The Rob Singer Challenge
Quote: NareedYes, 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.
Look, you folks admit not knowing anything about what he did, what he used or how he used it. I don't see it as any secret math or whatever. I see it as him requesting for the reviewer(s) to be there when he presents his evidence. Then the debate can begin. How logical & simple!
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 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.
Actually, approaching this skeptically is the right way to do it. Skepticism does not mean dismissing all the evidence if it doesn't meet your pre-determined viewpoint.
Skeptical Inquiry mean critical thinking. This means not pre-supposing the data is wrong, but analyzing using a logical tool set, looking to see if the effect reported can come from another source and then reporting evenly on those results.
The way it would work, as I keep stating is to publish the method and summary, and then be available to answer questions and clarify any points necessary, with the same open mind. It maybe there is experimental error in the results that Rob is unaware of. It may be that there is such an effect in a certain brand of machines. Think is, no-one can state that at all. Not even Rob Singer, as without a review of his methods he himself cannot be sure his results are correct (it may be that Mr Singer did have his process and results reviewed by a third party... if so, then the last statement is incorrect).
It is all moot to discuss it on a forum where the principal is not able to respond, so it becomes like discussing the length of the King of China's nose. Rob's email is readily available, so anyone who does care can email him directly and ask for the data/method/process themselves and decide if they like the answer given.
The premise of skepticism, if this has not already been said elsewhere in this thread, is that "incredible claims require incredible proof." If I claim a teapot is orbiting between earth and mars, what proof would you expect that I provide? I think Rob Singer's claims are equivalent to a teapot orbiting ...Quote: thecesspitSkepticism does not mean dismissing all the evidence if it doesn't meet your pre-determined viewpoint.
Listen to this fantastic speech Ricahrd Dawkins at TED
--Ms. D.
Quote: JL2Look, you folks admit not knowing anything about what he did, what he used or how he used it. I don't see it as any secret math or whatever. I see it as him requesting for the reviewer(s) to be there when he presents his evidence. Then the debate can begin. How logical & simple!
Except for the debate part. If Singer can demonstrate something, there's no need for debate. Math is not a matter of opinion. There is room for interpretation, of course, but that isn't debate.
And the wanting to be there part, too. Are the results dependent on his presence?
Aside from that, I admit I don't know what Singer did or how he did it. Considering how he's gone about it, I don't even know for certain he's done anything.
Quote: NareedI admit I don't know what Singer did or how he did it. Considering how he's gone about it, I don't even know for certain he's done anything.
Best two lines from the several threads on this subject.
Quote: MathExtremistI 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?
I did have to look at some threads to find the answer. Are you sure you or anyone else didn't e-mail him for a listing of equipment used? After all, that's how he requested the questions come to him from what I read, so asking him for info knowing he's gone really doesn't count. He also just posted in this thread that he'd provide that at the meet, but if that's not atisfactory to you then why not send him an e-mail like he requested?
Here's what I'd do if I were in your position:
1. I'd e-mail Mr. singer telling him how interested you are in reviewing his data and everything about it. I'd ask if he could do so without a committment for those other wagers because I don't see your interest or even criticism there. Never mind what you previously did or think you did because all that does is show complaining which gets nothing done fast. It's clear he has left and he left the last time while leaving his e-mail addresses which were probably ignored. There's a clear path to getting things done this time, no?
2. I'd ask for a listing of the testing equipment used, what tests he performed, what type of data he obtained, and anything else scientific minds would request to get a basic understanding of what went down.
3. I'd then say I'd like to actually do the meet to review the details, and he could be available for assistance is clearing up anything that's not understandable so you may come to an adequate conclusion about what the data means to you.
4. I'd ask if the results were reproducible but I think I know the answer to that criticism already. You'd need the machine and testing equipment to accomplish that. So I'd say it IS reproducible IF those things were available, wouldn't you?
Quote: NareedExcept for the debate part. If Singer can demonstrate something, there's no need for debate. Math is not a matter of opinion. There is room for interpretation, of course, but that isn't debate.
And the wanting to be there part, too. Are the results dependent on his presence?
Aside from that, I admit I don't know what Singer did or how he did it. Considering how he's gone about it, I don't even know for certain he's done anything.
