So All Betting Systems Are "Worthless"? Figure This One Out
Quote: bluefireThanks for proving that he thinks machines aren't completely random. If true, it completely invalides any mathematical analyses he's done.
So he does his analysis based on machines being close to 100% random, and others do theirs on the assumption that they are. And since RS says he does not know to what extent the machines are programmed off-random, what other way would you propose he analyze the hands? Looks to me like both sides are incorrect.
Quote: thecesspit"MichaelBluejay runs from RS after putting out a challenge that any true believer of gambling systems not working would jump on if they weren't confused and afraid it might just be the method that puts them and their anal math-only beliefs over the edge."
Talking of not reading and just wanting to react to what they think has been said.
Michael Bluejay never made a challenge on Video Poker on this site. He stated simply he was interested in play on table games. You wanted it to be more than that. Unless it happened elsewhere, there was no challenge accepted by either party, and no-one ran away on this forum. You've said this before, and then walked away from the statement when I asked you for more details.
Someone else DID make such a challenge, and I don't think it was ever taken forward.
I know that. I brought it up because even though he made a challenge on table games, you can't tell me he wouldn't want to delve into the mysteries of a vp system many people seem mystified in disbelief over if he were not a wee bit afraid of the outcome. In fact, it seems rather cowardly (in a nice way of course) of anyone who purports to disbelieve in gambling "systems" not to want to do all they can to go after RS's system. Either you are out to disprove gambling systems or you are not. What difference does it make if it's a table or a machine? Are they not all supposedly pure math-based?
Quote: JerryLoganI know that. I brought it up because even though he made a challenge on table games, you can't tell me he wouldn't want to delve into the mysteries of a vp system many people seem mystified in disbelief over if he were not a wee bit afraid of the outcome. In fact, it seems rather cowardly (in a nice way of course) of anyone who purports to disbelieve in gambling "systems" not to want to do all they can to go after RS's system. Either you are out to disprove gambling systems or you are not. What difference does it make if it's a table or a machine? Are they not all supposedly pure math-based?
Why do you characterize him as running away then? Because it makes like a good inflammatory post, not because it's the truth or even close to the truth. MBJ stated his reasons why. You can take it or not. But it's not running away if you never go there.
Don't on one hand start flaming away because someone misquotes something, and then do it yourself. Makes you look like a trolling fool.
I notice how JerryLogan has run away from my offer to analyse his 6/5 Bonus Poker play as well.
Quote: JerryLoganSo he does his analysis based on machines being close to 100% random, and others do theirs on the assumption that they are. And since RS says he does not know to what extent the machines are programmed off-random, what other way would you propose he analyze the hands? Looks to me like both sides are incorrect.
No. Others do their analyses based on the machines being close enough to random to essentially be random.
Singer does his analyses of non-random machines as if they are random.
That's a big difference, especially since he said this in your link:
Quote:I lost $900 (plus all of the free-play) on a $1 TBP+ game, but in the 3 hours that I pounded away at the buttons I got a total of 6 quads (none of them of the special variety) but they were all dealt. DEALT! It just does not happen in video poker. Additionally, the card of the day on the thing was 3's. I didn't count, but I must have been dealt two 3's 25 times in the course of my play, AND THEY WERE ALWAYS SIDE-BY-SIDE AND ALWAYS COLOR-SENSITIVE. Red with red; black with black; and I never once got a third on the draw. Random my ass!
That's 31 hands that weren't random over the course of three hours. At a 400 hand/hr level, that's 2.5% of the hands that weren't random.
Quote: bluefireThe blog post says, "his strategies allegedly exploit patterns he has observed through the years". If this isn't true, then the Wizard either:
1.) Doesn't understand Rob Singers play strategy or
2.) Is purposefully misrepresenting it
Which is it?
To say that there is something that Rob Singer knows about gambling that the Wizard doesn't is like saying there's something about quantum physics that Sarah Palin knows but Stephen Hawking doesn't.
Quote: MathExtremistThe good news for other video poker players is that when there are more players like you or Singer who play suboptimally, the higher is the average win on the machines and the looser the casino can keep the paytables. If everyone played optimally, you'd see terrible paytables on VP games everywhere. In an ironic way, frequent VP players should be thanking you.
