Singer System - Challenge?

Quote: mkl654321

Quote: matilda

Quote: mkl654321

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.

They are not separate concepts. The variance is a function of the EV, and in fact the variance is itself an expected value.

Uhhhhhhh...didn't I say exactly that in the second sentence that you just quoted?

Not that I disagree with your primary point, mkl, but no. You pointed out that variance is a function of standard deviation and vice versa. Matilda is claiming that variance is a function of EV, while you say (in the next sentence) that variance is not affected by EV.

Some forms of the defining equation for variance include essentially the EV, I think, though I have admitted being rusty on my stat. I don't know how to post equations here, but I think that variance observed in a group of n numbers is the sum of the squares of the deviations of individual numbers from the average of those numbers (which is the same as the EV?), divided by n. Did I misremember that?

Anyway, higher EV does not imply higher (or lower) variance, which is what I thought you meant to say.

Quote: Doc

Some forms of the defining equation for variance include essentially the EV,
I think, though I have admitted being rusty on my stat. I don't know how to post equations here, but I think that variance observed in a group of n numbers is the sum of the squares of the deviations of individual numbers from the average of those numbers (which is the same as the EV?), divided by n. Did I misremember that?

This is correct, however, EV is only one of the inputs to the equation (the other one is the EV of squares).

Strictly speaking, variance is indeed a function of EV, but I think, such a statement is misleading, because it is not a function of EV alone. Knowing EV is not enough to determine the variance, and vice versa. They both - EV and the variance - are independent characteristics of the distribution.

Unlike variance and SD - knowing one is exactly equivalent to knowing the other.
That is the reason why statements like

Quote: DeMango

Amazing the math minds that cannot comprehend variance and standard deviation.

sound so extremely silly.

Quote: Doc

Not that I disagree with your primary point, mkl, but no. You pointed out that variance is a function of standard deviation and vice versa. Matilda is claiming that variance is a function of EV, while you say (in the next sentence) that variance is not affected by EV.

Some forms of the defining equation for variance include essentially the EV, I think, though I have admitted being rusty on my stat. I don't know how to post equations here, but I think that variance observed in a group of n numbers is the sum of the squares of the deviations of individual numbers from the average of those numbers (which is the same as the EV?), divided by n. Did I misremember that?

That's correct, except in dealing with bets you have to average or weight the different outcomes according to their relative probabilities. Here's an example of figuring the variance and standard deviation of a bet in craps:

Midnight
1 * 30 = 30
35 * -1 = -35
---------------
-5 / 36 = .1388
So, the ev for a $1 bet on 12 is -$.1389

To figure the variance:

30 - -.1389 = 30.1389 ^2 = 908.3533 (weight it) * .0278 = 25.2320
-1 - -.1389 = -.8611^2 = .7415 (weight it) * .9722 = .7209 Add them together = 25.9529 this is the variance
The standard deviation is the square root of the variance = 5.0944
This bet (or any of the other 30:1, one-roll bets) has the highest variance on the table.
In roulette, you can get similar variance much more cheaply, with an HA of 5.26% for SD of 5.76 times the amount of the bet.

Cheers,
Alan Shank
Woodland, CA

So the $1 bet on 12 has an ev of -.1389 and a standard deviation of $5.0944. It also has a very high

"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."


It's dumb comments like that which do the math people in. There's a reason these folks are prone to quoting theory instead of reality whenever they're asked about something that's turned controversial because of another person's view that differs from theirs. By stating theory, they can be wrong and wiggle their way out of it.

We see that all over this thread. When Singer tells us how he's won and when I happen to agree with his set of facts that no one here has attempted to disprove (unless, surprise of surprises, I or he come up with some cash....and even then I believe they'd chicken out) the chest-pounding replies are all wrapped up in theories. If you look carefully, the MichaelBluejay Challenge is only here because a bunch of geeks get off on all the theorizing. No one would ever accept it other than Rob Singer. But as soon as the possibility is produced, the excuses start to fly and the truth begins to unfold.

All I can say is it's a good thing some of you guys don't work for me.

Quote: JerryLogan

... it's a good thing some of you guys don't work for me.

I suspect that a lot of people here can agree with at least that portion of your post.

Quote: Doc

Not that I disagree with your primary point, mkl, but no. You pointed out that variance is a function of standard deviation and vice versa. Matilda is claiming that variance is a function of EV, while you say (in the next sentence) that variance is not affected by EV.

Some forms of the defining equation for variance include essentially the EV, I think, though I have admitted being rusty on my stat. I don't know how to post equations here, but I think that variance observed in a group of n numbers is the sum of the squares of the deviations of individual numbers from the average of those numbers (which is the same as the EV?), divided by n. Did I misremember that?

Anyway, higher EV does not imply higher (or lower) variance, which is what I thought you meant to say.

Yes, I think the real point is that variance and EV are not correlated in the way implied by the statement "variance is a function of EV".

Quote: Doc

I suspect that a lot of people here can agree with at least that portion of your post.

You're right, because with the level of true knowledge seen from them, they'd be out begging Obama for more entitlements.

Quote: JerryLogan

It's dumb comments like that which do the math people in.

There's a reason these folks are prone to quoting theory instead of reality whenever they're asked about something that's turned controversial because of another person's view that differs from theirs. By stating theory, they can be wrong and wiggle their way out of it.

We see that all over this thread. When Singer tells us how he's won and when I happen to agree with his set of facts that no one here has attempted to disprove (unless, surprise of surprises, I or he come up with some cash....and even then I believe they'd chicken out) the chest-pounding replies are all wrapped up in theories. If you look carefully, the MichaelBluejay Challenge is only here because a bunch of geeks get off on all the theorizing. No one would ever accept it other than Rob Singer. But as soon as the possibility is produced, the excuses start to fly and the truth begins to unfold.

All I can say is it's a good thing some of you guys don't work for me.

This is a profoundly stupid series of statements, even for Jerry.

First of all, the "math people" aren't "done in", whatever that phrase may mean to Jerry. As I've said, the math exists independent of either the "math people" OR Jerry. To try to disprove the "math people" by attacking THEM is like trying to disprove the "gravity people".

The math, actually, isn't controversial at all--except for people like Jerry. The rest of the world knows that it's true. Jerry makes a distinction between theory and reality, as if they were divorced from one another. The fact of the matter is that reality PROVES theory, much as, to use the same example, Jerry jumping off a cliff (or, I suppose, driving a truck off of one) would be a REALITY that proves the theory of gravity. Furthermore, the math isn't really a theory anyway--it's a fact. So anyone quoting the relevant math isn't theorizing at all.

"When Singer tells us he's won", why on earth should we believe him? That's what puzzles me about people like Jerry. He loudly and shrilly screams for PROOOOOOOF if someone makes an assertion he isn't mentally able to comprehend, but when Singer says he's won humongous megabucks, HE TAKES SINGER COMPLETELY AT HIS WORD. Of course, Singer isn't stupid enough to accept MichaelBluejay's challenge---although Jerry might be. But there's one thing Jerry says that's true---it's all noise and chest-pounding, what Singer and Jerry say. I happen to know of at least half a dozen times that Singer has pretended to accept a similar challenge and then weaseled out of it, and no, Jerry, I'm not going to provide you with prooooooooooooooooof.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone so divorced from reality, so prone to self-delusion, so credulous and naive, could ever run a hot dog stand, let alone a trucking company. Of course, the way he could have run it is into the ground. Quite possibly from bleeding off cash through trips to go play the $5 Double Double Bonus machines.

Quote: Doc

Not that I disagree with your primary point, mkl, but no. You pointed out that variance is a function of standard deviation and vice versa. Matilda is claiming that variance is a function of EV, while you say (in the next sentence) that variance is not affected by EV.

Some forms of the defining equation for variance include essentially the EV, I think, though I have admitted being rusty on my stat. I don't know how to post equations here, but I think that variance observed in a group of n numbers is the sum of the squares of the deviations of individual numbers from the average of those numbers (which is the same as the EV?), divided by n. Did I misremember that?

Anyway, higher EV does not imply higher (or lower) variance, which is what I thought you meant to say.

All I recall saying is that the three values (standard deviation, variance, EV) were SEPARATE. Two of them are functions of one another, but those two (variance/SD) are still SEPARATE values.

EV does not (necessarily) move as variance/standard deviation move; in other words, EV is not a function of either variance or standard deviation, and vice versa.

What many of these posts have involved is terminology, or a collision of math and English :) I think we can all agree, though, that variance and standard deviation are mutually dependent variables, while EV is a variable independent of those other two variables.

