Singer System - Challenge?
Happy Holidays Mr Singer, enjoy family and friends.
Come back soon, your thread is on it's way to the top!
Quote: EvenBobBaloney, 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.
I wish I could find the article but it's old. I remember him saying he was banned at both casinos, but only one sent him the letter (the one that was printed in the paper). The other casino brought him into an office and walked him out. That's how he reported it. Around the same time that paper also printed out his w2g from hitting a $100k royal at the place that banned him. That's all I can remember, no real details surrounding it.
Quote: nope27So, Mr Singer is on a Holiday Vacation.
Happy Holidays Mr Singer, enjoy family and friends.
Come back soon, your thread is on it's way to the top!
You know, this is one of the reasons why I nominated RS in the evenbob other thread of the top people of LV. I've been around to all the forums the past few years, and whenever Singer's name comes up, threads either set records or near records. He's affected me, because I find myself supporting him even as I'm in the midst of being trained by him, and I used to read him just to see what he had to say each week.
Quote: JerryLoganI wish I could find the article but it's old. I remember him saying he was banned at both casinos, but only one sent him the letter (the one that was printed in the paper). The other casino brought him into an office and walked him out. That's how he reported it. Around the same time that paper also printed out his w2g from hitting a $100k royal at the place that banned him. That's all I can remember, no real details surrounding it.
He's BSing you, Jerry. Telling people they'll ban you for winning is like a buffet saying all you can eat as long as you don't eat too much. Never gonna happen.
Quote: EvenBobHe's BSing you, Jerry. Telling people they'll ban you for winning is like a buffet saying all you can eat as long as you don't eat too much. Never gonna happen.
Yeah, no casino in their right mind is going to ban a $25 VP player, especially after hitting a 100k royal. How else are they going to get the money back?
Quote: JerryLoganI've been around to all the forums the past few years, and whenever Singer's name comes up, threads either set records or near records.
Sounds more like a curse.
Quote: MathExtremistYeah, no casino in their right mind is going to ban a $25 VP player, especially after hitting a 100k royal. How else are they going to get the money back?
It wasn't just that. He was continuously winning on trips there where he'd get complete RFB, he said he was first going to some expensive restaurant Cirqule or something like that at Belaggio, then he'd win in very short order, and as he says he does in his strategy, he packs up and immediately leaves. Maybe it got on their nerves or they saw they couldn't make a profit from him?
BTW bob, if he WAS BS'ing, he was doing it through the paper and they didn't care. Now does that sound reasonable.
Quote: JerryLoganI
BTW bob, if he WAS BS'ing, he was doing it through the paper and they didn't care. Now does that sound reasonable.
And you think thats new? He shows them a phoney letter and cooks up a phoney story, even the NY Times falls for pure BS on a regular basis. Look at that kid who lied his way into Harvard, lied his way into scholarships, and never got caught until he tried to lie his way into a Fulbright. A little BS can often go a long way.
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.
I propose we test any 52-card video poker game Singer chooses and wait for that situation to occur 100 times.
I will be glad to put $1,000 in escrow, or any other method of safekeeping acceptable to all parties, and lay Singer 1000-to-1 odds that in any set of 4,685 trials (the same number of trials reported by Singer), the card drawn will be the same rank as the card discarded less than 15% of the time. The video poker machine can be any one currently installed on the casino floor in any casino in Nevada.
So if Singer wants to make an easy grand, all he has to do is produce a set of results (independently verified, of course) that are much less anomalous than the ones he reported. Over 15% in that sample size, and he gets the money.
So put up or shut up, Jerry, I mean, Mr. Singer.
Quote: MathExtremistYeah, no casino in their right mind is going to ban a $25 VP player, especially after hitting a 100k royal. How else are they going to get the money back?
And any casino in its right mind would send a limo for Singer, have four beautiful girls carry him to his favorite machine, and spoon-feed him ice cream while he plays. Anyone playing Singer methods at $125 a hand is losing over $20 a MINUTE.