I'll take exception to that. Mr. singer for example states that his flipover rate was nearly double that which the math says it should be. He will present evidence that confirms that in his data. I see lots of room for debate on that issue alone, especially from critics who will probably claim something isn't right somewhere. And there's bound to be a few of those around from my times reading the video poker forums.
I take the opposite road. Having no proof that he didn't do anything and given his open offer to show that/what he did, it's more likely that he DID do what he says.
Quote: JL2I'll take exception to that.
Take whatever you want.
Quote:Mr. singer for example states that his flipover rate was nearly double that which the math says it should be. He will present evidence that confirms that in his data. I see lots of room for debate on that issue alone, especially from critics who will probably claim something isn't right somewhere.
That's not debate. That's review. If an astronomer claimed to have detected absolute zero temperatures inside the Sun, I'd expect him to produce the evidence, not to debate the matter. And given what's known about the Sun, I would suspect he got something wrong somewhere.
Quote:I take the opposite road. Having no proof that he didn't do anything and given his open offer to show that/what he did, it's more likely that he DID do what he says.
Take whatever road you take. The road I'd take is to approach Singer as I would a con-man.
Quote: JL2I'll take exception to that. Mr. singer for example states that his flipover rate was nearly double that which the math says it should be. He will present evidence that confirms that in his data.
Okay, we'll wait right here for that evidence. It's only been 18 months, after all:
https://wizardofodds.com/news/Chat-wih-Rob-Singer.html
Quote: JL2Having no proof that he didn't do anything and given his open offer to show that/what he did, it's more likely that he DID do what he says.
I asked him in person for his evidence and was denied.
By the way, I have some magic beans that will grow a beanstalk that leads to a magical kingdom in the sky. I have proof of this, but won't say what the proof is and nobody else seems to have seen said proof. However, I'm sure you believe, don't you?
My own particular consulting work was for a guy who developed a roulette computer depicted in video at 3:00 . He didn't even want me to realize what the device was, he just wanted the data analyzed to use the decay rates to predict the quadrant that the ball ended up in. I figured out what he was doing anyway. He didn't like my answer and only paid me begrudgingly.
out. But I do have the empty bag. Geez it should be proof enough !!
Quote: DorothyGaleThe premise of skepticism, if this has not already been said elsewhere in this thread, is that "incredible claims require incredible proof." If I claim a teapot is orbiting between earth and mars, what proof would you expect that I provide? I think Rob Singer's claims are equivalent to a teapot orbiting ...
Listen to this fantastic speech Ricahrd Dawkins at TED
--Ms. D.
I completely agree with this as well, and part of the original thread kicked off by me stating exactly that ... the claim that VP machines work differently to the published, publically available regulations was extraordinary and required extraordinary evidence.
----
I was more bristling that being a "Skeptic" or "Critic" is some how a bad thing. Skeptical and Critical analysis of someone's work is the reason I get paid each month, and 95% of the time, people thank me for doing it. Being a "critic" of Rob Singer is often portrayed as being a negative thing and there just to attack it for the sake it being different. In my own case, this is very far from the truth, and I'd hope in my conversations on this board and with Rob himself that is borne out.
I'm not about to make any large bets on his play, record of play or a debate on fifth card flip over. The last only interests me as I want to know HOW someone tests a VP machine. And on the former I don't have 50 grand lying around to escrow. And if I did, I would not spend it on a challenge that may or may not happen for a variety of logistical reasons. My intellectual interest doesn't stretch that far.
Quote: NareedPeople who are evidentiary challenged shouldn't issue challenges :P
You haven't really made your case, you just disagree.
MathE, didn't his machine testing come after that interview, and didn't he already mention that they looked at an insignificant amount of hands that wouldn't be indicative of anything, or at least not nearly as relevant as 2.3b hands would be, correct? Even you would concede that many hands would drive home some kind of point either way.
