Singer System - Challenge?
Quote: mkl654321Actually, "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....
Why don't you just come out and admit you can't help yourself.
I'd say you got caught with your pants down again and scrambled around the Internet for that stupid example of could care less. That's not what you meant and you must think everyone here is dumb if you think they're gonna believe you, teach!
Quote: mkl654321The 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?
1. I've asked you to support your assertion that "he never follows through with those challenges" many times, and you can't. Then I give you the Gambling Today article that proves he did, and all you can do is cower and ignore it. Do you think you look credible doing that?
2. Your next statement tells us just how lazy you really are. You don't want to know what he does because you are just like me, you don't have the ability to understand it completely and you have no clue how to analyze it properly.
3. I've said this before, the Singer claims are tough to swallow for those of us who don't win, and I see from your pain that they're almost impossible to stomach for those who don't understand it and don't want to understand it. But if he were not being honest, then NO WAY would he ever publish that half million dollar plus challenge and put up that much of an escrow IN CASH expecting LVA etc. to call him on proving what he said he does. To me that's total credibility, and no, NO ONE would ever have the time to live 24/7 with any other gambler to see them accomplish anything. Now flip the page. Why are we supposed to believe people like you when you say you 'win" because the math says you should? How do we know you play only +EV machines, or that you're playing them to perfection? You people want us to believe YOU, yet you offer nothing but theory. Singer OTOH has offered a lot, lot more as proof, like reality, and all the AP's from what I've seen are afraid of what they might get if they ever had the guts to follow through on it.
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!!
After talking to Singer, it is very clear that those who accuse him of using Martingale or a modified version of it (whatever that is) have no real clue as to how his play strategy works. Again, critics line up to criticize, then when he offers open review so they can see how wrong they are, the critics just disappear in mass because they want to keep hanging onto their "theories" about him so they can continue to blindly criticize, regardless of how wrong they are. I've never seen such a bunch of cowards in my life, and some of them are here. If the guy was out trying to make intelligent people look stupid, he's a genius.
Take it from me: You guys might think you know a lot about gambling and gambling theory, but until you sit down and talk to him about it for a couple of hours, you really aren't as informed as you may think. I'm not that cerebral, but lights went on the other night.
Quote: RobSingerjust send me an e-mail at rsinger1111{at}cox.net or rob_singer{at}q.com ...
I would suggest never posting an Email address online. The spam bots will find it and next you'll be inundated with Viagra ads. I changed the @ symbols in the quote myself, for your own protection.
Quote: JerryLoganBut for what isn't worth, since the Wizard also asserts that there have been such barrings of VPs, why don't you PM him, and DEMAND PROOF along with videotaped documentation, sworn affidavits, and other "evidence".
What player is going to have a videotape of his own barring? What discrete advantage player is going to go around posting things like "My real name is x and I was barred from video poker at the y casino," let alone bothering with an affidavit. Personally, I know a lot of people who have been backed off from video poker, but I don't go around demanding video tape and affidavits.
Quote: JerryLoganHow 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.
I do know the facts - that's why I'm not interested in "a piece of him" or in "carving him open". We're not talking about assault, just numbers. It's no skin off my nose if you (or he) believes you can beat VP by playing worse than normal and moving to different machines and denominations. That's happening right now in casinos across the country in the aggregate, and in the aggregate the casinos expect to come out ahead. Sometimes a few of those players will get lucky. Mr. Singer appears to have gotten lucky too. But don't confuse luck with talent, as in "some special talent that we don't comprehend." That's not sensible.
I asked before whether you were willing to hire a engineer and run a proper analysis of this system. The answer appears to be "no".
As to this:
Quote: JerryLoganYou 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?
Of course I have enough information. All the information I need is what game is being played. There is a house edge in VP and that's the end of the story. That house edge cannot change except due to suboptimal play, but the shape of the outcome distribution can. If you make increasing bets as you're losing, you'll win more often and lose infrequently. The average size of the loss, however, will be larger than the average size of the win. Even if, as in VP, you have large wins. It's not the size or frequency of the wins and losses that matter - it's the expected net difference. And in -EV VP, the expected net difference between wins and losses is always negative money, regardless of whether you play all your games at the $1 level, the $100 level, or any combination in between.
The ultimate question is whether any betting system has the ability to change the house edge of its component bets. The answer should be obvious ("of course not") but that doesn't prevent the system hawkers from making all sorts of claims to the contrary.
I sense I'm starting to repeat myself, so I'll just end with this. There is often little harm in believing in betting systems, and the financial downsides (occasional large losses and overall increased wager volume) may be outweighed by the non-financial upsides (increased entertainment, the buzz that comes with believing that you're beating the casinos at their own game). If that's the case, just be careful that you don't overspend and lose too much when you finally do lose -- or worse, delude yourself into thinking that you can't lose. I saw the story of 98steps losing over 2300 in a low-stakes craps session. To me, that's too much. But if you're willing to handle a few thousand-dollar loss, then you can very easily achieve a high probability of winning a few hundred dollars at VP or whatever your chosen game is. That's shifted the likely outcomes so that you need a little good luck to come out ahead, but really, really bad luck to lose. Lots of people like playing that way, but again, don't confuse getting lucky with having "some special talent".
Quote: JerryLoganBut if he were not being honest, then NO WAY would he ever publish that half million dollar plus challenge and put up that much of an escrow IN CASH expecting LVA etc. to call him on proving what he said he does.
What's this about a half-million dollar challenge?
This is the Advance Romp through town strategy, where the player moves to a higher denomination machine ($1 -> $2 -> $5 -> $10 -> $25) after losing 1 hand on the previous level. Win a hand (2 Pair or better) and return to the base level. The way it reads though, the $25 machine doesn't come into play (or the example switches half way through). Assuming you play to the $10 level, and lose, keep playing $10 credit machine until your back to +$50 or you lose 100 ($1000) credits. Finish the session when you reach $80. Finish the day when you reach $320 (I'm assuming no $25 level). Play four sessions per day, moving around as you desire.
Quote:And NEVER be overly concerned about pay tables where you choose to play. Just pick out the best pay table in the most comfortable area that YOU want to play in. Pay tables are what they are, and are much less important than a host of other factors when gambling on video poker machines.
Seems the most eyebrow raising comment. I assume that the pay tables were the MOST important factor on VP, all other things being equal (and even then may might other non-equal things unimportant).
I'm not sure why THIS method (it's no Singer's advance play method, for sure) is not a simple Progressive system that has all the downsides of such systems (like a Martingale). I get the "idea" is hoping that all the times you hit a better than two pair on a higher pay out lets you cash winners, but there'll be that string of 4 losses (mixed with pushes) that leads you to play $10 Vpoker and running through the bankroll as you never recover back to +$50.
Quote: WizardWhat player is going to have a videotape of his own barring? What discrete advantage player is going to go around posting things like "My real name is x and I was barred from video poker at the y casino," let alone bothering with an affidavit. Personally, I know a lot of people who have been backed off from video poker, but I don't go around demanding video tape and affidavits.
But that was my point---Jerry DID demand such proof when I posted what had happened at South Point (and the Palms) re player barring. I suggested he DEMAND the proof that he wanted (four sets of notarized affidavits, videos, etc. etc.) from you rather than me, because you had corroborated what I had said about those barrings, and his request was so absurd that I was never going to fulfill it.
