Singer's evidence of VP non-randomness and betting system
Thread Rating:
a) there are video poker machines currently in operation in Nevada which include intentionally-programmed non-random behavior; and
b) while Nevada's publicly-available Regulation 14 details very specific requirements as to the randomness a gaming machine must exhibit, the intentional non-random behavior alleged by Mr. Singer is actually legal as a result of a set of confidential gaming regulations, known only to gaming vendors and state regulators, which override or amend the meaning of the public Regulation 14.
Mr. Singer has responded that he will "read/comment on Monday or Tuesday after New Years Day." I intend this thread to be a repository for any evidence Singer has to buttress his heretofore unfounded assertions, because the last thread he started got gummed up with some off-topic discussions on the meaning of bigotry or whatnot. Let's please not gum this one up until he replies.
Meanwhile, Jerry, if I have misstated either of Singer's assertions above, please correct them. I specifically intend not to discuss the efficacy of Singer's bet-progression system until the question of VP non-randomness has been addressed.
Note: the reason this post is in the "systems" category is because if Singer's assertions about intentionally-programmed non-randomness fall short, as I expect they will, his VP bet-progression system will be, well, just another betting system.
Let me remind you of this comment Rob made on Dec 19.
Quote: RobSingerMATHEXTREMIST: I wouldn't be talking down to me, just in case you ever have the opportunity to debate me face-to-face.
How about an official face to face debate?! I'd be happy to host it, record it, and post it on YouTube.
I do have one question about ME's note: "Note: the reason this post is in the "systems" category is because if Singer's assertions about intentionally-programmed non-randomness fall short, as I expect they will, his VP bet-progression system will be, well, just another betting system." RS has alread stated, and I've repeated what he's said, that non-randomness does not have anything to do with his play strategy. He plays as if the machines were random. So if he fails to convince you on the programming thing, what does that have to do with what he says his strategy has done for him?
As a trainee right now I can attest to the fact that, even though I played my first 3 sessions under his watch at an Indian casino, a venue he believes actually RIG the machines, he taught me every hold as if the machine was completely random, and I won each session.
Soon to be a major motion picture starring Tom Hanks and Sigourney Weaver.
Quote: MathExtremistI have contacted Rob Singer and asked him for any evidence of his assertions that:
a) there are video poker machines currently in operation in Nevada which include intentionally-programmed non-random behavior; and
b) the intentional non-random behavior alleged by Mr. Singer is actually legal as a result of a set of confidential gaming regulations which override or amend the meaning of the public Regulation 14.
I too will patiently await actual supporting data for this assertion that Randomness Drowns at the River.
It may even be interesting to read the supporting material about the oxygen pumped into ... oops, I mean the supporting material about the gaming Super-Regulations that were adopted while the fraternity was under Double Secret Suspension. Ooops, I mean Commission, not Fraternity. Of course those who actually live in Nevada may actually think the parallels between Animal House and
the State Legislature make perfect sense.
Some sloppiness in record keeping is tolerable and it is even a good sign. Pristine records often indicate fraud. However, Mr. Singer could employ a small cheap VCR and substantiate his claims quite readily. He refuses to do so and therefore I relegate his claims to a poorly formed hypothesis upon which he became too emotionally invested to remain a sufficiently neutral and detached observer.
Quote: JerryLoganI do have one question about ME's note: "Note: the reason this post is in the "systems" category is because if Singer's assertions about intentionally-programmed non-randomness fall short, as I expect they will, his VP bet-progression system will be, well, just another betting system." RS has alread stated, and I've repeated what he's said, that non-randomness does not have anything to do with his play strategy. He plays as if the machines were random. So if he fails to convince you on the programming thing, what does that have to do with what he says his strategy has done for him?
If we determine that the VP machines are non-random, but we don't know how, then we have no idea what the RTP is. It's incalculable, as much so as if I were dealing you a game of blackjack by spreading out the cards face-up on the table and then choosing which cards you and I would both get, or if I were to physically place the roulette ball into a specific canoe after all your bets had been made.
On the other hand, if the VP machines are actually random, then all the calculations done by Wizard and other VP authors is accurate because it was under the assumption of randomness that those calculations were performed. In other words, 9/6 Jacks or Better actually does have a 99.54% optimal RTP.
If that is the case, as I strongly suspect it is, then Singer's betting system is not meaningfully different than any other betting system ever devised for any other random game of chance. Betting progressions are well-known to be wholly ineffective at "beating the house". Maybe that's not well-known to everyone -- though I'd hope any regular reader of this forum would know better by now -- but it's definitely known to every gaming vendor and operator. A betting system is just a betting system, and playing VP by increasing your bets when you lose is no different than playing roulette by increasing your bets when you lose.
As to what his strategy has done for him, I have no way to judge that. If he's been a big winner, good for him - he's gotten very lucky to have won a large amount of money playing -EV video poker over the years. But do not fool yourself into thinking that his strategy is a repeatable, effective way to "beat the house" at VP, any more than a similar "increase as you lose" strategy is a repeatable, effective way to beat the house at roulette.
Quote: MathExtremistIf we determine that the VP machines are non-random, but we don't know how, then we have no idea what the RTP is. It's incalculable, as much so as if I were dealing you a game of blackjack by spreading out the cards face-up on the table and then choosing which cards you and I would both get, or if I were to physically place the roulette ball into a specific canoe after all your bets had been made.
On the other hand, if the VP machines are actually random, then all the calculations done by Wizard and other VP authors is accurate because it was under the assumption of randomness that those calculations were performed. In other words, 9/6 Jacks or Better actually does have a 99.54% optimal RTP.