So wizard, how could you have asked for that evidence if he did not in fact do the testing yet? If you're saying there was some data on the hands he tested beforehand, did he use any recording equipment where he could have provided anything? I seem to remember it was like him vs. real casino machines, in which case there could be nothing other than his findings by playing and in which case one would actually expect to see someone like him do further testing on a real machine. Sounds like he followed a sensible path to me. Why poke fun at it? I could see that if the data were reviewed and found to be hokey. But now, after posting what he did and prior to seeing anything relevant?
thecesspit, wouldn't that extraordinary evidence be exactly what he's trying to show any interested party, in person? Remember, only he knows everything about that evidence and I see it as perfectly normal to want only accurate reviews and findings by others. He says that can only be accomplished by being present and I agree. Who wouldn't? It's not like he's trying to get out of it, it's in fact just the other way around. Just read the posts here!
I think you're safe from any bets since he asked you to be an administrator whatever that means, but it comes with a free room and flight. That's a good thing. I think the bet part was put out, as I conjectured before, to a consortium of critics who've called him a fraud. He says he can prove he's truthful and in front of others. He wants to make a wager on that. What better proof of anything than to perform in front of others? This is a forum loaded with gamblers, right? Then where are they?
Quote: JL2You haven't really made your case, you just disagree.
Are you Rob's Sock Puppet? I claim you are. I'll issue a challenge to show my evidence sometime in the near future.
I'm not making any claims, Singer is. I don't have to disprove his claims, Singer has to prove his.
Quote: thecesspitI was more bristling that being a "Skeptic" or "Critic" is some how a bad thing. Skeptical and Critical analysis of someone's work is the reason I get paid each month, and 95% of the time, people thank me for doing it.
No problem with Skeptic. As for Critic, that depends: do you do any literary criticism? If not, all's well. If yes, I hate your guts unless you give my golden prose the high praise it so clearly deserves :P
Seriously, writers shouldn't read reviews.
Quote:Being a "critic" of Rob Singer is often portrayed as being a negative thing and there just to attack it for the sake it being different. In my own case, this is very far from the truth, and I'd hope in my conversations on this board and with Rob himself that is borne out.
I've an aunt who's perfectly capable of giving me the details of a business meeting she didn't attend. She did this frequently when she worked with my dad. Of course she managed this amazing feat by making things up. Fortunately the meetings she had to attend (and sometimes actually attended) were not in the least important.
So this much is clear: anyone can make claims of wins, losses, dicoveries about the workings of VP machines, the existence of lifeforms in the soil of Mars who prefer even-money 21, or anything else at all. It's easy and cheap. Proving such claims is a different matter. Now, any claims regarding gambling that fly in the face of usual patterns should be treated with skepticism.
If someone says he hit a royal over a weekend playing VP, I'd tend to beieve it. If someone says he hit ten royals, I tend to think he's lying.
VP machines, now, employ a random number generator. I don't really understand the workings of such, but it could be they aren't really random. By that I mean they actually produce a pattern of some kind, at elast sometimes. So I'm willing to believe VP machines (and for that matter any kind of electronic device that uses an RNG to determine results), may, I say again MAY, not be entirely random.
But I'd like to see the evidence, or at least have such evidence validated by a trustworthy person.
Quote:I'm not about to make any large bets on his play, record of play or a debate on fifth card flip over. The last only interests me as I want to know HOW someone tests a VP machine. And on the former I don't have 50 grand lying around to escrow. And if I did, I would not spend it on a challenge that may or may not happen for a variety of logistical reasons. My intellectual interest doesn't stretch that far.
I know how GLI or the NGC test lab tests a VP machine, I understand their methodologies, and it's very clear that those methodologies are valid for their stated purposes. What I don't know -- what nobody knows -- is how Singer tested his VP machine and whether his "tests" have any validity at all. It's a mystery why he hasn't even bothered to sufficiently explain what he did, let alone what the results are. "I simulated 2,314,340,258 hands, and the flip-over rate was almost double" isn't close to a sufficient explanation. Among the unanswered questions:
1) What specific test equipment was used? Provide model numbers.
2) What VP machine model was tested? Provide model numbers.
3) How was the test equipment (each device) interfaced to the VP machine?
4) What control programs were used to execute the test? Provide source code or flowcharts.
I could go on, but the point is clear. "I simulated 2,314,340,258 hands" is simply an unsupported statement, nothing more. There is no there, there.
Besides, where'd that number come from? 2,314,340,258 isn't related to an integral power of two, isn't related to any permutation of 52 or 53, and isn't even an integral multiple of 52 or 53. When I do large-scale simulations, my trial size is most often a power of 10. Where did Singer's number come from? (For bonus points, try finding its prime factorization.)