Quote: JerryLogan

I happen to agree with his set of facts that no one here has attempted to disprove

This is very reminiscent of the nonlogic that some of the more disjointed of "thinkers" use to "prove" the existence of God. Prove that he doesn't exist! the believers say. We can't, the skeptics (honestly) say. WELL WE GOTCHA! say the believers. Neener neener neener! You can't prove he doesn't exist, therefore he DOES exist!

Move that argument over to the Church of Singer. Jerry says that we haven't attempted to "disprove" Singer's assertion that he's won eleventy squillion dollars. How could anyone logically prove that a person HASN'T won money in the last several years, short of having followed that person around with a video camera for all that time? So the reason no one has attempted to "disprove" Singer's claim is that it's a practical impossibility to do so. But that does NOT....

...brace yourself, Jerry...

repeat, NOT mean that Singer's claims are therefore TRUE. As I tell the slower of my students, read that again for comprehension. We are skeptical of Singer's claims in the same way we would be if he'd told us that he'd flapped his arms and flown to Hawaii under his own power. Yes, we can't absolutely PROVE that he didn't do that--we can merely argue, similarly to his claims to have obtained immense riches playing -EV video poker badly, that his having done so is very, very unlikely. Good enough, on a practical basis, for doubting the Prophet.

Quote: mkl654321

This is very reminiscent of the nonlogic that some of the more disjointed of "thinkers" use to "prove" the existence of God. Prove that he doesn't exist! the believers say. We can't, the skeptics (honestly) say. WELL WE GOTCHA! say the believers. Neener neener neener! You can't prove he doesn't exist, therefore he DOES exist!

Move that argument over to the Church of Singer. Jerry says that we haven't attempted to "disprove" Singer's assertion that he's won eleventy squillion dollars. How could anyone logically prove that a person HASN'T won money in the last several years, short of having followed that person around with a video camera for all that time? So the reason no one has attempted to "disprove" Singer's claim is that it's a practical impossibility to do so. But that does NOT....

...brace yourself, Jerry...

repeat, NOT mean that Singer's claims are therefore TRUE. As I tell the slower of my students, read that again for comprehension. We are skeptical of Singer's claims in the same way we would be if he'd told us that he'd flapped his arms and flown to Hawaii under his own power. Yes, we can't absolutely PROVE that he didn't do that--we can merely argue, similarly to his claims to have obtained immense riches playing -EV video poker badly, that his having done so is very, very unlikely. Good enough, on a practical basis, for doubting the Prophet.

I believe we just witnessed a whole lotta envy that only one such as mkl has trouble saying in one small paragraph.

Quote: mkl654321

First of all, the "math people" aren't "done in", whatever that phrase may mean to Jerry. As I've said, the math exists independent of either the "math people" OR Jerry. To try to disprove the "math people" by attacking THEM is like trying to disprove the "gravity people".

The math, actually, isn't controversial at all--except for people like Jerry. The rest of the world knows that it's true. Jerry makes a distinction between theory and reality, as if they were divorced from one another. The fact of the matter is that reality PROVES theory, much as, to use the same example, Jerry jumping off a cliff (or, I suppose, driving a truck off of one) would be a REALITY that proves the theory of gravity. Furthermore, the math isn't really a theory anyway--it's a fact. So anyone quoting the relevant math isn't theorizing at all.

"When Singer tells us he's won", why on earth should we believe him? That's what puzzles me about people like Jerry. He loudly and shrilly screams for PROOOOOOOF if someone makes an assertion he isn't mentally able to comprehend, but when Singer says he's won humongous megabucks, HE TAKES SINGER COMPLETELY AT HIS WORD. Of course, Singer isn't stupid enough to accept MichaelBluejay's challenge---although Jerry might be. But there's one thing Jerry says that's true---it's all noise and chest-pounding, what Singer and Jerry say. I happen to know of at least half a dozen times that Singer has pretended to accept a similar challenge and then weaseled out of it, and no, Jerry, I'm not going to provide you with prooooooooooooooooof.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone so divorced from reality, so prone to self-delusion, so credulous and naive, could ever run a hot dog stand, let alone a trucking company. Of course, the way he could have run it is into the ground. Quite possibly from bleeding off cash through trips to go play the $5 Double Double Bonus machines.

The math people always get done in when it comes to Singer. They want him to believe AP's win because "theory" says it's so; then they try so hard to claim he doesn't because it hurts them to say he does. I just ran across another Gambling Today column where he offered to pay ANYONE 3:1 odds on any bet amount they chose under $100,000 and over $10,000, if he played a session of his single play strategy while they witnessed it, and if he lost. This was in response to more of the same BS about how he couldn't possibly be winning like he said he does. So what did his next article say? You guessed it! The same typical nonsense we see here from mkl etc.: No one would accept the challenge, because all of a sudden they admitted that maybe he did win quite a bit, but one session would prove nothing. So they went from saying his strategy NEVER wins to IT PROBABLY DOES WIN, and all because they were forced into it once again by RS.

That's kind of what we're seeing here. People THEORIZING how he cannot possibly win, yet when there's the opportunity to review how he does it, the math geeks run into their corners hiding behind theory and probability.

I don't run a trucking co. I run Operations. That takes brains, and you'd never see me humiliate my wife by taking her to the El Cortez.

Quote: JerryLogan

I don't run a trucking co. I run Operations. That takes brains

Or so they told you. Some people will believe anything.

Quote: JerryLogan

if he played a session of his single play strategy while they witnessed it, and if he lost.

I don't run a trucking co. I run Operations. That takes brains, and you'd never see me humiliate my wife by taking her to the El Cortez.

We've already said that Singer no doubt wins MORE OFTEN than he loses, so the parameters of his Gaming Today challenge are meaningless. He would simply Martingale his way along until he won one bet, at which point he would quit and proclaim, "I WON!!!!!!" Of course, he would be running the risk that he wouldn't win any of those big bets, but he would have an excellent chance of being ahead for a single session, and thus winning the challenge as stated.

The only thing that matters, though, is whether Singer wins OVERALL, and I, as well as just about anybody who understands mathematics and reality, doubt very, very much that he does anything but lose, in anything but the very short term. He will win most of his sessions; those wins will be more than canceled out by the occasional huge loss. You DO realize, don't you, that his method GUARANTEES that all of his losses will be LARGE ones? That's because he doesn't stop at a small loss--he doubles up and keeps on playing. So that 20% of the time that he claims to be losing, he's getting the snot kicked out of him--while the wins don't have to be more than $1 for him to count them as part of that 80%.

Here's how the challenge to Singer should be worded:

1. You play 200,000 hands of video poker. You may play any game, at any denomination, as long as that game is inherently negative EV.
2. You will use a slot card to track your results.
3. At the end of that time, if you are money ahead, even one dollar, you win. If you are money behind, even one dollar, you lose. The evaluation of your wins or losses will be done via observation by an independent third party, and verified by slot club card reports of wins/losses. All playing sessions must occur under the observation of that third party.

200,000 hands of video poker will take 250-300 hours to complete. This will largely eliminate short-term fluctuations. The stakes can be any amount agreed on by both parties, and the odds paid should be even money, but both parties can agree to different odds.

In this way, we can move the theory you disdain into the reality that you love. If Singer's system is effective, then it should show a winner, and a massive one at that, over 200,000 hands played.

And I don't really want to know exactly how you humiliate your wife.

Quote: EvenBob

Or so they told you. Some people will believe anything.

I've never worked for a company that says to you "you have brains". (Psst...but it does take brains to stay away from the El Cortez.)

Quote: JerryLogan

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.

No disagreement here. That's what I thought I described, but if not, it all works.

Quote:

That's how I read it: Martingale for 25 credits, then not Martingale for FOUR HUNDRED CREDITS.

I agree as well, and again, I tried to state that it starts as Martingale then becomes a standard play of VP for $125 per hand (on two different machines) until $5 profit is made, then back to $1 machine. The session doesn't end till a certain amount is locked in, or the last big level is a loser (Or a royal is hit).

Quote:

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.

A push doesn't matter (it's like a no decision dice roll in craps) so it's 55-25 in favour of a loss. This makes a win at any level a 31% chance and a loss 69% chance at any level. 4 losses in a row = 23%. 23% of the time you start a progression, you'll be playing at $25 level for at least one hand.