Amazing, truly amazing, that this forum's Number One sniffer-out-of-Truth and sworn enemy of "made-up assertions" believes everything RS says, isn't it?
Quote: mkl654321I will be glad to put $1,000 in escrow, or any other method of safekeeping acceptable to all parties, and lay Singer 1000-to-1 odds that in any set of 4,685 trials (the same number of trials reported by Singer), the card drawn will be the same rank as the card discarded less than 15% of the time. The video poker machine can be any one currently installed on the casino floor in any casino in Nevada.
So if Singer wants to make an easy grand, all he has to do is produce a set of results (independently verified, of course) that are much less anomalous than the ones he reported. Over 15% in that sample size, and he gets the money.
So put up or shut up, Jerry, I mean, Mr. Singer.
Here is another idea. Whenever that situation occurs a side bet is made that the replacement card is the same rank as the discarded one. The probability is 3/47, so fair odds would be 14.67 to 1. I'll offer 14 to 1. Rob claims you get the same rank almost half the time, so it should be a great bet for him. Again, he may also choose any machine he wishes in Clark County.
.Quote: WizardHere is another idea. Whenever that situation occurs a side bet is made that the replacement card is the same rank as the discarded one. The probability is 3/47, so fair odds would be 14.67 to 1. I'll offer 14 to 1. Rob claims you get the same rank almost half the time, so it should be a great bet for him. Again, he may also choose any machine he wishes in Clark County.
How about just doing a chitest on the distribution of that single draw card in that specific situation? If Singer is right, there's no way it would pass under the assumption of randomness. And then you'd also have direct correspondence with reg 14, which requires exactly that test.
In other words, if Singer is wrong, the games pass the random test and comply with the regs. If Singer is right, the games fail the random test and are violating the regs. There's no middle ground or room for misinterpretation.
Quote: EvenBobAnd you think thats new? He shows them a phoney letter and cooks up a phoney story, even the NY Times falls for pure BS on a regular basis. Look at that kid who lied his way into Harvard, lied his way into scholarships, and never got caught until he tried to lie his way into a Fulbright. A little BS can often go a long way.
I just go with the odds, and I think it's highly unlikely that any LV paper would purposely publish information that wasn't true or if it were made up. Sure people have done it in the past but it's not the norm.
The way people who don't believe Singer act, you'd think in the late 1990's he put together some ultra elaborate fraudulent scheme covering every imaginable base, including newspapers, radio, TV, videos, & publishers....and it was all just to frustrate advantage players just like he's done here. Oh yeah, don't forget to include Fezzik and AC also, because they were the ones who went to the casino to verify RS's over half million$ cash deposit for that bet before they ran scared. He must have been a genius for having the foresight to be able to have given this all such thorough blanket coverage.
But OOOps! No one ever seem willing to follow through on bets with him, take him up on reviewing what he developed, have a face-to-face debate with him when he's always been willing to do that, or even listen to him here when he's tried to talk the braniacs into letting him accept their gambling challenges.
That's really clear thinking. Just imagine, if a dumbo like Jerry can see all this, imagine what the intellectuals think of it.
Quote: WizardHere is another idea. Whenever that situation occurs a side bet is made that the replacement card is the same rank as the discarded one. The probability is 3/47, so fair odds would be 14.67 to 1. I'll offer 14 to 1. Rob claims you get the same rank almost half the time, so it should be a great bet for him. Again, he may also choose any machine he wishes in Clark County.
Where does these numbers come from? 10 million hands at 12% is hardly half the time to me.
Quote: MathExtremist.
How about just doing a chitest on the distribution of that single draw card in that specific situation? If Singer is right, there's no way it would pass under the assumption of randomness. And then you'd also have direct correspondence with reg 14, which requires exactly that test.
In other words, if Singer is wrong, the games pass the random test and comply with the regs. If Singer is right, the games fail the random test and are violating the regs. There's no middle ground or room for misinterpretation.
Except for the confidential part of the regulations that he said are there and that you feel bad about because you've never seen them.
