Singer System - Challenge?
Quote: JerryLoganI 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.
It's worth about 97% in ACTUALITY. The fact that you hit a royal doesn't change that one bit, any more than a little old lady hitting 7 out of 7 in the Keno lounge means that the house edge on the game isn't 25%.
The fact that you played 6/5 Bonus instead of the easily available 8/5 Bonus means that you gave up $10 every time you hit a full house. You could have just as easily played 8/5, and you would have been that much further ahead after hitting the royal. You will hit a full house every 90 hands, so you're throwing away $10 every 90 hands, FOR NO GOOD REASON--a 6/5 Bonus game isn't any more likely to hit a royal than an 8/5 game.
But both Jerry and his hero say that doesn't matter. I guess that depends on whether losing $60 or so EXTRA an hour because you're too lazy, or something, to walk across the casino to play 8/5 instead of 6/5 matters to you.
Quote: mkl654321It's worth about 97% in ACTUALITY. The fact that you hit a royal doesn't change that one bit, any more than a little old lady hitting 7 out of 7 in the Keno lounge means that the house edge on the game isn't 25%.
The fact that you played 6/5 Bonus instead of the easily available 8/5 Bonus means that you gave up $10 every time you hit a full house. You could have just as easily played 8/5, and you would have been that much further ahead after hitting the royal. You will hit a full house every 90 hands, so you're throwing away $10 every 90 hands, FOR NO GOOD REASON--a 6/5 Bonus game isn't any more likely to hit a royal than an 8/5 game.
But both Jerry and his hero say that doesn't matter. I guess that depends on whether losing $60 or so EXTRA an hour because you're too lazy, or something, to walk across the casino to play 8/5 instead of 6/5 matters to you.
I tire of correcting your dumb assertions and made-up nonsense. A 6/5 BP game is worth exactly 96.8687%. You should have taken at least one math class in junior college.
I gave up $10 for every full house I hit, so instead of walking out of there with $17,000 profit I probably could have walked out with $17,300 if I would have still hit any FH's on an 8/5 machine in some other casino that I didn't want to be in, because they have no 8/5's in the Rio. They have 7/5 on the floor but I wanted to play at the bar. Jeepers creepers, maybe I should just give the money back!
Here's why the envy flows out of you like blood from a stuck pig: you look at my win as how much I lost in the process. A winner would look at it as how much profit they walked out with. By your own inadvertant admission above where you have no clue at all on how to figure out what pay tables are ACTUALLY worth, I'm sure you're just a master of math magnificence while playing a machine.
Quote: JerryLoganI tire of correcting your dumb assertions and made-up nonsense. A 6/5 BP game is worth exactly 96.8687%. You should have taken at least one math class in junior college.
I gave up $10 for every full house I hit, so instead of walking out of there with $17,000 profit I probably could have walked out with $17,300 if I would have still hit any FH's on an 8/5 machine in some other casino that I didn't want to be in, because they have no 8/5's in the Rio. They have 7/5 on the floor but I wanted to play at the bar. Jeepers creepers, maybe I should just give the money back!
Here's why the envy flows out of you like blood from a stuck pig: you look at my win as how much I lost in the process. A winner would look at it as how much profit they walked out with. By your own inadvertant admission above where you have no clue at all on how to figure out what pay tables are ACTUALLY worth, I'm sure you're just a master of math magnificence while playing a machine.
There is no doubt that SOME sucker will win at a terrible machine. I am no more envious of him than I am of someone who has won at Keno.
A "winner" would realize that he had pissed away that $300 for absolutely nothing.
And don't be a nitpciking jerk about the payback percentage. I was correct within 0.13%, and my point wouldn't have been any less valid had I quoted the percentage down to twelve figures. I don't bother to learn the exact percentage on sucker games, because I would never be stupid enough to play them. And I MUST point out, Jerry, that you're the one who said that the payback was 94%. So you were off by almost 3%, and I was off by 0.13%. In other words, your mistake was over twenty times as large as mine. Sounds like you need a math lesson, Jerry--though that wouldn't stop you from seeking out just about the worst Bonus Poker game in Vegas. That DOES take talent.
Quote: mkl654321There is no doubt that SOME sucker will win at a terrible machine. I am no more envious of him than I am of someone who has won at Keno.
A "winner" would realize that he had pissed away that $300 for absolutely nothing.
And don't be a nitpciking jerk about the payback percentage. I was correct within 0.13%, and my point wouldn't have been any less valid had I quoted the percentage down to twelve figures. I don't bother to learn the exact percentage on sucker games, because I would never be stupid enough to play them. And I MUST point out, Jerry, that you're the one who said that the payback was 94%. So you were off by almost 3%, and I was off by 0.13%. In other words, your mistake was over twenty times as large as mine. Sounds like you need a math lesson, Jerry--though that wouldn't stop you from seeking out just about the worst Bonus Poker game in Vegas. That DOES take talent.