I have thanked Jerry many times for this exact reason. Rob Singer also does the rest of us a great service, for the same reason. If more people sought out good games and learned proper strategy, and less prayed at the Church of Singer, video poker would probably be as unplayable as slots.
Quote: mkl654321To say that there is something that Rob Singer knows about gambling that the Wizard doesn't is like saying there's something about quantum physics that Sarah Palin knows but Stephen Hawking doesn't.
lol, nice.
Do you have a similar analogy for JerryLogan establishing that he feels like he better understands Rob Singer's strategies than the Wizard does, after they both spent several hours discussing it with Singer in real life? I'm guessing it's going to be pretty hard to top Sarah Palin in quantum physics.
Quote: JerryLoganYou only know what you read, you refuse to read him because you just want to keep blabbing theory instead of truth, and you believe random is truly random.
The deterministic pseudo-random number generator (RNG) code within electronic gaming machines is sufficiently random so as to generate each possible 5-card deal and draw with approximately equal probability, where sufficiency is judged by the chi-square test at a 95% confidence level. I know this is the truth, but you wouldn't believe me even if I told you I wrote and tested the RNG code myself, so feel free to believe whatever Mr. Singer tells you he learned third-hand.
Quote: bluefirelol, nice.
Do you have a similar analogy for JerryLogan establishing that he feels like he better understands Rob Singer's strategies than the Wizard does, after they both spent several hours discussing it with Singer in real life? I'm guessing it's going to be pretty hard to top Sarah Palin in quantum physics.
Sure. A person with a doctorate in chemistry and a chimpanzee attend a lecture given by an alchemist. You didn't attend the lecture, but you want to get an informed opinion on whether alchemy has any scientific basis. Asking JerryLogan for information on the validity of Rob Singer instead of asking the Wizard is like asking the chimpanzee instead of asking the PhD.
Quote: thecesspitWhy do you characterize him as running away then? Because it makes like a good inflammatory post, not because it's the truth or even close to the truth. MBJ stated his reasons why. You can take it or not. But it's not running away if you never go there.
Don't on one hand start flaming away because someone misquotes something, and then do it yourself. Makes you look like a trolling fool.
I notice how JerryLogan has run away from my offer to analyse his 6/5 Bonus Poker play as well.
Again, I deliver, EITHER SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE IN BETTING SYSTEMS BEING SUCCESSFUL WANTS TO DISPROVE THEM, OR HE DOES NOT. MB came across VERY clearly that he did not believe in them and will pay big bucks to anyone who can present one that can disprove his belief. But as soon as Singer wants to accept the challenge with HIS system, the claim comes billowing out that it was only meant for table games, which was stated up front. But a true mathematician would not care one bit about what the baseline was, and would not be afraid to include it in his challenge. Only someone afraid that he actually might come face-to-face with something that he did not previously believe in, would reject that. I believe Singer thought MB might have simply left out the machines in his challenge. So, why not include it, other than the "waa...waa...I don't WANT to include it"?
Quote: bluefireNo. Others do their analyses based on the machines being close enough to random to essentially be random.
Singer does his analyses of non-random machines as if they are random.
That's a big difference, especially since he said this in your link:
That's 31 hands that weren't random over the course of three hours. At a 400 hand/hr level, that's 2.5% of the hands that weren't random.
How do you know those 31 hands were not random over the course of his play? He doesn't even say that.
Quote: MathExtremistThe deterministic pseudo-random number generator (RNG) code within electronic gaming machines is sufficiently random so as to generate each possible 5-card deal and draw with approximately equal probability, where sufficiency is judged by the chi-square test at a 95% confidence level. I know this is the truth, but you wouldn't believe me even if I told you I wrote and tested the RNG code myself, so feel free to believe whatever Mr. Singer tells you he learned third-hand.
Myself, I'd like a 100% confidence level. And the fact that Singer provided the name of the IGT manager to verify that he told them there are clauses not included for public viewing, tells me a LOT more about what's going on here than you're pretending to be able to program a machine in the same way IGT does.