Quote: JerryLoganExcept for the confidential part of the regulations that he said are there and that you feel bad about because you've never seen them.
We're back to that again, Jerry? The public regs are very clear on the requirements of the randomness. If you believe this tale about confidential regulations, then either
(a) the secret regulations are congruent with the public ones, and the games *still* need to pass the prescribed randomness test, or
(b) the secret regulations are in conflict with the public ones, rendering them a complete sham.
There's no other interpretation. Unless the public regulations are a sham (which would imply a cover-up at the governmental level), all VP games still need to comply with them.
Quote: nope27There 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."
If this is an accurate representation of Singer's claims, then case 2) is yet another Singer Stupidity: if the card drawn to complete a flush was the same rank as the one discarded a greater portion of the time than random chance would indicate, then the player would complete the flush MORE often than normal. Therefore, Singer is claiming an intentional programmed bias THAT CHEATS IN FAVOR OF THE PLAYER.
And just to clear things up, he has made various claims over the years ranging from 39-49% occurence of the same-rank phenomenon. The 12% figure was taken from one of his "trials", but even if you use that number, he would still be claiming that the same-rank card comes up almost twice as often as it should, which is just as ludicrous as his usual claim that it comes up six or seven times as often.
Dan Paymar once published a little book that addresses this "phenomenon"; I have no idea whether it's still available. Check answer 10.4 on this page:
http://www.advantageplayer.com/videopoker/faqualizer.cgi?mode=faq_cat&faq_cat_id=11
Of course, the Singer believers will say that his criticism of Singer and his writings stems from the fact that Paymar is an AP, but in fact, Paymar's arguments speak for themselves.
Quote: MathExtremist.
How about just doing a chitest on the distribution of that single draw card in that specific situation? If Singer is right, there's no way it would pass under the assumption of randomness. And then you'd also have direct correspondence with reg 14, which requires exactly that test.
In other words, if Singer is wrong, the games pass the random test and comply with the regs. If Singer is right, the games fail the random test and are violating the regs. There's no middle ground or room for misinterpretation.
The only question I would have would be what would the number of trials have to be to reach a reasonable level of confidence (say, three standard deviations), and how many hands would have to be played to get to that number of trials (i.e., how many dealt four-to-an-outside-straights, four-flushes, and two pairs would be dealt in X hands)?
Also, there's the question of whether the hands would be played as flush, straight, or full house draws all the time, even if proper strategy dictated otherwise. For example, both Singer and proper strategy agree that in 9/6 (or worse) DDB, you keep the AA from AA55x. Similarly, you would keep KK from KK762, even with a flush draw (I presume Singer's strategy isn't so loony as to break the high pair, but I could be wrong).
Also see my post about the purported biased draw actually being FAVORABLE to the player in the case of a flush draw. That makes Singer's argument even more ridiculous, but it wouldn't affect the trial per se.
Quote: mkl654321Also see my post about the purported biased draw actually being FAVORABLE to the player in the case of a flush draw. That makes Singer's argument even more ridiculous, but it wouldn't affect the trial per se.
I think RS claims the machines "cheat" in the player's favor some of the time. If I understand his theory correctly, he says the machines alternate between loose and tight settings. If you patiently play a progressive betting system, you'll eventually enter a loose mode, and recoup your losses from playing through the stingy mode.
Quote: WizardI think RS claims the machines "cheat" in the player's favor some of the time. If I understand his theory correctly, he says the machines alternate between loose and tight settings. If you patiently play a progressive betting system, you'll eventually enter a loose mode, and recoup your losses from playing through the stingy mode.
Then sometimes the machine completes more of your full houses, flushes, straights, etc. than normal, and sometimes less? And all you have to do to attain EZ-VP Riches is anticipate when the machine is in Philanthropic Mode, and bet more? What would prevent the machine from entering, or staying in, Stingy Mode, when you bumped up your bets? Or is he saying that the fluctuations between the two modes happen often enough so that you eventually hit a win streak, and that streak will cancel the losses from when you played in Stingy Mode?