If that is the case, as I strongly suspect it is, then Singer's betting system is not meaningfully different than any other betting system ever devised for any other random game of chance. Betting progressions are well-known to be wholly ineffective at "beating the house". Maybe that's not well-known to everyone -- though I'd hope any regular reader of this forum would know better by now -- but it's definitely known to every gaming vendor and operator. A betting system is just a betting system, and playing VP by increasing your bets when you lose is no different than playing roulette by increasing your bets when you lose.
As to what his strategy has done for him, I have no way to judge that. If he's been a big winner, good for him - he's gotten very lucky to have won a large amount of money playing -EV video poker over the years. But do not fool yourself into thinking that his strategy is a repeatable, effective way to "beat the house" at VP, any more than a similar "increase as you lose" strategy is a repeatable, effective way to beat the house at roulette.
I understand where you're coming from. That's why my belief in RS's "system" being repeatable has made me want to try it out for myself, and I will continue to report on it as I said I would, no matter how it turns out. My support for the guy comes not from any real knowledge that what he says actually works and will continue to work (because I'm not smart enough to know that at this point) but because I know him personally now, he's just a regular nice guy with a nice family, he's obviously been successful throughout his life doing whatever, and he's the only video poker player on record who's ever publicly TRIED at least to get the doubters to bet him that he can prove he both has won what he said and WILL win what he says going forward. In other words, instead of him grabbing all of us vp player's money through some slick marketing operation like Dancer and the others do, he doesn't take money from anyone and indeed has a long history of walking the walk that he talks. He represents something fresh at least to me. The math people don't like what he represents, but they also for some STRANGE REASON always seem to want to stay safe and sound rather than be sorry, whenever he wants to bet he can disporove them. I find all that very, very interesting and good reason to believe in him.
Quote: FleaStiffI too will patiently await actual supporting data for this assertion that Randomness Drowns at the River.
It may even be interesting to read the supporting material about the oxygen pumped into ... oops, I mean the supporting material about the gaming Super-Regulations that were adopted while the fraternity was under Double Secret Suspension. Ooops, I mean Commission, not Fraternity. Of course those who actually live in Nevada may actually think the parallels between Animal House and
the State Legislature make perfect sense.
Some sloppiness in record keeping is tolerable and it is even a good sign. Pristine records often indicate fraud. However, Mr. Singer could employ a small cheap VCR and substantiate his claims quite readily. He refuses to do so and therefore I relegate his claims to a poorly formed hypothesis upon which he became too emotionally invested to remain a sufficiently neutral and detached observer.
So you're already hedging your bets? You are trying to set it up so that no matter what RS comes on here with, you won't believe because you don't want to believe it, am I correct? I can see your headache already starting, in which case Singer has already beaten you!
Quote: WizardThis should be good!
Let me remind you of this comment Rob made on Dec 19.
How about an official face to face debate?! I'd be happy to host it, record it, and post it on YouTube.
If there's going to be anything, it should be a mock trial. Mr. Singer has not just advanced an innocuous claim, he has made a serious charge that two key forces in the gaming industry, the regulators and the vendors, are in a vast conspiracy to cover up what he alleges is intentionally-programmed non-randomness within video poker machines.
To that end, Mr. Singer should, if he is serious about demonstrating his case, file a mock complaint which sets forth his claims and his supporting materials according to reasonable evidentiary standards. As what he claims is, on its face, a series of illegal actions by gaming vendors and/or regulations in direct violation of the laws or regulations of several states, I suggest that Mr. Singer should be required to prove his case, to a mock jury, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Moreover, if Mr. Singer fails to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt, his claims should be dismissed and -- more importantly -- publicly retracted by him.
Quote: MathExtremistQuote: WizardI suggest that Mr. Singer should be required to prove his case, to a mock jury, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Moreover, if Mr. Singer fails to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt, his claims should be dismissed and -- more importantly -- publicly retracted by him.
You overshot, ME. If he accepts your challenge and the '5th' card' matches the discarded card more frequently than 'random', and would allow to a 99% confidence interval, then he would lose, as he would not have passed the 'reasonable doubt' standard. As a man of math, you should define some exact statistical level of certainty rather than the intentionally vague 'reasonable doubt'.
The Wiz's previous challenge offer is simple, and if RS truly believed what he stated, then he should jump on the offer.
Quote: SOOPOOYou overshot, ME. If he accepts your challenge and the '5th' card' matches the discarded card more frequently than 'random', and would allow to a 99% confidence interval, then he would lose, as he would not have passed the 'reasonable doubt' standard. As a man of math, you should define some exact statistical level of certainty rather than the intentionally vague 'reasonable doubt'.
The Wiz's previous challenge offer is simple, and if RS truly believed what he stated, then he should jump on the offer.
I'm not sure which of the Wiz's previous challenges you're referring to, but I disagree that I "overshot". A statistical test of one particular machine is just that - a test of one machine. Insofar as I am aware, Singer has claimed that *all* video poker machines in all states are intentionally programmed with non-random behavior, in apparent violation of the various gaming regulations or statutes, yet this is actually an allowable action due to some secret regulations nobody knows about except the gaming vendors and regulators.
It is that charge which needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt -- the charge that the gaming regulators and gaming vendors are somehow complicit in a vast conspiracy to defy the common understanding of what "random" means. If he is unable to so prove, then I would argue that the VP machines, their makers, and the several gaming regulatory bodies are "innocent until proven guilty."
