train anyone who'd like to be trained in how to play properly and win, for free as usual, and anyone on this forum who'd like one or both of my books, just send me an e-mail at rsinger1111@cox.net or rob_singer@q.com with a ship-to address and my daughter will send them out. I never wrote the books to make a profit off of them even though I did, but I was never in control of pricing. Now I am.
I'll be reading more often and try to contribute if there's questions about anything, but please be aware that whenever I get involved in any forums there's a handful of jealous hacks from vpFREE, VIDEOPOKER.COM, & LVA who follow me around just to start arguments--and they get quite nasty.
As I think I saw JL mention, I am being filmed next Thursday in LV that focuses on 100 of my special plays that deviate from optimal strategy, and I'll explain the give & take and why some are used in certain situations and not in others that look to be the same. They ARE a key to my having been successful playing vp, regardless what the purists claim about how all they do is lower game EV and therefore, they "must" make me lose more.
Rob
Quote: RobSingerAs Jerry said, we had a great meal over here tonight so there's no way I could turn down his request to input into this thread. Please remember that I was invited to be a member here by the Wizard, so even though I've read some nasty things being said about me mostly by mkl654321, I'll try to stay civil.
1. First off, expert strategy players can expect to lose at least 70% of their sessions, not 60%.
2. MKL mentions my book, which is NOT a good source of my strategy.
3. I have won approximately 85% of my sessions playing that particluar strategy, and it is the major contributor to my having made a net profit directly from the machines of around $986,000 from when I started it part time in 1997 until I quit as a professional in 2009.
4. MKL if you know me then who are you, or where do you live
5. Yes I've won over 80% of the time and players who lose are irritated by it and call it "crap" as you do MKL.
6. As I think I saw JL mention, I am being filmed next Thursday in LV that focuses on 100 of my special plays that deviate from optimal strategyRob
As I find the "embedded quote" feature somewhat hard to use, I've numbered a few of the points from RS's posts, in order to respond specificially to them.
1. I don't know where you get that 70% figure, but it's not correct. In any case, how OFTEN you win or lose is meaningless, and is a function of how you divide up your lifetime playing activity. If you win $100 nine times, then lose $2000 the next, you have WON NINETY PERCENT OF THE TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You have also lost $1100. Chopping one's lifetime playing into "sessions" is a meaningless distortion.
2. I agree that your book is not a good source of your "strategy"---it's mostly nonsense, as well. Sorry, but that's my assessment, and I will defend that assessment as accurate. I'm sorry, I no longer have a copy--maybe the Salvation Army store I gave it to still has it.
3. I regard your claims of massive, humongous wins as highly improbable. Your claims of session wins are also extremely improbable, but as I said above, percentage of session wins is irrelevant. What matters is the OVERALL RESULT, and you can't obscure that fact by rambling on and on about what constitutes the long term and how many hands can be played in a lifetime. What the long term is, is enough results to smooth out short-term fluctuations. If you understand the analogy, that's why 162 games cause the best baseball team to win the championship, while three games do not. I acknowledge the POSSIBILITY, albeit distant, of your being ahead lifetime, even by the amount you say, but if you are, that is DESPITE your system and methods, not because of them.
4. I do NOT, learning from hard experience, give out any personal information on a public Internet forum. In any case, who I am and what I do has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on whether your "system" works or not. The mathematics of video poker, and of probability, say that your system cannot and does not work. Your system is self-refuting; whatever I say is not necessary to further refute it.
5. Again, I seriously doubt that you "have won over 80% of the time", but as I said, that doesn't prove a bloody thing in any case. You can win "80% of the time" and still be a massive loser. "Of the time" means NOTHING---only the aggregate, TOTAL, overall result. I know enough about your "system" to know that it is simply some a kind of garbaged-up Martingale, and Martingales DO win "most of the time". In their simplest form, they win $1 over and over and over...until they lose $512.
Your application of the faulty Martingale theory to video poker is a new twist on an old, old, old, attempt to beat mathematical reality. That's all it is.
6. If you have 100 "special plays" that are suboptimal, then all that means is that every time you make such plays, you lose money. I don't know if you actually understand that frequency of win doesn't matter--TOTAL win/loss is what matters. For example, let's take the hand of Jack of Clubs, Jack, Ten, Nine, Eight of Hearts. If my Sooper-Dooper Kan't-Lose Stwategy says to hold the two Jacks rather than discard the Club Jack, then I am completely full of shit, even if my way GUARANTEES A ONE HUNDRED PERCENT WIN RATE: I will definitely get more "winning hands" holding the two Jacks. This would also be true even if someone was videotaping me while I said so--I would still be full of shit. And anyone who followed my advice, and held the two Jacks, would simply be dumping money down the drain.
Mr. Singer, I know you are a master of obfuscation, and of twisting the discussion around so that it is deflected away from what actually matters. So I encourage you not to try that here. This is the only thing that matters: the math says that you are wrong. Yes, sorry, pesky ol', unavoidable math. No one in human history has ever been able to overcome it. That fact, and my understanding of the math itself, makes me deem it highly improbable that you can do what no one in the history of the entire world has ever been able to do. WINNING, all by itself, isn't enough. Even little old ladies playing keno win every so often.
Surely a by-the-book, no-nonense, all-balls, tell-it-like-it-is guy as yourself understands the difference between someone starting out with a stupid assertion, and somebody else calling him on it. As it is very clear you have no supportive evidence and just feel better believing in such BS, no amount of scrambling around trying to save face is gonna do you any good. You're doing what you do best: write essays trying to impress when all you do is look dumb.
Singer says advantage players who claim they win is a myth and a lie because HE HAS EXPERIENCE HIMSELF. Get it? You're going around asserting how there's vp players who've been banned and barred and restricted and on and on, yet you cannot provide one piece of evidence to that effect. You get that? If the Wizard has any evidence other than "somebody told me" then it'll mean something. If not then it's simple heresay.