In any case, unless Loose Mode occured more often than Tight Mode (or was of greater relative magnitude), then no progressive betting strategy would be of any value, since the machine could just as easily be in one mode or the other at any given moment (and could switch before any given hand). And if Loose Mode did occur more often than Tight Mode, no progressive strategy would be necessary: everyone would win.
Quote: mkl654321If this is an accurate representation of Singer's claims, then case 2) is yet another Singer Stupidity: if the card drawn to complete a flush was the same rank as the one discarded a greater portion of the time than random chance would indicate, then the player would complete the flush MORE often than normal. Therefore, Singer is claiming an intentional programmed bias THAT CHEATS IN FAVOR OF THE PLAYER.
Another poster pointed out that this argument assumes that the remainder of the cards, the other 44, are appearing with equal probability. If you throw out the assumption of randomness entirely, as Singer has done, then this is no longer a valid assumption. Now, Singer makes no claims on this aspect whatsoever, from what I've read, which means he's just being incomplete. That's why the only sensible thing to do is to test the whole distribution of 5th-card draws, not just yes/no on the same-rank question.
Quote:And just to clear things up, he has made various claims over the years ranging from 39-49% occurence of the same-rank phenomenon. The 12% figure was taken from one of his "trials", but even if you use that number, he would still be claiming that the same-rank card comes up almost twice as often as it should, which is just as ludicrous as his usual claim that it comes up six or seven times as often.
And in either case, testing the distribution of all 5th-card values would reveal whether this is the case. It would be a trivial exercise to determine whether the probability of each card is approximately 1/47 or not.
Now, I think there's a lot more going on here than Singer wants to admit, but it's not going on with the machines. Human cognition is deeply, deeply flawed when it comes to large volumes of data, and especially observing patterns in that data. The last time I brought this up -- and the related fact that people are terrible at comprehending randomness -- Singer practically threatened fisticuffs. Regardless, observation is highly-suggestible, and if you go into a VP session expecting to see the same-rank flipover a greater proportion of the time, then that's *exactly* what you'll see. The only way to counter that expectation-influenced observation is to take accurate notes, not of just one scenario, but of all of them.
If Singer were intellectually honest, he'd have done that already and realized that, like everybody else, his intuition about randomness is flawed. Maybe read "Fooled by Randomness" by N.N. Taleb, or "Innumeracy" by J.A. Paulos. But he didn't do that - instead, he published books and articles about how there's a pervasive conspiracy involving gaming regulators and gaming machine vendors which actually allow VP games to be programmed non-randomly, in spite of the regulations which say otherwise, and in spite of the operational results that demonstrate they aren't. He claims to have "tested" a VP machine for a few weeks using an unspecified piece of test equipment from Rohde & Schwartz, makers of mobile radio communications testing equipment. VP machines do not use mobile radio communications. Regardless, neither the methodology nor the results of that testing have been published, nor has any verifiable information on his claim that "confidential regulations" exist which would even permit the intentional non-randomness he alleges.
Anyone with an unbiased head on their shoulders should be able to determine for themselves that these claims are unsubstantiated. His body of work would certainly not stand up in a court of law, but fortunately for Singer, he's not operating in a court of law. He's operating on the Internet where anyone can write anything about anything. Like 2+2=56. But that doesn't make it true.
I'm honestly not sure what Singer's motives are. He can't be making much money off the sale of his books, and he hasn't taken any reasonable steps to follow through on blowing the whistle on this non-randomness issue. His preferred method of play seems unrelated to the conspiracy he espouses -- that is, his play strategy doesn't actively take advantage of the non-randomness (which you'd expect it to do if he actually believed in it). So I don't know why Singer bothers with any of this -- he's spent the past 10 years screaming about this secret regulation stuff and railing against other VP authors, but has done nothing toward rectifying the situation. To me, that's the real mystery. But as to the way the VP machines really work, there's no mystery in that at all.