Do you suggest that a lesser standard should apply?
Quote: SOOPOOI can't remember it exactly, but it had to do with non randomness of the 5th card. The Wiz proposed a challenge of a certain %, which, I can't remember the exact number. I don't suggest a lesser standard. I suggest an exact standard, one which is clearly defined. As anyone who has ever heard of O.J. can tell you, reasonable doubt is too vague a term for me.
I think you're missing the scope of Singer's claims. He's not saying "look, here's a specific VP machine that's behaving improperly". He is, rather, saying that *all* machines are behaving non-randomly, and moreover intentionally so. Finding a specific behavior upon testing a single machine is insufficient to logically conclude that all machines behave similarly, just as I should not observe a curly-haired person and sensibly conclude that all people have curly hair.
In other words, if a statistically valid test were done on a single VP machine, and that test yielded results that were significantly indicative of a non-uniform card distribution, it would be an interesting data point and warrant further testing. But that datapoint alone could never properly provide proof that "all VP machines are intentionally programmed to be non-random". That's the claim that needs to be tested. That, and the attendant claim that secret regulations allow this to be so.
Quote: SOOPOOThe Wiz's previous challenge offer is simple, and if RS truly believed what he stated, then he should jump on the offer.
Singer should definitely jump SOMEWHERE....
He'll never accept the challenge in any meaningful way. He'll weasel and squirm and prevaricate, and then disappear from sight. That's what he DOES.
I reiterate my offer (if he's lurking, or if Jerry, his faithful lieutenant, is reporting back to him) to lay 1000-1 odds against a phenomenon such as Singer describes occuring in ANY VP machine in ANY Nevada jurisdiction.
One other thing - what is Singer's theory for WHY the secret regulations would exist? What do both parties gain?
Quote: sunrise089ME, I agree with you, but I also think you're vastly underestimating the value of a test. If a single machine doesn't behave as Singer claims than that makes him look silly and hopefully clues in some of his disciples. If the machine did behave as he claims it doesn't prove his larger theory but it sure raises some big questions.
One other thing - what is Singer's theory for WHY the secret regulations would exist? What do both parties gain?
There would be absolutely no benefit to the casino, if the machines actually DID behave as Singer claims. In fact, the players would greatly benefit.
Quote: mkl654321There would be absolutely no benefit to the casino, if the machines actually DID behave as Singer claims. In fact, the players would greatly benefit.
Not to say this is the case, but I think, if machines were non-random, they, if cleverly programmed, could provide tremendous benefit to the casino. They could control the payout rate, dealing lousy cards to the players when it gets too high for example. They could do even smarter tricks like giving a series of small wins to a player that has been losing to make him want keep playing etc.
They would also be impossible to beat with a strategy, unless you know the details of the programming (which could also be adaptive, to make things even harder for you).
Of course, it all would be illegal - there is no disagreement here - but if there was a manufacturer and a casino that wanted to go for it, I think, they would make a bunch of (extra) money before they'd get caught.
Quote: sunrise089ME, I agree with you, but I also think you're vastly underestimating the value of a test. If a single machine doesn't behave as Singer claims than that makes him look silly and hopefully clues in some of his disciples. If the machine did behave as he claims it doesn't prove his larger theory but it sure raises some big questions.
One other thing - what is Singer's theory for WHY the secret regulations would exist? What do both parties gain?
I understand the limits and value of a particular test, but I also know that a statistically-significant test is not necessary to demonstrate that a machine in the field is operating strangely. If a slot manager looks at the meters and thinks something is amiss, he'll call the vendor -- he won't wait to run some scientifically-proper experiment because that's not his job.
Singer has given no plausible explanation for why his alleged secret regulations would exist. He has only concluded that the existence of these secret regulations is what makes the intentionally-programmed non-randomness in VP machines "not rigged" or "not illegal", whereas by the plain letter of the law they clearly would be both. That's why the comparisons to Larry Volk or Ron Harris are flawed -- both of those cases involved admittedly-illegal machines, but Singer claims that the VP machines are functioning properly (in accordance with the secret regulations, that is.)
Those "secret regs" you claim I'm creating? There's nothing secret about them at all. Just because you aren't privy to Confidential information doesn't mean they do not exist. The only point these Regs. make is they allow for certain interpretations of what the public sees--yes, including for those parts you keep posting over and over that says how video games must be as if live dealers were present. Just as 'pseudo RNG's' and '95% confidence levels' are acceptable absolute language in the geek world, there are similar acceptances in other areas that are not public. You may disagree and be a non-believer as you wish. I happen to believe this because I haven't just sat on my butt over the years dissing everything I've heard that was different. I took a real world look at issues that concerned me rather than simply taking unproven word, I'm now more than convinced, and I've never once stated that any of it is better or worse for the player because I just don't know. I strongly suspect you're being hindered by never being able to handle anything different than what's been pounded into your head over the years because it's so comfortable to live with. In my world, which is as much as or more of a math world than yours and I have the degrees and work history to prove it, it's a desire for factual reality that drive me to look into issues as far as I am able--and not hiding behind theory and taking the safe way out.
So with respect to Wizard's proposal on more testing, I don't see how a true sample reflecting a meaningful size could ever be realized because of time, distance, and related issues. As far as 'evidence' from the results from my home test, I've already read a comment on how I could just doctor up or create documents that support what I report. The only way I see for you to resolve this in your head is to do everything I've done. But that'll never happen because it's easier to just keep on believing in what you want than to make a big effort to see truth. But if there is anything else you'd like me to do on this that I can, please e-mail me.