What's a "nitpciking jerk"? Is that an insult?
One would expect such a prolific personality such as yourself not to be making guesses when it comes to the math. You don't need to "learn" the percentages. You need to be able to CALCULATE them if you want to be believed as ever being an "advantage player". You're probably the only one who doesn't know how to do that. To me 94% is no different than 97% in theoretical terms at any time, and winning a $20k Royal on a game you'd never play just irks the heck out of you doesn't it. C'mon teacher, admit it!
Quote: JerryLoganWhat's a "nitpciking jerk"? Is that an insult?
One would expect such a prolific personality such as yourself not to be making guesses when it comes to the math. You don't need to "learn" the percentages. You need to be able to CALCULATE them if you want to be believed as ever being an "advantage player". You're probably the only one who doesn't know how to do that. To me 94% is no different than 97% in theoretical terms at any time, and winning a $20k Royal on a game you'd never play just irks the heck out of you doesn't it. C'mon teacher, admit it!
Yes, Jerry.
Quote: JerryLoganWhat 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?
I merely claimed that they were from two different strategies (which they are) and he obviously has different choices of which are the secondary machines dependent on which strategy he is playing.
In fact I went on to mention that ::
"I suspect these two methods are from slightly different times."
That is all. I should have said ::
"These are two methods from slightly different strategies"
to be clearer, and now I've read the pages more recently.
That is all my "WHY", I was just trying to state "Rob Singer uses these machines in this case, and these machines in that case". I actually don't think it matters -too- much, but everyone wants to be so damn accurate. You'll notice no strategy here talks about the pay tables. However, his videos DO mention the ideal pay tables he'd play his special play strategies on. And pay tables do matter, even in the short term, regardless of hitting a Royal (you lucky bastard) The important part from how I -think- you like to play is that you'd prefer to play on $1000 for x minutes rather than x-y minutes. More time to stare at the barmaid's tits and drink top self liquor, right? There will be a difference. Now, how big is that difference? What would be a good gain for you Mr Logan (I'm curious...)?
However, play what the hell you like, how you like. It does not upset me.
Hitting 80% session wins is NOT impressive. It's easy to do, I've got a system I've tried that hits almost 90% session wins. Without a Martingale (or any other bet progression). I was actually surprised to find it (it's not +EV, of course) as it was not what I was looking for. I will write it up, maybe this weekend once I have a sensible way of showing the figures.
Quote: thecesspitI merely claimed that they were from two different strategies (which they are) and he obviously has different choices of which are the secondary machines dependent on which strategy he is playing.
Hitting 80% session wins is NOT impressive. It's easy to do, I've got a system I've tried that hits almost 90% session wins. Without a Martingale (or any other bet progression). I was actually surprised to find it (it's not +EV, of course) as it was not what I was looking for. I will write it up, maybe this weekend once I have a sensible way of showing the figures.
It will follow, surely as the night doth follow the day, that Jerry will now start insulting you, crow about how he has done something manly to you (hint: manly as in, in many state prisons), put words in your mouth, and argue against things you never said. Be prepared to have each and every piece of personal information, plus some that Jerry completely makes up, dragged out and through the Jerry-mud. That's the kind of person he is--a loathsome, cantankerous troll who argues for argument's sake. You have to realize that he isn't out to discuss anything; his SOLE purpose is to get people angry. He's said so himself, that pissing people off is the one thing that brings him the most joy.
It's enough that you are aware, as you say, of the very simple and obvious--that win frequency, by itself, is meaningless--and leave the Singers and Logans of this world to rave and foam at the mouth. It's a good thing for the rest of us--if there weren't people obtuse enough to play $1 6/5 Bonus Poker, and use The Singer Method in the process, the casino wouldn't make as much money, and would have to charge the rest of us more.
Quote: thecesspitI merely claimed that they were from two different strategies (which they are) and he obviously has different choices of which are the secondary machines dependent on which strategy he is playing.
In fact I went on to mention that ::
"I suspect these two methods are from slightly different times."
That is all. I should have said ::
"These are two methods from slightly different strategies"
to be clearer, and now I've read the pages more recently.
That is all my "WHY", I was just trying to state "Rob Singer uses these machines in this case, and these machines in that case". I actually don't think it matters -too- much, but everyone wants to be so damn accurate. You'll notice no strategy here talks about the pay tables. However, his videos DO mention the ideal pay tables he'd play his special play strategies on. And pay tables do matter, even in the short term, regardless of hitting a Royal (you lucky bastard) The important part from how I -think- you like to play is that you'd prefer to play on $1000 for x minutes rather than x-y minutes. More time to stare at the barmaid's tits and drink top self liquor, right? There will be a difference. Now, how big is that difference? What would be a good gain for you Mr Logan (I'm curious...)?