Jerry says that because no such "evidence" of barrings is available, that I'm lying about their ever happening. Since you have corroborated that, he is, in effect, calling you a liar as well. I was hoping you could disabuse him of that notion, because he calls ME a liar if I say that the sky is blue.
Quote: thecesspit
Seems the most eyebrow raising comment. I assume that the pay tables were the MOST important factor on VP, all other things being equal (and even then may might other non-equal things unimportant).
I'm not sure why THIS method (it's no Singer's advance play method, for sure) is not a simple Progressive system that has all the downsides of such systems (like a Martingale). I get the "idea" is hoping that all the times you hit a better than two pair on a higher pay out lets you cash winners, but there'll be that string of 4 losses (mixed with pushes) that leads you to play $10 Vpoker and running through the bankroll as you never recover back to +$50.[/q
Singer's system IS a Martingale--nothing more. It has all the flaws that other Martingales have.
The paytable is indeed the most important factor. If, to use Rob Singer's favorite game, you play 9/6 Double Double Bonus, you are fighting a house advantage of 1.1% with perfect play (and Singer proudly asserts that he plays many hands the wrong way, deliberately). If you take the trouble to seek out 10/6 Double Double Bonus, however, the house advantage is 0%. So if you're playing $1 denominations ($5/hand) at moderate speed (600 hands/hr), the difference between 9/6 and 10/6 is the difference between an expected loss of $33 and an expected loss of $0. So if you're too stupid, too lazy, or too Singer to seek out the better of the two games, you will LOSE. Just like Singer does.
It also matters that you play the optimal strategy. For every possible situation, there is a single best play. Playing a hand in a way other than optimal costs money. Some mistakes are more costly than others, and some situations come up more than others. It is essential to learn the proper strategy for the game you are playing. Singer says that he ignores the proper strategy when he feels like it. This means that he loses money whenever he does so (and that is independent of the particular result of any given hand--if he throws away three Jacks to keep a lone Ace, he loses money, even if he hits four Aces on that hand).
The third consideration is slot club benefits, such as free play or cashback (and future mailers, room offers, etc.). Singer says he does not play with a slot club card. This gives him a convenient way to dodge any requests for confirmation of his "wins"--if he played with a club card, then he could show all his legions of fans the yearly win/loss reports from his play. He has some cockamamie excuse for not playing with a card, but the bottom line is that he throws away thousands of dollars by doing so. The excuse is that he doesn't want to be "detected" by the casino bosses, because he's such a big big big winner. In truth, casinos LOVE people like him--he plays crap paytables, uses bad strategy, and plays larger and larger denominations as he loses. What's not to like?The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
I suspect Mr Singer has made a profit. I suspect if I ran a simulation base on his progression system using Basic Strategy (not his strategy) you'd see enough winning lifetimes as a total percentage that making a profit is not a the far far far end of probability. I DON'T believe for a second it can make the game +EV overall.
Some of the bets are stupid.. like betting that he can win at one session at the casino. I don't doubt he'd be a favorite to win one session (*) using his method. I'd never bet Evens against a player being able to do that in one session where the stop win is much smaller than the stop loss.
I actually don't agree that the Standard Singer System is a Martingale. I do agree it's a variant on the Martingale and has all those associated flaws. I would class it as a system where bets increase the more you lose. This includes things like the Labouchere and D'alembert as well as the Martingale. I'm probably being more focused on the taxonomy than is necessary. I do think the Advanced Romp Through Town system IS a Martingale on Video Poker Martingale and as close as you can get to doing one on VP.
(*) for some value of session having a stop win and stop loss goal, in the case of what I've read it's $2,500 Units for the win and $37,000 for the loss. I can be corrected here.
Quote: thecesspitActually, I think Mr Singer does use a club card, as at least one article talks about using it at the Palms for a promotion (actually his AP buddy used it, but to get the promotion he must have used the card in the past, unless I really misunderstand).
I suspect Mr Singer has made a profit. I suspect if I ran a simulation base on his progression system using Basic Strategy (not his strategy) you'd see enough winning lifetimes as a total percentage that making a profit is not a the far far far end of probability. I DON'T believe for a second it can make the game +EV overall..
Well, if he did play with a club card any major portion of the time, he would have incontrovertible proof, rather than just unsubstantiated claims, that he has won a jillion skillion zillion dollars, at least at those casinos, and during those times, when he played with a club card. I know that when asked for win/loss statements, his excuse for not having them was that he didn't play with a club card for fear that casinos would "detect" him.
I don't share your view that Singer has made a profit. Of course, it's POSSIBLE, but with Singer's game selection, plus the bad strategy that he uses (I refer to his suboptimal play choices, not his Martingale), he has been fighting a disadvantage of over 2% throughout his entire playing "career". So did he win? Not bloody likely. And if he made almost a million dollars in twelve years, why did he "retire" in 2009? Most likely, for the same reason that other bad gamblers "retire"--they go broke.
Quote: SOOPOOJerry, did he actually teach you anything, or was it more philosophical? If I were fortunate enough to meet with someone who I believed had a true system for beating a casino game, I would be begging for the details.
We're going to set up some training at one of the local Indian casinos around here soon, I hope. My problem is I lack discipline and math aptitude. But I will report on how it goes in time.
Wizard, the problem with saying you know of people who've been backed off is it's proveable but no one does it, except again of course, for the ban letters Singer included in the Gambling Today articles from a few years ago that he received I think from Bellagio and one of the Harrahs properties. Once again, he seems to be the only one who proves anything or is willing to prove anything. I don't think it's all that important, but AP's have a self proclaimed reputation to uphold and if they're telling anybody that they've been banned or restricted then it serves to create the aura that , by the way, they WIN.
Quote: MathExtremistI do know the facts - that's why I'm not interested in "a piece of him" or in "carving him open". We're not talking about assault, just numbers. It's no skin off my nose if you (or he) believes you can beat VP by playing worse than normal and moving to different machines and denominations. That's happening right now in casinos across the country in the aggregate, and in the aggregate the casinos expect to come out ahead. Sometimes a few of those players will get lucky. Mr. Singer appears to have gotten lucky too. But don't confuse luck with talent, as in "some special talent that we don't comprehend." That's not sensible.
I asked before whether you were willing to hire a engineer and run a proper analysis of this system. The answer appears to be "no".
As to this:
Of course I have enough information. All the information I need is what game is being played. There is a house edge in VP and that's the end of the story. That house edge cannot change except due to suboptimal play, but the shape of the outcome distribution can. If you make increasing bets as you're losing, you'll win more often and lose infrequently. The average size of the loss, however, will be larger than the average size of the win. Even if, as in VP, you have large wins. It's not the size or frequency of the wins and losses that matter - it's the expected net difference. And in -EV VP, the expected net difference between wins and losses is always negative money, regardless of whether you play all your games at the $1 level, the $100 level, or any combination in between.
The ultimate question is whether any betting system has the ability to change the house edge of its component bets. The answer should be obvious ("of course not") but that doesn't prevent the system hawkers from making all sorts of claims to the contrary.