And 77% of the time you'll win one hand on the 1/2/5/10 progression and make the mini-goal for some amount. So I'd be pretty sure Singer's money is safe at 3:1. And yes, I realized I've not looked at the chance of winning at the $25 level yet. It'll be the chance of ending up +$90 while playing $25 credit VP.

So the next question is, when you win, what is the spread of amounts? Whats the average win? Whats the chance of losing all 400 credits? I'm pretty sure I can find the answer to these given some time, by the way.

Like stated before, I don't think it's impossible to win with this scheme, I'm interested in seeing the texture of those wins and losses (and you do agree, right that the loss is a BIG one). I do also realise he is "keeping" each of the mini-wins.

Quote: mkl654321

We've already said that Singer no doubt wins MORE OFTEN than he loses, so the parameters of his Gaming Today challenge are meaningless. He would simply Martingale his way along until he won one bet, at which point he would quit and proclaim, "I WON!!!!!!" Of course, he would be running the risk that he wouldn't win any of those big bets, but he would have an excellent chance of being ahead for a single session, and thus winning the challenge as stated.

The only thing that matters, though, is whether Singer wins OVERALL, and I, as well as just about anybody who understands mathematics and reality, doubt very, very much that he does anything but lose, in anything but the very short term. He will win most of his sessions; those wins will be more than canceled out by the occasional huge loss. You DO realize, don't you, that his method GUARANTEES that all of his losses will be LARGE ones? That's because he doesn't stop at a small loss--he doubles up and keeps on playing. So that 20% of the time that he claims to be losing, he's getting the snot kicked out of him--while the wins don't have to be more than $1 for him to count them as part of that 80%.

Here's how the challenge to Singer should be worded:

1. You play 200,000 hands of video poker. You may play any game, at any denomination, as long as that game is inherently negative EV.
2. You will use a slot card to track your results.
3. At the end of that time, if you are money ahead, even one dollar, you win. If you are money behind, even one dollar, you lose. The evaluation of your wins or losses will be done via observation by an independent third party, and verified by slot club card reports of wins/losses. All playing sessions must occur under the observation of that third party.

200,000 hands of video poker will take 250-300 hours to complete. This will largely eliminate short-term fluctuations. The stakes can be any amount agreed on by both parties, and the odds paid should be even money, but both parties can agree to different odds.

In this way, we can move the theory you disdain into the reality that you love. If Singer's system is effective, then it should show a winner, and a massive one at that, over 200,000 hands played.

And I don't really want to know exactly how you humiliate your wife.

You missed the point, which has shown not to be so unusual after all. The Gambling Today challenge was in response to critics claiming that IF he really does play, he does not win. There was no Einstein saying up front: "Well, we know he wins a lot of those sessions" and in fact, the only reason you like to see yourself write it down over and over again is because you can't get yourself to comprehend that he's an overall winner BECAUSE he gets more large winners than large losers in addition to all those small wins.

Now to your version of a Singer challenge: He's already done that from his reported results (ie, "massive winner") and he's already put more than his fair share of math people, AP's, and loud-mouthed critics back into where they seemingly belong by calling them on his ability to prove he's won what he said. So now you want him to spend another 300 hours at the machines and find someone who has the time to travel to Nevada when he chooses to, stay with him for as long as he chooses to, and watch as he plays session after session.

1. I work, so I couldn't do it.
2. You don't have the money to go back and forth to Nevada on a moment's notice as Singer chooses, so you couldn't do it.
3. Is there ANYBODY who could do this? And besides, from what I've seen of most vp players and from all those who live in theory instead of reality here, who's going to have enough cash on hand to make a meaningful bet with Singer anyway? Myself, I'd love to see him do it because I'd lay a nice side bet or two with you and maybe another misguided gambler.
4. Come to think of it, what good are a second set of results? MathExtremist and others won't care one bit what ACTUALLY goes on at the machines. They'll just continue to claim "if it's a negative game then he will lose, and if it's a positive game he'll win....and if he per chance did win then all he experienced overwhelming, extraordinary, out-of-this-world luck!" You need to understand, math people don't believe their eyes even when it's two feet in front of them. They need to read about how it's possible in a book and verify it by running the numbers first.

Quote: JerryLogan

I've never worked for a company that says to you "you have brains".

No doubt. LOL!

Quote: thecesspit

I agree as well, and again, I tried to state that it starts as Martingale then becomes a standard play of VP for $125 per hand (on two different machines) until $5 profit is made, then back to $1 machine. The session doesn't end till a certain amount is locked in, or the last big level is a loser (Or a royal is hit).

A push doesn't matter (it's like a no decision dice roll in craps) so it's 55-25 in favour of a loss. This makes a win at any level a 31% chance and a loss 69% chance at any level. 4 losses in a row = 23%. 23% of the time you start a progression, you'll be playing at $25 level for at least one hand.

And 77% of the time you'll win one hand on the 1/2/5/10 progression and make the mini-goal for some amount. So I'd be pretty sure Singer's money is safe at 3:1. And yes, I realized I've not looked at the chance of winning at the $25 level yet. It'll be the chance of ending up +$90 while playing $25 credit VP.

So the next question is, when you win, what is the spread of amounts? Whats the average win? Whats the chance of losing all 400 credits? I'm pretty sure I can find the answer to these given some time, by the way.

Like stated before, I don't think it's impossible to win with this scheme, I'm interested in seeing the texture of those wins and losses (and you do agree, right that the loss is a BIG one). I do also realise he is "keeping" each of the mini-wins.

1. I don't see that a royal needs to be hit on the last big level, or else. Since he's playing 300 credits on a ddbp type game, a 250 credit quad or SF hit within the first 145 credits (remember the 100 $25 credits he lost on bonus poker?) gets him his goal of a $5 minimum win. Otherwise, there's 2's 3's and 4's and Aces that could do the trick anywhere within his 300 credits. There's also the possibility of multiple hits.

2. Your "push point" and percentages is understood and agreed.

3. I don't know how to figure an avg. win amount, but at $25 it's got to be huge at times. Playing just 400 credits also has to create some session losses too because I know I go long stretches without quads, etc. when I play. But, I think this is why he sets certain win goals to quit by so he doesn't keep giving the losing sessions opportunity.

4. Since there's 400 credits being played then that's a $10k risk. But when it's lost is it lost without any other wins? Plus one royal at that level, and I don't even play that high, would seem to make a year.

Quote: JerryLogan

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.

The thing is, it makes a difference, giving up that credit for a relatively common win makes a difference. It's like playing 00-roulette. It seems so little, but it's enough to keep grinding you down and the lights on the casino on. It adds up. You can look at the pay off tables or the possible results on your distribution curve and it will be different. Now, if you want to trade a small disadvantage for more variance, that doesn't seem illogical to me, but don't claim it makes you a definite winner, or it's the best way to play to lock in wins, it's not, the math shows it, and thus reality will show it.

It MAY mean that any one individual will do very well, but then that's a different basis to start from and I'm sure it's NOT what Mr Singer is claiming.

Quote:

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.

VP players don't almost always get ahead. I'm pretty certain it's less than 50% of the time that VP-ers get ahead on any session. If it was a case that they almost always got ahead, then the tendency would be for bankrolls to GROW not decline. That patently doesn't happen (and even for positive expectation games the bank roll grows in large jumps when the big hands are hit).

What I am curious about is : a) how repeatable is Mr Singer's method? b) what is the risk ruin on one session? Overall? c) how well does pocketing wins work in the real world? Which is why I'm working through

I'm not sure how you can claim it's a damn smart way to play without an examination of the theory and the math, but there we go. I'm sure this is the same problem I'd have if you were explaining the details of running a large trucking operation.

Quote: JerryLogan

1. I don't see that a royal needs to be hit on the last big level, or else. Since he's playing 300 credits on a ddbp type game, a 250 credit quad or SF hit within the first 145 credits (remember the 100 $25 credits he lost on bonus poker?) gets him his goal of a $5 minimum win. Otherwise, there's 2's 3's and 4's and Aces that could do the trick anywhere within his 300 credits. There's also the possibility of multiple hits.

I only mention the Royal as being an end point to any session (from Mr Singer's system). It can be at any level.

Quote:

2. Your "push point" and percentages is understood and agreed.

Phew.

Quote:

3. I don't know how to figure an avg. win amount, but at $25 it's got to be huge at times. Playing just 400 credits also has to create some session losses too because I know I go long stretches without quads, etc. when I play. But, I think this is why he sets certain win goals to quit by so he doesn't keep giving the losing sessions opportunity.

Granted, and I'm curious to work it out.