Quote: NareedAre you Rob's Sock Puppet? I claim you are. I'll issue a challenge to show my evidence sometime in the near future.
I'm not making any claims, Singer is. I don't have to disprove his claims, Singer has to prove his.
Somebody needs to take a sensible side here. After all, the guy poposed a debate on his claims, he's agreed to provide all the details OF HIS CLAIMS, and poster after poster either dithers or gives reasons why they won't contact him to make it happen. On top of that he immediately & conveniently gets banned for some kind of supposed insult, and as such is denied discussing anything, except via e-mail which it appears no one will do because it's a one-on-one vs. the gang concept I see here. Do you not wonder why no one is addressing that? And again, where's all those gamblers here who vociferously say it's impossible for anyone to play the games he does and win anything? Where?
Quote: MathExtremistI know how GLI or the NGC test lab tests a VP machine, I understand their methodologies, and it's very clear that those methodologies are valid for their stated purposes. What I don't know -- what nobody knows -- is how Singer tested his VP machine and whether his "tests" have any validity at all. It's a mystery why he hasn't even bothered to sufficiently explain what he did, let alone what the results are. "I simulated 2,314,340,258 hands, and the flip-over rate was almost double" isn't close to a sufficient explanation. Among the unanswered questions:
1) What specific test equipment was used? Provide model numbers.
2) What VP machine model was tested? Provide model numbers.
3) How was the test equipment (each device) interfaced to the VP machine?
4) What control programs were used to execute the test? Provide source code or flowcharts.
I could go on, but the point is clear. "I simulated 2,314,340,258 hands" is simply an unsupported statement, nothing more. There is no there, there.
Besides, where'd that number come from? 2,314,340,258 isn't related to an integral power of two, isn't related to any permutation of 52 or 53, and isn't even an integral multiple of 52 or 53. When I do large-scale simulations, my trial size is most often a power of 10. Where did Singer's number come from? (For bonus points, try finding its prime factorization.)
All valid questions, but once again, you're very willing to provide these questions and comments to a crew that seems to worship what you do about this and in a comforting way, but WHY are you not sending those questions to Mr. singer? If you're frustrated at not having the info, then unfrustrate yourself for God's sake!
You wrote "He will present evidence that confirms that in his data." Let's see if you can be more successful at wringing the evidence out of him than anyone else has been. Best of luck.
Quote: JL2All valid questions, but once again, you're very willing to provide these questions and comments to a crew that seems to worship what you do about this and in a comforting way, but WHY are you not sending those questions to Mr. singer? If you're frustrated at not having the info, then unfrustrate yourself for God's sake!
These questions have been asked of Mr. Singer MANY TIMES here and elsewhere in the past. Just because you only joined this forum 4 days ago doesn't mean that we started talking about it 4 days ago. He always claims to have proof, then people ask for the proof, then he declines to give it but reasserts that he has it. It just goes round and round and round. At the end of the day, RS seems to want people to take him at his word that he's done this incredibly mathematically improbable thing. Further, he asserts that the incredibly improbable outcomes of his play are readily repeatable.
Most of us trust math much more than we trust Rob Singer. Math is incapable of lying...
Quote: DorothyGaleThe premise of skepticism, if this has not already been said elsewhere in this thread, is that "incredible claims require incredible proof." If I claim a teapot is orbiting between earth and mars, what proof would you expect that I provide? I think Rob Singer's claims are equivalent to a teapot orbiting ...
Listen to this fantastic speech Ricahrd Dawkins at TED
--Ms. D.
Very funny speech.
Quote: MathExtremistLike the Wizard, I've already been denied in my requests (both public and private) to see anything resembling his evidence. My last email request, in January, was met with both insults and the joint requirements that a wager be placed and a debate occur. I am not the least bit frustrated at not having the answers to these questions. It merely supports my suspicion that he has no evidence to provide.
You wrote "He will present evidence that confirms that in his data." Let's see if you can be more successful at wringing the evidence out of him than anyone else has been. Best of luck.
First, the wizard did not ask for evidence from the machine testing, he couldn't have. Didn't happen yet when they spoke. I saw that just by looking at the dates, why couldn't you?