I sense I'm starting to repeat myself, so I'll just end with this. There is often little harm in believing in betting systems, and the financial downsides (occasional large losses and overall increased wager volume) may be outweighed by the non-financial upsides (increased entertainment, the buzz that comes with believing that you're beating the casinos at their own game). If that's the case, just be careful that you don't overspend and lose too much when you finally do lose -- or worse, delude yourself into thinking that you can't lose. I saw the story of 98steps losing over 2300 in a low-stakes craps session. To me, that's too much. But if you're willing to handle a few thousand-dollar loss, then you can very easily achieve a high probability of winning a few hundred dollars at VP or whatever your chosen game is. That's shifted the likely outcomes so that you need a little good luck to come out ahead, but really, really bad luck to lose. Lots of people like playing that way, but again, don't confuse getting lucky with having "some special talent".
You're not doing anything more than trying to walk away from something you don't understand. If you don't know what RS does then you do not have the facts. You're talking about theory and how that relates to what you know. Singer has offered to explain the facts and you refuse to listen unless he or I pay someone. That tells me right there that you could not handle what would happen if he did make a lot of sense to you once you knew what he was talking about.
It's obvious he doesn't claim to change the house edge. What's very interesting to me is in how he describes that it is luck and how he reacts to it that makes him so successful. Beyond that, none of us really understand how he gets to that point, or even how he's able to not let luck do him in like so many gamblers do when they experience a win.
You asked about that Gambling Today bet or challenge he made. I've written it on another thread but I'm now so familiar with it I can repeat much of it. A local radio person called Fezik(?), a pro gambler named Hissle, and Anthony Curtic from Huntington Press (not sure of the person but it's close) broadcast several times that RS was a liar and never won the $640000 that he claimed to win up to that point in his playing career by using his strategy that you criticize here. But RS was a writer for this paper, and he called them on it by publishing a front page article challenging them to a very large bet that he could prove he won every bit of what he wrote about winning. There were verifiers and IRS records and banking records, you can read it below. And if the proof was deemed not acceptable by Fezik etc. then RS would pay for and accept the final finding of a Nv. arbitrator. RS put the huge amount of cash up at a casino in escrow and named the manager who had it and would verify it with either or both parties. That happened, and the Fezik teamed walked away. It impressed the hell out of me because all bases were covered. ALL BASES. If they thought for one second that Singer were lying about what he said he had won, the bet would have been accepted in a heartbeat. Here it is again from his site:
http://www.vptruth.com/articlesdetail.cfm?Counter=267
Quote: thecesspit"http://vptruth.com/stratrompadvan.cfm"
This is the Advance Romp through town strategy, where the player moves to a higher denomination machine ($1 -> $2 -> $5 -> $10 -> $25) after losing 1 hand on the previous level. Win a hand (2 Pair or better) and return to the base level. The way it reads though, the $25 machine doesn't come into play (or the example switches half way through). Assuming you play to the $10 level, and lose, keep playing $10 credit machine until your back to +$50 or you lose 100 ($1000) credits. Finish the session when you reach $80. Finish the day when you reach $320 (I'm assuming no $25 level). Play four sessions per day, moving around as you desire.
Seems the most eyebrow raising comment. I assume that the pay tables were the MOST important factor on VP, all other things being equal (and even then may might other non-equal things unimportant).
I'm not sure why THIS method (it's no Singer's advance play method, for sure) is not a simple Progressive system that has all the downsides of such systems (like a Martingale). I get the "idea" is hoping that all the times you hit a better than two pair on a higher pay out lets you cash winners, but there'll be that string of 4 losses (mixed with pushes) that leads you to play $10 Vpoker and running through the bankroll as you never recover back to +$50.
I don't know anything about that Advanced Romp strategy other than his results using it, which are posted on his site as Won 124 / Lost 38. But reading through it quickly seems a little different than what you're saying. He plays bonus poker up to 100 credits then changes over to a different game (more volotile?) for 300 credits. That's what I get from it.
Quote: JerryLoganIt's obvious he doesn't claim to change the house edge. What's very interesting to me is in how he describes that it is luck and how he reacts to it that makes him so successful. Beyond that, none of us really understand how he gets to that point, or even how he's able to not let luck do him in like so many gamblers do when they experience a win.
If there are no claims to changing the house edge, then I think we're all in agreement that your particular method of playing VP isn't a "winning system" by any sensible definition. You seem to think the specific bets and their order (what you call "the facts" of the system) are important -- but nothing could be farther from the truth. It doesn't matter in what order you make your bets because each bet is wholly independent of one another. I was assuming you knew that.
As to wagers over anecdotal evidence of winnings, that's uninteresting and, frankly, irrelevant. If I showed you verifiable proof of $100,000 in gambling winnings, it wouldn't demonstrate anything other than I had won $100,000. It would neither confirm nor deny that I had achieved a theoretical edge over the casino. The right way to do that would be to examine the games that I played. Examining your VP system reveals that it makes entirely -EV wagers and is therefore, by definition, a -EV system.
Quote:I don't know anything about that Advanced Romp strategy other than his results using it, which are posted on his site as Won 124 / Lost 38. But reading through it quickly seems a little different than what you're saying. He plays bonus poker up to 100 credits then changes over to a different game (more volotile?) for 300 credits. That's what I get from it.
You are correct. Once he loses 100 credits at $10 Bonus Poker, he switches to $10 Advanced Bonus Poker for another X credits. I don't think thats a major change... it's still a case of bet bigger after a loss until on $10 credit level then play until positive on $10 machine, then quit back to $1 poker.
124-38 record doesn't surprise me. I'm not disputing that this system wouldn't end up a winner more often than a loser. Without a total $$ win/loss for this, it doesn't mean much. But if the win is 10x the top level credits and the bank roll is 400 credits, then he's won 124 x 10 and lost 38 x 400 = 1240 up and 15,200 down.
However, I highly doubt that is the financial record, as the 10 credit win is a minimum. I may also misunderstand what a session is. But as I read it, the bank roll for a session is 400 max-credits and only when that is gone is the session over.
Note that a simple 4 level Martingale will only lose 1 in 14 times on a single-0 wheel. I could post a record of 120-12 for this method and it would be a net loser.
Quote: thecesspit124-38 record doesn't surprise me. I'm not disputing that this system wouldn't end up a winner more often than a loser. Without a total $$ win/loss for this, it doesn't mean much. But if the win is 10x the top level credits and the bank roll is 400 credits, then he's won 124 x 10 and lost 38 x 400 = 1240 up and 15,200 down.
I think you meant 124 x 100 for 12,400 up, but the point is the same - it's still a net loser of a few thousand dollars over what is probably a hundred grand or two in handle. Sounds like right around the expected -1% to -2% mark to me.
The reason this is harder to get one's head around than a standard martingale is that the underlying wager is not a binomial even-money proposition. There are a dozen or so different pay levels in a typical VP machine, some of them very high. If you're progressing your bets, the only really important factor is whether you won a high payout, even better if it's at a high denom. Everything else is irrelevant. I have a relative who's way, way up lifetime playing VP, well over 50k. The *vast* majority of that came from two royals - one at the $10 level and another at the $5 progressive level. He hit the $10 royal 4 hands after moving up denom. That's lucky - and he knows it.