Quote:

4. Since there's 400 credits being played then that's a $10k risk. But when it's lost is it lost without any other wins? Plus one royal at that level, and I don't even play that high, would seem to make a year.

Sure, but 400 credits is only 80 hands... not too long to hit the Royal. When the 10k is lost, there will be wins before hand (in all probability). However, the reality (unless I am wrong) will be that the losses will be bigger than the wins.

Quote: JerryLogan

It's dumb comments like that which do the math people in. There's a reason these folks are prone to quoting theory instead of reality whenever they're asked about something that's turned controversial because of another person's view that differs from theirs. By stating theory, they can be wrong and wiggle their way out of it.

We see that all over this thread. When Singer tells us how he's won and when I happen to agree with his set of facts that no one here has attempted to disprove (unless, surprise of surprises, I or he come up with some cash....and even then I believe they'd chicken out) the chest-pounding replies are all wrapped up in theories. If you look carefully, the MichaelBluejay Challenge is only here because a bunch of geeks get off on all the theorizing. No one would ever accept it other than Rob Singer. But as soon as the possibility is produced, the excuses start to fly and the truth begins to unfold.

All I can say is it's a good thing some of you guys don't work for me.

I'm sorry if you found my comments unintelligent. When you originally make the suggestion to test Mr. Singer's strategy I thought it was because you wanted to investigate its efficacy. If you don't, that's fine -- doing an analysis of a VP system would be a very tedious project. However, I was also under the impression that you were interested in how betting systems betting systems behave and that you had expressed that interest in the form of "let's try to do a VP challenge". It seems now that you are not interested in actually doing such a challenge as to whether Singer's VP system (or any system) can "beat" the house edge.

Your statements above, and throughout this thread, have mostly indicated that there is some sort of meaningful controversy. Based on some of your recent comments, I disagree. Since you, I, Mr. Singer, and everyone else all agree that his system does not give the player the edge over the casino, then there is no controversy. I do not for a moment dispute Mr. Singer's claims of winning more often than he loses, and I have no reasonable basis for questioning his gambling income. In a later post, you mentioned something about another challenge at 3-1 odds that Singer will not have a winning session. That's a great bet for Mr. Singer if he wins over 80% of his sessions, as Martingale-like (negative) progression systems are wont to do. Consider:

Winning session: 80% * -1
Losing session: 20% * 3
Total: 60% - 80% = -20%. So Singer has a 20% edge on that bet. This, by the way, is an example of how to calculate the EV of a wager. One could compute the precise odds of Mr. Singer winning a session if his system were properly analyzed. It may be in excess of 90%, but Martingales often are.

While I've attempted to expound upon the nature of gambling systems from an objective viewpoint, you have responded with strange, semi-personal attacks on my intelligence or work ethic. That's okay, I take no umbrage on the Internet. But our conversation has caused me to realize two things:

1) I have basically failed at explaining the nature of gambling systems to you, in part because you say you've heard it all before from other "math people". That might not sound like a big deal, but unlike most other "math people" you may have encountered on Internet forums, I am regularly paid as a mathematical consultant to casino game developers, and it is effectively my job to be able to explain math to my clients. In fact, I was explaining the nature of the pass line to a dice game client earlier tonight. I am not saying this in an attempt to puff myself up, but as an admission that I need to find a more succinct, clear, and credible method of communication than repeating what you've apparently already heard before. I realize that you are not my client and therefore have no inherent financial incentive to pay attention to me, but that's all the more reason for me to derive a better "curriculum", as it were. It will allow me to do a better job when addressing those who *are* paying for my time. (You may be thinking "if you get paid for this, why are you hanging out here?" The answer is that G2E is coming up and new business is slow, so I have some free time. I expect things to pick up in 3 weeks...)

2) Our conversation has also piqued my curiousity as to why some people, who apparently understand some of the underlying concepts of probability theory, nevertheless fail to internalize the most important pieces about outcome independence and result distributions. I have maintained for a long time that humans, as a species, are terrible at comprehending randomness. That's not anyone's fault: we genetically evolved to detect patterns in series of events, and random data looks like series of events to us. But my question is more focused: why do some gamblers, when presented with the opportunity to acquire the knowledge needed to properly understand gambling results from a quantitative viewpoint, choose not to? It's a question that may shed light on the psyche of the gambler and could perhaps even lead to more insights into problem gambling treatments.

I have some new things to think about, so thanks. Jerry, you have previously mentioned that you have never studied statistics or probabilities. I would encourage you to investigate the answers to the questions you once asked, and to study the topics you have left unlearned. But I would also be interested to learn why you won't, if you won't. Either way, good luck at the machines.

Quote: JerryLogan

I believe we just witnessed a whole lotta envy that only one such as mkl has trouble saying in one small paragraph.

Why would I be envious of someone who's lost over a million dollars playing video poker?

Quote: JerryLogan

I've never worked for a company that says to you "you have brains".

At last, something we can all believe. I think it very likely that no one has ever said that to you.

Quote: MathExtremist

While I've attempted to expound upon the nature of gambling systems from an objective viewpoint, you have responded with strange, semi-personal attacks on my intelligence or work ethic. That's okay, I take no umbrage on the Internet. But our conversation has caused me to realize two things:

1) I have basically failed at explaining the nature of gambling systems to you, in part because you say you've heard it all before from other "math people". .

I don't think it's really possible to turn brains like Jerry's around to rationality. As you say, the human brain is terribly constructed to deal with randomness and probability, so that's a huge hurdle right there. Coupled with that is the attendant human tendency to disbelieve the rational, and embrace the irrational. The scientific method is quite new in human history, and is by no means universally accepted--just listen to Jerry sneeringly refer to "THEORY", as if scientific theories weren't well-supported.

What I find odious about Jerry is not his obtuse irrationality, but rather, his penchant for ad hominem attacks. He claims that every disagreement with Singer is motivated by "jealousy" (ignoring completely the simple possibility that the disagreement is with Singer's system, not Singer the person). He personally attacks anybody who disagrees with him, and those attacks have gotten pretty infantile and ridiculous (such as his obsession with the El Cortez--guess what Jerry, I LIKE the El Cortez---jeez!). One wonders, why does disagreement with, not even Jerry, but rather, someone Jerry worships, get Jerry in SUCH a lather? He comes off as the most mean-spirited asshole on this or any other planet. I really don't understand why he is unwilling to engage in rational discussion, but instead prefers:

Mkl: "Singer's methods cannot work in the long run."
Jerry: "OH, YEAH? Well, you patronize the El Cortez, you %^$%#$ old man!!!!"

It is truly puzzling that multitudes are not swept up by Jerry's dazzling logic.

All that aside, he has absolutely NO call to crap on you. You've treated him with dignity and respect, two things that perhaps no human being in history has deserved less. You've bent over backwards to gently and thoroughly explain reality to him. The truth is, he doesn't WANT reality. He would rather be the fawning, credulous disciple of a fraud and huckster, and be thoroughly nasty, uncivil, and foolish-sounding about it, to boot. That gives him some kind of bizarre satisfaction.

Something just dawned on me: I wonder if JerryLogan and Rob Singer ARE THE SAME PERSON? That would explain an awful lot.

Quote: thecesspit

The thing is, it makes a difference, giving up that credit for a relatively common win makes a difference. It's like playing 00-roulette. It seems so little, but it's enough to keep grinding you down and the lights on the casino on. It adds up. You can look at the pay off tables or the possible results on your distribution curve and it will be different. Now, if you want to trade a small disadvantage for more variance, that doesn't seem illogical to me, but don't claim it makes you a definite winner, or it's the best way to play to lock in wins, it's not, the math shows it, and thus reality will show it.

It MAY mean that any one individual will do very well, but then that's a different basis to start from and I'm sure it's NOT what Mr Singer is claiming.

VP players don't almost always get ahead. I'm pretty certain it's less than 50% of the time that VP-ers get ahead on any session. If it was a case that they almost always got ahead, then the tendency would be for bankrolls to GROW not decline. That patently doesn't happen (and even for positive expectation games the bank roll grows in large jumps when the big hands are hit).

What I am curious about is : a) how repeatable is Mr Singer's method? b) what is the risk ruin on one session? Overall? c) how well does pocketing wins work in the real world? Which is why I'm working through

I'm not sure how you can claim it's a damn smart way to play without an examination of the theory and the math, but there we go. I'm sure this is the same problem I'd have if you were explaining the details of running a large trucking operation.