However, play what the hell you like, how you like. It does not upset me.
Hitting 80% session wins is NOT impressive. It's easy to do, I've got a system I've tried that hits almost 90% session wins. Without a Martingale (or any other bet progression). I was actually surprised to find it (it's not +EV, of course) as it was not what I was looking for. I will write it up, maybe this weekend once I have a sensible way of showing the figures.
I now understand your mis-statement.
From my perspective, pay tables are irrelevant because I'm not at the machine with X amount of dollars, I'm there for X amount of time. Whatever happens happens, and I walk away with it. If it is a short pay table on flushes or FH's then when I get up I believe if I were playing on a full pay machine I'd have done worse than my overall results there. That's very easy to do because positive play session results are almost always determined by the number of quads. I also like to play in nice casinos, and most of the best pay tables are located in scum-bag locals casinos that are loaded with all the low lifes and wannabees from that declining city.
If you've got a better method of playing vp that wins better than over 80% of the sessions, please share it! Even Bob Dancer says AP's can't expect to win over 30%-35% of theirs.
Quote: JerryLoganI now understand your mis-statement.
I think I now understand your misunderstanding...
Quote:
From my perspective, pay tables are irrelevant because I'm not at the machine with X amount of dollars, I'm there for X amount of time.
Okay I'll turn around my question. After playing for two hours how much more would like you stand up with? Time or dollars... it doesn't make any difference really. The pay table will grind you down quicker and leave you with less money -in general-. I'm sure after two hours you'd prefer to have $300 from your grand than $250, right? Or is it merely, screw the losses, an extra $50 don't matter, I only care if I finish up after two hours?
OR at least realize that playing in the nicer casino has a cost involved with it. And that's fine too.
Quote:Whatever happens happens, and I walk away with it. If it is a short pay table on flushes or FH's then when I get up I believe if I were playing on a full pay machine I'd have done worse than my overall results there.
Am I to understand you correctly that you believe if you lose $200 playing a 6/5 machine, you'd have lost MORE playing a 7/5 machine? If the exact same sequence of cards had come up?
Quote:That's very easy to do because positive play session results are almost always determined by the number of quads. I also like to play in nice casinos, and most of the best pay tables are located in scum-bag locals casinos that are loaded with all the low lifes and wannabees from that declining city.
Sure, whatever, and thats your right, and unlike other people I do agree that all that really matters is your results. However, you can't justify playing at the best casino because "the pay table doesn't matter". You can by saying "I prefer playing here, so I'm going to play here regardless of the pay table, and I realise I give up a few dollars but I'm after the big payouts anyways".
Quote:
If you've got a better method of playing vp that wins better than over 80% of the sessions, please share it! Even Bob Dancer says AP's can't expect to win over 30%-35% of theirs.
I'm not quite ready yet to share. I'm not sure your like my answer anyways, and consider it a bit of a "cheat".
Quote: thecesspitOkay I'll turn around my question. After playing for two hours how much more would like you stand up with? Time or dollars... it doesn't make any difference really. The pay table will grind you down quicker and leave you with less money -in general-. I'm sure after two hours you'd prefer to have $300 from your grand than $250, right? Or is it merely, screw the losses, an extra $50 don't matter, I only care if I finish up after two hours?
OR at least realize that playing in the nicer casino has a cost involved with it. And that's fine too.
Am I to understand you correctly that you believe if you lose $200 playing a 6/5 machine, you'd have lost MORE playing a 7/5 machine? If the exact same sequence of cards had come up?
Sure, whatever, and thats your right, and unlike other people I do agree that all that really matters is your results. However, you can't justify playing at the best casino because "the pay table doesn't matter". You can by saying "I prefer playing here, so I'm going to play here regardless of the pay table, and I realise I give up a few dollars but I'm after the big payouts anyways".
I'm not quite ready yet to share. I'm not sure your like my answer anyways, and consider it a bit of a "cheat".
It's really that I value where I choose to be playing at over any particular pay table. I'm not the type to roam around like the nerds you sometimes see checking pay tables. I go somewhere because I like the ambience, the waitresses or bevertainers, the bars or bartenders, or the machines that have been lucky for me in the past. In other words, all-around comfort. I'm also a true believer in that, for the relatively small amount of time I sit at machines on each visit, the wins or losses I get on a machine would not have come on another with a better or worse paytable on a different machine, so comparing losses or wins means nothing at the end of the day. However, if it were possible to ask the technician to put the game at full pay while I'm playing it, I would do that. But it isn't.
