The Rob Singer Challenge
Quote: JL2I 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.
I made a claim and showed the details of how I obtained the evidence.
Now, do you want to buy expert card-counting bugs or not? :P
Quote:As far as i know, all evidence lies in the details.
I'm afraid the evidence lies in the evidence. That's a tautology, but it's true.
Quote: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.
Yes. Finally we're geting somewhere. once has provided the evidence we can see whether he's found something or not. Until then he's blowing smoke.
The Singer debate has been beaten to death and from all angles. This thread, in nearly the exact same fashion as the last one, has run into the wall of the Scientific vs the Faithful. Never before have I seen one issue repeatedly run into the same problem again and again with neither side willing to give up. It is apparent Singer will never simply hand over the info to be reviewed, and will never admit to being wrong. Likewise, ME and many others will never stop disputing his claims, and will never admit he is right. This issue will NEVER, EVER be solved, since in the many threads here and elsewhere that have been created on the topic, not one thing has changed.
ME said it best...
Quote: MathExtremistNah, 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.
That's all these turn out to be, unless I am missing something. It seems to me it goes like this...
Singer: I did something not possible.
Us: Prove it
Singer: I did
Us: Really? Let us see
Singer: No
Us: Then you have no proof
Singer: I have it right here
Us: Then let us see
Singer: No
Us: Then you have no proof
Singer: I have it right here
Us: Then let us see
Singer: No
I guess I'm just 1)curious as to why so much energy is spent on this and 2) sad to see that people who I enjoy reading are wasting their efforts on a non-issue (selfish, I know =p) While the two people are not alike, I see Singer's 'method' not unlike mrjjj's in the respect that no one here believes they could possibly work. mrjjj just recently posted another one of his systems, got not one single response, and the thread died. Why is Singer so different?
Quote: JL2Again, why are you ducking the meeting aspect?
None of the questions I've asked require a meeting to answer. Mr. Singer has failed to even provide the most rudimentary explanation of what he allegedly did. To refresh your memory:
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.
If Mr. Singer is unwilling to even address these most basic issues in a public forum, there is no point digging further.
Quote: FaceThat's all these turn out to be, unless I am missing something. It seems to me it goes like this...
Singer: I did something not possible.
Us: Prove it
Singer: I did
Us: Really? Let us see
Singer: No
Us: Then you have no proof
Singer: I have it right here
Us: Then let us see
Singer: No
Til there youre fine. then JL2 shows up and continues:
JL2: Come on! look at his evidence
Us: he hasn't shown us any
JL2: He has
Us: no, he hasn't
JL2: Then ask him for it
Us: We have. he hasn't shown us any
JL2: But he says he has it.
Us: then let's see it.
JL2: Why would he say he has it if he doesn't?
Us: We don't care. We want to see the evidence
JL2: But if he says he has evidence then he does.
Etc.
It's never wrong to expose a fraud, fraudulent means, or outright cons.
Quote: FaceLikewise, ME and many others will never stop disputing his claims, and will never admit he is right.
That's not true at all. If Mr. Singer provides evidence that corroborates his claims, I'll be happy to admit he's right. He's just not done that, and my larger experience tells me that his conclusions would imply that several laws are being broken. But your characterization of his continual refusal to let anyone see his evidence is spot on:
Quote:Singer: I did something not possible.
Us: Prove it
Singer: I did
Us: Really? Let us see
Singer: No
Us: Then you have no proof
Singer: I have it right here
Us: Then let us see
Singer: No
Us: Then you have no proof
Singer: I have it right here
Us: Then let us see
Singer: No
All I'm doing is asking a question. What's curious is how, to the apologists, that makes *me* the one who's in error. Like I have the nerve to doubt the veracity of the great Singer or something.
Quote: MathExtremistAll I'm doing is asking a question. What's curious is how, to the apologists, that makes *me* the one who's in error. Like I have the nerve to doubt the veracity of the great Singer or something.
I don't think you're in error. I hope you didn't take my post that way because I never meant to imply it.