Now you present something new. Are you saying you asked for this info and was denied? Then how exactly do you account for his post here, where he says it will be provided at the site of the debate? And you're totally ignoring his contention (and he is the expert on it until at least you look it over) that he needs to be present for the review to go anywhere before the debate happens?
It's looking more and more like you just don't want the review to ever happen, and you'll go to any lengths for it not to. I continue to be flabbergasted at your refusal to e-mail him since he provided his post here. It's like you know he says he can do something, you want it, but you are doing whatever you can NOT to get your hands on it. Did you read what my proposal to him would look like? What in there are you afraid of asking him?
Maybe I'm not seeing the entire picture. Do you live in LV or in another state or country? Is travel the issue? I would think not since this is a Nevada based forum and you are on it, which means you must go there now and then. So why not set something up, or at the very least, since Mr. singer is willing to pay for theceespit's airfare, maybe he'll pay for yours also. I guess I just can't understand why you're ducking this when all the data will be provided. You either want it or you don't.
Quote: rdw4potusThese questions have been asked of Mr. Singer MANY TIMES here and elsewhere in the past. Just because you only joined this forum 4 days ago doesn't mean that we started talking about it 4 days ago. He always claims to have proof, then people ask for the proof, then he declines to give it but reasserts that he has it. It just goes round and round and round. At the end of the day, RS seems to want people to take him at his word that he's done this incredibly mathematically improbable thing. Further, he asserts that the incredibly improbable outcomes of his play are readily repeatable.
Most of us trust math much more than we trust Rob Singer. Math is incapable of lying...
Then all the more reason for the data review and the debate, right? I don't see him declining anything in his post, do you?
and all the more reason for someone or someones to accept his challenge of witnessed play, right? I mean, criticize the guy if you like, but when that person is willing to back it up in front of other gamblers, if no one accepts then it isn't he who looks weak.
Quote: JL2So wizard, how could you have asked for that evidence if he did not in fact do the testing yet? If you're saying there was some data on the hands he tested beforehand, did he use any recording equipment where he could have provided anything? I seem to remember it was like him vs. real casino machines, in which case there could be nothing other than his findings by playing and in which case one would actually expect to see someone like him do further testing on a real machine. Sounds like he followed a sensible path to me. Why poke fun at it? I could see that if the data were reviewed and found to be hokey. But now, after posting what he did and prior to seeing anything relevant?
Before our meeting he wrote an article claiming that the draw in certain situations was not consistent with the expected odds based on the cards left in the deck. I believe he claimed to have records proving it. I asked if I could see the records but as I recall he evaded the topic.
I'm still available any time to see any hard evidence he has or to gather data on any machine he wishes. I am getting tired of talking about it, it is time to put up or shut up.
Quote: MathExtremistI know how GLI or the NGC test lab tests a VP machine, I understand their methodologies, and it's very clear that those methodologies are valid for their stated purposes. What I don't know -- what nobody knows -- is how Singer tested his VP machine and whether his "tests" have any validity at all. It's a mystery why he hasn't even bothered to sufficiently explain what he did, let alone what the results are. "I simulated 2,314,340,258 hands, and the flip-over rate was almost double" isn't close to a sufficient explanation. Among the unanswered questions:
1) What specific test equipment was used? Provide model numbers.
2) What VP machine model was tested? Provide model numbers.
3) How was the test equipment (each device) interfaced to the VP machine?
4) What control programs were used to execute the test? Provide source code or flowcharts.
I could go on, but the point is clear. "I simulated 2,314,340,258 hands" is simply an unsupported statement, nothing more. There is no there, there.
Besides, where'd that number come from? 2,314,340,258 isn't related to an integral power of two, isn't related to any permutation of 52 or 53, and isn't even an integral multiple of 52 or 53. When I do large-scale simulations, my trial size is most often a power of 10. Where did Singer's number come from? (For bonus points, try finding its prime factorization.)
2, 19 and 60,903,691 :)
As an aside to the current debate, is there any publically available documents on testing VP machines"
Quote: JL2Now you present something new. Are you saying you asked for this info and was denied?