No, playing 7/5 vs. 6/5 obviously would yield better results with the same hands, but only if any FH's appeared. It's the same thing that all these AP's and so-called "teams" go through when they're playing 8/5 BP with a progressive royal that's at least 8000 credits and climbing. Sure they can make believe they're playing in "theoretically positive territory" as they're losing their shirts going for the royal, but if they fail to hit it then all that theory means nothing and they know it. I believe this type of play fits into Wizard's "It's not if you win or lose, it's if it was a good play or not" by-line that really makes no sense at all. SO WHAT if it can theoretically be considered a "good positive EV play"? Did you win or lose....that is the ONLY parameter than truly means anything.
Quote: JerryLoganIt's really that I value where I choose to be playing at over any particular pay table. Did you win or lose....that is the ONLY parameter than truly means anything.
Here we have Jerry's true motivation. Where he plays matters more than whether he wins or loses. This is fine! We all have different reasons for playing. But where he goes off the rails is in justifying himself by making nonsensical statements like "paytables don't matter", and in pretending that there are no such things as APs, and then (in the same breath!) saying that those APs are all lowlife scum, neener neener neener.
"The only parameter that truly means anything..."--this is, of course, nonsense. HOW MUCH you win or lose matters, too. Playing bad paytables, you will win less when you win, and lose more when you lose. Playing bad paytables BADLY, your wins will be smaller still, and your losses larger still. And the fact that you may hit a royal now and then doesn't change that.
It would be refreshing if Jerry simply owned up to the fact that he doesn't care whether he wins or not (otherwise, he wouldn't play the crappy games that he does), rather than raving at those who DO care about their results. There's not much point in trying to convince yourself that reality doesn't apply to you by sneering at it and calling it "theory" (and JL shows a basic lack of understanding of what "theory" actually is). If may make JL feel better to do so, but at some level, ne must know he's being self-deluding.
Some people are losers because they don't know any better. Some are losers because they are too lazy or unmotivated to make the effort not to be. Still others are losers because they don't give a damn. The one thing the three groups have in common is that they often justify themselves by self-delusion. Jerry is, however, fairly forthright--he admits he's a huge, constant loser, and he tells us why. I respect that! Jerry, EMBRACE your loser-ness! Nobody here will think less of you for it (that, I GUARANTEE).
Quote: JerryLoganFace it mkl, you tried to explain yourself....I mean, me, in that assertion-filled ramble that's really a product of just bad writing throughout, but all you did was succeed in killing more time in what is just another monotonous day alone and in shame.
Yes, Jerry.
Quote: Rob SingerYes I've won over 80% of the time.
That's easily disprovable. I would suggest a bet of just about any amount that Singer doesn't win X% of sessions over Y sessions with a maximum of Z hands per session. If he has to win 50% of sessions then I'd suggest an even-money bet. If it's the 80% he claimed he can do then I could offer odds.
Maybe we could come up with several different scenarios to find one that might be palatable to him. However, I don't expect him to accept, no matter how generous I make the odds. System hawkers never put their systems to the test, ever.
Anyway, the more I think about it, since the objective is to show that Singer is blowing smoke, in theory I could set this up as a reward rather than a challenge. That is, I could just offer Singer $X if he can show that he wins 80% of sessions as he claimed, and he wouldn't even have to put up any of his own money. If I did that, he wouldn't seem to have much credibility if he didn't accept.
But video poker isn't my forté. For those of you who are familiar with it, what are the odds of winning 80% or more of 20 one-hour (700-hand) sessions? Naturally we'd be talking about whatever VP variant has the greatest chance of succeeding in this scenario.
A session is a win of $x or a loss of $y. The number of hands will then vary (e.g. the session is bankroll bound, not length of play bound).
You may not agree with this definition of a session, naturally. But I know you can get better than 80% winning sessions(*) with a small win goal (see my simulating Singer Thread :: https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/3546-simulating-singer-part-1/) without doing anything particularly special. That also gives you some idea of the variances if you use a time bound session. I don't think you could hit 80% on 20x700 hand sessions ever. I can easily re-run those numbers for 700 hand sessions if you desire. My simulation will not be as detailed as yours, no doubt. I'm still working on doing via individual card draws (if you have code to share on that type of thing, I'm all ears).
(*) Bankroll bound sessions.
It may be meaningless, but it's important to realise that is how Mr Singer defines his sessions (or mini-sessions.... he runs mini sessions, each time he "banks" the win, then when the total bank reaches his session marker, he's done). A session is actually reaching a $200 total win, and a mini-session win is being ahead by $25. 8 or less mini sessions make can make one full session. Four sessions per day or until he's won $1,000 for the day.
This is the Advanced Romp through Town, which he reports a 124-38 win/loss record in total sessions, a 76% winning record.
I've not studied the other two methods in as much depth. They have a similar sort of principle, but change the limits of VP machines at different stages.
Like you, I didn't think anyone could win 80% of sessions, but your excellent analysis proves otherwise. And of course, in a challenge it wouldn't be fair to force Mr. Singer to play a certain number of hands exactly. To be a fair test, we'd have to let him play however he normally plays.