Quote: JerryLoganAgain, I deliver, EITHER SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE IN BETTING SYSTEMS BEING SUCCESSFUL WANTS TO DISPROVE THEM, OR HE DOES NOT. MB came across VERY clearly that he did not believe in them and will pay big bucks to anyone who can present one that can disprove his belief. But as soon as Singer wants to accept the challenge with HIS system, the claim comes billowing out that it was only meant for table games, which was stated up front. But a true mathematician would not care one bit about what the baseline was, and would not be afraid to include it in his challenge. Only someone afraid that he actually might come face-to-face with something that he did not previously believe in, would reject that. I believe Singer thought MB might have simply left out the machines in his challenge. So, why not include it, other than the "waa...waa...I don't WANT to include it"?
I never saw anywhere that Mr Singer stated "I'd like to do this challenge with VP". I saw YOU state you'd like a challenge to be set up. So unless you are Rob Singer (which I know you aren't), you can't speak for him.
I know the encoding of even a simple system is a royal pain in the back side, before we even get to looking at special plays.
I also know nothing of the purported challenge and withdrawal by Mr. BlueJay. But I think I see where there might be a problem. From what I read in this forum, Mr. Singer believes that video poker machines do not deal the cards randomly. (Do I understand that correctly?) On the other hand, Mr. BlueJay would attempt to evaluate a system by using a computer program that would simulate a game using random numbers, leading to randomly dealt cards.
I think this implies that there is a basic disconnect in beliefs and techniques that would prevent Mr. Singer and Mr. BlueJay from ever reaching agreement on the terms of a challenge. Unless one of them abandons his beliefs, I don't think anyone should fault either of them for not agreeing to a challenge.
Quote: thecesspitI never saw anywhere that Mr Singer stated "I'd like to do this challenge with VP". I saw YOU state you'd like a challenge to be set up. So unless you are Rob Singer (which I know you aren't), you can't speak for him.
I know the encoding of even a simple system is a royal pain in the back side, before we even get to looking at special plays.
What I remember is my trying to get MB to do it and getting the fact known here that Singer would also go for it when I talked to him. so you are right and I am right in different ways.
Quote: DocMuch earlier, I acknowledged that I know nothing about Mr. Singer and his techniques, and those disclaimers still apply to this post.
I also know nothing of the purported challenge and withdrawal by Mr. BlueJay. But I think I see where there might be a problem. From what I read in this forum, Mr. Singer believes that video poker machines do not deal the cards randomly. (Do I understand that correctly?) On the other hand, Mr. BlueJay would attempt to evaluate a system by using a computer program that would simulate a game using random numbers, leading to randomly dealt cards.
I think this implies that there is a basic disconnect in beliefs and techniques that would prevent Mr. Singer and Mr. BlueJay from ever reaching agreement on the terms of a challenge. Unless one of them abandons his beliefs, I don't think anyone should fault either of them for not agreeing to a challenge.
That's probably a good point, but I believe MB had no knowledge of what RS believes and/or knows about machine randomness or lack thereof, at the time of the go-around. But you know what? If I were a math geek who so firmly believed in systems not working in gambling, I'd want to know all I can about what Singer has done, how he did it, and anything that would help me understand how he's been so uncommonly successful with it. As it is I am curious and will be trained Sat. for the first time, but I am no analyst.
What I would REALLY like to see is MKL show up on his scooter to witness the training and the method of play. I'll even supply the blindfolds if he's put off by the cocktail waitresses skimpy outfits.
Quote: DocI think this implies that there is a basic disconnect in beliefs and techniques that would prevent Mr. Singer and Mr. BlueJay from ever reaching agreement on the terms of a challenge. Unless one of them abandons his beliefs, I don't think anyone should fault either of them for not agreeing to a challenge.
One approach is faith-based, the other is reality-based. People like The Chimp (JL) who characterize those who are reality-based in their thinking as (quote) "math geeks" will never be able to understand people like MichaelBlueJay because they aren't prepared to--you have to have enough of an open mind to accept the results of the math. Likewise, Singer's shtick for years has been to say that the math doesn't matter. So how could anyone construct a mathematical proof that such persons would ever consider valid?
What I'd REALLY like to see is someone whose scales have fallen from their eyes, and admits to themselves that they can't overcome, subvert, or evade the mathematics of gambling. That will happen when pigs fly, though.
Quote: mkl654321Quote: DocI think this implies that there is a basic disconnect in beliefs and techniques that would prevent Mr. Singer and Mr. BlueJay from ever reaching agreement on the terms of a challenge. Unless one of them abandons his beliefs, I don't think anyone should fault either of them for not agreeing to a challenge.