The issue here, as I see it, is that there's an unwillingness to admit when good luck is just, well, good luck -- but also a failure to recognize that you can't "capitalize" on luck because each bet is independent.
Quote: MathExtremistI think you meant 124 x 100 for 12,400 up, but the point is the same - it's still a net loser of a few thousand dollars over what is probably a hundred grand or two in handle. Sounds like right around the expected -1% to -2% mark to me.
No, I do mean x10 credits, not x100 credits as the session win point. 10 credits is a minimum... as I read it, often the win will be more than 10 credits, but I can't see it averaging to 100. I suspect somehow the loss limit number isn't correct.
Quote:Singer says he does not play with a slot club card.
I can't imagine why you wouldn't want to slide a card in, at least part of the time. Even if you're trying to mask how you're robbing the casino blind (heh), partial use of the card is not going attract attention but will still bring you some cash. If you accidently hit a royal on a high denomination, as long as you stop using the card for awhile they aren't going to pick up on your amazing skillzzz!
Quote: rxwineI can't imagine why you wouldn't want to slide a card in, at least part of the time. Even if you're trying to mask how you're robbing the casino blind (heh), partial use of the card is not going attract attention but will still bring you some cash. If you accidently hit a royal on a high denomination, as long as you stop using the card for awhile they aren't going to pick up on your amazing skillzzz!
Another factor is that if you don't use the slot club card, and you hit a taxable jackpot, you have no record of offsetting losses. So since Singer scores all those beeeeg wins, he would generate a LOT of W2-Gs--especially when he really pops it up there to $10 denoms and up, where hands like any 4 of a kind will generate a taxable jackpot. Now, of course, you have many losing hands (even if you're Singer) that occur before those jackpots, so by rights, you should only be taxed on the NET profit (if any). But without any verified record of his offsetting losses, he would simply have to pay taxes on the accumulated amount of his W2-Gs. So not using a slot card would be spectacularly stupid if he was truly a winning player--that would drastically increase his potential tax liability for no good reason. Therefore, that is another reason to greatly suspect his claims of big honkin' wins.
Quote: MathExtremistIf there are no claims to changing the house edge, then I think we're all in agreement that your particular method of playing VP isn't a "winning system" by any sensible definition. You seem to think the specific bets and their order (what you call "the facts" of the system) are important -- but nothing could be farther from the truth. It doesn't matter in what order you make your bets because each bet is wholly independent of one another. I was assuming you knew that.
As to wagers over anecdotal evidence of winnings, that's uninteresting and, frankly, irrelevant. If I showed you verifiable proof of $100,000 in gambling winnings, it wouldn't demonstrate anything other than I had won $100,000. It would neither confirm nor deny that I had achieved a theoretical edge over the casino. The right way to do that would be to examine the games that I played. Examining your VP system reveals that it makes entirely -EV wagers and is therefore, by definition, a -EV system.
Not my method, but your terminologies are what's causing you trouble. Is it a "winning system"? He's won, and he says he's won consistently for over 10 years. It may not be what math people like to hear, but THAT is a winning system in my book.
I've always wondered if how/when particular bets are made makes any difference. Mathematically they don't, but we also know mathematics is solidly on the side of the casinos. So AP vp players will get NOWHERE trying to overcome that. And if each bet made on a vp machine is truly independent of one another (which I agree absolutely is) then where do the AP's get off saying they put them altogether in order to form the "long term"?
I've seen your argument re: "theoretical edge" a thousand times on the vp forums, and each time it is accompanied with the very weak and tired "if it's -ev you will lose and it it's +ev you should win". Frankly, that's a lazy white man's way out. Singer doesn't measure game ev before playing because it has no bearing on what might happen in the relatively little amount of time he's there. What I've seen him write about doing is report on the REALITY of what happened after his sessions are over.
"Anecdotal evidence" = over 10 straight years of winning? On -ev machines?? The claim was that Singer DID NOT win as he said, not if he could produuce some kind of theory to support it. You're just saying that because you have no other way to express how impressed you are over what he did to call those AP's out, just as I was. He actually totally embarrassed the entire vp-AP world at the time, and I think it was a week later he opened the bet up to anyone and everyone, even if they wanted to pool their money. Singer bet that he could 100% prove he won exactly what he said he did. That's what counts, not saying he had some kind of "edge" over the casino. No one has that.
Quote: thecesspitYou are correct. Once he loses 100 credits at $10 Bonus Poker, he switches to $10 Advanced Bonus Poker for another X credits. I don't think thats a major change... it's still a case of bet bigger after a loss until on $10 credit level then play until positive on $10 machine, then quit back to $1 poker.
124-38 record doesn't surprise me. I'm not disputing that this system wouldn't end up a winner more often than a loser. Without a total $$ win/loss for this, it doesn't mean much. But if the win is 10x the top level credits and the bank roll is 400 credits, then he's won 124 x 10 and lost 38 x 400 = 1240 up and 15,200 down.
However, I highly doubt that is the financial record, as the 10 credit win is a minimum. I may also misunderstand what a session is. But as I read it, the bank roll for a session is 400 max-credits and only when that is gone is the session over.
Note that a simple 4 level Martingale will only lose 1 in 14 times on a single-0 wheel. I could post a record of 120-12 for this method and it would be a net loser.
All I can say to this is I'm in agreement about the pitfalls of Martingale, but that system is only that system when each ensuing losing bet is doubled until a bet is won. That really, really has nothing to do with what you're explaining here.
I just noticed something. You used 124 x 10, meaning those 124 wins each yield a 10 credit win? What happens if on his 3rd hand he gets four 3's that pay 200 credits? What if he gets a FH and is up 25 credits? what if he hits a royal? It seems a 10 credit win is not very usual.
Quote: rxwineI can't imagine why you wouldn't want to slide a card in, at least part of the time. Even if you're trying to mask how you're robbing the casino blind (heh), partial use of the card is not going attract attention but will still bring you some cash. If you accidently hit a royal on a high denomination, as long as you stop using the card for awhile they aren't going to pick up on your amazing skillzzz!
No, what I read from his site is that he uses his slot club card when playing every strategy BUT his single play strategy. He stopped using the cards with that strategy, which looks like the one he played most, when he started getting banned from casinos for winning too often.
Quote: mkl654321Another factor is that if you don't use the slot club card, and you hit a taxable jackpot, you have no record of offsetting losses. So since Singer scores all those beeeeg wins, he would generate a LOT of W2-Gs--especially when he really pops it up there to $10 denoms and up, where hands like any 4 of a kind will generate a taxable jackpot. Now, of course, you have many losing hands (even if you're Singer) that occur before those jackpots, so by rights, you should only be taxed on the NET profit (if any). But without any verified record of his offsetting losses, he would simply have to pay taxes on the accumulated amount of his W2-Gs. So not using a slot card would be spectacularly stupid if he was truly a winning player--that would drastically increase his potential tax liability for no good reason. Therefore, that is another reason to greatly suspect his claims of big honkin' wins.
I'm going to help you out here a little because Singer helped me out on the tax issue Sat. He's been audited 3 times since 2000 so I'm sure he knows this stuff more than most. And mkl, even though I'm helping you here, rereading your post makes you look SOOOO dumb!