I've caught a few posts about how AP's here don't believe that the positive results I've had over 10 years with mostly negative EV machines, are repeatable. That's generally untrue, because of the hundreds of players I've trained over the years like I'm training your favorite suspended personality, no one's ever lost either money or more sessions than they've won while I was present and helping. If anyone has mkl654321ZERO-like comments on that, tough love. If JL doesn't get banned then it's a good bet he'll keep irritating you with his successes. I train for free, so if any of you want to see how it's done so you don't have to keep lying about "breaking even" on your gambling trips, let me know!
What disappoints me is the hemming and hawing on the challenges issue. I can of course prove I've won almost a million dollars since 2000, but that bet would be structured just like the one I put out in the paper to the LVA guys and other AP's that had them all running for cover as soon as I put up real cash instead of continuing the egaging talk. I could play a complete $1 thru $100 single-play session for my usual minimum $2500 win but I don't think anyone wants any part of that either, since it's nice to continue to blab how I don't win but not so nice to put money on the line over it. So if anyone has any ideas, again, please e-mail me. I love money. One thing I'd really like to see is Mike set up a real live debate--me against any number of you discussing any number of subjects. I'd much rather do that than to talk about how all the big wheels over here rejected my acceptance of their -EV $30k challenge in my next TV or radio interview.
Keep arguing among yourselves, it's good for you. Calling me names helps, and it's a real killer knowing that.
RS
Quote: RobSingerI'm not going to be here for days arguing because it's all been said before, and I'll re-state what I know about the machines and the Regs. VP machines in Nevada do not operate 100% randomly. That is an absolute. Aside from their inherent hot and cold cycles, they include "safety net programming" which keeps them from ever going beyond certain high & low end hold%'s.
So you've said before -- and to paraphrase, your claim is:
1) All VP machines in Nevada are programmed intentionally with non-random, "safety-net programming".
Please provide your evidence for this claim. "I'll re-state what I know" is not evidence.
And what exactly are the "high & low end hold%'s" that the safety-net programming restricts paybacks to? Are we talking between 65% and 120%? 40% and 150%? What's the range?
Quote:Those "secret regs" you claim I'm creating? There's nothing secret about them at all. Just because you aren't privy to Confidential information doesn't mean they do not exist. The only point these Regs. make is they allow for certain interpretations of what the public sees--yes, including for those parts you keep posting over and over that says how video games must be as if live dealers were present. Just as 'pseudo RNG's' and '95% confidence levels' are acceptable absolute language in the geek world, there are similar acceptances in other areas that are not public.
I intend the word "secret" to have the same meaning as "confidential", so please don't assert that there is such a thing as a confidential, non-secret regulation. You claim that there are regulations that the public is not privy to, regulations which make legal the behavior in Claim 1 (above), whereas such behavior is plainly illegal under Nevada Gaming Regulation 14. To paraphrase, your claim is:
2) There are confidential regulations which countermand the public regulations, including Regulation 14, and which permit non-random "safety-net programming" in VP machines.
Please provide your evidence for this claim. Suggesting that you "took a real world look at issues" is not evidence.
Quote:You may disagree and be a non-believer as you wish. I happen to believe this because I haven't just sat on my butt over the years dissing everything I've heard that was different. I took a real world look at issues that concerned me rather than simply taking unproven word, I'm now more than convinced, and I've never once stated that any of it is better or worse for the player because I just don't know. I strongly suspect you're being hindered by never being able to handle anything different than what's been pounded into your head over the years because it's so comfortable to live with. In my world, which is as much as or more of a math world than yours and I have the degrees and work history to prove it, it's a desire for factual reality that drive me to look into issues as far as I am able--and not hiding behind theory and taking the safe way out.
So with respect to Wizard's proposal on more testing, I don't see how a true sample reflecting a meaningful size could ever be realized because of time, distance, and related issues. As far as 'evidence' from the results from my home test, I've already read a comment on how I could just doctor up or create documents that support what I report. The only way I see for you to resolve this in your head is to do everything I've done. But that'll never happen because it's easier to just keep on believing in what you want than to make a big effort to see truth. But if there is anything else you'd like me to do on this that I can, please e-mail me.
It could be that your standard of evidence is meaningfully less rigorous than mine. When I say "evidence", I mean a demonstration that would stand up to peer review and scrutiny. For example, source code of the alleged "safety-net programming" or copies of these confidential regulations. What you have presented so far is mere conjecture, unsupported by any objective, verifiable facts.
This is your opportunity to provide the evidence that supports your claims that (1) all VP machines in Nevada use intentionally-programmed non-randomness and "safety-net programming", and (2) there exist confidential regulations which allow such behavior.
Do you have any such evidence to present?
Quote: RobSingerOne thing I'd really like to see is Mike set up a real live debate--me against any number of you discussing any number of subjects.
I'm game for that. I would prefer it be a one on one, lest it turn into a shouting match. Again, I think MathExtremist (ME) would be the perfect opponent, if he is willing. I know him in real life well. He used to work for a slot machine maker (including video poker) so knows the regs and how they are designed. Then again, one might argue his is not privy to the conspiracy, and somebody who is changes his coding before the machines hit the casino floor (said trying to keep a straight face). Not only is ME extremely well qualified in terms his resume, but is a true gentleman. In the many years I've known him I can't recall him ever insulting anybody, using profanity, or raising his voice.