1. Looking at distribution curves and the like mean nothing when we players actually play. The AP guy playing 10/6ddbp is going to be there for either the 6 hours he set aside for it, or until his bankroll disappears. To him a royal or aces etc. means absolutely nothing, and if he loses it all during those hours after hitting it first thing, he soothes himself over by claiming "it was a good play" which is totally, totally stupid. When I'm playing 9/6ddbp I basically do the same thing because I have no discipline to quit. But when Singer plays 9/5ddbp, hitting one of those hands actually means something in terms of quitting with a profit, and the fact that his progressions come into play allows for a lot more such hits, be it quads of any kind or SF's or royals, and a lot more departures with a profit. That's why the paytable doesn't mean that much to him, it's sort of important to me, and AP's live by them. And at the end of the day, it is HE who makes the most sense....and apparently the most money

2. I saw an article some time back that showed vp players being ahead at SOME point during their play, whether it be after the first hand or 9 hours later, by over 90% of the time. Most of us don't follow something like that....MOST of us. However, it is a fact that the longer and the more we play with more greed, the more we will lose, and the more often we will lose.

3. As far as RS's winning being repeatable, his site shows an over 80% win rate. Now he's not selling it, he's never sold himself or a bunch of products like the others, and his site has never had a pop-up or on-line ad, so believing him has always been a lot easier. Risk-or-ruin, I'm not familiar with that. If you mean how much he starts with vs. his win goal, he starts with $57000 or so and quits as soon as he wins at least $2500. That's his single play strategy of course, and that looks like a 5% goal. Not bad at all in the overall scheme of things, again IF one has the discipline to stop there.

4. One thing that always gets lost is he told me he has as much as or more of a math background as most or all of his critics, so he's not lacking in that part of the understanding or theory of it all and his strategies actually are all based on the math. Where someone like me comes along however, I'm more or less easy pickins for all you guys in that respect, which is why I rely on my way better than average business and common sense to weigh the arguments. What he espouses just seems to be much more believable and sensible than what his critics claim.

Quote:

2) Our conversation has also piqued my curiousity as to why some people, who apparently understand some of the underlying concepts of probability theory, nevertheless fail to internalize the most important pieces about outcome independence and result distributions. I have maintained for a long time that humans, as a species, are terrible at comprehending randomness.

It's not specific to randomness or probability. It's the same reason as why there are still "inventors" working on the next generation of perpetuum motion machine, or why the "formula of prime number" inventors regularly show up on the various boards at rate of about two per month. More generally, it's the same reason as why people play the lottery or why Herostratus set his fire - people like being rich and famous, and they don't like to do any boring studying or work to achieve that.
They also like to believe that they are special - surely, they should be able to see what thousands of years of science has missed, it just takes a "new eye".

Quote: MathExtremist

I'm sorry if you found my comments unintelligent. When you originally make the suggestion to test Mr. Singer's strategy I thought it was because you wanted to investigate its efficacy. If you don't, that's fine -- doing an analysis of a VP system would be a very tedious project. However, I was also under the impression that you were interested in how betting systems betting systems behave and that you had expressed that interest in the form of "let's try to do a VP challenge". It seems now that you are not interested in actually doing such a challenge as to whether Singer's VP system (or any system) can "beat" the house edge.

Your statements above, and throughout this thread, have mostly indicated that there is some sort of meaningful controversy. Based on some of your recent comments, I disagree. Since you, I, Mr. Singer, and everyone else all agree that his system does not give the player the edge over the casino, then there is no controversy. I do not for a moment dispute Mr. Singer's claims of winning more often than he loses, and I have no reasonable basis for questioning his gambling income. In a later post, you mentioned something about another challenge at 3-1 odds that Singer will not have a winning session. That's a great bet for Mr. Singer if he wins over 80% of his sessions, as Martingale-like (negative) progression systems are wont to do. Consider:

Winning session: 80% * -1
Losing session: 20% * 3
Total: 60% - 80% = -20%. So Singer has a 20% edge on that bet. This, by the way, is an example of how to calculate the EV of a wager. One could compute the precise odds of Mr. Singer winning a session if his system were properly analyzed. It may be in excess of 90%, but Martingales often are.

While I've attempted to expound upon the nature of gambling systems from an objective viewpoint, you have responded with strange, semi-personal attacks on my intelligence or work ethic. That's okay, I take no umbrage on the Internet. But our conversation has caused me to realize two things:

1) I have basically failed at explaining the nature of gambling systems to you, in part because you say you've heard it all before from other "math people". That might not sound like a big deal, but unlike most other "math people" you may have encountered on Internet forums, I am regularly paid as a mathematical consultant to casino game developers, and it is effectively my job to be able to explain math to my clients. In fact, I was explaining the nature of the pass line to a dice game client earlier tonight. I am not saying this in an attempt to puff myself up, but as an admission that I need to find a more succinct, clear, and credible method of communication than repeating what you've apparently already heard before. I realize that you are not my client and therefore have no inherent financial incentive to pay attention to me, but that's all the more reason for me to derive a better "curriculum", as it were. It will allow me to do a better job when addressing those who *are* paying for my time. (You may be thinking "if you get paid for this, why are you hanging out here?" The answer is that G2E is coming up and new business is slow, so I have some free time. I expect things to pick up in 3 weeks...)

2) Our conversation has also piqued my curiousity as to why some people, who apparently understand some of the underlying concepts of probability theory, nevertheless fail to internalize the most important pieces about outcome independence and result distributions. I have maintained for a long time that humans, as a species, are terrible at comprehending randomness. That's not anyone's fault: we genetically evolved to detect patterns in series of events, and random data looks like series of events to us. But my question is more focused: why do some gamblers, when presented with the opportunity to acquire the knowledge needed to properly understand gambling results from a quantitative viewpoint, choose not to? It's a question that may shed light on the psyche of the gambler and could perhaps even lead to more insights into problem gambling treatments.

I have some new things to think about, so thanks. Jerry, you have previously mentioned that you have never studied statistics or probabilities. I would encourage you to investigate the answers to the questions you once asked, and to study the topics you have left unlearned. But I would also be interested to learn why you won't, if you won't. Either way, good luck at the machines.

I submit to the fact that you know what you're talking about when it comes to vp math and I mostly don't. That's why people like me are more in tune with people like Singer. You guys are pure math-oriented and it's either black or white. He's one of those math-oriented guys who seems to have stepped over the line in strategic places, and just may have come back with something that the mainstream hasn't been able to figure out yet. So he explains things in common sense format so people like me can get something out of it, and at the same time frustrating others who want black or white or nothing of the sort.

By the way, his 3:1 challenge appeared to come in response to claims that he didn't even really play and if he did, he would lose. I understand now that it would have been a good deal for him if anyone accepted, but really, who in vp has ever had such balls as to publish these bets if they were not really doing what they said they were doing? That's what impresses me, not someone like Bob Dancer claiming he does all this damage because "theory" says he should....and then never offerring up proof of anything.

Quote: mkl654321

Why would I be envious of someone who's lost over a million dollars playing video poker?

You might. The part that would bother you most is that someone HAD that much money to lose in the first place. Kind of similar to how the people who still support Obama these days feel.

So you LIKE the El Cortez? No you don't....you just went in there and put some play in at one time or another, and now they've got their hook in you. You can't turn down what to you is a big offer. No one goes back to a dump like that to mingle with all those degenerates and street bums because they LIKE to go back.

Join the club. I've been called RS on a few of the forums because I believe and support him and his methods, as far as I can understand them. People seem to do that when they get frustrated.

Quote: weaselman

It's not specific to randomness or probability. It's the same reason as why there are still "inventors" working on the next generation of perpetuum motion machine, or why the "formula of prime number" inventors regularly show up on the various boards at rate of about two per month. More generally, it's the same reason as why people play the lottery or why Herostratus set his fire - people like being rich and famous, and they don't like to do any boring studying or work to achieve that.
They also like to believe that they are special - surely, they should be able to see what thousands of years of science has missed, it just takes a "new eye".

There's nothing inherently wrong with questioning things anew -- that's the essence of science. However, there's a significant, if sometimes subtle, difference between questioning a conclusion derived from a fact and questioning the fact itself. In this thread, the "fact" has been that Mr. Singer won a lot of money playing VP using some bet-variation scheme. I don't doubt that - it's entirely possible to get lucky playing VP. I know someone who's even luckier than Mr. Singer in that regard when you evaluate results based on net gain / total handle. But the conclusion presented was that "he has a winning system", which under the common definition of "winning system" is plainly untrue. The corollary to that conclusion would be that 400+ years of thought by mathematicians significantly more brilliant than any of us (e.g. Pascal), is not sufficient to describe Mr. Singer's results. I guess the question I'm after is why, when you measure that 400+ years of work against one guy's good luck, are some people more likely to discard the 400 years and believe the one guy -- and then decline to investigate further?

