The Rob Singer Challenge
I also believe some of those complexities had to do with the fact that I was actually going to be playing for real, where as is the case with most mathematicians such as MB, he was operating on the premise of theory. That’s also the reason there were no takers: A forum such as this thrives on quoting theory and probability—but not reality because as we all know, reality scares the living daylights out of theorists.
So now I’m presenting a challenge people can actually put their hands around. Before I identify it, it’s important to let everyone know that I’ll be asking the Wizard to be involved AS A PAID ADMINISTRATOR, I have a gal’s verbal commitment at the LV Sun to cover it, Gaming Today has shown an interest, I will have it filmed for reasons TBD, and I’ll bet even Anthony Curtis will want to be involved. I’m also going to put out an offer to cesspit to work as an administrator of the challenge with Mike, and I will cover his flight and put him up at various hotels for as long as the even lasts. I chose him because in private e-mails, he seems to be well qualified to accomplish what needs to be accomplished in an effort such as this.
The challenge is a 3-part affair, and it’s going out to my most vociferous critic: MathExtremist. The first part is a live debate location TBD. We will discuss my play strategy, whether or not vp machines in Nevada can be truly considered to be 100% random….and why/why not, and of course the test results from the machine I had to work with last summer for a few months. I will provide a list of the TE I used, and as few hard summaries as I can do that’ll accurately present the overall results. I will have a laptop that does have all the electronic data, but it is not as simple as it may seem to incorporate all that into something someone unfamiliar with this particular equipment, and in some cases the German language, can comprehend. There is a point of diminishing returns when time is an issue, and I’m sure we can come to agreement on the parameters of all this.
Key to this is my 5th card flip-over testing. For those unfamiliar with what I’ve been looking into the past few years, 5th card flip-overs represent the odd dealt card that is discarded for another when 2 pair, 4-to-the-flush or SF or RF, 4-to-an-outside-straight (I never go for an inside straight in any game that I play), or when a quad is dealt and the 5th card is not held. In each case, there are 3 remaining cards out of 47 in the deck that are exactly equal (but in different suits) to the discard—or in mathematical terms, a 6.38% possibility that the flip-over card is the exact equal to the discard.
I’ve always noticed this 6.38% didn’t seem to be the case over the years, but seeing that sometimes this flip-over anomaly helped the hand and sometimes it didn’t, I really wasn’t that concerned….until the e-mails began pouring in from others after I mentioned it in one of my e-newsletters. So the testing began.
Personally I played around 45,000 hands and recorded sessions where I saw anywhere from 3% up to over 40%. I did 2 very brief sit-downs with Wizard and Webman of videopoker.com, and both of those fell within the 6% range. That’s a shame, because one or two flips would have made a concerning difference. But none of us had the time required to do a realistic sampling together. So I got my hands on a new generation vp machine like at Aria for a few months and that testing began. I simulated 2,314,340,258 hands, and the flip-over rate was almost double. Coincidence? Magic? Or Reality?
So what’s this all mean? Well, in and of itself, not much. But to me it does say something about the machines not being totally random, and THAT is what I’ve been after for a long time. I’ve seen too much and I’ve been trained too well in my field to write it off to “selective memory” as the critics like to call it. Now I’ve actually got some results that seem to point in the direction I’ve been claiming the machine are pointed for quite some time.
The second part will consist of a bet: I will put up $50,000 cash that I can win at least $2500 at least 8 out of 10 times playing my single-play strategy (6-levels, dollars thru $100 machines) and another $50,000 that I will be ahead by at least $25,000 after my 8th winning session. This will take some time but it is doable. I pick the casinos, the machines and the games. We will agree on the timeframe.
The third part will be my submitting documented, fully-traceable and indisputable evidence that I have won exactly what I said I have (>$984,000) playing those “negative expectation machine that no one can ever win on over time” from the late 90’s thru early 2009 when I quit. This will be a $100,000 bet, again with cash up front, and will consist of tracked bank withdrawals each and every time I left Phoenix to play a session & similarly tracked bank deposits immediately upon returning home that meticulously support my contemporaneous gambling log of amounts won & lost kept for the IRS, full reviews of each year’s tax filings, reviews of the 4 IRS audits I endured during this time, and any and all reviews of password-protected personal bank accounts that anyone requests to see for whatever reason related to this challenge. And if there still remains any doubt whatsoever that’s deemed reasonable by Wizard & cesspit, I will pay for a Nevada arbitrator whose decision will be accepted as final by both parties. This is similar to the Fezzik challenge from 2005, only the bet amount this time is far smaller.
As an example of tracked withdrawals & deposits: On May 10th I withdrew the usual $17,200 from BofA in Phx. to play that night in Nevada. I won $3350. As soon as I return home I deposit EXACTLY $20,550. This tracks exactly with my gambling log which might show $14,000 in W2G’s, but the amount won, i.e. net profit, is exactly $3350. And if I happened to instead lose, then I’d go to BofA in LV and withdraw an additional $40,000 to play the $100 machines. Everything is recorded perfectly without fail, and everything tracks perfectly and without fail. You’ll see that my 4 audits went flawlessly, even though I had to lead them thru most of the way constantly.