What I'm willing to do is rent out a public space, perhaps a community center in Summerlin, moderate the debate, and see to it that the whole thing is recorded and available for free viewing online. The debate would be open for all to watch. Perhaps we could include a section at the end for questions from the audience. I would work with both parties to come up with an agreeable format.
Also, if you see Jerry, give him my best.
Quote: WizardI'm game for that. I would prefer it be a one on one, lest it turn into a shouting match. Again, I think MathExtremist (ME) would be the perfect opponent, if he is willing. I know him in real life well. He used to work for a slot machine maker (including video poker) so knows the regs and how they are designed. Then again, one might argue his is not privy to the conspiracy, and somebody who is changes his coding before the machines hit the casino floor (said trying to keep a straight face). Not only is ME extremely well qualified in terms his resume, but is a true gentleman. In the many years I've known him I can't recall him ever insulting anybody, using profanity, or raising his voice.
What I'm willing to do is rent out a public space, perhaps a community center in Summerlin, moderate the debate, and see to it that the whole thing is recorded and available for free viewing online. The debate would be open for all to watch. Perhaps we could include a section at the end for questions from the audience. I would work with both parties to come up with an agreeable format.
Also, if you see Jerry, give him my best.
I appreciate the kind words, but there's not much point in having a debate if it's solely opinion vs. opinion. While it might be interesting from a theatrical standpoint, it wouldn't advance the answer to the ultimate question of whether Mr. Singer is correct in his assertions. However, I believe I can propose at least one test based on the claims I've read so far. Mr. Singer asserts that all VP machines in Nevada are programmed with "safety-net programming" to keep results within a particular range of hold %. That should be trivial to examine. I propose the following test (or challenge, if you will):
1) Mr. Singer will provide numbers to describe the safety net programming. For example: Over N hands, the actual payback on a VP machine (coin-out / coin-in) will be greater than X% and less than Y%. Fill in X, Y, and N.
2) I will then proceed to play at least two VP machines, which will be chosen by Mr. Singer and played with his funds, such that the actual results will fall outside the range Mr. Singer claims in step 1, thereby disproving the existence of the alleged safety-net programming in "all machines in NV".
Now, after having done this test, I would be open to a debate on the interpretation of its results. I would suggest that, at a minimum, the debate be hosted in an Intelligence^2-style forum, where the premise (in this case, the assertion that safety-net programming exists in all VP machines) is voted upon both before and after the debate, and the side that wins carries the day. I'd obviously be taking the con.
Moreover, I suggest that if the pro fails to make its case, Singer should issue a public retraction of his claims.
Quote: RobSingerI'm not going to be here for days arguing because it's all been said before, and I'll re-state what I know about the machines and the Regs. VP machines in Nevada do not operate 100% randomly. That is an absolute. Aside from their inherent hot and cold cycles, they include "safety net programming" which keeps them from ever going beyond certain high & low end hold%'s. There also definitely is a 5th card flipover anomaly. Tests I performed in casinos basically showed a very high discrepancy from the approximate 6% expectation over about 45000 hands I played on various machines, and when I tested with the Wizard and Webman I think the %'s were lower than 6% thru maybe 100 opportunities. The machine I tested at home went thru over 10 million BP hands and had a rate of about 12%. This indicates a more scientific representation of the facts, but it also may indicate different performance levels depending on the machine or generation of machine being tested.
Sadly, I've not seen any published data on either the regulations or the results of your tests, or repeatability of those tests. That means they are unverifiable claims. It may have been said before, but all I ever find in searching is references to where it's been said before, but not the actual statement when it was said the first time.
What method was used to test a machine? What are the confidential regulations and where are they kept? We can make all sorts of claims to everyone everywhere about how people are misguided and have sat around listening to the norm... but sometimes the common knowledge is the truth. Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence.
Quote:What disappoints me is the hemming and hawing on the challenges issue. I can of course prove I've won almost a million dollars since 2000, but that bet would be structured just like the one I put out in the paper to the LVA guys and other AP's that had them all running for cover as soon as I put up real cash instead of continuing the egaging talk. I could play a complete $1 thru $100 single-play session for my usual minimum $2500 win but I don't think anyone wants any part of that either, since it's nice to continue to blab how I don't win but not so nice to put money on the line over it. So if anyone has any ideas, again, please e-mail me. I love money. One thing I'd really like to see is Mike set up a real live debate--me against any number of you discussing any number of subjects. I'd much rather do that than to talk about how all the big wheels over here rejected my acceptance of their -EV $30k challenge in my next TV or radio interview.
Keep arguing among yourselves, it's good for you. Calling me names helps, and it's a real killer knowing that.
RS
Only a fool would take you on a single session. It's very clear that a -money bound- win goal with your method will win 80% of the time. Anyone who argues differently is either misguided or has not examined the data. And this is not restricted to your system. It's possible to create other methods that will win out more often than not, when the goal is money based.
However, winning a single session does not equate to always winning money in the mid-term. HOW to test that in a equitable way for both parties, I have no idea. None of my money would be on the line for such a challenge anyway, as I have no hard rooted opinion.
Quote:no one's ever lost either money or more sessions than they've won while I was present
Quite, but this implies some people have lost more money than they've won, but won more sessions than they've lost.
Quote: RobSingerI'm not going to be here for days arguing because it's all been said before, and I'll re-state what I know about the machines and the Regs....
[edit]
Keep arguing among yourselves, it's good for you. Calling me names helps, and it's a real killer knowing that.