That's precisely what I'm saying. I've asked in email and on the forum multiple times, and never received any information. I'm not going to keep asking ad infinitum. He apparently has no desire to reply to me with the evidence I've requested. All he does is continuously challenge me to meaningless wagers and debates.
In case I'm not being perfectly clear, there is no point in me emailing Mr. Singer again. I've already done so enough times to know that another request will just fall on deaf ears.
Since you are so confident that Mr. Singer is willing to publicly share the information, please obtain it and post it publicly. Or invite him back to the forum (coordinate with Wizard) and have him answer the specific questions herein.
Otherwise, I agree with the Wizard. Put up or shut up.
Quote: thecesspit2, 19 and 60,903,691 :)
As an aside to the current debate, is there any publically available documents on testing VP machines"
Here's an example: http://www.gaminglabs.com/default.asp?contentID=141
Quote: JL2Somebody needs to take a sensible side here.
You do.
Quote:After all, the guy poposed a debate on his claims, he's agreed to provide all the details OF HIS CLAIMS, and poster after poster either dithers or gives reasons why they won't contact him to make it happen.
Read the quoted portion again. I don't think anyone's interested in the detaisl OF HIS CLAIMS, but in the EVIDENCE for such claims. As I understand, Singer has made some improbable claims over the years and never supplied any EVIDENCE for them. Now he issues a challenge requiring a lot of people, a lot of money and probbaly a lot of time, rather than simply show his EVIDENCE.
Quote:On top of that he immediately & conveniently gets banned for some kind of supposed insult, and as such is denied discussing anything, except via e-mail which it appears no one will do because it's a one-on-one vs. the gang concept I see here.
1) He resigned before he posted his challenge. In fact I came close to mocking him for returning, but thought better of it. The Wizard has explained why the ban/resignation dind't take effect. I do stupid mistakes like that all the time (sorry, Mike, it was a stupid mistake worthy of me) and I beleive him.
2) Singer himself suggested he be contacted by email. In the closing of his psot he states:
So don'¿t go blaming the people here for his own ideas.Quote: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.
2.1) In fact I suggest he may have decided to move all discussion to meail so he'd be able to back out, demand more conditions, or otherwise further obfuscate the issue, out of public view. That way he can say he offered proof and no one wanted to listen. I told you how I'd approach Singer.
Look, the guy says he's done something. Fine. Let him prove it. Otherwise we're just playing "can you top this?" and it isn't even fun.
Quote: Nareed
2.1) In fact I suggest he may have decided to move all discussion to meail so he'd be able to back out, demand more conditions, or otherwise further obfuscate the issue, out of public view. That way he can say he offered proof and no one wanted to listen. I told you how I'd approach Singer.
Look, the guy says he's done something. Fine. Let him prove it. Otherwise we're just playing "can you top this?" and it isn't even fun.
Moreover, per the forum rules, quoting from private communications such as email is forbidden. The conversation *must* continue in the public eye, or not at all. In spite of JL2's assertions to the contrary, Singer has chosen "not at all".
Quote: WizardBefore our meeting he wrote an article claiming that the draw in certain situations was not consistent with the expected odds based on the cards left in the deck. I believe he claimed to have records proving it. I asked if I could see the records but as I recall he evaded the topic.
I'm still available any time to see any hard evidence he has or to gather data on any machine he wishes. I am getting tired of talking about it, it is time to put up or shut up.
I'd like to see how one gets records from playing a machine. Maybe he's got a friend in a casino?
I think that 2nd statement is precisely why he posted this thread. HE WANTS PEOPLE TO REVIEW THE JUNK! Too bad it's tied to a bet though, and if I were interested and uncerstood math I'd ask him to untie it.
Quote: MathExtremistIn spite of JL2's assertions to the contrary, Singer has chosen "not at all".
Are you sure that Singer has chosen "not at all?" It seems like he's doing a pretty good job of keeping the debate going as Jerry Logan 2...
Quote: JL2I'd like to see how one gets records from playing a machine. Maybe he's got a friend in a casino?
Easy:
1) Put money in the VP machine and choose a game and denomination.
2) Choose the number of coins per bet
3) Hit "deal."
4) Write down the cards dealt
5) Choose which cards, if any, to hold, and write that down
6) Hit "draw"
7) Write down the result
8) Repeat from step 3 as long as the money lasts.