Quote: WizardI think RS claims the machines "cheat" in the player's favor some of the time. If I understand his theory correctly, he says the machines alternate between loose and tight settings. If you patiently play a progressive betting system, you'll eventually enter a loose mode, and recoup your losses from playing through the stingy mode.
Ahh, but detecting that is a far harder proposition. Gaming machines naturally cycle between streaks of high payouts and low payouts. All games do this, not just VP. It's the nature of randomness. Anyone who's ever done coin-flipping experiments has seen this first-hand, or anyone who's ever played craps, or blackjack, or roulette (*especially* roulette), etc.
In other words, streaky periods of wins and losses are already part of the game. There's no need to artificially make that happen - it happens automatically.
Quote: mkl654321Then sometimes the machine completes more of your full houses, flushes, straights, etc. than normal, and sometimes less? And all you have to do to attain EZ-VP Riches is anticipate when the machine is in Philanthropic Mode, and bet more? What would prevent the machine from entering, or staying in, Stingy Mode, when you bumped up your bets? Or is he saying that the fluctuations between the two modes happen often enough so that you eventually hit a win streak, and that streak will cancel the losses from when you played in Stingy Mode?
In any case, unless Loose Mode occured more often than Tight Mode (or was of greater relative magnitude), then no progressive betting strategy would be of any value, since the machine could just as easily be in one mode or the other at any given moment (and could switch before any given hand). And if Loose Mode did occur more often than Tight Mode, no progressive strategy would be necessary: everyone would win.
Of course, you'll have to take up those questions with Mr. Singer. As much as I like playing the devil's advocate, what I wrote before is about as far as I can go without logic causing the whole argument to fall like a house of cards.
Quote: MathExtremistHis preferred method of play seems unrelated to the conspiracy he espouses -- that is, his play strategy doesn't actively take advantage of the non-randomness (which you'd expect it to do if he actually believed in it). So I don't know why Singer bothers with any of this -- he's spent the past 10 years screaming about this secret regulation stuff and railing against other VP authors, but has done nothing toward rectifying the situation. To me, that's the real mystery. But as to the way the VP machines really work, there's no mystery in that at all.
From Singer's website he looks for "signals"
http://www.vptruth.com/articlesdetail.cfm?Counter=440
Mr Singer says: "I took this as a signal that something was about to occur, so I switched over to the $25 game."
and he goes on
"So what happened? It was very odd. Just two hands into the TBP+ game I was dealt a SF, and on this particular game that meant 500 credits – or $12,500. Surprising? One might think so at first, but I’m starting to feel very comfortable with my choices after seeking out and spotting these signals and patterns on what might be expected from the machines."
and more...
"At times I’m able to read what the machines’ algorithms are telling me, and I adjust my bet size accordingly."
Seems Mr Singer believes that the non-random programming does go both ways and he bets for it.
Quote: MathExtremist.
How about just doing a chitest on the distribution of that single draw card in that specific situation? If Singer is right, there's no way it would pass under the assumption of randomness. And then you'd also have direct correspondence with reg 14, which requires exactly that test.
That is another great idea.
Mr X's 162,000 hands data does show what the 5th card was on every hand draw.
I will add that to my data analysis and when in Vegas next week will make sure I track every 5th card draw also.
The Wizard's challenge idea is good in that it should easily prove Singer wrong about the probability of the same rank coming up on the draw, but it doesn't directly address whether Singer actually wins or not. My goal in doing a challenge is to put Singer's claims of winning to the test. He claims nearly $1 million profit over 10 years. That's $50 an hour if he played full time. I'm skeptical, to say the least.
The problem is I don't know a good way to test his winning claims without an inordinately long test period. Unless I'm missing something, the probability of being ahead after X rounds is always <50%, so in theory we could let him choose any number of rounds before we start and he'd probably lose. But with a short test he'd still have a *significant* chance of winning, even if it's below 50%. Sure, I'd have the advantage on any even-money bet, but my actual goal is to actually put Singer's winning claims to a good test, not to win his money, so having a positive EV for the challenge isn't sufficient to me. If he loses and the test is very short then many people will doubt the validity of the test, and of course if he wins because he got lucky then his following will grow even larger.