One more thing. When you meet someone and they tell you something, it's much easier to see the truth in it or see how badly they're lying. I saw what I needed to tonight in order to believe RS. You OTOH choose to deliver one stupid assertion after another for the sake of argument and conversation....both of which I do not believe you could live without. At the same time you want to be anonymous while saying Singer and you know each other, and that smacks of you hiding something.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After reading your response to what RS posted tonight, I see you're still in the same old time warp with the same old confusion. For some reason you want to focus on the same tired assertion of how he never wins large and that there's not more large winners than large losers. Of course you stick to that story because you'd have nothing else to hold onto. You didn't see his overall win amount, which obviously means OVERALL WIN AMOUNT is important to him? I also find it interesting that you're nothing but a critic who doesn't want to know how he does it, and feels comfy about it by still being able to criticize him about it. You would have asked him in your ramble if you really wanted to know, and you didn't. You also have the wrong beat on his special plays. He said he's previewing 100 of them, and there's quite a few more in the games he plays altogether. They're not used in the way you misrepresented them either. Why do you insist on trying to mislead others with your confused interpretations?
I'll repeat something he told me earlier tonight: Winners like other winners; losers HATE them. You have a hate for this guy that you're trying to mask as a dislike for what he preaches. I believe you really think he wins, you loathe that fact, and it forces you into these god-awful rants repeating the same nonsense over and over because you just cannot seem to find the right words that'll satisfy the aggrevating itch he gives you.
SOOPOO, I think it is essentially obvious that your statement is correct. I expect that these two will never agree on anything of substance and rarely on the trivial and absolute.Quote: SOOPOOMkl- you MUST know by now that you will not convince JL. JL- you must know by now that you will not convince MKL. There is no 'evidence' either of you can produce that will change the other's mind. ...
What bothers me a bit is that for a few hours, mostly on Saturday, we seemed to have a period during which the disagreements were civil -- almost polite -- and now the exchanges have gone back to the totally nasty. I just don't see why they can't just keep disagreeing in a courteous manner that makes this a nicer playground for the rest of us.
Quote: JerryLoganI see it as Singer came on, was very polite, and mkl just couldn't help himself by being his same old nasty self. Imagine waking up in the same house as that guy every day and make one tiny little statement that he doesn't agree with?
I regard your criticizing anyone else, myself included, for being "nasty", as extremely funny. Not to mention highly hypocritical. However, I will only respond IN KIND to you. That means if you keep it civil, so will I. But really, Jerry, why does my disagreeing with Singer make you so ANGRY? It's like a fundamentalist reacting to a blasphemer. We can't have any kind of discussion here if we automatically assume Singer is 1000% correct...can we?
Quote: DocSOOPOO, I think it is essentially obvious that your statement is correct. I expect that these two will never agree on anything of substance and rarely on the trivial and absolute.
What bothers me a bit is that for a few hours, mostly on Saturday, we seemed to have a period during which the disagreements were civil -- almost polite -- and now the exchanges have gone back to the totally nasty. I just don't see why they can't just keep disagreeing in a courteous manner that makes this a nicer playground for the rest of us.
The difference, I think, is that JL can't resist the ad hominem attack. Read how many times he attacks ME as if what I said or thought had anything to do with the correctness of Singer's methods. Anyone, myself included, who doesn't believe in Singer is "jealous".
For a rather funny explication of the nastiness of JL, read my other thread, which contains excerpts from ELEVEN nasty attacks on me by JL in the space of TWO DAYS.
I'm done with this jerk. For one brief, optimistic moment, I though he was able to discuss things intelligently. Now, he seems to have reverted to his same old nasty self. Pity.
Quote: SOOPOOMkl- you MUST know by now that you will not convince JL. JL- you must know by now that you will not convince MKL. There is no 'evidence' either of you can produce that will change the other's mind. Mkl.. unless you can come up with a 'challenge' that Mr. Singer would accept, there will never be resolution, at least acceptable to JL. Of course, mkl, you are right, but do you believe that you have ANY chance of convincing Mr. Singer or JL? I don't agree with Mr. Singer's assertions, but I do appreciate him sharing them with us. One question, Mr. Singer- why have you stopped playing? Or did I misinterpret that?
Actually, I DO have evidence--mathematics. But since JL doesn't believe in math, and Singer purports to have found a way to get around it, I agree, there's no convincing either one of them.
Quote: JerryLoganSinger says advantage players who claim they win is a myth and a lie because HE HAS EXPERIENCE HIMSELF. .
So Singer KNOWS that nobody else but him wins. How, exactly? Advantage play is a lie. Why? Because he failed so miserably at it?
I'm amused that you believe this guy so naively, with so much FAITH, and you never have asked him for the PROOF that you have so screamingly demanded of others. You want to believe Singer very very very much. Feel free to so so, and pound away at those $5 Double Double Bonus machines until you go broke. You will indeed get some Singeresque "big wins". You will also lose, and let me say that no one in the history of the human race deserves to lose more.
Quote: RobSingerThe math is and has always been only on the side of the casinos.
Quote: mkl654321Yes, sorry, pesky ol', unavoidable math. No one in human history has ever been able to overcome it.
Rancor aside, it would appear that there is agreement here. Moreover, if the house has the edge, and we agree that the house has the edge, how can we explain someone having a winning track-record at VP?
Simple. They got lucky.
There's nothing wrong with that. It's an expected and exciting part of the gambling experience. Without good luck, nobody would be a gambler. Depending on how you play, you may have a greater or lesser chance of being ahead of the house after some period of time - even after a lifetime of play.