He said the only records that matter are the ones we as taxpayers prepare and submit for audit. In other words, our personal gambling logs are our bible. The IRS does not accept or recognize casino won/loss records as support of any kind like I had always thought they did, and the reason makes complete sense: The player may have gambled without using a slot club card, and the casino record may be incomplete because of that. But the gambler's log is ALWAYS accepted as complete documentation because we submit them as statements of truth.
Also, you go in to play and come out a $45 winner, then that $45 is required to be reported to the IRS as a win. Doesn't matter if you won it on a machine, in sports betting, at the tables, or from a combination of all of those. I didn't realize that either. But it wouldn't matter anyway because I always lose more than I win, and my losses always offset what I report as winnings.
Quote: JerryLoganAll I can say to this is I'm in agreement about the pitfalls of Martingale, but that system is only that system when each ensuing losing bet is doubled until a bet is won. That really, really has nothing to do with what you're explaining here.
What does Singer do on THIS method after a losing bet? He moves to the next denomination which is at least a double bet. Until he tops out then he plays on the top denomination. What are those first steps? It's a double after a loss. That's a Martingale progression to begin with. Yes, there's the way that he may win a two pair hand or better, but these are LESS common than a push or a loss. It's not a 50/50 prop at all. 4 straight losses and onto the $10 level is quite likely. If I have misunderstood this method from the information on the website, I'm happy to learn where I got it wrong.
Quote:
I just noticed something. You used 124 x 10, meaning those 124 wins each yield a 10 credit win? What happens if on his 3rd hand he gets four 3's that pay 200 credits? What if he gets a FH and is up 25 credits? what if he hits a royal? It seems a 10 credit win is not very usual.
As I stated "However, I highly doubt that is the financial record, as the 10 credit win is a minimum.". I've said it elsewhere as well, I doubt 10 max credits is the average amount for a winning session -with this method-. It's a non-issue. My gut feeling is 10 credits is the modal winning session amount though, for various reasons, but I'd have to simulate it, and really, I don't have that much time on my hands... not right now.
I choose to look at just one to examine it in more depth.
Quote: JerryLoganNot my method, but your terminologies are what's causing you trouble. Is it a "winning system"? He's won, and he says he's won consistently for over 10 years. It may not be what math people like to hear, but THAT is a winning system in my book.
I've always wondered if how/when particular bets are made makes any difference. Mathematically they don't, but we also know mathematics is solidly on the side of the casinos. So AP vp players will get NOWHERE trying to overcome that. And if each bet made on a vp machine is truly independent of one another (which I agree absolutely is) then where do the AP's get off saying they put them altogether in order to form the "long term"?
If you don't understand the difference between a 100.4% and 99.6% pay back table, I don't think you should be arguing on that particular angle. These edges make a difference. Now image you and I sit down and play 100 hands of 25c poker, and I play perfect strategy on a 100.4% machines and you play it on a 99.6% machine and play perfectly. Or semi-perfectly.
You may end up with more cash than me, or I may have more than you. But if we repeated it 100 times, it's likely that I'd win that match more often than not. And quite frankly, I'd prefer to have more chances of winning than losing... because then I get to have lived on the positive side of the variance curve.
Of course the chances of me playing perfect strategy is small, and the chance of you deeming to lower yourself to 25c VP is smaller still, but you get the idea.
Quote:
I've seen your argument re: "theoretical edge" a thousand times on the vp forums, and each time it is accompanied with the very weak and tired "if it's -ev you will lose and it it's +ev you should win". Frankly, that's a lazy white man's way out. Singer doesn't measure game ev before playing because it has no bearing on what might happen in the relatively little amount of time he's there. What I've seen him write about doing is report on the REALITY of what happened after his sessions are over.
It's not the lazy way out. It's the very place to start from. Note the word SHOULD. It's not a WILL. The EV of the game HAS a bearing on what might happen when he's there. Just like the extra 00 on a roulette wheel has a bearing. These small percentages add up. If you and I play a different game, where we roll off for $100 but you have a single die and I have 2 die, and the highest single number wins... well thats a game I'd like to play. Even if I lost.
Saying EV and pay tables don't matter is the lazy white man's way out. We create mathematical models of the world to help us understand it.
Quote: thecesspitSaying EV and pay tables don't matter is the lazy white man's way out. We create mathematical models of the world to help us understand it.
According to Jerry, "math people" are somehow lacking in understanding of The Singer Way. Well, "math people" are those who say that 2+2=4. If non-math people say otherwise, well, count me in on the math people side.
Singer is, of course, a lying fraud, but what makes him that are his claims that the math doesn't matter. His reported results, while almost certainly a trip through fantasy land, are irrelevant in this regard. He's saying that he can, and does, overcome a -2% disadvantage, consistently and repeatedly. No one in human history has ever figured out a way to do that, so when Singer says he has, that statement should be greeted with skepticism, not to mention incredulity and derision.
When he says that the EV of the game doesn't matter, that's when he sounds like an utter raving loon. I think what he's attempting to get at is that in the (very) short term, luck, not EV, determines whether you win or lose. True up to a point, but you also have a better chance of winning playing a 100% game rather than a 98% game. In anything but the extremely short term, that 2% difference is HUGE. It's larger than the advantage that the house has on the Pass Line--and last time I checked, crap tables were making money.
I guess that true believers like Jerry will always be around to line the pockets of the Singers of this world, but icky ol' reality suffices for the rest of us. I and about a million other people know that you CAN win at VP with hard work, discipline, and money management. The rest just pray at the Church of Singer. The believers, like Jerry, get more and more vehement (and nasty), the more their belief is challenged and disproved. We can't really do much about that, other than to ignore the believers, just like I ignore that crazy old guy with the beard and the funny hat who stands on the sidewalk near my school and screams "Jesus Is Coming!!!!"
Quote: mkl654321Actually, EVERYBODY on this thread knows what a Martingale is, and why a Martingale doesn't work.
Actually you just showed that you don't know. There are many progressions out there and they don't all work the same way. No one said you have to double your bet 50 times, it's just that you won't see the pass line winning 50 times in a row, not in your lifetime.
You don't need to beat the -ev, everyone knows it's there. You need to structure bets so that you beat the variance and with the proper bankroll and progression you can do that. Oscar proved that didn't he? Now granted the table max may prevent you, and your bankroll may be not enough.If one takes a look at a bac tester book based on actual rolls, one would simply design a system that would beat the results, -ev notwithstanding. That of course is what the math mind cannot comprehend.
Quote: JerryLoganNot my method, but your terminologies are what's causing you trouble. Is it a "winning system"? He's won, and he says he's won consistently for over 10 years. It may not be what math people like to hear, but THAT is a winning system in my book.
Now we get to the crux of the issue. According to my definition of "winning system", a player with a theoretical edge over the house has a winning system *even if he loses*. Card-counting in blackjack, playing the right VP games, and making 2-1 sucker bets with your friends are all "winning systems" -- even if you lose the bets. Why? The more often you make those bets, the more likely it is that your overall results will approach the average result, and since that average is in your favor, the more likely it is that you will profit.