The situation just boggles me. Singer purports to have done the impossible. Many are interested. Some are interested in debunking him and rubbiing it in his face, some are interested and want to help the guy prove it, some are just interested and offer their years of math education to satisfy their curiosity, yet on every front, he stonewalls every request for something, anything, to prove or at least somewhat validate his findings. Nareed and mkl I understand (PLEASE take no offense and me daring to lump you two together ;)), as they feel it important to reveal a fraud. The others, yourself included, seem to have no such intentions and are only offering assistance which he repeatedly denies. I just wonder what makes this different than the number of other systems posed to the forum.
Quote: FaceNareed and mkl I understand (PLEASE take no offense and me daring to lump you two together ;)), as they feel it important to reveal a fraud.
Why bring up mkl at all? he's gone, can't we let him be gone?
Anwyay, I don't feel it important to expose a fraud. I said it's never wrong to do so. But Singer accused me of being jealous or something about his gambling success, to which I replied I don't believe him to be successful in gambling at all. If he can prove otehrwsie, he's welcome to do so.
Quote: SOOPOOI have to admit I am embarassed. I have been reading the back and forth from JL2 and the rest of the forum, when it just occurred to me, after reading all the posts, that JL2 is .............. J L 2, or......... JERRY LOGAN the 2nd.
He's been here 3 days and has 56 posts. Its a 'duh' situation. Looks, quacks and acts like a duck.
Quote: FaceI don't think you're in error. I hope you didn't take my post that way because I never meant to imply it.
No, not you at all. I was referring to the apologists and the blindly-faithful. Among gamblers, a small but superstitious few are gladly willing to abandon any critical thought at the hint or suggestion of a "winning betting system", despite the mountains of mathematical proof that such winning systems cannot exist. The Wizard has plenty of info about this. Singer's Martingale-style VP system is just another of those. In his case, he's attempted to bolster his fervent anti-math rhetoric (see his site) by claiming to have run a massive experiment that proves the games are unfair, something about a flip-over percentage not being right. He tested only a single machine, yet he's nevertheless concluded that ALL VP machines (including those by other manufacturers) exhibit the same unfair behavior. He also claims to be able to detect patterns in VP outcomes, claims that VP machines operate within a programmed safety net designed to keep the house edge within a particular range, and claims that there are secret regulations governing the industry which actually make it okay that the games are unfair and operate within a safety net. A tangled web indeed.
JerryLogan fell for this convoluted story hook, line, and sinker. He admitted to not understanding the math but took Singer at his word in spite of it. A person with a healthy level of skepticism would balk at that far-fetched story, but Jerry's reasoning went something like this: "Why would Singer lie? He's uncovering a grand conspiracy. I think you (the math guys) are lying because you're obviously complicit in the coverup."
And so it goes. A simple request for the details of his alleged experiments turns into shock and horror at the mere thought of doubting Singer's statements. Or the latest from JL2: "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." Except I'm not going to any lengths at all -- I'm just sitting here, casually commenting that Singer has made yet another unsupported conjecture. Until and unless Singer actually supports his conjecture with evidence, that comment is axiomatic -- even if Jerry, JL2, or any other superstitious adherents don't understand it.
To answer your last question more directly:
Quote:The others, yourself included, seem to have no such intentions and are only offering assistance which he repeatedly denies. I just wonder what makes this different than the number of other systems posed to the forum.
The difference is that Singer has not only claimed that VP machines everywhere are intentionally unfair, but he has explicitly claimed to have performed experiments which verify that. We're asking to see that verification. If you parse through the conversations, nobody really cares whether Singer's betting system wins some percent of the time or whatnot. That's not interesting because we all know how systems work over time (i.e. they don't). But he allegedly uncovered a grand conspiracy that all VP machines are unfair, and he allegedly has evidence of that conspiracy. Except he won't share it with anyone, for reasons unknown to anyone but him (and speculated to by JL2). So we ask, and get rebuffed again ... and again ... and again. And when we get tired of asking, up comes a JL2 to jump down our throats for not asking some more. Sheesh.
Quote: EvenBob...like a duck.
at work, we use that word as short hand for "dumb ----." Hey, look at that, it works here, too...:)
Quote: SOOPOOOkay statisticians.... what are the odds of a new Singer supporter joining the Forum, and coincidentally using the initials JL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I believe in his first post he explained he picked the initials JL2 on purpose.