But don't confuse being lucky with having the edge. When the house has the edge, you need good luck to beat them. Not everyone will get lucky all the time, and that means someone, somewhere is going to be the loser. It might not be you but it's going to be someone. 98steps found that out within a week of playing his craps betting system. VP is more volatile than craps, especially when adding in multi-denomination play, so it's very reasonable that a multi-denomination VP player that is up lifetime. But if *all* VP players played that way, some of them would be flat broke.
So play a VP martingale all you want, but don't delude yourself into thinking that your good luck will last. It might, but you'll need to be lucky, and relying on good luck is a lousy profit strategy.
Quote: MathExtremistRancor aside, it would appear that there is agreement here. Moreover, if the house has the edge, and we agree that the house has the edge, how can we explain someone having a winning track-record at VP?
Simple. They got lucky.
So play a VP martingale all you want, but don't delude yourself into thinking that your good luck will last. It might, but you'll need to be lucky, and relying on good luck is a lousy profit strategy.
Thanks for injecting a bit of sanity into this discussion :)
The obfuscation and double-talk from system flacks seems to mostly revolve around what constitutes "winning", or "I win", or "I usually win". EVERYBODY who gambles, wins. EVERYBODY wins multiple times when they play. We all have an Aunt Mathilda who "always wins when she goes to Vegas". And yes, she always does. She plays dollar slots for three days straight, and she definitely wins---on some pulls of the handle. The fly in the ointment is that she also loses.
The only barometer for system analysis is the underlying mathematics of that system. The only barometer for results is if they are consistent over a long period of time. Those results can be distorted by artificially breaking up one's play history into "sessions". This leads to the distortion of "frequency of wins", which is meaningless. A player who had a "winning craps system" consisting of laying odds against the 4 every single roll would indeed win more often than he lost, as would a player who bet on any baseball team that was a -200 favorite or more. Would those players be "winners"? No.
That this basic concept utterly eludes so many people, I can only attribute to the lack of proper education in our schools, as well an an unfortunate, lingering tendency for our culture to believe in the irrational and the supernatural.
Quote: JerryLoganSo the discussion gets tough with the possibility of there being a REAL opportunity for a change instead of people throwing out nothing but a bunch of excuses, theories and what-ifs, and the tough want it all to just stop. As soon as there's even the remotest of possibilities to unravel and dissect the Singer strategy, which seems to be a never-ending and very popular subject in every corner of the gambling world, sweeping it under the rug outguns true and meaningful effort every time.
OK, how much do you guys want to look at his strategy? It always comes down to money.
The real question is how much do you want to look at his strategy. You can hire an analyst to codify and simulate it, but you probably don't want to. A proper analysis would undoubtedly show you things you appear not to want to believe, and that may make the game less entertaining for you. Are you curious enough to do a proper investigation?
Try to keep in mind what this is (or should be) all about -- having fun. Trying to profit consistently from playing VP is like going to the beach with a metal-detector. It can be technically +EV, but it's way more trouble than it's worth. And that's if you're playing properly.
Trying to profit consistently at VP when you're intentionally making suboptimal plays and overbetting your bankroll is just bad financial sense. You still might win, but don't bet on it. It's like going to the races and intentionally betting on the horse with the limp ridden by the fat jockey. He still might win, but don't bet on it.
Quote: MathExtremistthis is (or should be) all about -- having fun. Trying to profit consistently from playing VP is like going to the beach with a metal-detector. It can be technically +EV, but it's way more trouble than it's worth. And that's if you're playing properly..
I mildly disagree, in that it used to be possible to make quite a good living--$30/hr is nothing to sneeze at. That kind of return was definitely worth the trouble.
And I still have fun playing .25 VP, even though my expected return is down in the $1-7/hr range. Why? Because it is no longer any extra effort to play correctly. I have as much fun as the next guy, but the difference is, it doesn't cost me anything. The average player on a fullpay deuces wild machine is making enough mistakes so that he is playing at a 99% return. He's paying $10/hr for his fun. I'm not. Why wouldn't I play for free, given that I can?
Quote: mkl654321Thanks for injecting a bit of sanity into this discussion :)
The obfuscation and double-talk from system flacks seems to mostly revolve around what constitutes "winning", or "I win", or "I usually win". EVERYBODY who gambles, wins. EVERYBODY wins multiple times when they play. We all have an Aunt Mathilda who "always wins when she goes to Vegas". And yes, she always does. She plays dollar slots for three days straight, and she definitely wins---on some pulls of the handle. The fly in the ointment is that she also loses.
I have a relative who is up significantly (5 figures) lifetime on VP. Most of that is due to two hands - a $5 progressive royal for $15k or so and a $10 royal for $20k. Other than that, he may still be up slightly - I'm not sure. A swing of a few grand in a trip is not uncommon.
But here's the thing. When he wins, he doesn't claim it was anything other than good luck. And when he loses, for the most part, he doesn't blame anything other than bad luck. I've sat with him and he mostly makes the right plays - a few cents here and there lost to edge cases, but nothing egregious like throwing away a 4RF to hold a high pair.
Of course, he's an intelligent, honest person, and he's being honest with himself. He's not pretending that he can beat the game or somehow control the randomness. He's just playing for fun. The problems arise when someone thinks they can control randomness rather than accepting they can't. For some people it's an ego thing - they need control. That, and greed, have led many people to spend lots of money on gambling systems or methods or other ways to control the game and turn it into a cash machine. Common sense refutes this notion -- for example, a casino with a profit motive isn't going to offer a meaningfully-beatable game for very long -- but ego and greed often blind people to common sense.
Quote: mkl654321
The only barometer for system analysis is the underlying mathematics of that system. The only barometer for results is if they are consistent over a long period of time. Those results can be distorted by artificially breaking up one's play history into "sessions".