So there you have it—a challenge people can actually do, rather than throwing out some theoretical challenge just to solicit ideas on probability theory. I can be contacted as I said earlier. I’m not hard to find, and all questions/responses must go to me via e-mail. If anyone wants to put in some stupid comments here go right ahead, I won’t be reading them. But remember, there are a lot of smart people on this forum who will.
Quote: RobSingerSo now I’m presenting a challenge people can actually put their hands around.
The challenge is a 3-part affair, and it’s going out to my most vociferous critic: MathExtremist. The first part is a live debate location TBD. We will discuss my play strategy, whether or not vp machines in Nevada can be truly considered to be 100% random…
What's the point of discussing? I mean, it's pretty pointless. Either they are random or they aren't. Flapping tongues without any factual data isn't going to change anything or come any closer to the truth.
Quote: RobSingerThe second part will consist of a bet: I will put up $50,000 cash that I can win at least $2500 at least 8 out of 10 times playing my single-play strategy (6-levels, dollars thru $100 machines) and another $50,000 that I will be ahead by at least $25,000 after my 8th winning session. This will take some time but it is doable. I pick the casinos, the machines and the games. We will agree on the timeframe.
Now that is interesting and something that I'd like to see taped - with at least two observers present (Wizard is one).
Quote: RobSingerThe third part will be my submitting documented, fully-traceable and indisputable evidence that I have won exactly what I said I have (>$984,000) playing those “negative expectation machine that no one can ever win on over time” from the late 90’s thru early 2009 when I quit.
I don't think this one makes a strong point, as it doesn't prove the nonexistence of comparable losses.
Even I have about 8:1 in proxy and offshore proxy accounts for every dollar that can be connected to my name, and I don't make most of my income gambling, just stock and commodity trading.
Quote: RobSingerThe second part will consist of a bet: I will put up $50,000 cash that I can win at least $2500 at least 8 out of 10 times playing my single-play strategy (6-levels, dollars thru $100 machines) and another $50,000 that I will be ahead by at least $25,000 after my 8th winning session. This will take some time but it is doable. I pick the casinos, the machines and the games. We will agree on the timeframe.
I apologize if I'm out of line getting involved in this or asking a question but this was posted for all to see so I hope no one minds my asking...
When you mention your "single-play strategy" (6-levels, dollars thru $100 machines), assuming that you were to lose your stake/seed at each of the first 5 levels before moving on to level 6, how much would you be down at that point? Furthermore, if you were down that amount after level 5 and moved on to level 6, what would be your stop-loss at that level? In other words, what is the maximum (or expected) loss for an unsuccessful session moving through all levels?
I hope I've made my question clear and again I apologize if I am sticking my nose into someone else's business. Based upon the answers to these (and possibly other) questions I might be interested in partaking in your wager myself.
Personally, I will accept the challenge if it is based strictly on the ratio of getting the same suit on the replacement card. If said Ratio is outside of statistical norms, which will be clearly stated in advance, Rob will win.
Using a progressive betting system, like the Martingale, it would be easy for Rob to profit on almost every session. I will let Rob choose any machine he likes in Clark County. So he can scour all the casinos he wishes to find one that cheats, tell me the casino and machine number, and I'll accept the challenge. If Rob does not like those terms, Michael Bluejay can be reached at his site https://Easy.Vegas/.
Rob, you may Email me if you accept my terms. The Sun may also approach me.
If we are to believe that the "system" that RS uses is so foolproof, then I want to know why his own son does not use it? If you all remember, RS told us all the sad story of his son's financial problems and how he (RS) stepped in to save the day. RS set up a new personal loan for his son that he told us all that he fully expects his son to be unable to meet the payments on. If you had the keys to the ATM, would you let your children struggle financially?
Quote: timberjimI thought we were done with RS. I held off on this before, but not now.
If we are to believe that the "system" that RS uses is so foolproof, then I want to know why his own son does not use it? If you all remember, RS told us all the sad story of his son's financial problems and how he (RS) stepped in to save the day. RS set up a new personal loan for his son that he told us all that he fully expects his son to be unable to meet the payments on. If you had the keys to the ATM, would you let your children struggle financially?
Rob only claimed, I believe, that he made about $100k per year over 10 years. While not an insignificant sum, it is not 'the keys to the ATM'. Also, I believe the story had Rob significantly helping his son financially. As far as the challenge..... the IRS records would be most intriguing. IF Mr. Singer had a plan, and the plan was to 'show' people that he was making money at VP, SO THAT he could then sell books, systems, etc... then NOT reporting his losing sessions and ONLY reporting his winning sessions would allow him to show VP 'earnings'. If he was willing to pay the taxes, say, 30k per year, he could have considered that payment a business expense, or the cost of advertising, as an example. I think that the debate part of the challenge, even if it did occur, would be useless. ME would say 'you can't beat a negative EV game'... RS would say 'you can in the short run with my special plays' The only resolution will come if a real life challenge ever occurs. By the way, I saw RS's name in different color, is he banned now, too?
Given that track record, I wouldn't trust him to pay a bet.
Quote: RobSingerI simulated 2,314,340,258 hands
Prove it.
That's a much simpler challenge than your proposal above. I challenge you (for perhaps the 8th time...) to post your empirical data and how you obtained it, so that others can perform statistical analyses on the card distributions therein.