However, according to your definition of "winning system", a player without the edge over the casino but who gets lucky has a winning system. Under that reasoning, every lottery player who's ever hit the jackpot has a "winning system" because they're ahead for their entire lifetimes. Saying "you gotta get lucky, but if you do, you have a winning system" is a useless definition because one cannot predict luck.
Quote:I've always wondered if how/when particular bets are made makes any difference. Mathematically they don't, but we also know mathematics is solidly on the side of the casinos. So AP vp players will get NOWHERE trying to overcome that. And if each bet made on a vp machine is truly independent of one another (which I agree absolutely is) then where do the AP's get off saying they put them altogether in order to form the "long term"?
The study of independent probabilities is addressed, sufficiently for your purposes, in a typical freshman-year statistics course. There are many sources on the Internet that can help you begin to learn this.
Quote:I've seen your argument re: "theoretical edge" a thousand times on the vp forums, and each time it is accompanied with the very weak and tired "if it's -ev you will lose and it it's +ev you should win". Frankly, that's a lazy white man's way out.
Race-baiting aside, your statement is false. EV is just the average result of the outcome distribution. It does not, by itself, predict the likelihood of winning, as in "you will lose" or "you should win". Here's an example:
Bet #1: $30 on a single inside number in roulette.
Bet #2: $1 each on 30 different inside numbers in roulette.
Both bets have exactly the same EV. One has a 1/38 chance of winning, the other has a 30/38 chance of winning.
What's lazy is attempting to disparage a discipline that you have admittedly not studied and don't comprehend. That's unfortunate but not altogether novel:
Villagers: [singing] We don't like what we don't understand, in fact it scares us, and this monster is mysterious at least...
-- Disney's Beauty and the Beast, 1991
That quote happens to apply equally well if the monster is a giant, hairy beast or if the monster is mathematics. But you'll find that the monster is altogether gentle, kind, intelligent, and powerful once you get to know him. You just have to have the courage to do it.
Or you can keep trying to burn down the castle, but then your misperceptions of the beast will keep haunting you.
Quote: DeMangoActually you just showed that you don't know. There are many progressions out there and they don't all work the same way. No one said you have to double your bet 50 times, it's just that you won't see the pass line winning 50 times in a row, not in your lifetime.
You don't need to beat the -ev, everyone knows it's there. You need to structure bets so that you beat the variance and with the proper bankroll and progression you can do that. Oscar proved that didn't he? Now granted the table max may prevent you, and your bankroll may be not enough.If one takes a look at a bac tester book based on actual rolls, one would simply design a system that would beat the results, -ev notwithstanding. That of course is what the math mind cannot comprehend.
Any system that tries to beat a negative EV game with a series of progressively increasing bets is indeed a Martingale, even if you want to call it a Jabberwocky Mark Five instead. So what if they don't all fail to work in the exact same way? The principle behind them, as well as the fallacy, is the same. Don't let yourself get confused by the fact that Singer's Martingale isn't a strict doubling-up scheme; the difference is trivial.
"Structure bets so you can beat the variance" is a meaningless phrase. You cannot "structure", rearrange, vary the size of, or vary the sequence of -EV bets so as to achieve a positive result. You cannot "beat the results, -EV withstanding". "-EV" means that you cannot win in the long run. You are not trying to "beat the variance", because the way to do that would be to play a game with as little variance as possible. The ideal way to "beat the variance" would be to bet Pass and Don't Pass simultaneously, or red and black on the roulette wheel. Needless to say, you may indeed "beat the variance", but you won't win. Ever. What any gambler actually wants to do is "beat the odds", i.e., overcome the house edge, either by short-term wins (getting lucky), or finding a way to negate that edge altogether. Martingales are as old as the hills (actually, about 400 years old), and have failed to overcome the house edge from the day were invented, right up to today.
I don't know what it is you think that "the math mind cannot comprehend", but if there's a kind of mind that thinks that the mathematics of gambling can somehow be evaded or overcome, I would rather have a "math mind". The math mind can indeed comprehend what the sucker mind thinks; the difference is that the sucker mind cannot comprehend why what it dreams of is impossible.
Quote: MathExtremistHowever, according to your definition of "winning system", a player without the edge over the casino but who gets lucky has a winning system. Under that reasoning, every lottery player who's ever hit the jackpot has a "winning system" because they're ahead for their entire lifetimes. Saying "you gotta get lucky, but if you do, you have a winning system" is a useless definition because one cannot predict luck.
What's lazy is attempting to disparage a discipline that you have admittedly not studied and don't comprehend.
When Jerry (and others of his ilk) disparage AP VP players, it MAY be that they truly don't understand that in the case of a +EV video poker game, the mathematics are on the side of the PLAYER. Positive EV means that the expected outcome of a wager is positive. This, in turn, means that the more such wagers are placed, the greater the expected return. Jerry may sneer at this, but the +0.7% of a fullpay deuces wild machine is just as real, and just as dependable, as the 1.414% house edge on the Pass Line. Does the house always win at the crap table? No. it doesn't need to--positive EV is enough.
Jerry may also not understand that a player making +EV wagers depends on the long term--his statement re that shows massive confusion. The casino plays for the long term, because it is constantly making +EV bets. The player who thinks in, and aims for, the long term does so because he knows that short term results, losses OR wins, are meaningless. In the same way that a casino showing a loss for one day's action at the baccarat table doesn't shut down the game, the AP VP player doesn't quit because he has a losing session. Singeresque logic is the exact opposite of this. Because he (Singer) plays -EV games, and badly at that, he must think in the short term to even be able to delude himself that he "wins". (I don't really know how successful he is at that delusion, but what he says suggests that he is at least partially so.)
In the end, it comes down to belief vs. logic. Jerry and the other disciples of the Church of Singer want very very very much to believe that it is possible to beat a -EV game. That wanting subverts his and their logical thought processes. Jerry, his myriad other faults aside, seems like a reasonably intelligent man--perhaps as high as 55th percentile. He actually has the ability to comprehend the mathematics, and understand why Singerism is a cruel hoax. But he gets too upset and flustered when "his" beliefs are challenged to have much of a chance at that. If he would spend his time reading what you and I have said instead of getting mad at us, then he might one day understand. But I think we're beating a dead horse--Jerry would, apparently, much rather amuse himself by making ad hominem attacks than learn anything--even though there is so much good information available here. It's kind of sad, really.
Quote: thecesspitWhat does Singer do on THIS method after a losing bet? He moves to the next denomination which is at least a double bet. Until he tops out then he plays on the top denomination. What are those first steps? It's a double after a loss. That's a Martingale progression to begin with. Yes, there's the way that he may win a two pair hand or better, but these are LESS common than a push or a loss. It's not a 50/50 prop at all. 4 straight losses and onto the $10 level is quite likely. If I have misunderstood this method from the information on the website, I'm happy to learn where I got it wrong.
As I stated "However, I highly doubt that is the financial record, as the 10 credit win is a minimum.". I've said it elsewhere as well, I doubt 10 max credits is the average amount for a winning session -with this method-. It's a non-issue. My gut feeling is 10 credits is the modal winning session amount though, for various reasons, but I'd have to simulate it, and really, I don't have that much time on my hands... not right now.
I choose to look at just one to examine it in more depth.