An analogy would be if you saw someone hold up a levitating sphere. Would you conclude that Newton was wrong about gravity, or would you conclude that there must be some visual trick involved and then try to figure out what that trick is?

When Copernicus disproved geocentricity, he didn't just come up with a new idea and try to get people to ignore the old one -- he shattered the old one. He said, "look, here's why geocentricity is *wrong*, and here's why my new theory is better." That's what good science is about - refining our understanding of the universe. That's what makes us us. Slugs don't understand heliocentricity or geocentricity, yet the nature of the solar system is the same regardless. That's why I'm so perplexed by someone who says "Look at my gambling system, it beats the house. Just ignore what "the math people" say." That line of reasoning should never be sufficient to answer true curiousity, but lots of people are willing to believe it -- especially when the possibility of quick, easy money is dangled.

I wouldn't be too quick to diss the fact that Singer has been lucky to win what he has. He devised a strategy that recognized the only way to beat the machines in such a big consistent way was through luck, he optimized all the parameters that go into ways to "create" as much luck as possible in one single session at a time by trading small amounts of game EV for higher opportunity, and he apparently trained himself on the art of how to just stop playing when a very reasonable win goal was hit (compared to his starting bankroll of course).

Your answers may not lie within the math period, but within a combination of the math and the variables which Singer has created in his strategy. I'll never truly understand it all, and that's why I wanted someone with ability to be motivated to dissect it.

I don't have time to get into too much detail today or for the immediate future. I am toying with some simulations here that will help me understand whats going on with the Advanced Romp method.

Quote:

2. I saw an article some time back that showed vp players being ahead at SOME point during their play, whether it be after the first hand or 9 hours later, by over 90% of the time. Most of us don't follow something like that....MOST of us. However, it is a fact that the longer and the more we play with more greed, the more we will lose, and the more often we will lose.

My gut tells me that it cannot be so that more than half of VP sessions are in the positive at some point. I don't always trust my gut though, and will simulate it to see how wrong I am.

Quote:

3. As far as RS's winning being repeatable, his site shows an over 80% win rate. Now he's not selling it, he's never sold himself or a bunch of products like the others, and his site has never had a pop-up or on-line ad, so believing him has always been a lot easier. Risk-or-ruin, I'm not familiar with that. If you mean how much he starts with vs. his win goal, he starts with $57000 or so and quits as soon as he wins at least $2500. That's his single play strategy of course, and that looks like a 5% goal. Not bad at all in the overall scheme of things, again IF one has the discipline to stop there.

If the 5% goal is higher than than the risk of Ruin, then there's something going on that is very interesting indeed. If the risk of ruin is higher than the 5% win, there's a huge problem. I suspect (know?) the risk of ruin is higher than the average percentage win. It has to be on a negative EV game, unless I've misunderstood some fundamental probability. In fact, we know the risk of ruin of the Advanced Romp strategy is around the 38/162 mark (23%) because that's how many losing sessions it has had on his own Statistics. But what the level of those losses are and wins are is NOT clear from the information on his website.

And which is why I want to simulate it, as it interests me as an exercise to do it. Unless I can find 5/10/25/50c/$1 machine on my next trip, I'm not going to try it in practice. If I do, I may give it a try for shits and giggles.

Quote: thecesspit

In fact, we know the risk of ruin of the Advanced Romp strategy is around the 38/162 mark (23%) because that's how many losing sessions it has had on his own Statistics. But what the level of those losses are and wins are is NOT clear from the information on his website.

And which is why I want to simulate it, as it interests me as an exercise to do it. Unless I can find 5/10/25/50c/$1 machine on my next trip, I'm not going to try it in practice. If I do, I may give it a try for shits and giggles.

The magnitude of those wins and losses is the most important piece of information. The only effect of a "win", since he does in fact continue to play after such a "win" (there's just some variable delay, longer than a few minutes, before he plays again), is to reset the bet amounts to minimum. Otherwise, it's all one long session, so the efficacy of the system can only be measured in terms of, does it survive the long haul. You'd also need to know when Singer's stop-loss occurs--when he reaches the $25 level and still doesn't win, does he dump the whole $57,000 in, if necessary? And does he hang it up after that, if he does lose that much in a single session? He prattles on and on about when he stops with a WINNER, but it's equally important when he stops when he's LOSING. He glosses over that because the Magic Singer Method presumes that you will eventually hit that magic big hand that recovers all your losses and makes things all better. But you and I (and he) know that that doesn't always happen. It happens MOST of the time, but when it doesn't, that whole $57,000 (or whatever amount) goes down the toilet. So if he settles for a 5% win, but is willing to suffer a 100% loss in pursuit of that win, he'd better be winning 95% of the time--but he himself says he only wins 80% of the time! So rounding his session bankroll down to $50,000:

80% of the time, he wins $2,500 (by his own admission, he quits when he's 5% ahead)
20% of the time, he loses $50,000 (by his own admission, he keeps increasing his bets, and keeps playing, until he's back even/ahead)

This does not seem like a very lucrative system to me.

Certainly, he runs up against maximum bet limitations, but there are plenty of $100 ($500/hand) machines out there. $57,000 is enough to play 235 hands on a $100 machine. That's the same as $293.75 on a .25 machine. Have you ever lost $300 on a quarter VP machine without hitting anything big? I know I have. (And to make the proper comparison, what would qualify as a "big" hand, enough to get you out of a Singeresque hole, would be something like four Aces, four 2/3/4's with a kicker, or a royal, on Double Double Bonus--Singer's game of choice when he's a big enough loser to hop up to those high denominations.)

Quote: mkl654321

Certainly, he runs up against maximum bet limitations, but there are plenty of $100 ($500/hand) machines out there. $57,000 is enough to play 235 hands on a $100 machine. That's the same as $293.75 on a .25 machine. Have you ever lost $300 on a quarter VP machine without hitting anything big? I know I have. (And to make the proper comparison, what would qualify as a "big" hand, enough to get you out of a Singeresque hole, would be something like four Aces, four 2/3/4's with a kicker, or a royal, on Double Double Bonus--Singer's game of choice when he's a big enough loser to hop up to those high denominations.)

I think the point, and perhaps the important realization for folks like Jerry, is that Singer's system does *not* play just on the $100 machines for the $57,000. If you're Martingaling your bankroll with small bets, you're going to last a lot longer than if you just start at the top level wager and flat bet. It's very unlikely to lose $300 on quarters, then $1200 on dollars, then $6000 on $5 machines, and then $12000 on $10 machines, etc. It's much more likely that you do just one of those. Of course, the denom doesn't matter, so basically what's happening is that the Martingale player has to hit multiple losing sessions in a row in order to really lose. But when that real loss happens, watch out.

It's entirely possible that Singer has never hit that real loss, and as a result, doesn't appreciate the risks he's taking by Martingaling VP.

Quote: MathExtremist

I think the point, and perhaps the important realization for folks like Jerry, is that Singer's system does *not* play just on the $100 machines for the $57,000. If you're Martingaling your bankroll with small bets, you're going to last a lot longer than if you just start at the top level wager and flat bet. It's very unlikely to lose $300 on quarters, then $1200 on dollars, then $6000 on $5 machines, and then $12000 on $10 machines, etc. It's much more likely that you do just one of those. Of course, the denom doesn't matter, so basically what's happening is that the Martingale player has to hit multiple losing sessions in a row in order to really lose. But when that real loss happens, watch out.

It's entirely possible that Singer has never hit that real loss, and as a result, doesn't appreciate the risks he's taking by Martingaling VP.

Well, anything's possible, of course (except the impossible), so one cannot assert with absolute certainty that Singer loses---but likewise, one cannot believe the asssertion that Singer makes to have won without proof--and at this point, he probably couldn't offer such proof even if he was inclined to do so.

The fact of the matter is that when someone makes a fantastical claim, the burden of proof is one the one making such a claim, not on those who are reasonably skeptical of such a claim. I agree that it is POSSIBLE for Singer to have dodged every bullet for twelve years, but I have played enough video poker to know that losing streaks FAR more than what would be sufficient to cause Singer to reach his session loss limit CAN and DO occur with appalling regularity. And as I've said elsewhere, if he reaches that session loss limit (self-imposed, or imposed by his no longer being able to increase the size of his bets) even 5% of the time, he's a net loser. And he himself has said that he only wins 80% "of the time"--so the other 20% of the time, he is dumping his entire session bankroll, then presumably giving up for the day?