Quote: TheNightflyI apologize if I'm out of line getting involved in this or asking a question but this was posted for all to see so I hope no one minds my asking...
When you mention your "single-play strategy" (6-levels, dollars thru $100 machines), assuming that you were to lose your stake/seed at each of the first 5 levels before moving on to level 6, how much would you be down at that point? Furthermore, if you were down that amount after level 5 and moved on to level 6, what would be your stop-loss at that level? In other words, what is the maximum (or expected) loss for an unsuccessful session moving through all levels?
I hope I've made my question clear and again I apologize if I am sticking my nose into someone else's business. Based upon the answers to these (and possibly other) questions I might be interested in partaking in your wager myself.
As I understand it ::
400 Units at each denomination if playing this system : http://vptruth.com/stratsingleplay.cfm
400 Units of the top denomination if playing this system : http://vptruth.com/stratrompadvan.cfm
I would suggest that there needs to be a "loss point" as you state agreed in advance, and I would also suggest that the trial should be ten sessions (or if either party concedes sooner), and that the two bets are 8 from 10 winning sessions, and total profit of $25k (profit from winning sessions, minus loss from losing sessions). Note that the systems both have points where the player locks in small profits amounts so I complete wipe out doesn't lose the player the full bank roll (it's not 400 Units at each level lost).
I believe 8 from 10 winning sessions is in favour of Rob. I am not sure that a total profit is in favour of Rob, but I'd be thinking of that profit over X sessions is the best way to publicly test his system. His claim is that he wins more on the winning sessions to cover the losers.
Quote: gofaster87Just have someone hold the money in escrow and present at the time of the bet. Winner takes all on the spot. Not hard to do.
I'd go on about that, but since Rob's been banned it wouldn't be fair.
Quote: NareedI'd go on about that, but since Rob's been banned it wouldn't be fair.
It seems that Mr. Singer has a track record of taking a leave of absence (either voluntary or otherwise) just as a pointed question is raised. But just imagine the reaction if a real scientist claimed to have an important breakthrough but refused to publish experimental results or testable conclusions in a peer-reviewed journal, and instead conditioned their release on a wager. In what field of inquiry would that behavior be acceptable to anyone?
Thus far, Mr. Singer's so-called undeniable truth is little more than an unsupported conjecture. But "The Unsupported Conjecture About Video Poker" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Quote: gofaster87Just have someone hold the money in escrow and present at the time of the bet. Winner takes all on the spot. Not hard to do.
I bet that Jerry Logan guy wooooda volunteered hehe
Quote: MathExtremistIn what field of inquiry would that behavior be acceptable to anyone?
Oh, I agree, completely. Remember cold fusion? It's more of the same.
But since he can't post here to give his side, it's unfair to discuss the matter further.
Quote:Thus far, Mr. Singer's so-called undeniable truth is little more than an unsupported conjecture. But "The Unsupported Conjecture About Video Poker" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
He should have done a better job, set up a sock puppet, trained him, have him give testimonials, then suddenly and unexpectedly pass away. Then we'd have "Jerry's Last Theorem."
Oh, wait...
Quote: MathExtremistIt seems that Mr. Singer has a track record of taking a leave of absence (either voluntary or otherwise) just as a pointed question is raised. But just imagine the reaction if a real scientist claimed to have an important breakthrough but refused to publish experimental results or testable conclusions in a peer-reviewed journal, and instead conditioned their release on a wager. In what field of inquiry would that behavior be acceptable to anyone?
Thus far, Mr. Singer's so-called undeniable truth is little more than an unsupported conjecture. But "The Unsupported Conjecture About Video Poker" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Was Mr. Singer banned or did he quit voluntarily this time? It does make a difference.
I've followed this some, and I read on one of the threads where he offerred to send you his complete findings BEFORE meeting you for the debate. I didn't see a requirement for a wager there. It appears now that there is this time, but it may be only because you did not accept him sending you the data in the initial offer. Aside, is this really something you'd expect to see in a peer-reviewed video poker journal (is there even one?)? If I understood it I'd love to get my hands on the data any way possible, especially if I doubted it. Why didn't you accept his offer to send it? Then you'd at least be able to report your interpretation.
JIMMYFOCKER: If this man's been "proven a fraud years ago" then who in their right mind, since they know this as a fact, would not want any of the action he's proposing? I would do it if I could afford it, or I'd at least try to get a consortium together knowing it's a sure thing bet.
Quote: JL2Was Mr. Singer banned or did he quit voluntarily this time? It does make a difference.
I've followed this some, and I read on one of the threads where he offerred to send you his complete findings BEFORE meeting you for the debate. I didn't see a requirement for a wager there. It appears now that there is this time, but it may be only because you did not accept him sending you the data in the initial offer.
It appears he was banned, though I'm not sure why. Perhaps the Wizard can clarify that part.
The only offer he ever made w.r.t. his results was to send them via private communications. He wanted me to accept boxes of paper printouts sent via UPS, which is pretty ridiculous considering he has everything in electronic form. I and several others have asked many times for his results to be posted on the Internet. He has his own domain so there's no issue with that. So far, no dice.