I've just read this advanced romp strategy and I understand it now, but it is not the same as his regular strategy. Using your example of playing $1, $2, $5, $10 and $25, a hand of bonus poker is played which if won with 2 pair means a $5 profit is realized; if it's lost a hand is played on $2 bp; if it's 2 pair or better he goes back to $1 bp, but if it's lost he goes to $5 bp; if that's lost he goes to $10 bp; if that's lost he goes to $25bp. Once at $25bp he plays up to 100 credits, always trying to get minimum $5 ahead. If he loses those 100 credits then he plays up to 300 credits on one of the games he calls "advanced bonus poker" which I assume is like ddbp or some type game like that, until he gets at least $5 ahead or he loses all the credits. That $5 is what he calls a "mini win goal" and he sets an overall win goal that if hit, he stops. From what I see, that win goal can be hit on the very first hand, or anywhere along the way and especially anywhere in the $25 game.
That's how I read it: Martingale for 25 credits, then not Martingale for FOUR HUNDRED CREDITS. So, I've learned that in vp a loser is expected around 55% of the time, and a push is expected about 20% of the time. Therefore on average, a winner of 2 pair or better is expected 25% of the time. So in a 5 level progression it is very reasonable to see such a win, correct? And that win doesn't have to be a small win either.
Quote: thecesspitIf you don't understand the difference between a 100.4% and 99.6% pay back table, I don't think you should be arguing on that particular angle. These edges make a difference. Now image you and I sit down and play 100 hands of 25c poker, and I play perfect strategy on a 100.4% machines and you play it on a 99.6% machine and play perfectly. Or semi-perfectly.
You may end up with more cash than me, or I may have more than you. But if we repeated it 100 times, it's likely that I'd win that match more often than not. And quite frankly, I'd prefer to have more chances of winning than losing... because then I get to have lived on the positive side of the variance curve.
Of course the chances of me playing perfect strategy is small, and the chance of you deeming to lower yourself to 25c VP is smaller still, but you get the idea.
It's not the lazy way out. It's the very place to start from. Note the word SHOULD. It's not a WILL. The EV of the game HAS a bearing on what might happen when he's there. Just like the extra 00 on a roulette wheel has a bearing. These small percentages add up. If you and I play a different game, where we roll off for $100 but you have a single die and I have 2 die, and the highest single number wins... well thats a game I'd like to play. Even if I lost.
Saying EV and pay tables don't matter is the lazy white man's way out. We create mathematical models of the world to help us understand it.
1. I understand the difference, it's usually in the full house or the flush or both. 5 credits each. The reason such a small difference is irrelevant to me is because for the short time I'm playing it means nothing. Singer OTOH will quit at a certain win point, where the AP will keep on playing until he loses even if he gets way ahead, because it's the points that drive the AP. The key to what you said was "You may end up with more cash than me, or I may have more than you." Repeating it 100 times doesn't change one little thing about that statement because it is valid 100 individual times. If Singer played until he loses like the AP's do then yes he'd be playing a shorter overall amount of time. But even I know this: vp players almost always get ahead at some point during their play, and if I had the ability to set win points and just get up and leave I know I'd have a hell of a lot more money today. That's why what he teaches makes sense. I don't know the math behind it and I don't care to know. It just is a damn smart way to play.
Quote: MathExtremistNow we get to the crux of the issue. According to my definition of "winning system", a player with a theoretical edge over the house has a winning system *even if he loses*. Card-counting in blackjack, playing the right VP games, and making 2-1 sucker bets with your friends are all "winning systems" -- even if you lose the bets. Why? The more often you make those bets, the more likely it is that your overall results will approach the average result, and since that average is in your favor, the more likely it is that you will profit.
However, according to your definition of "winning system", a player without the edge over the casino but who gets lucky has a winning system. Under that reasoning, every lottery player who's ever hit the jackpot has a "winning system" because they're ahead for their entire lifetimes. Saying "you gotta get lucky, but if you do, you have a winning system" is a useless definition because one cannot predict luck.
The study of independent probabilities is addressed, sufficiently for your purposes, in a typical freshman-year statistics course. There are many sources on the Internet that can help you begin to learn this.
Race-baiting aside, your statement is false. EV is just the average result of the outcome distribution. It does not, by itself, predict the likelihood of winning, as in "you will lose" or "you should win". Here's an example:
Bet #1: $30 on a single inside number in roulette.
Bet #2: $1 each on 30 different inside numbers in roulette.
Both bets have exactly the same EV. One has a 1/38 chance of winning, the other has a 30/38 chance of winning.
What's lazy is attempting to disparage a discipline that you have admittedly not studied and don't comprehend. That's unfortunate but not altogether novel:
Villagers: [singing] We don't like what we don't understand, in fact it scares us, and this monster is mysterious at least...
-- Disney's Beauty and the Beast, 1991
That quote happens to apply equally well if the monster is a giant, hairy beast or if the monster is mathematics. But you'll find that the monster is altogether gentle, kind, intelligent, and powerful once you get to know him. You just have to have the courage to do it.
Or you can keep trying to burn down the castle, but then your misperceptions of the beast will keep haunting you.
1. Winning systems: You've overly complicated something so simple. A winning system is simply a strategy that wins. End of story. And it may do so in ways that scramble the minds of math people, which is what I think Singer has accomplished here, that's for sure. His system doesn't try to approach anything, it just does what is needed to give him the best opportunity to win. And winning is the only name of the game.
2. Lottery winners are quite different than what RS accomplishes. Those people do get lucky, but most of them get lucky once. RS has found a method of patiently waiting for luck to come along during each "session", then he jumps on it in ways no one has ever taught in gambling before. As a vp player I know I'm going to see a quad here and there when I play, and most of the time I just play right through them like any addict player does. Singer sees them too, only because of his progression and his changeover to playing games that pay huge amounts for normal quads, they usually mean something by hitting win goals, and then he stops.
I didn't understand the rest of what you said.
Quote: mkl654321Any system that tries to beat a negative EV game with a series of progressively increasing bets is indeed a Martingale
Obviously you do not know what you are talking about. Please look up Martingale, then Parolli, La Bouchere, D'Alembert and Fibonacci. These are all different negative progressions. They all work quite differently but have in common an up as you lose and down when you win. If you can structure your bets to always win the highest bet or series of bets you win. It's that simple. As stated before your limits are table limits and bankroll limits. Expected value can also be thought of as the casino cut for your winning bet.
To say that RS uses a Martingale is by definition impossible, that is all that I am saying.
Quote: DeMangoThere are many progressions out there and they don't all work the same way.
A more accurate statement would be "they all don't work the same way". :)
It doesn't matter if you double your bet, or you triple it, or you add two numbers from the sides of a sequence. The more you bet, the more you'll lose. It's that simple.
Quote:Now granted the table max may prevent you, and your bankroll may be not enough.If one takes a look at a bac tester book based on actual rolls, one would simply design a system that would beat the results, -ev notwithstanding. That of course is what the math mind cannot comprehend.
This is the same as saying "if not for stupid conservation of energy laws, it would be possible to construct a machine that moves indefinitely without any energy source" - an example of a statement, that is both completely true, and absolutely meaningless.