So that means I'm back to square one. How do we devise a valid test? We can't say that he has to win >80% of sessions, because as you showed, he can (and more importantly, so can anybody). Of course he'll lose in the long run, but we don't have the time required to do that kind of live test.
Or maybe we do. Could you analyze how many of those ~92% winning sessions are necessary on average to have a 50% and a 75% chance of being in the red overall? (And the average and maximum number of rounds played?)
I'd suggest you email Rob Singer directly if you want to know what he'd think is acceptable... he's approachable enough, and doesn't seem to be selling much or anything to those that are interested. You can then work out yourself if it's a fair challenge or not. He might not be into a challenge, as he seems to be scaling back his activities to spend more time with his family. <shrug>.
If I understand you correctly, you are dissing his 80% session win rate, and you¡¦re even willing to offer ODDS if he meets or beats that rate? What? Count me in on that action if this happens! This is why. If you review his SINGLE PLAY strategy (the one he claims he does the best on) you'd see where he utilizes a 6 denominational tier of 400 credits each level with around a $55,000 bankroll to win a minimum $2500/session, and a session includes many, many small cashouts. That's what constitutes a winning session for him, not just playing X amount of hands in a given amount of time as cesspit said. In fact, I wouldn't bet you or anyone else a dime that he or anybody could win even half their sessions playing a set amount of hands. Even AP players don't come anything close to that number. The other issue I think you¡¦d run into is time. It seems playing enough sessions for a good sample size would take months since he writes that a single session can last anywhere from a minute (which I believe would be hitting a royal on $1 right off the bat) to several days, given that he's only played 400 or so of them over 10 years.
FYI: You might find it interesting that in one of his past Gambling Today articles he actually did put out a challenge to that Fezzik and Anthony Curtis that he would win ONE session in front of them. The bet for was $50k I think and it was HIM who offered 3:1 odds that he'd win. I remember on the LVAsports forum Fezzik claiming day & night that RS was a fraud because he wouldn't play in front of anyone or something like that type of bravado, so he went out published the bet WITH odds. Of course, when the AP's realized he had a much better than even chance of winning, they turned it down which I believe was the smart thing to do.
What do you think?
Quote: JerryLoganIf I understand you correctly, you are dissing his 80% session win rate, and you¡¦re even willing to offer ODDS if he meets or beats that rate?
No. Read my subsequent post.
Quote: MichaelBluejayNo. Read my subsequent post.
You're right, I missed it. Thanks.
What exactly is his VP strategy anyway? Or is it vague and ambiguous, as I expect?
Quote: MichaelBluejayOkay, unless I'm missing something, the odds of being ahead on any negative-EV VP game after X rounds (decided beforehand) is <50%. Is that right? If that's the case, then the bet could be as simple as an even-money bet that Singer will be in the black after X rounds, and he can choose that number of rounds beforehand. The higher the number, the more convincing the result. Those rounds could be spread out over however many "sessions" he wants, and he could define "session" however he wants. What does everyone think of that?
What exactly is his VP strategy anyway? Or is it vague and ambiguous, as I expect?
http://www.vptruth.com/stratsingleplay.cfm
He has a website with all his plays, well his style of play and NOT his other plays.
He explains exactly how he plays, bankroll etc.
I have with a friend programmed his system and his play and it comes in winning over 85% of his sessions.
I'll definitely bookmark this thread.
thecesspit, were you ever able to run an analysis to find how many hands on average need to be played to have a 50% and a 75% chance of being in the red?
Quote: MichaelBluejayThanks nope27 and the Wizard for the replies. I wouldn't have any objection to Singer moving up to higher denomination machines. Why would I? The whole point is to let him play exactly the way he normally plays, to show that he has a negative EV, not the positive EV he claims.
thecesspit, were you ever able to run an analysis to find how many hands on average need to be played to have a 50% and a 75% chance of being in the red?
Singer has already attempted to deflect the possibility of such a test.
Quote: RobSingerMichael Bluejay: I've given a detailed explanation to a member here who writes me, on why I do not believea sim can be done that would accurately portray how I play. The special plays that deviate from expert strategy that I utilize are so variable in nature from game to game and denomination to denomination--even from day to day or session to session depending on where I'm at in my win goal, that it doesn't seem viable to me. I could play live, but that would require lots of time and coordination. If that's an option then I'd be willing to do that if the money's worth it. However, as I win approximately 85% of the time (and yes, I've won almost a million dollars doing it in 10 years) what number of sessions would it take to prove that playing vp on negative EV machines can be profitabe over any amount of time?
from this thread.
So you're already facing the hurdle of "no, your sim was inaccurate, that's not my system at all." Unless you're contemplating doing a live trial (or trials) in a casino, but then that wouldn't be a very large sample.