This is not "artificial", but the way people actually experience gambling, since they don't play continuously for their lifetime's play.
Quote: mkl654321This leads to the distortion of "frequency of wins", which is meaningless.
It's not meaningless at all, if the magnitude of the winning and losing sessions is included. 98 Steps and many others have come up with strategies that can provide an actual expectation of a large majority of winning sessions, over-balanced, as always, by the magnitude of the losses in the losing sessions. That information is not "meaningless". There is certainly a material difference between a strategy like 98 Steps' and "Tough Craps", a method touted by Tom "Home Runs Are Boring" on rec.gambling.craps; he claimed to lose a large majority of sessions, but win enough on his "monster rolls" that he was ahead. He did NOT claim a mathematical player edge at all, just that he, personally, was ahead. His system was to progress his odds bets after every point win, raising his line bet only when necessary to reach the desired odds-bet level. Neither of these systems can overcome the casino advantage, they both have similar ev's for a given bet handle, but the shapes of their graphs are very, very different, and people are going to prefer one over the other.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Woodland, CA
Quote: MathExtremistCommon sense refutes this notion -- for example, a casino with a profit motive isn't going to offer a meaningfully-beatable game for very long -- but ego and greed often blind people to common sense.
In this case, "common sense" is wrong. Most of the locals' casinos--before being Stationized--offered gobs of +EV games. They made gobs of money on those games. Those casinos were (and are) extremely profitable. The simple fact of the matter is that for every knowledgeable player who sat down in front of those machines, there were ten clueless players. That ratio has dropped, thanks to the wealth of easily available VP info (such as the Wiz's sites), to about 5:1, which is one driving factor behind the destruction of good VP in Vegas.
Look at it in comparison with casino blackjack. Most 3:2 games are still quite beatable, with optimum strategy. With basic strategy, you can reduce the house edge to about $2/hr. Yet, casinos still deal blackjack, and make gobs of money doing it. Using the "common sense" rubric, no casino would ever offer a "meaningfully-beatable" blackjack game--but they do.
Quote: goatcabinThis is not "artificial", but the way people actually experience gambling, since they don't play continuously for their lifetime's play.
It's not meaningless at all, if the magnitude of the winning and losing sessions is included.
Okay, then, meaningless BY ITSELF, without CONTEXT. And that context is the overall result.
The way people experience gambling is misleading, in terms of assessing overall results: it's all one big long session, until you die. Whether five seconds or five weeks elapses between your last play and your next is actually meaningless.
Quote: mkl654321In this case, "common sense" is wrong. Most of the locals' casinos--before being Stationized--offered gobs of +EV games. They made gobs of money on those games. Those casinos were (and are) extremely profitable. The simple fact of the matter is that for every knowledgeable player who sat down in front of those machines, there were ten clueless players. That ratio has dropped, thanks to the wealth of easily available VP info (such as the Wiz's sites), to about 5:1, which is one driving factor behind the destruction of good VP in Vegas.
Look at it in comparison with casino blackjack. Most 3:2 games are still quite beatable, with optimum strategy. With basic strategy, you can reduce the house edge to about $2/hr. Yet, casinos still deal blackjack, and make gobs of money doing it. Using the "common sense" rubric, no casino would ever offer a "meaningfully-beatable" blackjack game--but they do.
I mean "meaningfully-beatable" in the eyes of the casino. The casino doesn't care about the distribution or number of winning players, only that the losers outweigh them in the aggregate. Your story about the ratio of clueless to knowledgeable VP players is precisely the point. When the casino starts to see its profits dip, they change the game mix. Until then it doesn't matter -- because to the casino, their VP games are not being meaningfully-beaten even if they're theoretically +EV. That's the same reason casinos went to 6-5 single deck, because the 3-2 single deck games weren't holding what they used to.
Contrast this with the rare situations where a new table game comes on the floor with the analysis miscalculated and the casino takes a bath. Those games are summarily yanked.
Quote: mkl654321Okay, then, meaningless BY ITSELF, without CONTEXT. And that context is the overall result.
The way people experience gambling is misleading, in terms of assessing overall results: it's all one big long session, until you die. Whether five seconds or five weeks elapses between your last play and your next is actually meaningless.
This is true only if you care solely about the numbers, which most gamblers do not. I'm a mathematician and I still play gambling systems. Granted, the ones I play all have low EVs, but I've adjusted my distributions so that my typical session will either be a small-to-moderate loss or a reasonably big win -- because that's what I like in my session outcomes. Obviously, it follows that I have a few more losses than wins. Lifetime EV is lifetime EV, regardless of how you chop it up, but some players like having more frequent wins ("Hey, Susan, I just got back from Vegas and I won again!") while others are willing to wait out losing sessions to get that giant payout ("Hey, Mark, I finally hit the jackpot!").
Slot games are designed with this in mind. Table games typically aren't, but you can approximate the same concept by altering your betting patterns. The martingale and anti-martingale are perfect examples of two systems with the same mean but very different distributions.
Does good luck come often? Well, in my case the way I play, I might have good luck once every 4 trips and it comes in the form of multiple quad aces or a royal or two. But Singer doesn't look at good luck in quite the same way. Because he constantly progresses in denominations and something called game volotility(?) he can hit four 4's and finish his session a winner, and he calls that good luck. For me and for all AP's, that hand is nothing more than more credits to keep on playing.
Quote: mkl654321Okay, then, meaningless BY ITSELF, without CONTEXT. And that context is the overall result.
I disagree. The context is the distribution of sessions outcomes -- very, very different for different strategies that may have the same or very similar overall results.
Quote: mkl654321The way people experience gambling is misleading, in terms of assessing overall results: it's all one big long session, until you die. Whether five seconds or five weeks elapses between your last play and your next is actually meaningless.