Quote: weaselmanA more accurate statement would be "they all don't work the same way". :)
It doesn't matter if you double your bet, or you triple it, or you add two numbers from the sides of a sequence. The more you bet, the more you'll lose. It's that simple.
Then by default, all these years as we read what Bob Dancer has been doing after he wins a jackpot and goes on to play a higher denomination because of it, he's been LOSING?? OMG....you mean the more he bets the more he LOSES? Sonofabitch!
Quote: JerryLogan
Then by default, all these years as we read what Bob Dancer has been doing after he wins a jackpot and goes on to play a higher denomination because of it, he's been LOSING?? OMG....you mean the more he bets the more he LOSES? Sonofabitch!
Haha. Very funny. Obviously, I am talking about -EV games.
Quote: DeMango(If all fails use a non gaming analogy)
Exactly. The logically flawed statements you are making don't make any sense whether they are applied to gaming or anything else, that's what my analogy was intended to demonstrate.
There is a condition A, that prevent a condition B from occurring. What you keep saying is "if A was not true, then B would be possible". The point is that everybody knows that, and that knowledge is absolutely meaningless, because A is true.
(A being existence of table and bankroll limits, and B being able to consistently beat an -EV game with a progression).
BTW, this has nothing to do with "variance and standard deviation", you can stop repeating that mantra. High standard deviation (or, equivalently, variance) does increase the likelihood of a win, it also increases a likelihood of a large loss. You are actually more likely go bankrupt betting progressively on a high-SD game.
Quote: weaselmanExactly. The logically flawed statements you are making don't make any sense whether they are applied to gaming or anything else, that's what my analogy was intended to demonstrate.
There is a condition A, that prevent a condition B from occurring. What you keep saying is "if A was not true, then B would be possible". The point is that everybody knows that, and that knowledge is absolutely meaningless, because A is true.
(A being existence of table and bankroll limits, and B being able to consistently beat an -EV game with a progression).
BTW, this has nothing to do with "variance and standard deviation", you can stop repeating that mantra. High standard deviation (or, equivalently, variance) does increase the likelihood of a win, it also increases a likelihood of a large loss. You are actually more likely go bankrupt betting progressively on a high-SD game.
It turns out that you don't even need to worry about table limits either - if you have an unlimited bankroll and a non-zero chance of winning, you have a non-zero chance of hitting any win goal. But that's unimportant because if you have an infinite bankroll and you win a finite amount, you still have an infinite bankroll. The old wishful-thinking mantra is "betting systems would work if I had an infinite amount of money and no table limits, so let's find one that works with a fixed bankroll and betting caps". One doesn't naturally follow from the other.
Quote: MathExtremist
It turns out that you don't even need to worry about table limits either - if you have an unlimited bankroll and a non-zero chance of winning, you have a non-zero chance of hitting any win goal.
Well, even with the finite bankroll the chance of hitting any win goal is non-zero. It's just not very high :)
But it is the table limit that prevents Martingalers with infinitely deep pockets from winning every time.
Quote: DeMangoAmazing the math minds that cannot comprehend variance and standard deviation. (If all fails use a non gaming analogy) Their god is expected value. The accurate statement would be the more you bet the more you pay the casino when you do win. It's called vigorish. `
Comments like that indicate that YOU don't comprehend that variance, standard deviation, and EV are separate concepts. Variance is a mathematical function of standard deviation, and vice versa. Neither has an effect on, or is affected by, EV.
Quote: MathExtremistIt turns out that you don't even need to worry about table limits either - if you have an unlimited bankroll and a non-zero chance of winning, you have a non-zero chance of hitting any win goal. But that's unimportant because if you have an infinite bankroll and you win a finite amount, you still have an infinite bankroll. The old wishful-thinking mantra is "betting systems would work if I had an infinite amount of money and no table limits, so let's find one that works with a fixed bankroll and betting caps". One doesn't naturally follow from the other.
Heh. I like that comment that winning is essentially meaningless to someone who has an infinite bankroll--why would they play?
As I've said before, it all comes down to faith vs. science. A couple of posters, who shall remain nameless (ha!) have referred to "math people" as if that were pejorative, in an attempt to discredit what the math people say. The truth is that the validity of the math exists whether or not there ARE any "math people". If no one in the world believed in the math (go back 500 years, and that was almost completely true), the math would still be correct. I guess that's why all the ad hominem attacks come from those nameless posters---it's easier to try to shoot the messenger than read his message.
Unpleasant realities are the hardest ones to acknowledge--"if only". But if the "if only" condition actually existed, then the world would not be as it is, and that would render the whole point moot. In a world where infinite bankrolls were possible, casinos wouldn't exist. For that matter, neither would money.
Quote: mkl654321Comments like that indicate that YOU don't comprehend that variance, standard deviation, and EV are separate concepts. Variance is a mathematical function of standard deviation, and vice versa. Neither has an effect on, or is affected by, EV.
They are not separate concepts. The variance is a function of the EV, and in fact the variance is itself an expected value.
Matilda
Quote: mkl654321Heh. I like that comment that winning is essentially meaningless to someone who has an infinite bankroll--why would they play?
As I've said before, it all comes down to faith vs. science. A couple of posters, who shall remain nameless (ha!) have referred to "math people" as if that were pejorative, in an attempt to discredit what the math people say. The truth is that the validity of the math exists whether or not there ARE any "math people". If no one in the world believed in the math (go back 500 years, and that was almost completely true), the math would still be correct. I guess that's why all the ad hominem attacks come from those nameless posters---it's easier to try to shoot the messenger than read his message.
Unpleasant realities are the hardest ones to acknowledge--"if only". But if the "if only" condition actually existed, then the world would not be as it is, and that would render the whole point moot. In a world where infinite bankrolls were possible, casinos wouldn't exist. For that matter, neither would money.
In that context, it's ironic that when the math was developed to describe reality, it was developed by gamblers. Girolamo Cardano (from my sig) was one of those wonderful Renaissance polymaths who, in addition to being an inveterate gambler and advantage player (!), wrote one of the first real treatises on gambling math in the early 1500s. Blaise Pascal and Pierre de Fermat followed on, among others, in the mid-1600s, and it was their collaboration that produced the basis of modern probability theory (including the concept of mathematical expectation). However, the nature of a tumbling die was the same long before it was described by Pascal, Fermat, or Cardano -- just as the nature of gravity was the same long before it was described by Galileo or Newton.
I'm bemused by the anti-intellectual bias of several participants in this forum. It's somewhat like hating baseball players because you personally can't hit a curveball, rather than trying to learn how or just getting over it; I can't hit a curveball either. But I learned long ago not to try to make the horse drink. Unless I'm getting paid to, but that's a different story.
Quote: matildaThey are not separate concepts. The variance is a function of the EV, and in fact the variance is itself an expected value.
Matilda
Uhhhhhhh...didn't I say exactly that in the second sentence that you just quoted?
Quote: MathExtremistI'm bemused by the anti-intellectual bias of several participants in this forum. It's somewhat like hating baseball players because you personally can't hit a curveball, rather than trying to learn how or just getting over it; I can't hit a curveball either. But I learned long ago not to try to make the horse drink. Unless I'm getting paid to, but that's a different story.
Just remember, to paraphrase Barry Goldwater, extremism in the defense of mathematics is no vice.