But just how ridiculous is it to suggest I look over his paper results? MKL did an initial estimate, and carrying that further, I've just estimated that based on 8pt font, you might be able to cram 500 hands onto a single sheet of paper. That means Mr. Singer's printouts would take over 4.6 million sheets of paper. At 1 page per second, it would take nearly two months to print out. I can't imagine Mr. Singer is actually willing to print and ship 4.6 million sheets of paper -- it'd cost him well over $10,000 in paper alone.
The only reason I can think of that he's failed to post his electronic results on the Internet is that he's trying to hide something, such as that his test results don't actually support his findings. Or that he has no test results at all and his story about testing a VP machine is a total fabrication.
This seems to say that this time there will be paper summaries, not pages and pages with every tiny detail, that address overall results. It also seems to say the laptop will include all those little details that folks like me get irritated by but folks like you probably understand. Then I see 2 alerts, first that those details have something to do with the type testing equipment that was used and not everyone may be able to easily understand the reporting structure; and, some of it's in German. My assumption is that he understands both and can explain any of it in person. Maybe just throwing this up on some website would generate way too many questions to be worth it.
It just looks like to me that you and he are not communicating as well as possible. He's mumbling about how laying it all out there electronically is not as easy as it looks for certain reasons, and you're criticizing him for not finding a way to do it, even suggesting he never tested anything as an unsettling answer. But as a 3rd party I see what he's trying to say, that summaries exist and details exist, but not all in the same format. Not even all in the same language. I agree its silly to expect him to print everything and for him to suggest it, but I do think he's come up with a good alternative here.
My 2c, and that may be all it's worth when there's an argument between others.
Quote: MathExtremistIt appears he was banned, though I'm not sure why. Perhaps the Wizard can clarify that part.
Here is what happened with RobSinger:
1. He insulted me.
2. He was supposed to be suspended, but I suspended RobMorrow in error.
3. He got angry at the suspension and resigned.
4. I accepted the resignation.
5. After he posted in this thread I realized my mistake, unbanned RobMorrow, and banned RobSinger.
By the way, you can see who is banned, why, and for how long on the suspension list.
Please don't waste your time responding to his challenge because he won't be allowed to return. The only way I could see letting him come back is if the two of us agree on the terms of a challenge via Email.
Quote:The only way I could see letting him come back is if the two of us agree on the terms of a challenge via Email.
Too bad you can't make these kind of wagers payoff somehow, like a fine/(penalty wager) for not meeting some overly reasonable deadline. At least you could get something out of it.
Quote: JL2While I'm not the expert Mr. mkl appeared to be on these things, all I can go by is what Mr. singer wrote in his post here before being banned for some reason. He said "I will provide a list of the TE I used, and as few hard summaries as I can do that’ll accurately present the overall results. I will have a laptop that does have all the electronic data, but it is not as simple as it may seem to incorporate all that into something someone unfamiliar with this particular equipment, and in some cases the German language, can comprehend. There is a point of diminishing returns when time is an issue, and I’m sure we can come to agreement on the parameters of all this."
This seems to say that this time there will be paper summaries, not pages and pages with every tiny detail, that address overall results. It also seems to say the laptop will include all those little details that folks like me get irritated by but folks like you probably understand. Then I see 2 alerts, first that those details have something to do with the type testing equipment that was used and not everyone may be able to easily understand the reporting structure; and, some of it's in German. My assumption is that he understands both and can explain any of it in person. Maybe just throwing this up on some website would generate way too many questions to be worth it.
It just looks like to me that you and he are not communicating as well as possible. He's mumbling about how laying it all out there electronically is not as easy as it looks for certain reasons, and you're criticizing him for not finding a way to do it, even suggesting he never tested anything as an unsettling answer. But as a 3rd party I see what he's trying to say, that summaries exist and details exist, but not all in the same format. Not even all in the same language. I agree its silly to expect him to print everything and for him to suggest it, but I do think he's come up with a good alternative here.
My 2c, and that may be all it's worth when there's an argument between others.
I disagree -- I think the communication of my message, "post your data on the Internet", has been as clear as possible. And I don't buy the idea that he's presented any sort of reasonable alternative. At some level, if you're generating 2.3B hands of VP and you actually have all that data recorded, you're going to have a record of 2.3B instances of 10 numbers between 0 and 51 (or 52, in the case of a joker). That's numeric data, not dependent on the German language or any type of testing equipment. Either he has the data or he doesn't, and if he does, it's decipherable -- at a minimum, using software. It's part of my job to analyze such data and to write such software, but I haven't had that opportunity here.
Mr. Singer has purposefully withheld his alleged data despite numerous requests for it. Yet only by analyzing his data -- and not merely by looking at a few of his hand-crafted summaries -- can anyone confirm or reject his conclusions, because without that, his conclusions stand as unverifiable. No debate can change that. Part of the inherent problem with Mr. Singer's proposal is that he is purposefully making time an issue (his words). He won't show anyone his data except in person, and only then if the reviewer has agreed to have a debate moments afterwards. That's just silly. If he really wants to "come to agreement on the parameters of this", then the parameters are simple: publish the data on the Internet. Not as a precondition to a "debate", not with an artificially-short timeframe for review, and not with him looking over anyone's shoulder.