Edit: on re-reading, it perhaps seems that if you and Singer can come to an agreement on the number of "sessions" (and/or perhaps hands), that he'd be up to the challenge in a live setting. That may be the way forward.
Quote: MathExtremistSinger has already attempted to deflect the possibility of such a test.
from this thread.
So you're already facing the hurdle of "no, your sim was inaccurate, that's not my system at all." Unless you're contemplating doing a live trial (or trials) in a casino, but then that wouldn't be a very large sample.
Edit: on re-reading, it perhaps seems that if you and Singer can come to an agreement on the number of "sessions" (and/or perhaps hands), that he'd be up to the challenge in a live setting. That may be the way forward.
ME, looks to me like your trying to manipulate MBJ via misinformation formulated on your own fears.
From Singer's own post, you are wrong about him trying to "deflect the possibility of such a test". Did you not see MBJ say "the whole point is to let him play exactly the way he normally plays"?
Quote: JerryLoganME, looks to me like your trying to manipulate MBJ via misinformation formulated on your own fears.
Sure, Jerry, I know that's how it looks to you, but I don't put much credence in your world view. Your writings speak for themselves. You may be successful at trolling others, but I'm immune to your petty rancor. Regarding your repeated accusations of cowardice, perhaps you should look inward, and at your mentor, considering that Singer has *entirely disappeared* after it was suggested that he may not have the "proof" of his claims.
You and your rancor cannot successfully hide the fact that you/Singer have presented absolutely zero support for your outlandish conspiracy theories, and I dispute that you can ever do so. You can either continue to call me names, or you can step up and post your materials publicly. If I were giving odds, it'd be heavily on the former.
As for me, I'd love to see MBJ structure a statistically-valid trial to put Singer's system to the test. I don't think Singer will agree, though. His book revenue depends on keeping up the charade.
Quote: MathExtremistAs for me, I'd love to see MBJ structure a statistically-valid trial to put Singer's system to the test. I don't think Singer will agree, though. His book revenue depends on keeping up the charade.
I'd like to propose a different kind of challenge. In my Chat with Rob Singer blog entry I wrote about an experiment Singer allegedly conducted. His hypothesis is that when you keep four to a flush or straight you get the same rank you threw away a disproportionately high number of times. He says he observed this happening 2,211 times in a sample of 4,685.
I propose we test any 52-card video poker game Singer chooses and wait for that situation to occur 100 times. By my math, the player should get back the same rank (3/47)*100 = 6.38 times. The Singer ratio would suggest (2211/4685)*100=49.19 times. That is a big difference. I would lay 10 to 1 odds that the same rank comes back less than 10.5 times. How is that for a statistically-valid trial?
If this line of thought doesn't interest Michael Bluejay, I would extend the challenge myself.
By the way, in case you're wondering, the probability I would win is 94.57%. Fair odds to lay would be 17.4 to 1. However, if Singer is right, and we go by the Singer ratio, my probability of winning would be 1 in 840,845,490,808,573.
Quote: MathExtremistSure, Jerry, I know that's how it looks to you, but I don't put much credence in your world view. Your writings speak for themselves. You may be successful at trolling others, but I'm immune to your petty rancor. Regarding your repeated accusations of cowardice, perhaps you should look inward, and at your mentor, considering that Singer has *entirely disappeared* after it was suggested that he may not have the "proof" of his claims.
You and your rancor cannot successfully hide the fact that you/Singer have presented absolutely zero support for your outlandish conspiracy theories, and I dispute that you can ever do so. You can either continue to call me names, or you can step up and post your materials publicly. If I were giving odds, it'd be heavily on the former.
As for me, I'd love to see MBJ structure a statistically-valid trial to put Singer's system to the test. I don't think Singer will agree, though. His book revenue depends on keeping up the charade.
Your last sentence is just another one of your envious lies. Have you not seen here, on this forum, where RS has offerred to give away his books to anyone who asks?
Also, you might want to take a clear look into the mirror and ask why you feel the need to keep on making accusations about the guy, yet you seem to quiver at the thought of contacting himself to get the info that will clear this all up. As he said, AP's love to remain better safe than sorry.
Quote: IbeatyouracesIm currently watching his videos on youtube and he is always taking about the possibility of something happening and not the probability. Sure I can possibly hit the mega millions but I probably wont.
Case in point is his #26 video where he says go for the JJ instead of the inside str. flush. The str. flush hits 1 in 47 and the quad jacks hit about 1 in 360 by my calculations. so for every 600 he gets for the quads I get a little over 2000 for my str. flushes. All these are approximations.
BTW the WINNING gamblers, AP's or otherwise do NOT put there faces out there for all to see. And the ones that do, I am sure are not welcome in most casinos.
I don't understand math so I'll skip your 1st 2 points. But I'm sure he'd shred you on them.