Laying 19-1 odds on ANY proposition means that you sure as hell had better be winning a lot more than 80% of the time. That's why I view Singer's claim to have won eleventy squillion dollars as very, very, very improbable.

Quote: mkl654321

Laying 19-1 odds on ANY proposition means that you sure as hell had better be winning a lot more than 80% of the time. That's why I view Singer's claim to have won eleventy squillion dollars as very, very, very improbable.

Sure, so do I, but I'm not going to get into some chest-thumping contest about tax returns or audited financial statements. That's just a waste of time. I mean, winning the lottery is more of a long-shot than dodging the bullets on a VP Martingale, but nobody disputes that some people win the lottery. Singer could be one of those lucky few. Good for him. But that's very different than saying "and you too can beat VP over the next 10 years if you play like me, because we all have the edge over the house with my system." If that's his claim, it's baloney.

Quote: MathExtremist

Sure, so do I, but I'm not going to get into some chest-thumping contest about tax returns or audited financial statements. That's just a waste of time. I mean, winning the lottery is more of a long-shot than dodging the bullets on a VP Martingale, but nobody disputes that some people win the lottery. Singer could be one of those lucky few. Good for him. But that's very different than saying "and you too can beat VP over the next 10 years if you play like me, because we all have the edge over the house with my system." If that's his claim, it's baloney.

Or to put it another way, if he's NOT claiming that (and there seems to be some dispute about whether he is, in fact, making such a claim), then the proper response to his claim that he's won should be, "So what?" Unfortunately, if he convinces the weak-minded that he has indeed won, those people immediately ask him, "Well, how did you do it? How how how how how?" I think it would be an unusually highly principled man who would not recognize and seize on the moneymaking opportunities that those people would offer.

It's sort of like if Chris Moneymaker, Jamie Gold, or Jerry Yang wrote a book on "How To Win the World Series of Poker". Most people would laugh themselves sick, but some would buy the book. (Moneymaker, to his credit, said in his book that he was nothing other than an incredible luckbox who played like the inexperienced newbie that he was, and caught some massive breaks.)

One last thing before I bow out of this until I have a chance to look at this with a computer... I am sure that the average win will be more than the stop-win amount and the average loss will be less than the stop-loss amount, purely due to the banking of wins as we go along.

I am only doing the Advanced Romp method. The more involved systems can come later. I am not simulating the 100 special plays. That can come later if it looks interesting and I can find a source for what they look like.

Quote: mkl654321

Or to put it another way, if he's NOT claiming that (and there seems to be some dispute about whether he is, in fact, making such a claim), then the proper response to his claim that he's won should be, "So what?" Unfortunately, if he convinces the weak-minded that he has indeed won, those people immediately ask him, "Well, how did you do it? How how how how how?" I think it would be an unusually highly principled man who would not recognize and seize on the moneymaking opportunities that those people would offer.

Warren Buffett agrees with you in this famous article. Here's a quote:

Quote: Warren Buffett, in The Superinvestors of Graham-and-Doddsville

I would like you to imagine a national coin-flipping contest. Let's assume we get 225 million Americans up tomorrow morning and we ask them all to wager a dollar. They go out in the morning at sunrise, and they all call the flip of a coin. If they call correctly, they win a dollar from those who called wrong. Each day the losers drop out, and on the subsequent day the stakes build as all previous winnings are put on the line. After ten flips on ten mornings, there will be approximately 220,000 people in the United States who have correctly called ten flips in a row. They each will have won a little over $1,000.

Now this group will probably start getting a little puffed up about this, human nature being what it is. They may try to be modest, but at cocktail parties they will occasionally admit to attractive members of the opposite sex what their technique is, and what marvelous insights they bring to the field of flipping.

Assuming that the winners are getting the appropriate rewards from the losers, in another ten days we will have 215 people who have successfully called their coin flips 20 times in a row and who, by this exercise, each have turned one dollar into a little over $1 million. $225 million would have been lost, $225 million would have been won.

By then, this group will really lose their heads. They will probably write books on "How I turned a Dollar into a Million in Twenty Days Working Thirty Seconds a Morning." Worse yet, they'll probably start jetting around the country attending seminars on efficient coin-flipping and tackling skeptical professors with, " If it can't be done, why are there 215 of us?"

By then some business school professor will probably be rude enough to bring up the fact that if 225 million orangutans had engaged in a similar exercise, the results would be much the same - 215 egotistical orangutans with 20 straight winning flips.

There truly is nothing new under the sun. Buffett gave that speech over 25 years ago.

Quote: mkl654321

The magnitude of those wins and losses is the most important piece of information. The only effect of a "win", since he does in fact continue to play after such a "win" (there's just some variable delay, longer than a few minutes, before he plays again), is to reset the bet amounts to minimum. Otherwise, it's all one long session, so the efficacy of the system can only be measured in terms of, does it survive the long haul. You'd also need to know when Singer's stop-loss occurs--when he reaches the $25 level and still doesn't win, does he dump the whole $57,000 in, if necessary? And does he hang it up after that, if he does lose that much in a single session? He prattles on and on about when he stops with a WINNER, but it's equally important when he stops when he's LOSING. He glosses over that because the Magic Singer Method presumes that you will eventually hit that magic big hand that recovers all your losses and makes things all better. But you and I (and he) know that that doesn't always happen. It happens MOST of the time, but when it doesn't, that whole $57,000 (or whatever amount) goes down the toilet. So if he settles for a 5% win, but is willing to suffer a 100% loss in pursuit of that win, he'd better be winning 95% of the time--but he himself says he only wins 80% of the time! So rounding his session bankroll down to $50,000:

80% of the time, he wins $2,500 (by his own admission, he quits when he's 5% ahead)
20% of the time, he loses $50,000 (by his own admission, he keeps increasing his bets, and keeps playing, until he's back even/ahead)

This does not seem like a very lucrative system to me.

Certainly, he runs up against maximum bet limitations, but there are plenty of $100 ($500/hand) machines out there. $57,000 is enough to play 235 hands on a $100 machine. That's the same as $293.75 on a .25 machine. Have you ever lost $300 on a quarter VP machine without hitting anything big? I know I have. (And to make the proper comparison, what would qualify as a "big" hand, enough to get you out of a Singeresque hole, would be something like four Aces, four 2/3/4's with a kicker, or a royal, on Double Double Bonus--Singer's game of choice when he's a big enough loser to hop up to those high denominations.)

Do you stay up late trying to manufacture some more misinformation about Singer's strategy? I'll tell you one thing, you'd look a LOT better if you read it first before asserting any more nonsense.

1. Your first long & rambling paragraph says nothing more that the same old tired, lazy white man's escapist theory of "If he plays a negative machine he will lose, and if he plays a positive machine he will win".

2. He said he wins single play strategy, which is the only one of his strategies requiring a $57,200 bankroll, 85% of the time, not 80%. To further embarrass you, his stats report his largest ever losing session of just under $34000, while his AVERAGE LOSING SESSION loses around $3500. You may WANT him to have had losing sessions of $50000, but his strategy clearly points out that because of the many smaller cashouts that occur during his quest for a $2500 minimum win goal, it rarely gets into 5 figures. If you bothered to read what he does you'll see what he does with his many "soft profit" cashouts. You are such an idiot.

3. Double Double Bonus is NOT Singer's game of choice....again, please read prior to making your stupid unsupportable assertions. (or maybe not, cause I love exposing you over and over for what you really are). It starts with Super Double Bonus Poker, Triple Bonus Poker Plus, Super Aces, 10/7 Double Bonus Poker, THEN Double Double Bonus Poker. Taken right from his site. Get it?

Quote: JerryLogan

It starts with Super Double Bonus Poker, Triple Bonus Poker Plus, Super Aces, 10/7 Double Bonus Poker, THEN Double Double Bonus Poker. Taken right from his site. Get it?

Then you agree with me! If he saves his highest-stakes play for that game, then that IS his game of choice, since he's spending the most money on it.

I'm greatly encouraged by this, Jerry. Keep it up!

Quote: MathExtremist

There truly is nothing new under the sun. Buffett gave that speech over 25 years ago.