This is much how research occurs in the academic world... no-one necessarily releases all their raw data out to everyone, but makes it available to those who express and interest based on published papers and findings.
Data without method is much less useful that method without data.
Quote: MathExtremistI disagree -- I think the communication of my message, "post your data on the Internet", has been as clear as possible. And I don't buy the idea that he's presented any sort of reasonable alternative. At some level, if you're generating 2.3B hands of VP and you actually have all that data recorded, you're going to have a record of 2.3B instances of 10 numbers between 0 and 51 (or 52, in the case of a joker). That's numeric data, not dependent on the German language or any type of testing equipment. Either he has the data or he doesn't, and if he does, it's decipherable -- at a minimum, using software. It's part of my job to analyze such data and to write such software, but I haven't had that opportunity here.
Mr. Singer has purposefully withheld his alleged data despite numerous requests for it. Yet only by analyzing his data -- and not merely by looking at a few of his hand-crafted summaries -- can anyone confirm or reject his conclusions, because without that, his conclusions stand as unverifiable. No debate can change that. Part of the inherent problem with Mr. Singer's proposal is that he is purposefully making time an issue (his words). He won't show anyone his data except in person, and only then if the reviewer has agreed to have a debate moments afterwards. That's just silly. If he really wants to "come to agreement on the parameters of this", then the parameters are simple: publish the data on the Internet. Not as a precondition to a "debate", not with an artificially-short timeframe for review, and not with him looking over anyone's shoulder.
I understood 10% of that (not your fault, mine). What I did understand is that he's saying it's not possible for him to transfer the entire data to here or on his site, and you believe he can. Then he also offerred to have the data available on a laptop, but you decline that option due to I think not having enough time to review it before a debate occurs. I see two things. You could not possibly know the entire scope of what's restricting him (maybe proprietary site info, confidentiality issues, ??) and since you believe it's an easier task than he says, then you portray his data as non-existent. That doesn't seem fair.
It sounds to me he wants you to review the data on his laptop too, and he's saying he needs to be there to help you navigate the data properly. That could be true, why not? I can't read German and if any columns or pages are in that language I'd sure like to have him or a translator around. And he may feel more comfortable being there to answer questions in case you get lost, which could happen with anyone. So why don't you just ask him to see if he can meet your timeframe for reviewing everything, understanding everything, and only after all that you two can have a great debate? It sure beats speculating and assuming when he is not allowed to be here anymore, right?
Quote: thecesspitThe first step is to post a summary of the method and results. The raw data is something that follows up when people can self-select after ready that information.
This is much how research occurs in the academic world... no-one necessarily releases all their raw data out to everyone, but makes it available to those who express and interest based on published papers and findings.
Data without method is much less useful that method without data.
Not to be funny, but in what part of the universe are video poker machines a part of the academic world? I heard Tanya Harding sits at them a lot.
To me it looks like everyone is close. Mr. singer has all the data, Mathextremist wants it all electronically and believes he'll understand it on his own when he really couldn't absolutely know if that's true, and you (aren't you one of the proposed administrators mentioned?) believe he can put up summaries of the data. So why can't Math E contact singer to get together under the conditions I suggested? What is wrong with that, and why is Math E so opposed to meeting with him? Where's the harm? He'll get the summaries and the details from what I read. See if you can get him to call off the bets on the other things if that's what's scaring anyone. I'll even volunteer to be a referee!
Quote: JL2Not to be funny, but in what part of the universe are video poker machines a part of the academic world? I heard Tanya Harding sits at them a lot.
Not to be funny, but seeing as the scientific method works (bitches). Summaries of experiments are a great way of sharing information, I'm suggesting it as a good model for cleanly relating people's findings. There's a very clear parallel here. Someone did an experiment, and wants to have other people believe their results.
As this method has been used for decades for transferring information, especially information that parties might find surprising, I fail to see why using that model isn't a good one.
And the academic world frequently experiments on real systems. Don't for one second think that academic means abstract theory.
I again see nothing wrong in stating that the best way to self-select those people who would have a useful opinion on the method used to collect the data, and the summary of said data is to summarise the method used and the overall results found.
If Rob Singer stated he used system X to generate a signal, Y to convert the output signal to a digital system, program Z to convert and output a hold series and the same test harness to print to a file, while stablising the clock with a signal from system Q, those people who knew X,Y,Z and Q would be useful to analyse is further. If Laughing McLaugherson from Buttsville Arizona yacks up and says "it's too hard, explain it to me" you naturally spend less time than the guy who says "did you use a gain of 3Hz on the dc-couple end of the DSP, or ramp it through a phase controlled Op-Amp to ensure the clock was synchronizes" you know that they aren't a waste of time.
Quote: JL2
It sounds to me he wants you to review the data on his laptop too,
Gosh, JL2, you sure know a LOT about this. And you just joined. When I first saw your name, I thought 'Jerry Logan 2'. Its almost like you and Jerry and Singer are the same person. Weird, huh.
Quote: JL2I understood 10% of that (not your fault, mine). What I did understand is that he's saying it's not possible for him to transfer the entire data to here or on his site, and you believe he can. Then he also offerred to have the data available on a laptop, but you decline that option due to I think not having enough time to review it before a debate occurs. I see two things. You could not possibly know the entire scope of what's restricting him (maybe proprietary site info, confidentiality issues, ??) and since you believe it's an easier task than he says, then you portray his data as non-existent. That doesn't seem fair.