The last part, from what I've seen that's always been true of the commercial people like Dancer and Queen of Scott and Paymer etc. They are all about making money from other players. RS is a completely different animal by doing everything for free, so putting his face out there is not a problem I believe.
Also, I stand by what I've said in the past, that there are NO vp players banned or barred from anywhere unless it's because of conduct. There's plenty of AP's who would want it to be that there are banned players, but that's so they can feel good about themselves and nothing else. The vp forums are always filled with such rumors, yet when asked for proof no one can ever supply it and instead, quote the usual BS about how they "know" so and so is banned. Total nonsense.
Quote: WizardI'd like to propose a different kind of challenge. In my Chat with Rob Singer blog entry I wrote about an experiment Singer allegedly conducted.
His hypothesis is that when you keep four to a flush or straight you get the same rank you threw away a disproportionately high number of times. He says he observed this happening 2,211 times in a sample of 4,685.
There are 3 specific deals Mr Singer has tested.
"Singer’s hypothesis is that when the player keeps:
1) a two pair,
2) four to a flush,
3) four to an outside straight,
the card he gets on the draw will be the same rank as the one he discarded a disproportionately high number of times."
An acquaintance has sent me his Excel data for 162,000 documented VP hands from 2 casinos.
(He does not wish to be identified since he stays and plays at the Plaza Hotel and Casino, claims that these 2 machines he wins more frequently on and does not wish to open up a Pandora's box. He also contacted Rob Singer a few years ago and asked if he wanted help on gathering this data and Mr. Singer, at the time, declined because he said he was close to finishing his tests. OK fine.)
Data from:
Mohegan Sun Casino in Connecticut, 2 machines
Plaza Casino in Las Vegas, 3 machines, even though he has said that one machine is no longer there.
My travels do not take me to Connecticut.
I plan on visiting Las Vegas next week.
Some of his raw data.
Dates:Sept 2006 to October 2010
Hands played and documented:162,000
Qualified hands:18,942 (0.1169 of total hands played. Appears to be accurate)
Same 5th card:7283
38.4489494%
Much lower than Mr Singers percentage but still high off the charts!
I am more interested in the relative frequencies of his data as they appear to be very close to expectation.
If he was trying to just make up the data, streaks and frequencies would be the telling tale of fraud, and I see none as yet although I am not complete with my data analysis.
The Plaza Casino in Vegas would be easier for me to visit and see if the same 2 VP machines are still there and do some testing.
Until then...
Merry Christmas!
Quote: nope27Quote: WizardI'd like to propose a different kind of challenge. In my Chat with Rob Singer blog entry I wrote about an experiment Singer allegedly conducted.
His hypothesis is that when you keep four to a flush or straight you get the same rank you threw away a disproportionately high number of times. He says he observed this happening 2,211 times in a sample of 4,685.
There are 3 specific deals Mr Singer has tested.
"Singer’s hypothesis is that when the player keeps:
1) a two pair,
2) four to a flush,
3) four to an outside straight,
the card he gets on the draw will be the same rank as the one he discarded a disproportionately high number of times."
An acquaintance has sent me his Excel data for 162,000 documented VP hands from 2 casinos.
Hands played and documented:162,000
Qualified hands:18,942 (0.1169 of total hands played. Appears to be accurate)
Same 5th card:7283
38.4489494%
I would say if this is true, that the same 5th card appeared 38% of the time instead of 7 - 8% of the time, then the cards are not random as ME states, but 'illegeally programmed'. I am interested to hear what ME has to say. I would guess he will doubt the veracity of the 'acquaintance', thus the data.
Quote: SOOPOOI would say if this is true, that the same 5th card appeared 38% of the time instead of 7 - 8% of the time, then the cards are not random as ME states, but 'illegeally programmed'. I am interested to hear what ME has to say. I would guess he will doubt the veracity of the 'acquaintance', thus the data.
Not at all - I have no basis on which to form an opinion of the acquaintance or the data, since I have not seen either. One would need to see the complete results for those hands, not just whether the 5th card was or was not the same rank as the discard. It's crucial here not to back-fit one's data to the hypothesis - that leads to grievous science errors. If you had a list of all 162,000 hands, what they had on the deal, what was held, and then what appeared on the draw, that's something upon which a proper analysis can be done.
Quote: IbeatyouracesOne more point. Casinos do not bar people because they have the advantage. They bar WINNING ADVANTAGE PLAYERS. There is a huge difference between the two. You can have the advantage but not know it and therefore are not barred. Blackjack is the perfect example of this. I do agree that I have never heard of a vp player being barred except for the few at Greektown in Detroit and it had nothing to do with them winning. The reason we havent heard of vp barrings? They dont win long term and 5 years hit and run? Hardly long term and we know anything can and will happen short term, but good luck anyway.
Also I would like to see UNEDITED video evidence of all these claims.