Is there a good way to test his winning claims? If so, then how much casino time are we talking for such a test?
The unassailable logic of mkl’s next post finally opens Jerry’s eyes.
“You’re right,” writes Jerry. “I’ve no problem with testing Rob’s assertions. Let’s ask him.”
“No problem,” responds mkl, “I just e-mailed him an invitation.”
“Gentlemen,” chimes in Rob, “Let’s get this started.”
Things go badly for Rob, and the simulation doesn’t back his system claims.
“Huh,” says Rob, “I don’t understand it. It’s always worked in the past. Look, here are my logs and tax returns for the last few years.”
“Well, I’ll be!” exclaims mkl, “You’ve done pretty well with your system. Good for you!”
“Thanks,” blushed Rob, “I’m pretty happy with it. I just throw it out there, for anyone who cares to try it.”
“I’m still intrigued by it,” said Jerry. “I’m gonna spend more time with it and see where it leads.”
Peace reigns on The Wizard of Las Vegas site.
“By God,” says Jerry, “I guess we can just agree to disagree.”
“God?” snorts mkl. “I suppose you think Santa Claus is coming tonight, too!”
“You know-it-all poofter, why don’t you get back to your lifetime gambling session and…”
“Reverting to type again, I see, Jerry/Rob. Homophobia, superstition, inability to acknowledge your superior….”
Banned.
Quote: JerryLoganI just go with the odds,
JL- did you REALLY say that?
Quote: SOOPOOJL- did you REALLY say that?
I did say that, and I also said that the fifth card flipped over for me 2 weeks ago when I got my dollar royal during my training session with RS. The point was that Singer has said dozens of times that he is unsure if the high flip over rate helps or hurts the player overall. Mkl took that ball and thought he found something he could make fun of. Instead, as usual, he ended up with egg on his face. Too bad he doesn't have any children to laugh at him.
Quote: nope27Mr X's 162,000 hands data does show what the 5th card was on every hand draw.
And were the cards equally-distributed as they should have been?
Quote: nope27From Singer's website he looks for "signals"
http://www.vptruth.com/articlesdetail.cfm?Counter=440
Mr Singer says: "I took this as a signal that something was about to occur, so I switched over to the $25 game."
and he goes on
"So what happened? It was very odd. Just two hands into the TBP+ game I was dealt a SF, and on this particular game that meant 500 credits – or $12,500. Surprising? One might think so at first, but I’m starting to feel very comfortable with my choices after seeking out and spotting these signals and patterns on what might be expected from the machines."
To supply the edited-out segments that give context and describe the "signal":
After a quick $1000 down the tubes on $1 & $2 TBP+, I moved over to the $5/$10/$25 version. Something odd started to occur on $5 TBP+. I was dealt four to the SF twice in three hands, then failed to get the card I needed on the draw. However, in BOTH INSTANCES, the one card I needed was the first card out on the very next deal. So how many times do we see that? WAY too often.
So much for the vaunted signal. Now for the result:
"Yet in this case I should have stopped. After dumping an additional $2000 into the same game there were no more winners to be had." [Singer's boldface]
Quote: MathExtremistAnd were the cards equally-distributed as they should have been?