That's not why I portray the data as non-existent. I don't think it exists because I can't imagine that someone would actually spend the months he claims to have spent:
1) generating 2.3B hands of VP,
2) performing a proper statistical analysis (the evidence of that is scant -- not even summary conclusions in anything resembling numeric form),
3) arriving at a conclusion that VP games are unfair, and then
4) not altering his play strategy as a result of that finding.
Mr. Singer has admitted that his play strategy does not take into account his conclusive evidence that VP games are unfair. If he's not willing to bet on his results, why should anyone else?
And of course it's possible to transfer data over the Internet. It won't be small -- 2.3B hands would be quite a large amount of data, in fact -- but "difficult" or "tedious" and "not possible" are two very different things. It would be merely "difficult" or "tedious" if he had 2.3B hands in some sort of binary format. It would only be "not possible" if he didn't have the data at all.
Quote: EvenBobGosh, JL2, you sure know a LOT about this. And you just joined. When I first saw your name, I thought 'Jerry Logan 2'. Its almost like you and Jerry and Singer are the same person. Weird, huh.
Years ago, I had a fling with a girl out of state. Even though we used e-mail to communicate (early Internet days), people still sent the occasional letter. So, I got a letter from her and took it from the mailbox and tore it open in my car. The thing had a bunch of glitter in it and it went all over me and the car. A year later, about 8 months since I last saw her), I still kept finding some of that damn glitter somewhere no matter how many times I vacuumed.
I hear bedbugs are hard to get rid of too.
Quote: EvenBobGosh, JL2, you sure know a LOT about this. And you just joined. When I first saw your name, I thought 'Jerry Logan 2'. Its almost like you and Jerry and Singer are the same person. Weird, huh.
JL2, in the hindsight, doesn't it seem to you that the new nick could have been a bit less conspicuous? Duh ...
Quote: thecesspitNot to be funny, but seeing as the scientific method works (bitches). Summaries of experiments are a great way of sharing information, I'm suggesting it as a good model for cleanly relating people's findings. There's a very clear parallel here. Someone did an experiment, and wants to have other people believe their results.
As this method has been used for decades for transferring information, especially information that parties might find surprising, I fail to see why using that model isn't a good one.
And the academic world frequently experiments on real systems. Don't for one second think that academic means abstract theory.
At least equally important in the scientific method is one major step that has gone unmentioned here. It is whether the results can be reproduced. Anyone wanna bet on that one or are the odds just too long?
Quote: MathExtremistThat's not why I portray the data as non-existent. I don't think it exists because I can't imagine that someone would actually spend the months he claims to have spent:
1) generating 2.3B hands of VP,
2) performing a proper statistical analysis (the evidence of that is scant -- not even summary conclusions in anything resembling numeric form),
3) arriving at a conclusion that VP games are unfair, and then
4) not altering his play strategy as a result of that finding.
Mr. Singer has admitted that his play strategy does not take into account his conclusive evidence that VP games are unfair. If he's not willing to bet on his results, why should anyone else?
And of course it's possible to transfer data over the Internet. It won't be small -- 2.3B hands would be quite a large amount of data, in fact -- but "difficult" or "tedious" and "not possible" are two very different things. It would be merely "difficult" or "tedious" if he had 2.3B hands in some sort of binary format. It would only be "not possible" if he didn't have the data at all.
I don't know about 1) through 3), but in reference to #4 I remember reading that he did this experiment after retiring. His site says upon reaching 60 it no longer made sense for him to go to Nevada, he had better use for his time, and he doesn't really need the money generated from playing the game. So subsequently altering his play strategy is a moot point, no?
I did read where he approached vp as if the games were completely random. That only makes sense to me, especially when he's also said he has not concluded if the non-random part hurts or helps the player overall.
I didn't see where he's ever said data transfer is impossible. To me it appears he wants to be certain no mis-interpretation takes place, and why not? Wouldn't you? He ran the tests, he's the expert on everything about them, and just from the skepticism I see here the review would be biased the moment it began. His involvement, for accuracy and clarity and even translation in some areas, should be welcome by any scientist who truly wants accurate answers.
As I've said, you are all so close. But I'm stepping away now because I have no doubt that you are looking for every excuse not to meet with him, and that makes no sense if you eliminate the possiblity you're playing it safe. And why I say that is because you know you can't communicate with him here, you're trying to make your case to everyone but the person to whom it matters, and it just seems like you don't really want to go through with it.
How difficult is it to ask him to call off the wager parts, if that's what your hang-up is, and set up a meet to get this done? It can't hurt! The very name "MathExtremist" means you'll go to extremes to get your data to solve problems, right? Why not live up to your name?
Quote: weaselmanJL2, in the hindsight, doesn't it seem to you that the new nick could have been a bit less conspicuous? Duh ...
I'll be anybody you want me to be. Just ask.
Quote: JL2I'll be anybody you want me to be. Just ask.
Can you be my grandmother? I need to ask you where you hid your jewelry before you died.