But ONLY in terms of assessing the overall result. I agree totally that the elapsing of time between sessions, or where the sessions take place, do not matter to the overall result, one's lifetime net win or loss. It seems laughable to me when people leave one table or casino hoping for better results elsewhere; of course, their results will differ, but there is no way to forecast whether they will be better than had they stayed at the original place.
I think the attraction of lots-of-small-wins systems is that people hope they will avoid that big loss. We see that 98 Steps did not. OTOH, the "Tough Craps" player(s) hope to hit that big win early.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Woodland, CA
Quote: goatcabinBut ONLY in terms of assessing the overall result.
I think the attraction of lots-of-small-wins systems is that people hope they will avoid that big loss. We see that 98 Steps did not. OTOH, the "Tough Craps" player(s) hope to hit that big win early.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Woodland, CA
Well, what other meaningful assessment is there? Frequency of wins, without considering the overall result, may provide comfort, but it's illusory comfort. I don't discount the placebo effect, but anyone calling themselves successful because they've found a way to break up their total play into "sessions" is simply deluding themselves, if their overall results are negative. I ask again--is there any functional difference between two "sessions" separated by any length of time you wish, and a single "session" with an equivalent amount of play? If not, then the concept of "sessions" is in itself meaningless, in terms of assessing a gambler's methodology.
Quote: JerryLoganI think you have something here. In his articles Singer says that "the ONLY way any player can win at vp is with good luck, and that one must learn how to take maximum advantage of the good fortune that happens to come along in order to be a consistent winner" (as quoted from his site). I see this as meaning his special plays add to the probability of his receiving good luck, and it goes hand-in-hand with the reason he sets win goals IF the discipline is there to get up and walk away until the next trip. It also feeds into his Bell Curve point that I'm taking credit for mentioning first! (: at least here..
This is what I've been objecting to about Singeresque logic. He says he only has won because he's been lucky (assuming he counts himself as one of that group, "any player"). But then he tells us that he positions himself to be luckier than everybody else. Well, if he actually manages to do that (which is nonsense, by the very definition of "luck", but let's go with it for the moment), then he has a definite strategy, which, in turn, again by definition, involves something other than simply trusting to luck. To say that your method, or your strategy, or whatever you want to call it, is to give yourself the maximum chance to get lucky, is to say that you really have no strategy at all.
I certainly understand the rationale behind playing a given VP hand so as to maximize the chance of a big win. However, if that play is not the optimal one, it will result in a poorer overall result than the optimal play. It is not always the best play to go for the maximum payout. For example, at DDB, Rob's and Jerry's favorite game, the hand of Ad As Kh Qh Jh should be played as "keep the Aces", even though keeping the 3RF will give you more "big wins". Likewise, from the hand of Ac Jc 8h 4s 3d, you should hold the suited AJ, even though holding the Ace alone will give you a better shot at four Aces. (And the reason for that play is not the remote chance of drawing a royal, but the increased chance of hitting lesser, paying hands with AJ suited as opposed to a lone A.)
The other problem with Singer's assertion is that it is, in fact, possible to win without recourse to luck--after all, isn't that what the casino does, every minute of every day? if a player finds a +EV situation (which exists in many forms of VP, regardless of what Singer says), then he is, in effect, assuming the role of the casino. A 1% edge is plenty to overcome the vicissitudes of "luck"--it's good enough to keep the lights lit in Glitter Gulch, after all.
Quote: JerryLoganI think you have something here. In his articles Singer says that "the ONLY way any player can win at vp is with good luck, and that one must learn how to take maximum advantage of the good fortune that happens to come along in order to be a consistent winner" (as quoted from his site).
Sorry, but that's not how it works. You can't take advantage of good fortune in gambling. Each game, hand, or pull is independent of the hand(s) before it. Once you've had good fortune, the game is already over, and it's too late to do anything about it.
Quote:I see this as meaning his special plays add to the probability of his receiving good luck, and it goes hand-in-hand with the reason he sets win goals IF the discipline is there to get up and walk away until the next trip.
No. Altering your strategy can increase the probability of winning a given hand, but it actually decreases the probability of getting lucky over time. Any time you alter strategy from the best play, you're making a worse play by definition. MKL's example, throwing away 4-to-a-straight flush to hold a high pair, is a good example. You have a higher chance of winning (100% here) but a worse long-term gain. That long-term gain is what allows you to survive longer, so when you have less cushion, you have less room to outlast a losing streak.
Quote:Does good luck come often? Well, in my case the way I play, I might have good luck once every 4 trips and it comes in the form of multiple quad aces or a royal or two. But Singer doesn't look at good luck in quite the same way. Because he constantly progresses in denominations and something called game volotility(?) he can hit four 4's and finish his session a winner, and he calls that good luck. For me and for all AP's, that hand is nothing more than more credits to keep on playing.
If you have +EV, you *want* to keep playing. And volatility is nothing more than the swings in bankroll.
Based on what I've read, he starts out at $1 and then if he doesn't get lucky, he goes to a $2 machine, maybe then $5, then $10, then $25, then $100. If he wins enough at any one level, enough to cover his losses and make some win goal, he'll quit for the session. That's a martingale, plain and simple. It leads to many winning sessions of a relatively small amount and the occasional crushing loss. It's fine if you want to play like it, but you have to be aware of the risks of that crushing loss. You should under no circumstances assume that you'll continue to win those small amounts forever, without going bankrupt. At the end of the day, the one big win at the highest denomination is what makes up for the losses so far in the session. But consider that denomination doesn't really matter - the paytable is just in credits - so it's just as likely that you have a losing session at the $100 level as it is the $1 level. The assumption is that you'll always get that big win at some point as you climb the ladder. You and I both know that's not the case. And how much would it carve out of your bankroll if you had a losing session at the $100 denom level? That risk isn't worth it to me, but it might be to you.