RS
I read and re-read this several times. To me, you could substitute "We didn't land on the moon..." "9/11 was engineered by the US Government..." "The Tri-lateral commission..." for "VP is non random." Not because it is or it isn't, but because your argument is based on your conviction that it isn't, rather than any proof that you have shared. Your argument boils down to "I've seen it." Great. People believe in aliens because they've seen them, too.
You won. I believe that, and I think that it is great. I want everyone to win. But that isn't proof that the machines are non-random.
Your personal shots at other forum members detract from the gravity of your position.
Quote: CroupierAny chance this could be set up for around the time of WOVCON?
Maybe even with a live video or even a YouTube feed.
Quote: RobSingerI'm not going to be here for days arguing because it's all been said before, and I'll re-state what I know about the machines and the Regs. VP machines in Nevada do not operate 100% randomly. That is an absolute.
Yes. Absolute bullshit.
Quote: CroupierAny chance this could be set up for around the time of WOVCON?
Anybody wanna bet it never happens? This is all just part of the 'big tease' to keep Singer's name in constant play. He can't buy publicity like this in the gambling community.
Quote: EvenBobAnybody wanna bet it never happens? This is all just part of the 'big tease' to keep Singer's name in constant play. He can't buy publicity like this in the gambling community.
I'll be happy to admit that I'm wrong if it can be demonstrated to be the case, but for Singer, the stakes are too high - the entirety of his so-called "undeniable truth" product line would come crumbling down if he put his theories to my proposed test. So yes, I'd bet it never happens. He won't take me up on my challenge to disprove his "safety-net programming" assertion, and he won't provide any evidence to support the existence of the alleged confidential regulations. But Mr. Singer, I'm happy to be shown otherwise. The floor is yours...
Quote: EvenBobAnybody wanna bet it never happens? This is all just part of the 'big tease' to keep Singer's name in constant play. He can't buy publicity like this in the gambling community.
It'll get pretty far along, because part of Singer's shtick is to pretend to answer "challenges" and then weasel out of them somehow at the last minute. If the interview just consists of he said/it said, though, he might go through with it, because he wouldn't be called upon to provide any kind of proof of his nonsensical, fraudulent fairy tales--he could just chirp "I've won a million dollars with my magical sure-fire system!!!!" over and over again.
The trouble is, the math that refutes Singer actually takes a couple of minutes to explain, requires a reasonably competent intellect to understand, and isn't nearly as interesting as some clown claiming "I wins all duh time, and YEW KIN TOO!". So such a public forum may be exactly what Singer wants, and I don't think that ignorance should be fostered. More people will hear the nonsense and become converts than will see the math and become skeptics.
Quote: MathExtremistSo you've said before -- and to paraphrase, your claim is:
1) All VP machines in Nevada are programmed intentionally with non-random, "safety-net programming".
Please provide your evidence for this claim. "I'll re-state what I know" is not evidence.
And what exactly are the "high & low end hold%'s" that the safety-net programming restricts paybacks to? Are we talking between 65% and 120%? 40% and 150%? What's the range?
I intend the word "secret" to have the same meaning as "confidential", so please don't assert that there is such a thing as a confidential, non-secret regulation. You claim that there are regulations that the public is not privy to, regulations which make legal the behavior in Claim 1 (above), whereas such behavior is plainly illegal under Nevada Gaming Regulation 14. To paraphrase, your claim is:
2) There are confidential regulations which countermand the public regulations, including Regulation 14, and which permit non-random "safety-net programming" in VP machines.
Please provide your evidence for this claim. Suggesting that you "took a real world look at issues" is not evidence.
It could be that your standard of evidence is meaningfully less rigorous than mine. When I say "evidence", I mean a demonstration that would stand up to peer review and scrutiny. For example, source code of the alleged "safety-net programming" or copies of these confidential regulations. What you have presented so far is mere conjecture, unsupported by any objective, verifiable facts.
This is your opportunity to provide the evidence that supports your claims that (1) all VP machines in Nevada use intentionally-programmed non-randomness and "safety-net programming", and (2) there exist confidential regulations which allow such behavior.
Do you have any such evidence to present?
I'll go thru these two threads' posts one at a time, and then if anyone wants anything further in the form or a bet, a challenge or a debate, e-mail me. Two days watching some people make fools of themselves is about all I like to see anymore.
A) The low end is 75% in Nevada/the high end is private between the manufacturers and the casinos and must be disclosed to the state. It cannot be changed without first informing the state in writing which must be approved. I was told the only time the state would not approve a request was for the Reserve, 3 months after it opened.
B) You may intend secret to be the equal of confidential, but the standard for their interpretation is the US DoD. SECRET is a great deal more restricted than CONFIDENTIAL.
C) The rest has to do with the 'evidence' that you appear not to be able to operate without. Where did you ever read that I had confidentail paperwork on what I write about? Use your head--who would give that out to anyone? Publishing articles about it is about as far as it goes. I've never been 100% positive about any of it until I actually went out and TESTED it. Now I know how it all works and that what I was told is true. You'll just say because of a lack of some kind of evidence then you won't believe it. A true scientist, once given unconfirmed information and if they were really interested, would go out and do all he or she could to confirm it. I did that because I've been a big time vp player, but something tells me you're a very infrequent player who gets off more on talking about the game's theory from behind your computer than actually going out and getting involved in the game.
Quote: WizardI'm game for that. I would prefer it be a one on one, lest it turn into a shouting match. Again, I think MathExtremist (ME) would be the perfect opponent, if he is willing. I know him in real life well. He used to work for a slot machine maker (including video poker) so knows the regs and how they are designed. Then again, one might argue his is not privy to the conspiracy, and somebody who is changes his coding before the machines hit the casino floor (said trying to keep a straight face). Not only is ME extremely well qualified in terms his resume, but is a true gentleman. In the many years I've known him I can't recall him ever insulting anybody, using profanity, or raising his voice.