Quote: JL2How difficult is it to ask him to call off the wager parts, if that's what your hang-up is, and set up a meet to get this done?
How difficult is for Rob Singer to publish his results and method? In other words, how difficult is it for him to back his claims with evidence?
Anwyay, I wasn't going to say this, but in view of JL2's post I thought it woudl be appropriate: Anyone taking the Singer challenge, I've a bridge I could be persuaded to sell.
Quote: JL2He ran the tests, he's the expert on everything about them, and just from the skepticism I see here the review would be biased the moment it began. His involvement, for accuracy and clarity and even translation in some areas, should be welcome by any scientist who truly wants accurate answers.
So it cannot be accurately reproduced by anyone. No surprise there! Nor is there any surprise that the entire proposal is thereby invalidated.
Quote: NareedHow difficult is for Rob Singer to publish his results and method? In other words, how difficult is it for him to back his claims with evidence?
Anwyay, I wasn't going to say this, but in view of JL2's post I thought it woudl be appropriate: Anyone taking the Singer challenge, I've a bridge I could be persuaded to sell.
A) I though we discussed the degree of difficulty. I understand it not to be completely difficult, but that Mr. singer wishes the review to be accurate. And to get to that end since he is the only one to fully understand all the details, which any scientist would also need to do in order to perform a proper review without assumptions, and to address possible language issues, he would like to be present for questions and assistance where needed. That's not unreasonable at all. It seems to me that anyone truly interested in the data would be more than willing to set up a meet. I've seen the guy in a photo with W0V, so I'd say if a meet is requested he'll more than likely attend.
B) As interesting as A) is, I'd not miss a chance at following anyone accepting the other wager parts of Mr. singer's challenge. I've seen people call him a fraud and make all sorts of claims about him here. It sure does appear he laid out some pretty clear proposals to support his side. I saw WoV agree his strategy will produce a great many winners. On other forums that's always followed by "but he will lose overall". If that's the case here also, then the part where he says he'll bet he'll be ahead by at least $25000 after winning 8 or 10 attempts, should look like an easy money bet for the doubters. Let's have some action!
Quote: SanchoPanzaSo it cannot be accurately reproduced by anyone. No surprise there! Nor is there any surprise that the entire proposal is thereby invalidated.
Is that really true? If you could get your hands on a machine and the same testing equipment used, then why wouldn't the test be capable of being reproduced?
Quote: JL2I don't know about 1) through 3), but in reference to #4 I remember reading that he did this experiment after retiring. His site says upon reaching 60 it no longer made sense for him to go to Nevada, he had better use for his time, and he doesn't really need the money generated from playing the game. So subsequently altering his play strategy is a moot point, no?
I don't know where you got your facts, but he was in Nevada earlier this year teaching his strategy to a former member of this forum. He writes books and articles about his strategies and offers in-person education. It is therefore far from a moot point that he has not taken his own research into account.
Quote:I did read where he approached vp as if the games were completely random. That only makes sense to me, especially when he's also said he has not concluded if the non-random part hurts or helps the player overall.
Does it make sense to you that he has not bothered to conclude if the non-random part hurts or helps the player overall? By that measure, Singer has simply performed part of an experiment, allegedly made a discovery, and then decided to quit further experimentation before determining whether his discovery really matters -- instead proceeding with his life as if his alleged experiment never happened.
SanchoPanza made a very good observation: a key feature of any scientific experiment is reproducibility. Yet Mr. Singer has provided no information toward that end. We don't even know what equipment he used to actually test the machines -- just the manufacturer, a company that makes radio testing equipment. What did he use? How did he use it? What kind of data did he really generate? What were his experimental methods? Singer has provided none of those facts. He's just moved on, continuing on playing VP and teaching his VP methods to others as if his experiment never happened.
I disagree that we are all "so close". Mr. Singer has gone to great lengths to avoid answering the how, why, what of his alleged experiments. I have no faith that he will ever produce results or other reproducible evidence of his experimentation. Even discounting Mr. Singer's less-than-savory behavior on and off this forum, his complete unwillingness to answer the most basic questions about his alleged experiments casts grave doubts on his credibility and defies good faith. It's not up to me or any of his other critics to demonstrate his truthfulness. It's up to him.
As to living up to my name -- I do indeed go to extremes to solve mathematical problems for my clients. Mr. Singer is not one of them.
Quote: JL2A) I though we discussed the degree of difficulty. I understand it not to be completely difficult, but that Mr. singer wishes the review to be accurate. And to get to that end since he is the only one to fully understand all the details, which any scientist would also need to do in order to perform a proper review without assumptions, and to address possible language issues, he would like to be present for questions and assistance where needed.
That's needlessly complicated. Besides, in all the years he's been making claims he's had ample time to demonstate them. He doesn't have to do it inthis website or even through Michael Shackleford.
Quote: NareedThat's needlessly complicated. Besides, in all the years he's been making claims he's had ample time to demonstate them. He doesn't have to do it inthis website or even through Michael Shackleford.
Huh? It's needlessly complicated for someone with data to want to be present when someone else is reviewing, making assumptions on, and reporting on said data that the likely recipient has already stated that he knows little to nothing about what he'll be reviewing until he sees it?
I don't believe the data from testing has been compiled for even a year yet.?