9) (OPTIONAL) repeat from step 1 if you care to
How else?
Quote:I think that 2nd statement is precisely why he posted this thread. HE WANTS PEOPLE TO REVIEW THE JUNK! Too bad it's tied to a bet though, and if I were interested and uncerstood math I'd ask him to untie it.
So why don't you ask him to untie it? Lots of people here should be able to tackle it.
Quote: JL2I'd like to see how one gets records from playing a machine. Maybe he's got a friend in a casino?
I think that 2nd statement is precisely why he posted this thread. HE WANTS PEOPLE TO REVIEW THE JUNK! Too bad it's tied to a bet though, and if I were interested and uncerstood math I'd ask him to untie it.
Too bad indeed. How about this -- I'll publicly teach you the required math to do a distribution analysis if you can convince Singer to publish his results.
Quote: rdw4potusAre you sure that Singer has chosen "not at all?" It seems like he's doing a pretty good job of keeping the debate going as Jerry Logan 2...
Nah, this is a meta-debate. Like a debate about a debate. Just wait a few days and we'll get into a meta-meta-debate, which is when we discuss whether discussing a discussion is worthy of discussion.
Now what were we talking about?
Quote: MathExtremistMoreover, per the forum rules, quoting from private communications such as email is forbidden. The conversation *must* continue in the public eye, or not at all. In spite of JL2's assertions to the contrary, Singer has chosen "not at all".
How do you figure that someone who has specifically requested to be contacted by e-mail, is somehow choosing NOT to be contacted? Makes me dizzy. He doesn't belong to the forum any more, so it's either the phone, morse code, ham radio, pony express, or.....E-MAIL. Holy smokes!
Nareed: If someone presents every detail about what went into defining a claim, isn't that evidence?? I guess I don't understand how evidence can be supplied without the details.
I've read some of his articles and his only other claim outside of questioning machine random operation seems to be of winning. He most certainly offerred to back that one up just like he did here. The problem always appears to be with those who question him. He's pretty clearly given a path to conclusion here, only HIS CRITICS won't do it. I'm frustrated over it and I have no dog in the hunt!
Quote: NareedEasy:
1) Put money in the VP machine and choose a game and denomination.
2) Choose the number of coins per bet
3) Hit "deal."
4) Write down the cards dealt
5) Choose which cards, if any, to hold, and write that down
6) Hit "draw"
7) Write down the result
8) Repeat from step 3 as long as the money lasts.
9) (OPTIONAL) repeat from step 1 if you care to
How else?
Re- 1)--9): For 45000 hands? That's how many he said he played before meeting with WoV. Just that many hands would take me about 90 hours to PLAY. Recording all that info would easily take 10X that amount. What he must have done is record whenever a flipover occurred.
Quote: MathExtremistMoreover, per the forum rules, quoting from private communications such as email is forbidden. The conversation *must* continue in the public eye, or not at all. In spite of JL2's assertions to the contrary, Singer has chosen "not at all".
As far as I know the Wizrd's rules concern only PMs. He has no jurisdiction voer email...
Anwyay, back when the Nigerian scam was rampant, by snail mail, I got call from an acquaintance asking whether I had a bank account in the US. I spent the next twenty five minutes explaining to him it was a scam. I argued, I reasoned with him, I pointed him to magazine and newspaper articles, and finally I hung up on him in disgust.
So here's my last word about the unlamented Singer: if he has found something let him present the evidence, without asking for an admission price, a bet, a debate, an argument, a bag of magic beans or any other thing a reasonable person would refuse on sight. If he wants confidentiality, which is reasonable, let him approach interested parties by email.
Quote: JL2How do you figure that someone who has specifically requested to be contacted by e-mail, is somehow choosing NOT to be contacted? Makes me dizzy. He doesn't belong to the forum any more, so it's either the phone, morse code, ham radio, pony express, or.....E-MAIL. Holy smokes!
Morse code and ham radio may be public communications, but email is not. Holy smokes!
Welcome to the forum. Perhaps you'd like to read the rules?
Quote: Forum Rules4. Respect privacy. Do not post any information about someone else that is intended to be private or quote from private communication.
Quote: JL2Nareed: If someone presents every detail about what went into defining a claim, isn't that evidence?? I guess I don't understand how evidence can be supplied without the details.