One additional point. In another thread I mentioned another Gambling Today article in which a copy of a letter from either Harrahs or Belaggios was printed that identified RS being banned for winning. I remember that because I've never heard of any vp player actually being banned before and providing evidence of it.
Quote: MathExtremistNot at all - I have no basis on which to form an opinion of the acquaintance or the data, since I have not seen either. One would need to see the complete results for those hands, not just whether the 5th card was or was not the same rank as the discard. It's crucial here not to back-fit one's data to the hypothesis - that leads to grievous science errors. If you had a list of all 162,000 hands, what they had on the deal, what was held, and then what appeared on the draw, that's something upon which a proper analysis can be done.
At first I thought this guy, I call him Mr X, was just a nut case. Notebook after notebook of VP hands.
After going over his very detailed data that he himself entered into an Excel workbook, I have to think twice.and why?
Yes, he kept detailed results of each hand, deal, hold, draw, frequencies of 5th card flip hits, hit streaks, dates, casino, machine number.
I asked him why he did so much for that and he said he has always tracked VP hands, roulette spins, craps dice rolls, baccarat shoes.
He also thought Mr Singer would like to see the actual data which Singer has not seen.
I have the 3 machine numbers and plan on a test of my own at The Plaza Casino next week.
It should take less than 900 hands to see 100 5th card flip opportunities and Mr X says the denominations and credits seem to not have an effect on the outcomes.
So 1cent VP here I come to test and put my results out for all to see!
It will not be for a lost cause as I visit a good friend that lives in Vegas. Maybe he can sit next to me for a few hours and track hands.
Quote: IbeatyouracesJerry, the math is easy and I highly doubt he'd shred me on that. He knows over many moons what the "right play" is but he is in it for the short term and plays different which is his choice.
In the example he's dealt Jc-Jd-10d-9d-7d. with 47 cards left its 1 in 47 to hit the straight flush. Lets ignore the other flushes and straight possibilities. He recommends going for the quad jacks and with 47 cards to be dealt you have to get J-J and any of the remaining 45 cards to get quads so there are 45 possible ways for JJx to hit out of the possible 16215, 3 card combos. Now 16215/45 is 360.33.. I'll take 1 in 47 over 1 in 360+ all day long. He makes it seem as if the quads are easy to get when in fact they are 7.66 times HARDER and they sure dont pay 7.66 times more than the straight flush. Simple math.
I think the reasoning is, because in that particular game the sf pays 300, which is usually not enough to get him to his win goal, and the J's pay 600, which is, and his risk analysis told him it was worth doing. I believe that is the overriding purpose of supplying those videos because that's how he's teaching me.
BTW, I'm not very good at following all the math being presented here regarding the flipover percentages and all. But I do not see anything reflecting the fact that in his video he said over 10 million hands(?) on the machine he tested, the flipover rate was only 12% or something, roughly double of what its supposed to be. My 2cents.
Quote: JerryLoganOne additional point. In another thread I mentioned another Gambling Today article in which a copy of a letter from either Harrahs or Belaggios was printed that identified RS being banned for winning.
.
Doubtful. Why in god's name would a casino ever put in writing what they won't even tell you when they physically kick you out? They make a point of not telling you the reason you're being banned to prevent themselves from being sued. Saying in writing that somebody was banned for winning would be suicidal, they would never do it. As I recall, in the Griffin Book, when you're in there for card counting, it doesn't even say it there, its just says 'cheating'. Casinos make a point of being vague, they have teams of lawyers advising them.
Quote: SOOPOOI would say if this is true, that the same 5th card appeared 38% of the time instead of 7 - 8% of the time, then the cards are not random as ME states, but 'illegeally programmed'.
If this is anywhere near factually real, it is the responsibility of Nevadans here to report the problem to the NGC. Anything less is closing one's eyes to a fraud and a crime.
Quote: EvenBobDoubtful. Why in god's name would a casino ever put in writing what they won't even tell you when they physically kick you out? They make a point of not telling you the reason you're being banned to prevent themselves from being sued. Saying in writing that somebody was banned for winning would be suicidal, they would never do it. As I recall, in the Griffin Book, when you're in there for card counting, it doesn't even say it there, its just says 'cheating'. Casinos make a point of being vague, they have teams of lawyers advising them.
It would have to be that they treat a vp player like that differently than they do an advantage-playing BJ counter. How many people out there play like him anyway? I saw the letter in the paper so I tend to not doubt it.
Quote: JerryLoganIt would have to be that they treat a vp player like that differently than they do an advantage-playing BJ counter. How many people out there play like him anyway? I saw the letter in the paper so I tend to not doubt it.
Baloney, Jerry. If you saw such a letter it was a fake. Why would any casino say in writing they punish people for winning? They won't even tell you to your face, let alone put it in writing.