Given your desire to make things up (and laughably get caught multiple times in doing so) and to to save you any further embarrassment, I'd suggest you wait to see what his special plays are rather than to look dumb trying to portray them ignorantly.
By the way, talking about ignorance: I thought I was on your blocked list for a 2nd and final time! You see mkl, maybe someday you'll realize that all your rambling and ranting is delivered with destroyed credibility when you're exposed as not being able to follow through on anything you said you were going to do.
(yes, I know about the tales of horror of some lottery winners)
Quote: mkl654321Well, what other meaningful assessment is there?
The assessment that the "shape of possible futures", as I have called the graph of calculated or simulated session outcomes, is a meaningful assessment, and in my view there is a very significant difference between graphs with different standard deviations and different skews, even if they have the same mean net outcome. It's not about believing that achieving a high proportion of winning sessions is being "successful", the way you define it, but if an individual gambler's goal is to win most of the time he/she goes to the table, understanding that the risk of the big loss is there, then that kind of strategy is appropriate for that person, just like Math Extremist's strategy is appropriate for him/her.
For another example, a strategy of minimum pass bets with 100X odds gives the player very close to an even chance to break even or better after 5000 bets, and if two million players made 5000 bets playing like that, a very substantial number of them would be ahead, some way ahead. An informed player, understanding the math and the risk of losing a lot of money, might very well want to bet on being one of those "winners". (I use quotes to distinguish players who are ahead from those who believe they have discovered an edge.)
The ev, the variance, the skew and the kurtosis are all important aspects of a strategy in craps or other non-skill games.
Quote: mkl654321Frequency of wins, without considering the overall result, may provide comfort, but it's illusory comfort. I don't discount the placebo effect, but anyone calling themselves successful because they've found a way to break up their total play into "sessions" is simply deluding themselves, if their overall results are negative.
It MAY be illusory comfort, or it may not, depending on whether the player understands the relationship between frequency of wins, size of wins, frequency of losses and their size. Here again, if you define "success" as finding a way to achieve one's goal(s) in playing, then many may find "success".
Quote: mkl654321I ask again--is there any functional difference between two "sessions" separated by any length of time you wish, and a single "session" with an equivalent amount of play? If not, then the concept of "sessions" is in itself meaningless, in terms of assessing a gambler's methodology.
I believe there is a substantial difference, but not in the probability of overall net gain. The difference is in the way the player experiences the sessions. It's fun to walk away from the table with more money than you had when you arrived. If a player has a bunch of winnings sessions and one big losing one, maybe there's a big "net fun outcome". One player may make various bets totalling $20 per pass decision while another player plays doey-don't for $10 each. They may have the same ev for a given number of bets, but the doey-don't player has zero chance of coming out ahead, but probably is not going to lose much. The other player will have a much more varied experience. These are DIFFERENT, as far as I'm concerned.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Woodland, CA
Quote: JerryLoganIt's babble like yours that give total credence to Singer when he says "all that the critics want to and will ever do is sit on the sidelines and pretend they know what they're talking about when they attack the Singer strategy, but none of them have or will ever step forward to get a solid understanding for fear that they will no longer be able to criticize".
Given your desire to make things up (and laughably get caught multiple times in doing so) and to to save you any further embarrassment, I'd suggest you wait to see what his special plays are rather than to look dumb trying to portray them ignorantly.
By the way, talking about ignorance: I thought I was on your blocked list for a 2nd and final time! You see mkl, maybe someday you'll realize that all your rambling and ranting is delivered with destroyed credibility when you're exposed as not being able to follow through on anything you said you were going to do.
I periodically unblock you to see if you've said anything amusing. I am under no contractual obligation to block or to unblock you. I will do what I wish. If you consider that as "exposing" some kind of flaw, well, if an unmitigated shithead like you considers a characteristic of mine a "flaw", then I consider that an asset.
If you want to view my making you look like an even bigger fool than you already are--well, I guess that's being "caught". You and Singer can remain in your lip-lock if that gets you off. I could care less. Singer plays a Martingale. You both play 9/6 DDB. You both lose. Massively. Consistently. That's the UNDENIABLE, to use a Singerism, truth. He's a fraud and a liar. You believe in him. That speaks for itself.
Quote: goatcabinI believe there is a substantial difference, but not in the probability of overall net gain. The difference is in the way the player experiences the sessions. It's fun to walk away from the table with more money than you had when you arrived. If a player has a bunch of winnings sessions and one big losing one, maybe there's a big "net fun outcome". One player may make various bets totalling $20 per pass decision while another player plays doey-don't for $10 each. They may have the same ev for a given number of bets, but the doey-don't player has zero chance of coming out ahead, but probably is not going to lose much. The other player will have a much more varied experience. These are DIFFERENT, as far as I'm concerned.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Woodland, CA
I guess I truly don't see how quitting every six minutes with a $1 "win", then losing $100 the tenth time, could convince anyone but the most skilled self-delusionist that he was "winning". Sessions, as I've said, are arbitrary and meaningless, right up until the point where you will never gamble again. I do agree that a LOT of players think that way, which is behind the appeal of Martingales and Singers.
Quote: JerryLoganSinger ... says "all that the critics want to and will ever do is sit on the sidelines and pretend they know what they're talking about when they attack the Singer strategy, but none of them have or will ever step forward to get a solid understanding for fear that they will no longer be able to criticize".
Do you believe him when he says this? If so, you must also believe that somehow, making differently-sized bets can beat a VP game when making same-sized bets can't. Think about that for a moment. Why would that be true?