Is it? Let's see
CLAIM: there's a race of sentient, microscopic life forms living in the dust bunnies under my couch who are expert at card counting, but they prefer to play even-money 21 (anythign less than 3:2 is not BJ) for religious reasons. I've observed them through an optical microscope. I've tested them against online BJ games (to measure their grasp of BS). On my last trip to Vegas I tested them against a real game (which was hard to find). I've dissected some of them and recorded their genome.
There! That's my evidence!
(I must say the flaw in the example is very easy to find: I keep a clean place without any dust bunnies).
Quote: MathExtremistToo bad indeed. How about this -- I'll publicly teach you the required math to do a distribution analysis if you can convince Singer to publish his results.
Again, why are you ducking the meeting aspect? All you need do is ask him to separate this from the wager part, at least it's worth a try right? I would think someone with a handle such as yours wants accurate, understandable data that makes sense, and if you have a problem with it then the author would be right there to clear things up. Wouldn't that produce the best possible review of such data? If he doesn't want to or maybe can't "publish it" here or anywhere on the web it seems to be only because he wants a balls-on accurate review to take place in order to prevent further blind criticism. If he doesn't believe that can happen unless it's in person, why on earth would you have an issue with something like that?
Quote: Nareed
(I must say the flaw in the example is very easy to find: I keep a clean place without any dust bunnies).
I can lend you some of mine--they are straight from Night of the Lepus! *&%@#% 10-ft tray ceilings....
Quote: JL2Re- 1)--9): For 45000 hands? That's how many he said he played before meeting with WoV. Just that many hands would take me about 90 hours to PLAY. Recording all that info would easily take 10X that amount. What he must have done is record whenever a flipover occurred.
How else?
I suppose you could videotape the session, then write everything down.
The only other way is to obtain the records from the machine itself, assuming it records everyhadn it play, along with gaming info like type of game, denomination and coins bet. I assume VP machines either do this or can be so programmed. You'd need cooperation fom a mannufacturer or a casino (or any other kind of operator) to do this. I'm willing to believe Singer did this, too. Why not?
I just don't see any evidence.
Quote: NareedIs it? Let's see
CLAIM: there's a race of sentient, microscopic life forms living in the dust bunnies under my couch who are expert at card counting, but they prefer to play even-money 21 (anythign less than 3:2 is not BJ) for religious reasons. I've observed them through an optical microscope. I've tested them against online BJ games (to measure their grasp of BS). On my last trip to Vegas I tested them against a real game (which was hard to find). I've dissected some of them and recorded their genome.
There! That's my evidence!
(I must say the flaw in the example is very easy to find: I keep a clean place without any dust bunnies).
I don't understand that at all. You also didn't answer my question of what the difference between showing the details of a claim and evidence of a claim. As far as i know, all evidence lies in the details. In the singer case, he has them and he says he can explain them as supporting the testing results that he's quoted. Once he does that, he has provided evidence.
Quote: NareedHow else?
I suppose you could videotape the session, then write everything down.
The only other way is to obtain the records from the machine itself, assuming it records everyhadn it play, along with gaming info like type of game, denomination and coins bet. I assume VP machines either do this or can be so programmed. You'd need cooperation fom a mannufacturer or a casino (or any other kind of operator) to do this. I'm willing to believe Singer did this, too. Why not?
I just don't see any evidence.
90 hours of video then hundreds afterwards? No wonder he got a machine to test.
I don't know about expecting a casino's cooperation on doing this.
Quote: FarFromVegasI can lend you some of mine--they are straight from Night of the Lepus! *&%@#% 10-ft tray ceilings....
Oh, you should have seen the ones I chased out of my closet!
I really need to fix those bullet holes in the plaster...
Quote: MathExtremistMorse code and ham radio may be public communications, but email is not. Holy smokes!
Welcome to the forum. Perhaps you'd like to read the rules?Quote: Forum Rules4. Respect privacy. Do not post any information about someone else that is intended to be private or quote from private communication.
What's with the public vs. private communications stuff? Just e-mail the guy, come to a resolution, then report it here if you like or don't if you don't like. How hard is that? Either way, if he deletes the wager part, I'd expect the event will happen.