One approach is faith-based, the other is reality-based. People like The Chimp (JL) who characterize those who are reality-based in their thinking as (quote) "math geeks" will never be able to understand people like MichaelBlueJay because they aren't prepared to--you have to have enough of an open mind to accept the results of the math. Likewise, Singer's shtick for years has been to say that the math doesn't matter. So how could anyone construct a mathematical proof that such persons would ever consider valid?
What I'd REALLY like to see is someone whose scales have fallen from their eyes, and admits to themselves that they can't overcome, subvert, or evade the mathematics of gambling. That will happen when pigs fly, though.
I'm personally insulted to be called a CHIMP. Plus MKL, I AM NOT BLACK!! Why be so racist in your hate posts??
And to correct another of your made-up assertions, Singer has NEVER said the math doesn't matter nor have I seen anywhere where he even implies that. I'll tell him you said that on Sat. and maybe he'll come up there and give you a good spanking.
Quote: mkl654321One approach is faith-based, the other is reality-based. People like The Chimp (JL) ...
Personal insult -- three day suspension.
Quote: WizardPersonal insult -- three day suspension.
Whew, the world felt curiously imbalanced for a little while, thanks for correcting it. I was getting a little dizzy..
Quote: JerryLoganHis play, OTOH, has netted him almost a million dollars over a decade with what you call "sub-optimal play" because you won't take the time to understand it.
Over the years and despite many challenges, Singer has never produced one iota of evidence to back up that claim. Just as he has never produced one iota of evidence to back up his assertions about non-random video poker slot machines.
Quote: JerryLoganHow do you know those 31 hands were not random over the course of his play? He doesn't even say that.
Yes he does:
Quote:Before I left on this trip I thought I'd seen it all since I've played for so many years. But once again I was taken by complete surprise. I lost $900 (plus all of the free-play) on a $1 TBP+ game, but in the 3 hours that I pounded away at the buttons I got a total of 6 quads (none of them of the special variety) but they were all dealt. DEALT! It just does not happen in video poker. Additionally, the card of the day on the thing was 3's. I didn't count, but I must have been dealt two 3's 25 times in the course of my play, AND THEY WERE ALWAYS SIDE-BY-SIDE AND ALWAYS COLOR-SENSITIVE. Red with red; black with black; and I never once got a third on the draw. Random my ass!
See that "random my ass!" part?
Quote: JerryLoganQuote: mkl654321Quote: DocI think this implies that there is a basic disconnect in beliefs and techniques that would prevent Mr. Singer and Mr. BlueJay from ever reaching agreement on the terms of a challenge. Unless one of them abandons his beliefs, I don't think anyone should fault either of them for not agreeing to a challenge.
One approach is faith-based, the other is reality-based. People like The Chimp (JL) who characterize those who are reality-based in their thinking as (quote) "math geeks" will never be able to understand people like MichaelBlueJay because they aren't prepared to--you have to have enough of an open mind to accept the results of the math. Likewise, Singer's shtick for years has been to say that the math doesn't matter. So how could anyone construct a mathematical proof that such persons would ever consider valid?
What I'd REALLY like to see is someone whose scales have fallen from their eyes, and admits to themselves that they can't overcome, subvert, or evade the mathematics of gambling. That will happen when pigs fly, though.
I'm personally insulted to be called a CHIMP. Plus MKL, I AM NOT BLACK!! Why be so racist in your hate posts??
And to correct another of your made-up assertions, Singer has NEVER said the math doesn't matter nor have I seen anywhere where he even implies that. I'll tell him you said that on Sat. and maybe he'll come up there and give you a good spanking.
OK, so Jerry gets 3 days for insinuating that MKL is not a man. Does he get another back-to-back suspension for implying that black people are chimps? Maybe infinity days for that one? At least the "I'm not a racist. Show me where I've made racist statements" bullshit will have to stop now...
Quote: rdw4potus
OK, so Jerry gets 3 days for insinuating that MKL is not a man. Does he get another back-to-back suspension for implying that black people are chimps?
Aren't we all descended from chimps? Remember all those chimp pics of George Bush during his presidency. Isn't that proof?