Quote: mkl654321I guess I truly don't see how quitting every six minutes with a $1 "win", then losing $100 the tenth time, could convince anyone but the most skilled self-delusionist that he was "winning". Sessions, as I've said, are arbitrary and meaningless, right up until the point where you will never gamble again. I do agree that a LOT of players think that way, which is behind the appeal of Martingales and Singers.
I think you're talking past each other. Changing the shape of one's distribution is not the same thing as changing the mean of that distribution, and not everyone who seeks to do the former believes it accomplishes the latter. Betting system hawkers make the implication, of course, even if they do not believe it themselves. I'm not sure what Mr. Singer believes. It would appear that Jerry believes they are related, and that's false.
It's important to understand the difference, and relative independence, between the EV and the shape of a betting system's outcome distribution. But you can't even begin to think about that clearly without some education in statistics, at least enough to have seen a graph or two of a probability distribution and the vertical line representing the mean. If you haven't seen and learned that, it's going to be very, very hard to grasp why "winning more often" doesn't imply "winning more" or even just "winning". I'm still searching for the most succinct way to explain that.
Quote: MathExtremistI think you're talking past each other. Changing the shape of one's distribution is not the same thing as changing the mean of that distribution, and not everyone who seeks to do the former believes it accomplishes the latter. Betting system hawkers make the implication, of course, even if they do not believe it themselves. I'm not sure what Mr. Singer believes. It would appear that Jerry believes they are related, and that's false.
It's important to understand the difference, and relative independence, between the EV and the shape of a betting system's outcome distribution. But you can't even begin to think about that clearly without some education in statistics, at least enough to have seen a graph or two of a probability distribution and the vertical line representing the mean. If you haven't seen and learned that, it's going to be very, very hard to grasp why "winning more often" doesn't imply "winning more" or even just "winning". I'm still searching for the most succinct way to explain that.
I agree that the mathematics will elude many people, no matter how you try to explain it. I have a "seat of the pants" education in the statistics of gaming--because I had to learn that if I was going to be a serious +EV player--but I also have taken a couple of university courses in statistics. When I reflect on how many statistical analyses are either themselves counterintuitive, or produce counterintutive results, I can sympathize with system disciples and their ilk. A large part of the reason that I took those courses was that I saw so many such, to me, counterintuitive analyses, and I wasn't about to say that they were incorrect--so I wanted to find out why they were correct.
I guess if I were trying to explain this concept to someone who had no background in statistics/mathematics, I would say that in a game like video poker, where all the negative outcomes are -1 bet, but the positive outcomes are anywhere from +1 to +800 bets, the NUMBER, or the FREQUENCY, of positive outcomes is all but irrelevant. I've said it before, but only the bottom line is relevant. And in the macro sense, even THAT isn't relevant--it's the expectation, seasoned by the variance, which which point it becomes impossible to explain to anyone unfamiliar with (or worse, resistant to) both concepts.
Quote: MathExtremistDo you believe him when he says this? If so, you must also believe that somehow, making differently-sized bets can beat a VP game when making same-sized bets can't. Think about that for a moment. Why would that be true?
Yes I believe him because I have experience on several of the vp forums watching as those who've had the opportunity to review what he does, sneak away at the last minute every single time. There's no bets, no expense, just critics claiming he won't accept a review and whenever he calls them on it, they're shocked out of doing it. Why else would they do that?
I don't profess to know much about his strategy but I do know that it's hard to argue with the common sense he prevents, really from all angles. What I do know is how I trust my gut when I'm talking face to face with someone, and he's as genuine as they come. By the way, I thought I had several very nice cars in my garage, a new Audi and an Escalade hybrid. But the thing he parked in my driveway made my cars look timid, and he said he paid for it entirely with machine winnings throughout 2008. It's a 2009 Corvette Zr1. Now he doesn't work and hasn't in years, so why wouldn't I believe him that he's been able to have consistently beaten the -ev machines with varying bet sizes when he tells me these things at my home? Maybe you just have to have some special talent that we don't comprehend in order to accomplish what he has, and maybe somehow he's able to stay out of what everyone who's into the math calls the longterm. How can you be so sure about him without knowing the facts?
I'm sensing you don't want a piece of him either, correct? That boggles my mind with you math people, because I'd assume you'd all be tickled pink to carve him open to see what he's made of. He even offered to do it right here with any of you.
Here's that main issue again. Why do you just talk over what Singer says about how he does experience many small wins and a few large losses, but his large wins are more, and more frequent than the large losses, meaning just what he's reported as a huge overall win? You cannot predict such an outcome with the math, and you cannot disprove it either. In fact, you do not have nearly enough information to even begin an analysis, so how can you blindly keep saying that what he claims is not possible in the way he attains it?
If you want to view my making you look like an even bigger fool than you already are--well, I guess that's being "caught". You and Singer can remain in your lip-lock if that gets you off. I could care less. Singer plays a Martingale. You both play 9/6 DDB. You both lose. Massively. Consistently. That's the UNDENIABLE, to use a Singerism, truth. He's a fraud and a liar. You believe in him. That speaks for itself."
Translation: You know you look like a moron with your cheesy explanation on why you can't help yourself with the blocking/unblocking issue, so you scramble around trying to save face knowing how dumb you look to other readers by pretending, with the help of vulgarity of course, to have the ability to lie multiple times while being allowed "the pass of a lifetime" for your utter failure.
By the way Mr. anonymous teacher, it's "I COULDN'T care less".
Quote: mkl654321I guess I truly don't see how quitting every six minutes with a $1 "win", then losing $100 the tenth time,
That's a great example of what I'm talking about. If you want to have an honest discussion, OK, else bag it!
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Woodland, CA
Quote: JerryLoganBy the way Mr. anonymous teacher, it's "I COULDN'T care less".
Actually, "I could care less" is a well-known and oft-used idiomatic expression. If you read books, you would know that.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-i-could-care-less-mean.htm
For your edification.