sample size: 7283
1=A
11=J
12=Q
13=K
c=clubs (.1)
d=diamonds (.2)
h=hearts (.3)
s=spades (.4)
Example: 1.1= Ace of clubs
| c | d | h | s | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | 123 | 1.2 | 131 | 1.3 | 134 | 1.4 | 129 |
| 2.1 | 145 | 2.2 | 132 | 2.3 | 132 | 2.4 | 135 |
| 3.1 | 148 | 3.2 | 154 | 3.3 | 150 | 3.4 | 130 |
| 4.1 | 122 | 4.2 | 145 | 4.3 | 128 | 4.4 | 162 |
| 5.1 | 145 | 5.2 | 147 | 5.3 | 133 | 5.4 | 137 |
| 6.1 | 149 | 6.2 | 147 | 6.3 | 138 | 6.4 | 144 |
| 7.1 | 147 | 7.2 | 143 | 7.3 | 149 | 7.4 | 119 |
| 8.1 | 140 | 8.2 | 131 | 8.3 | 129 | 8.4 | 132 |
| 9.1 | 129 | 9.2 | 132 | 9.3 | 133 | 9.4 | 167 |
| 10.1 | 169 | 10.2 | 144 | 10.3 | 151 | 10.4 | 116 |
| 11.1 | 146 | 11.2 | 135 | 11.3 | 137 | 11.4 | 156 |
| 12.1 | 130 | 12.2 | 138 | 12.3 | 160 | 12.4 | 134 |
| 13.1 | 147 | 13.2 | 129 | 13.3 | 150 | 13.4 | 150 |
sorted:
card count
10.1 169
9.4 167
4.4 162
12.3 160
11.4 156
3.2 154
10.3 151
3.3 150
13.3 150
13.4 150
6.1 149
7.3 149
3.1 148
7.1 147
13.1 147
5.2 147
6.2 147
11.1 146
2.1 145
5.1 145
4.2 145
10.2 144
6.4 144
7.2 143
8.1 140
12.2 138
6.3 138
11.3 137
5.4 137
11.2 135
2.4 135
1.3 134
12.4 134
5.3 133
9.3 133
2.2 132
9.2 132
2.3 132
8.4 132
1.2 131
8.2 131
12.1 130
3.4 130
9.1 129
13.2 129
8.3 129
1.4 129
4.3 128
1.1 123
4.1 122
7.4 119
10.4 116
Quote: MichaelBluejayOkay, I'd really like to move forward on a challenge to Singer. I haven't gotten much feedback here on what flavor would be best, so I'm still thinking of an even-money bet about whether he'll be ahead after X hands, with Singer choosing the value for X beforehand. What I'd like to know is the probability of being ahead for various values of X (e.g., 1, 100, 1000, 10,000, 20,000). thecesspit, you'd mentioned programming something like that. Any luck? I downloaded the trial copy of WinPoker but it doesn't seem to let me run that kind of analysis. I could code a simulation myself but it would take a few hours and I'd rather not reinvent the wheel if I don't have to. But if I have to, I'll do it. Hoping I don't have to, does anyone know of another way to get that kind of analysis?
Even-money? Why? He claims over 90% success rate. I say give him odds.
How about you play his system - the one JerryLogan posted about where he won $3800 on a bankroll of $12k -- and if you fail to win (say) half as much as Jerry did, Singer loses. Jerry played 8 sessions, you do the same. Here's the setup:
1) The wager is your $1,500 to Singer's $12,000, an 8-to-1 ratio. Since Singer claims well over 90% win rate, these odds would be in his favor.
2) You play the 8 sessions however he tells you to, with $12,000 of your money, in the same training session format that Jerry used. Remember, he also claims that nobody has ever lost while training with him.
3) Jerry won $3805. If you win $1900 or more over the 8 sessions, however long that takes, Rob wins the bet and gets your wager. If you fail to win $1900, you win the bet and you get Rob's wager. I suggest depositing the wager stakes in escrow prior to the test and having a neutral 3rd party oversee everything.
There can't be any argument that this setup doesn't mimic real-world scenarios, because it *is* a real-world scenario. It's exactly as Jerry reported a week or so ago. If, as you suspect, Singer's system is just like any other, then this is a great deal for you. Likewise, if Singer's system works the way he thinks it does, this is a great deal for him, a virtual lock to win your $1500. That's what makes this a good bet: both sides think they have the edge.
This is also an appropriate test of the basis for Singer's systems, the variable-length sessions, while your proposal focuses on X hands -- something Singer does *not* do. I think you need to test his system the way he intended it to be played.
I think Singer's still on suspension, but I hope he comes back and responds to this thread.
Quote: MathExtremistI think Singer's still on suspension, but I hope he comes back and responds to this thread.