I love that article. A point which came to mind just now when I read it, which is perhaps tangential:

The US government earned about $100 million from those coin-flipping transactions, assuming the winners will be taxed at the highest marginal tax rate. So guess who's REALLY +EV here.....and with very low variance and standard deviation, to boot.

And "215 Egotistical Orangutans" would be a great name for a rock band.

Quote: mkl654321

Then you agree with me! If he saves his highest-stakes play for that game, then that IS his game of choice, since he's spending the most money on it.

I'm greatly encouraged by this, Jerry. Keep it up!

I suspect you are both wrong... Mr Singer only plays one of those games at the 300 credit level... and its in order of choice not in order of going up the levels. Super Double is preferred over Triple Double Bonus Plus over Double Double Bonus over Super Aces.


"Rule #3: I am prepared to first play 100 credits on BP, then 300 credits SDBP, TBP+, DDB, or Super Aces (in that order of precedence). Playing progressives of any amount are fine, and recommended if available. They are completely acceptable in this strategy. Play on a multi-game machine, or change machines at any time. The new multi-game/multi-denominational coin-less machines are tailor-made for this type of play. I always cash out the first time I am at least 40 credits ahead on BP. I pocket it, then begin again. If the initial 100 credits are lost on BP, regardless of how many 40+ profits were cashed out and pocketed, I begin play on advanced bonus machines (SDBP/TBP+/DDB/SA), playing up to 300 credits. Again, I cash out anytime 40+ credits are realized, and begin again until at least 140 credits are accumulated, with a minimum of 40 to be pocketed and never risked, and 100 to make up for the initial 100 credits lost on BP. Having recovered my loss, I begin again on BP. "

For the advanced romp

"2. Choose games that are multi-game/multi-denominational, and they must have Bonus Poker or ACES BONUS POKER paying 10 credits for two pair - as well as either Super Double Bonus Poker, Triple Bonus Poker Plus, or Super Aces Bonus Poker, or Double Double Bonus Poker - in that order of precedence (and SDBP is a FAR superior game for all of my strategies). 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."

I suspect these two methods are from slightly different times. Why I am bothering to referee between you, I have no idea mind...

Quote: mkl654321

Then you agree with me! If he saves his highest-stakes play for that game, then that IS his game of choice, since he's spending the most money on it.

I'm greatly encouraged by this, Jerry. Keep it up!

Saying you're an idiot is being kind. Those games are in order of precedence after he plays bonus poker, and he only plays one of them. Duh!

Thecesspit, I see you are the one who understands and reads. See if you can get that teacher to read with understanding.

Quote: JerryLogan

Saying you're an idiot is being kind. Those games are in order of precedence after he plays bonus poker, and he only plays one of them. Duh!

Thecesspit, I see you are the one who understands and reads. See if you can get that teacher to read with understanding.

Actually, I haven't read his strategy in detail. Why should I bother, when I know it's worthless crap? It's a Martingale, based on playing negative EV machines, and playing them badly on purpose. Exactly HOW badly, and exactly WHICH -EV machines, isn't important--every play he makes is a loser.

Quote: thecesspit

I suspect you are both wrong... Mr Singer only plays one of those games at the 300 credit level... and its in order of choice not in order of going up the levels. Super Double is preferred over Triple Double Bonus Plus over Double Double Bonus over Super Aces.

I suspect these two methods are from slightly different times. Why I am bothering to referee between you, I have no idea mind...

And what exactly is his "rule" if and when he doesn't ever get that 40+ credits ahead? At what point does he stop altogether? After he loses that 300 additional credits on "advanced bonus", as he calls it?

Let's assume, for the moment, that that is true. Let's also assume that those 300 credits on "advanced bonus" are at a higher denomination than his initial 100 credits on Bonus Poker. That means that he is -100 credits at his Bonus Poker denomination, and then he is -300 credits at his "advanced bonus" denomination. At this point, he is so far in the hole that he will need more than 10 of his +40 credit wins to get himself even (because 300 of those 400 credits he is behind are in a larger denomination than whatever his starting denomination is).

It's obvious that this won't work--BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, he only wins "80% of the time"--but using his own numbers, he has to win at least 90% of the time, because he quits when he's 40 credits ahead, but is willing to keep playing until he's 400 credits behind. Loser.

The latter part of his rule #2 is the stupidest statement by a grown man I have ever read. Saying that paytables don't matter is like a blackjack author saying that it doesn't matter whether you get paid 3:2, 6:5, or even money on blackjacks--just find a comfy chair.

I've just exploded Singer in a couple of paragraphs, so I don't need, or care, to discuss him any further. Jerry still lusts after Singer, and no amount of logic could convince him not to. I sincerely hope that Jerry wholeheartedly embraces The Singer Way, and dumps what remains of his personal wealth straight down the toilet---after all, faith should be properly rewarded.

Hold on a second here. All of the VP books that I read tell about the chances of winning hands on certain games are usually around the 40% to 45% level. And here you have Singer saying that "he only wins 80% of the time" ?? That sounds like a winning formula to me!!!

Quote: bobthomas

Hold on a second here. All of the VP books that I read tell about the chances of winning hands on certain games are usually around the 40% to 45% level. And here you have Singer saying that "he only wins 80% of the time" ?? That sounds like a winning formula to me!!!

He supposedly creates that situation by using a Martingale--increasing his bets as his losses get larger.

The books, in the reference you make, are talking about the chance of winning any one HAND. Singer says that he wins 80% of his SESSIONS, which could possibly be the truth. However, his system, by his own admission, would need to win 95% of the time just to break even, because his session losses, when they occur, are so massive.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Singer plays negative expectation games. You can't beat a -EV game.

Quote: mkl654321

And what exactly is his "rule" if and when he doesn't ever get that 40+ credits ahead? At what point does he stop altogether? After he loses that 300 additional credits on "advanced bonus", as he calls it?

Let's assume, for the moment, that that is true. Let's also assume that those 300 credits on "advanced bonus" are at a higher denomination than his initial 100 credits on Bonus Poker. That means that he is -100 credits at his Bonus Poker denomination, and then he is -300 credits at his "advanced bonus" denomination. At this point, he is so far in the hole that he will need more than 10 of his +40 credit wins to get himself even (because 300 of those 400 credits he is behind are in a larger denomination than whatever his starting denomination is).

It's obvious that this won't work--BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, he only wins "80% of the time"--but using his own numbers, he has to win at least 90% of the time, because he quits when he's 40 credits ahead, but is willing to keep playing until he's 400 credits behind. Loser.

The latter part of his rule #2 is the stupidest statement by a grown man I have ever read. Saying that paytables don't matter is like a blackjack author saying that it doesn't matter whether you get paid 3:2, 6:5, or even money on blackjacks--just find a comfy chair.

I've just exploded Singer in a couple of paragraphs, so I don't need, or care, to discuss him any further. Jerry still lusts after Singer, and no amount of logic could convince him not to. I sincerely hope that Jerry wholeheartedly embraces The Singer Way, and dumps what remains of his personal wealth straight down the toilet---after all, faith should be properly rewarded.

What a pile of misinformation and confusion from the most envious guy on the forum. First of all, cesspit, it appears you took examples from TWO OF SINGER'S DIFFERENT STRATEGIES and claimed they were conflicting from "different times". WHY?

MKL, the reason you envy Singer so much is you are unable to decipher his strategies, and you can't figure out the complexities in order to do what you do best: Make up things about things as you type. From what I'm reading, the 40 credit cashout rule applies to his single play strategy and is a min-win goal and nowhere near an overall session win goal. How go you get something so simple so mixed up?? And that "400 credits behind"? That is clearly identified as being connected to his advanced romp through town strategy. Do you EVER get anything right? Oh yeah, one would have to READ something instead of make a bunch of assertions about it in order to say he knows what he's talking about!

I agree with RS, pay tables don't mean squat to someone just passing through. I was playing $5 6/5 Bonus Poker at a Rio bar in May and hit a royal. What's that game worth in theory, 94% or something? HA! Guess what it was worth to me after pouring $3000 in?? Reality my friend, reality.

Quote: bobthomas

Hold on a second here. All of the VP books that I read tell about the chances of winning hands on certain games are usually around the 40% to 45% level. And here you have Singer saying that "he only wins 80% of the time" ?? That sounds like a winning formula to me!!!

That's what you get when you don't have the facts and listen to the envious. Sort of like the blind leading the blind, only with a side order of jealousy. Taken directly from his site, he's 353-74 in 427 sessions. That's 82.66%. That 40% to 45% clip you identified seems to be how often a winning hand appears in a game on average.