What I'm willing to do is rent out a public space, perhaps a community center in Summerlin, moderate the debate, and see to it that the whole thing is recorded and available for free viewing online. The debate would be open for all to watch. Perhaps we could include a section at the end for questions from the audience. I would work with both parties to come up with an agreeable format.
Also, if you see Jerry, give him my best.
OK Mike, please do what you're able and I'll be there if you give a month's notice. I don't doubt ME's charming personality or qualifications, but I do question his ability to remain calm based on how he goes off on my points at times here. Using a word like 'conspiracy' would be an effort to try and make this a joke, but to a true player such as me I assure you it is not. And I'm always forcefully reminded of that by how often my bets challenging the lies written about my results and play are always run away from at the last second.
I'm sure ME knows the regs and how they are designed, and I'm also sure from reading his posts that he has no idea what's in them beyond what he was told. The person I talked to was a Director and is now a VP. Either of them could re-write small batches of code without his knowledge at any time.
I also see a bit of insuation from you here and a few others about me being JL. Perhaps, just perhaps, you could put together some kind of 4 or 5-figure bet that if we do have a debate sometime, I would not bring Jerry with me, complete with his Az DL and maybe even a big rig following us to carry my ego back to Phoenix in, riding shotgun in my 91 Yugo convertible. I wouldn't even keep the money--I'd give it all to him since I don't read the lies very often and he must be subjected to them regularly.
I'm out of this unless I receive further info on a debate or bet acceptance, or that -EV $30k challenge I'd like to have a piece of.
Quote: RobSingerA) The low end is 75% in Nevada/the high end is private between the manufacturers and the casinos and must be disclosed to the state. It cannot be changed without first informing the state in writing which must be approved. I was told the only time the state would not approve a request was for the Reserve, 3 months after it opened.
This has nothing to do with "safety-net programming" or any secret regulations which you allege exist. It would appear that your understanding of the existing regulations is flawed, and that misunderstanding has caused you to invent these secret ones which enable "safety-net programming." In the likely event that you disagree, I offer this: I can quite easily disprove the existence of your safety-net programming by playing a video poker game and realizing actual results which do not fall within the allowable range you cited above. I will gladly do this in front of you and/or any assembled audience.
Quote:B) You may intend secret to be the equal of confidential, but the standard for their interpretation is the US DoD. SECRET is a great deal more restricted than CONFIDENTIAL.
You can't be serious. The US (federal) DoD security hierarchy has nothing to do with state gaming regulations, and you have seen no state regulatory document labelled otherwise.
Quote:C) The rest has to do with the 'evidence' that you appear not to be able to operate without. Where did you ever read that I had confidentail paperwork on what I write about? Use your head--who would give that out to anyone? Publishing articles about it is about as far as it goes. I've never been 100% positive about any of it until I actually went out and TESTED it. Now I know how it all works and that what I was told is true. You'll just say because of a lack of some kind of evidence then you won't believe it. A true scientist, once given unconfirmed information and if they were really interested, would go out and do all he or she could to confirm it.
You misunderstand science, Mr. Singer. A single positive test cannot confirm a hypothesis. It can only provide evidence to support it. However, a single negative test can disprove a hypothesis, and that is what I propose. I submit that a single test of your "safety-net programming" assertion will be sufficient to demonstrate that such safety-net programming does not exist as you suggest it does.
Would you be open to accepting the results of such a test, regardless of what they may be?
Quote: thlfI for one would also like to here argument again over how you never use your own player card when training someone. Jerry just reported on this forum that you did exactly that in your last training session.
Oh I forgot this little gem.
I have never used my players cards in a training session where the trainee uses his or her money--other than in cases where the player does not have a card for that particular casino, can't get one because the slot club is closed, or does not want to get one from the pit boss or from an overnight host/hostess if there's one on duty. When that happens it's usually a player like JL who comes in to learn to win and on the higher limit machines, where money means a lot more than points which is exactly the opposite thinking the AP's have so they can make up another baloney-filled winning year by over-valuing all the freebies.
Quote: MathExtremistThis has nothing to do with "safety-net programming" or any secret regulations which you allege exist. It would appear that your understanding of the existing regulations is flawed, and that misunderstanding has caused you to invent these secret ones which enable "safety-net programming." In the likely event that you disagree, I offer this: I can quite easily disprove the existence of your safety-net programming by playing a video poker game and realizing actual results which do not fall within the allowable range you cited above. I will gladly do this in front of you and/or any assembled audience.
You can't be serious. The US (federal) DoD security hierarchy has nothing to do with state gaming regulations, and you have seen no state regulatory document labelled otherwise.
You misunderstand science, Mr. Singer. A single positive test cannot confirm a hypothesis. It can only provide evidence to support it. However, a single negative test can disprove a hypothesis, and that is what I propose. I submit that a single test of your "safety-net programming" assertion will be sufficient to demonstrate that such safety-net programming does not exist as you suggest it does.
Would you be open to accepting the results of such a test, regardless of what they may be?
A) One could easily argue that you yourself provide nothing remotely related to evidence to the contrary. But you are very good indeed at arguing the points and now, coming up with some sort of unnamed test that you would want me to agree to accepting the results of beforehand.....'regardless of what they may be'. I hope you didn't learn that tactic when getting your advanced degree.