And yes, Jerry, I have unblocked you yet again. I actually have you set as "blocked", but I read your posts on occasion. You'll just have to live with that. It appears to have upset you greatly, though. For that, I sincerely apologize--though you're an uncivil, obnoxious piece of work, I wouldn't want to hasten your death via apoplexy or cerebral hemorrhage. Breathe deeeeeeeply, Jerry...relax....relax....
Quote: goatcabinThat's a great example of what I'm talking about. If you want to have an honest discussion, OK, else bag it!
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Woodland, CA
Gee, Alan, don't get all exercised over a little bit o' hyperbole. I'm sure you understand my basic point. Quitting at Point X, whatever point X may be, isn't meaningful in assessing overall results, if you resume some finite amount of time later. That's all I'm saying.
Quote: JerryLoganYes I believe him because I have experience on several of the vp forums watching as those who've had the opportunity to review what he does, sneak away at the last minute every single time. There's no bets, no expense, just critics claiming he won't accept a review and whenever he calls them on it, they're shocked out of doing it. Why else would they do that?
I don't profess to know much about his strategy but I do know that it's hard to argue with the common sense he prevents, really from all angles. What I do know is how I trust my gut when I'm talking face to face with someone, and he's as genuine as they come. By the way, I thought I had several very nice cars in my garage, a new Audi and an Escalade hybrid. But the thing he parked in my driveway made my cars look timid, and he said he paid for it entirely with machine winnings throughout 2008. It's a 2009 Corvette Zr1. Now he doesn't work and hasn't in years, so why wouldn't I believe him that he's been able to have consistently beaten the -ev machines with varying bet sizes when he tells me these things at my home? Maybe you just have to have some special talent that we don't comprehend in order to accomplish what he has, and maybe somehow he's able to stay out of what everyone who's into the math calls the longterm. How can you be so sure about him without knowing the facts?
I'm sensing you don't want a piece of him either, correct? That boggles my mind with you math people, because I'd assume you'd all be tickled pink to carve him open to see what he's made of. He even offered to do it right here with any of you.
The reason is, Jerry, that he never actually follows through with those "challenges". He may say he does, but he doesn't. Despite what you say. Despite what he says.
"Us math people" don't need to analyze his system, because he purports to do something that we know, and 400 years of mathematics know, is impossible. It's as simple as that. What he claims to do, can't be done. Period.
I'm actually quite curious about something. You are really really really big about loudly demanding "PROOOOOOOF!!!!" for assertions which you don't want to believe. Why, then, do you take Singer's claims at face value? Why do you, the ultimate skeptic, take him completely at his word when he says he's won almost a million dollars? Has he given you any proof of that? Have you gone with him to the casino and watched over his shoulder as he works his magic? Has he explained his "system" to you, and shown you exactly why it works? Can he walk into a casino and "win 80% of the time"? Have you SEEN him do that? (Keep in mind that you'd have to watch five separate sessions, at least, to validate his 80% winning claim.)
Or are you just showing blind faith, because you've been losing for so long and desperately want to find a way to win that doesn't involve thinking or hard work?
Quote: JerryLogan"If you haven't seen and learned that, it's going to be very, very hard to grasp why "winning more often" doesn't imply "winning more" or even just "winning". I'm still searching for the most succinct way to explain that."
Here's that main issue again. Why do you just talk over what Singer says about how he does experience many small wins and a few large losses, but his large wins are more, and more frequent than the large losses, meaning just what he's reported as a huge overall win? You cannot predict such an outcome with the math, and you cannot disprove it either. In fact, you do not have nearly enough information to even begin an analysis, so how can you blindly keep saying that what he claims is not possible in the way he attains it?
Because the burden of proof is on the man who says he can do the impossible, not on the man who says he can't.
Quote: DeMangoDoes anyone on this thread know what a Martingale is ? It just gets mentioned by one who just shows by his words that he knows absolutely nothing about negative progressions. Folks the only question here is has Rob Singer moved variance to such a state, that he is able to make money on a negative progression. Use of the "M" word simply denotes ignorance..... And yes with no limits on a game and a really high bankroll you can win with a negative progression because in your lifetime you will never see 50 pass line losers in a row or 50 banker wins or...... a La Bouchere would do the trick!!
Actually, EVERYBODY on this thread knows what a Martingale is, and why a Martingale doesn't work. It's the oldest, most tired trick in the book.
Any "negative progression" is just a series of bets. If those bets are -EV, then no combination, progression, or arrangement of those bets can produce a +EV result.
There is no situation existing on this planet where you could double your bet fifty times, even if you DID have an unlimited bankroll.
Quote: DeMangoAnd yes with no limits on a game and a really high bankroll you can win with a negative progression
And where do they play such a game?
Quote:because in your lifetime you will never see 50 pass line losers in a row or 50 banker wins or...... a La Bouchere would do the trick!!
I have seen red (and zero) hit 35 times in a row with my own eyes. Yes, it's not 50, but, first, my lifetime isn't over yet, second, I don't go to casino that often, and I don't play roulette at all, and third, 35 or 50 simply doesn't matter for all practical purposes. If you started with $1, your 35th bet would have to be $34,359,738,368
I'll give you that "with no limits on a game and a really high bankroll" you'd still win that $1. But if you have 70 billion bucks to spend on gambling ... why bother?
Quote: goatcabinThat's a great example of what I'm talking about. If you want to have an honest discussion, OK, else bag it!
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Woodland, CA
What's honest about that when the author of that strategy has said many times that you win many small winners, have a few large losses, then because of increased denomination and higher game volotility you experience more than a few large wins? It all adds up to an overall profit and makes good sense to me, but because no one else has done or even tried it, some people pretend it does not exist.