Quote: JL2Huh? It's needlessly complicated for someone with data to want to be present when someone else is reviewing, making assumptions on, and reporting on said data that the likely recipient has already stated that he knows little to nothing about what he'll be reviewing until he sees it?
Complication doesn't matter. Peer-review cannot be contingent on such oversight or it is illegitimate. In real science, a researcher publishes his experimental methods and initial results and says to the world "Here's how I set up my experiment and ran it, and here is the summary of my results. Please go ahead and reproduce my experiment to verify my results." It's usually the grad students who do the latter, but the point is that the researcher published the information to allow that verification to happen. Singer hasn't published his methods -- that's not good. You think it's okay that Singer hasn't published his methods -- that's worse. Playing Singer's apologist makes you look bad.
Quote: MathExtremistI don't know where you got your facts, but he was in Nevada earlier this year teaching his strategy to a former member of this forum. He writes books and articles about his strategies and offers in-person education. It is therefore far from a moot point that he has not taken his own research into account.
Does it make sense to you that he has not bothered to conclude if the non-random part hurts or helps the player overall? By that measure, Singer has simply performed part of an experiment, allegedly made a discovery, and then decided to quit further experimentation before determining whether his discovery really matters -- instead proceeding with his life as if his alleged experiment never happened.
SanchoPanza made a very good observation: a key feature of any scientific experiment is reproducibility. Yet Mr. Singer has provided no information toward that end. We don't even know what equipment he used to actually test the machines -- just the manufacturer, a company that makes radio testing equipment. What did he use? How did he use it? What kind of data did he really generate? What were his experimental methods? Singer has provided none of those facts. He's just moved on, continuing on playing VP and teaching his VP methods to others as if his experiment never happened.
I disagree that we are all "so close". Mr. Singer has gone to great lengths to avoid answering the how, why, what of his alleged experiments. I have no faith that he will ever produce results or other reproducible evidence of his experimentation. Even discounting Mr. Singer's less-than-savory behavior on and off this forum, his complete unwillingness to answer the most basic questions about his alleged experiments casts grave doubts on his credibility and defies good faith. It's not up to me or any of his other critics to demonstrate his truthfulness. It's up to him.
As to living up to my name -- I do indeed go to extremes to solve mathematical problems for my clients. Mr. Singer is not one of them.
I don't think he writes books any more and these's no current articles on his website.
I play video poker. I would find it impossible to detect some of these things, let alone conclude if any anomalies are favorable to me. Maybe the equipment doesn't report that way. If I'm not up to making assumptions, should anyone be?
In part 1 of his challenge he said he'd provide a list of testing equipment used. Clear as day. If you want to know what that was now why can't you just ask him for it?? For sure you have other valid questions, all of which he appears to want to answer when you're together. That's a helluva lot more efficient when questions and issues arise, don't you think? Have you even attempted to offer anything close to an alternate method of doing any of this to him other than hoping he reads about it here, which he said he would not by the way? I just can't get over how you know he wants you to review his findings, you also would like to do that, and if you can get him to remove the wager parts then it can all happen in good faith as you say, right? Then go for it.......contact him for God's sake! Communication is the key to the universe.
Quote: MathExtremistComplication doesn't matter. Peer-review cannot be contingent on such oversight or it is illegitimate. In real science, a researcher publishes his experimental methods and initial results and says to the world "Here's how I set up my experiment and ran it, and here is the summary of my results. Please go ahead and reproduce my experiment to verify my results." It's usually the grad students who do the latter, but the point is that the researcher published the information to allow that verification to happen. Singer hasn't published his methods -- that's not good. You think it's okay that Singer hasn't published his methods -- that's worse. Playing Singer's apologist makes you look bad.
That's beyond me. All I can say is "can you read german too?" Once I saw that I would no sooner try to take this on without him present than I would wrestle an alligator.
Quote: JL2Huh? It's needlessly complicated for someone with data to want to be present when someone else is reviewing, making assumptions on, and reporting on said data that the likely recipient has already stated that he knows little to nothing about what he'll be reviewing until he sees it?
Yes, it's needlessly complicated. What did Singer do? Develop his own proprietary math?
But even if he has to be present and explain, hasn't he had time to ask the Wizard or any other interested party for a simple meeting? If a certain Dr. Fleming had conducted himself this way, we'd still be waiting for some means to kill bacteria safely within a human body. But then Fleming did ahve somethign real, so he had no qualms about proving it.
Look, the history of science is full of claims that seem extraordinary when they are first made. A means of measuring the precise volume of an irregular solid? Outrageous. A way of determining the chemical composition of a mix of rare earths without using chemical means? Ridiculous. Predicting when a comet will appear? Don't make me laugh.
But all these claims were backed up with solid evidence, not with requests for debates to refute them.
Quote: JL2In part 1 of his challenge he said he'd provide a list of testing equipment used. Clear as day. If you want to know what that was now why can't you just ask him for it??
I did ask him for it -- months ago. So did many others. His reaction then was the same as his reaction now -- he got angry and left in a huff, without disclosing any substantive details about his alleged research. That's twice now he's responded in exactly the same way, by ducking the issue instead of answering basic questions. Why should anyone treat him as credible when he behaves like that? Why do you?