Yes, he is, until Saturday. I think he is mad and may not return.
Quote: WizardYes, he is, until Saturday. I think he is mad and may not return.
The worst things tend to happen, if at all, when people stop talking/listening... or are no longer permitted to.
If these "banned persons" are so "evil", etc, how is it they are so difficult to properly manage?
Quote: WizardYes, he is, until Saturday. I think he is mad and may not return.
That would be a shame insofar as he has finally found a forum where his bravado is being met with equal vigor. In addition to the MBJ post above, see this post.
Quote: MathExtremistThat would be a shame insofar as he has finally found a forum where his bravado is being met with equal vigor. In addition to the MBJ post above, see this post.
His not returning, if that happens, would probably have a lot to do with the fact that he's being met with stronger opposition than he's used to. He also has only found one convert, and that only if JL is actually a separate person. He has, though, achieved his major goals of garnering attention and sowing discord (via his avatar), so he may not be able to resist returning.
I don't think that people like Singer are comfortable in environments like this one--there are more knowledgeable and experienced people here than on the average internet forum. In other words, we have at least partial, and in some cases total, immunity to Singerism and other similar doctrines. There are more fertile hunting grounds out there for Singer than this one.
Quote: MathExtremistHow about you play his system...and if you fail to win (say) half as much as Jerry did, Singer loses.
Because it looks better if Singer does the playing. Singer is claiming to be winner. I don't think he is. I hope to show that *Singer is a a loser*, not that "someone following Singer's methods is a loser". He claims to have won, what, a million dollars over 10 years? I hope to show that he can't even win a simple VP bet.
Quote:This is also an appropriate test of the basis for Singer's systems, the variable-length sessions, while your proposal focuses on X hands -- something Singer does *not* do. I think you need to test his system the way he intended it to be played.
I do intend to test the way Singer plays, but this is just a question of semantics. He can divide his play into however many "sessions" he wants, and I'll keep track of the number of hands played over those sessions.
I'd be willing to modify it so that instead of Singer choosing exactly X number of hands, he chooses between X and Y rounds, which would make it easier for him to quit his last session between X and Y.
But if so, I still need help in figuring the probability of being ahead between various values of X and Y rounds. Can anyone help with this, or am I gonna need to program my own sim?
Quote: GarnabbyThe worst things tend to happen, if at all, when people stop talking/listening... or are no longer permitted to.
If these "banned persons" are so "evil", etc, how is it they are so difficult to properly manage?
How is giving them time outs and banning them different from managing them?
If you invited me to your party, and I wandered around insulting all your guests and family members, would you say that the worst thing would be stopping me, or letting me continue? Might you not escort me to the door, if I continued in the face of your requests to stop?
Quote: mkl654321He also has only found one convert, and that only if JL is actually a separate person.
At first I thought otherwise, but I am now convinced they are one and the same.
Cheers!
Quote: WizardI think he is mad and may not return.
Thats the rumor.
Quote: MoscaHow is giving them time outs and banning them different from managing them?
The former is a one-way street.
Quote: MoscaIf you invited me to your party, and I wandered around insulting all your guests and family members, would you say that the worst thing would be stopping me, or letting me continue? Might you not escort me to the door, if I continued in the face of your requests to stop?
Eg, during my first winter lay-over many years as a kid from Canada residing at 1112 Bluff Avenue in North Las Vegas, shared by five (including boxer David Bey, another story)... one night around 2 am there was some pretty good pounding going on at the front door. What would you do, in a gang area like that, where if the cops come at all, it's in a convoy? I quickly elected to spring out of bed, and OPEN the door to avoid what seemed to be escalating fast. Everyone else there said, "What the hell are you doing?" Well, turned out they were out to "collect a debt" of some sort... BUT HAD THE WRONG ADDRESS!
[I took your advice and deleted the rest of your post. --MichaelBluejay]
Quote: Garnabby[I took your advice and deleted your post. --MichaelBluejay]
Singer,
Just a warning, i wouldn't make any deal(s) with that guy were i you.