B) Of course I'm serious. Every major aerospace company in the US, commercial or DoD, utilizes the same secret/confidential format for safeguarding their documents. States more often than not tend to pigtail off of what the feds do. If you had worked in one of them and in the US Gov't. as I have instead of whatever you did for a machine maker, your scope of experience would have spanned far greater parameters.
C) Now the tough part--and you probably have to make it up right now. What type of one time test would be large enough a sample to prove or disprove anything about a vp machine's operation? If you believe in that, then maybe you'd like to make a bet that my strategy will win what I say it will win in a one time trial?
Quote: RobSingerI'll go thru these two threads' posts one at a time, and then if anyone wants anything further in the form or a bet, a challenge or a debate, e-mail me. Two days watching some people make fools of themselves is about all I like to see anymore.
I take it, then, that you don't own a mirror?
Quote: RobSingerA) One could easily argue that you yourself provide nothing remotely related to evidence to the contrary.
On the contrary, I have cited to three different jurisdictional requirements that games behave randomly, and in all three cases, those regulations would preclude the legality of any "safety-net programming". Safety-net programming (or "risk-mitigation software" as I've known it elsewhere) is based on the premise that if a game has run too hot or cold, it should be forcibly adjusted in the other direction to reduce the variance of the game and mitigate the financial risk to the operator. It's like clipping the tails off the bell curve. The problem is, that's not legal under any regulatory scheme because it breaks several of the randomness criteria, including outcome equiprobability and results correlation.
Your counter-argument to these publicly-available regulations and what they describe is simply your unsubstantiated claim that "VP machines in Nevada do not operate 100% randomly. That is an absolute. Aside from their inherent hot and cold cycles, they include "safety net programming" which keeps them from ever going beyond certain high & low end hold%'s." You say this based only on a conversation you had with a gaming engineer a long time ago, yet the more you describe that conversation, the more it becomes clear to me that you did not understand what you were told. Regulations on RTP are not confidential. In Nevada, there is no regulation for the upper end of the range, but NGC Reg 14 specifies a minimum RTP of 75%. See http://gaming.nv.gov/stats_regs/reg14.pdf, section 14.040. In New Jersey, the RTP range is fixed on both ends -- 83% on the low end, <100% on the high end. But that's also public and not confidential: http://www.state.nj.us/casinos/actreg/reg/docs_chapter46/c46s01sec20to29.pdf, section 19:46-1.28A
Those regulations do not imply "safety-net programming", and in fact other sections of the regulations make such safety-net programming strictly illegal. I dispute your interpretation, and I challenge you to submit any evidence whatsoever that such safety-net programming exists in any VP machine in Nevada.
Quote:C) Now the tough part--and you probably have to make it up right now. What type of one time test would be large enough a sample to prove or disprove anything about a vp machine's operation?
One cannot prove a conjecture. One can only disprove it. Your conjecture is that
All VP games in Nevada operate with safety-net programming which ensures that the results of play will be between 75% RTP and an upper-limit RTP. Let's say the upper limit is 102% just to be safe. You have not ventured a guess as to over how many games that safety net must operate, but let's call that N. That means if I play 2N hands on any machine, every consecutive N-hand sequence must have an actual RTP within the bounds of the safety net.
To give an example of a safety net, let's use a simple coin-flipping scenario. Our example safety net says heads must be between 25% and 75% of the past four trials. That means if the past three flips were tails, the next result will be heads with p=100%, because otherwise you might have four tails in a row and that would be 0% heads in the past four, violating the safety net. In this scenario, the following combinations are not impacted by the safety net:
HHT
HTH
HTT
THH
THT
TTH
but the two combinations
TTT
HHH
would both be intentionally programmed to have opposite outcomes as the prior trial because doing otherwise would violate the safety net.
Back to VP, the safety net in VP would require that the VP results not fall outside the range 75% to 102% over the past N hands. I believe I can play a video poker machine, selected by you, for 2N hands and demonstrate that at least one consecutive N-hand sequence will fall outside the bounds of the alleged safety net. Not only will that result disprove the existence of the safety net programming for that machine, it will also disprove your conjecture that all VP games in Nevada operate with such programming. There is only one question: do you know what N is?
Trying to have an intelligent discussion with Mr. Singer is the equivalent of trying to teach a pig to sing. It wastes
your time and annoys the pig!
Quote: RobSingerA) The low end is 75% in Nevada/the high end is private between the manufacturers and the casinos and must be disclosed to the state. It cannot be changed without first informing the state in writing which must be approved. I was told the only time the state would not approve a request was for the Reserve, 3 months after it opened.
Sounds very official. Could you cite the specific legislation? As you well know, a law can not exist in secret.
The 75% low limit applies to game house edge with correct play. What's more, regulations require game machines that display cards to deal them exactly like they would be dealt from a real random deck, making such a "safety net" incompatible with the law.
Quote: RobSingerB) You may intend secret to be the equal of confidential, but the standard for their interpretation is the US DoD. SECRET is a great deal more restricted than CONFIDENTIAL.
Unclassified/Restricted/Confidential/Secret/TS levels apply only to the government and its agencies.
Private parties can only have unprotected and protected information. Laws that the protection comes from and disclosure rules can vary (trade secrets have primarily civil protection, privilege has criminal), but these are not levels.
No private party has any form of legal protection for its secrets that resembles government's classification; only the government and its agencies have the power of classifying information. Even if a company for some reason marks one of its documents "TS/SCI" and another "Restricted", it's legal recourse abilities against unauthorized disclosure will be exactly the same.