I don't think he's a sock puppet, though, because he has not reverted to either Jerry, mkl or Rob Singer type. But he's likely connected to one or more of them.
Quote:Mr. Singer sells books about his magic system, and as long as there is chatter (publicity) about it there will be some who BUY it. If ever formally proven to a bunch of hooey, as of course it would, then the book sales would dry up. I believe (but do not know for a fact) that he has also given 'lessons' for remuneration.
For the record, there are frauds other than financial ones. What you say makes sense, but only some. It's too much trouble for too little return. It's not as if millions follow the Wizard or this board.
Nareed said: Yes. Finally we're geting somewhere. once has provided the evidence we can see whether he's found something or not. Until then he's blowing smoke.
So it looks like you finally agree that the best way for resolution is for him to meet face-to-face with the reviewer(s) so he can "explain" what he is presenting as evidence of his testing.
God love the Queen!
Quote: FaceMaybe I'm out of line, but allow me to jump into this mess...
The Singer debate has been beaten to death and from all angles. This thread, in nearly the exact same fashion as the last one, has run into the wall of the Scientific vs the Faithful. Never before have I seen one issue repeatedly run into the same problem again and again with neither side willing to give up. It is apparent Singer will never simply hand over the info to be reviewed, and will never admit to being wrong. Likewise, ME and many others will never stop disputing his claims, and will never admit he is right. This issue will NEVER, EVER be solved, since in the many threads here and elsewhere that have been created on the topic, not one thing has changed.
ME said it best...
That's all these turn out to be, unless I am missing something. It seems to me it goes like this...
Singer: I did something not possible.
Us: Prove it
Singer: I did
Us: Really? Let us see
Singer: No
Us: Then you have no proof
Singer: I have it right here
Us: Then let us see
Singer: No
Us: Then you have no proof
Singer: I have it right here
Us: Then let us see
Singer: No
I guess I'm just 1)curious as to why so much energy is spent on this and 2) sad to see that people who I enjoy reading are wasting their efforts on a non-issue (selfish, I know =p) While the two people are not alike, I see Singer's 'method' not unlike mrjjj's in the respect that no one here believes they could possibly work. mrjjj just recently posted another one of his systems, got not one single response, and the thread died. Why is Singer so different?
One major mistake you're making. Mr. singer has indeed offerred to provide every detail for review, which would be the same as the proof you're referring to. It is MathE and Nareed who are ignoring the facts, and who you are listening to, and who continue to claim that Mr. singer will not provide the details. That is as false as it gets.
Quote: MathExtremistNone of the questions I've asked require a meeting to answer. Mr. Singer has failed to even provide the most rudimentary explanation of what he allegedly did. To refresh your memory:
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.
If Mr. Singer is unwilling to even address these most basic issues in a public forum, there is no point digging further.
And I agree they're important, basic inquiries, but exactly where have you asked him those questions in order that he may provide you with an answer? So then why are you STILL ducking contacting him to ask those very specific questions and we'll see what he says? It is so frustrating reading this when you won't do that!
Quote: JL2So it looks like you finally agree that the best way for resolution is for him to meet face-to-face with the reviewer(s) so he can "explain" what he is presenting as evidence of his testing.
Yeah, without ridiculous preconditions like those he demanded in his post. Otherwise, as you don't seem ti understand, he's just blowing smoke.
As to ignoring facts, you seem to ignore the fact that plenty of people have asked Singer plenty of time for his evidence, and he has refused to show it. His latest offer isn't serious, either. Instead he sets up difficult and complicated conditions no one in his right mind would meet, not when by all indications they're chasing something as real as unicorn spit.
Quote: FaceI don't think you're in error. I hope you didn't take my post that way because I never meant to imply it.
The situation just boggles me. Singer purports to have done the impossible. Many are interested. Some are interested in debunking him and rubbiing it in his face, some are interested and want to help the guy prove it, some are just interested and offer their years of math education to satisfy their curiosity, yet on every front, he stonewalls every request for something, anything, to prove or at least somewhat validate his findings. Nareed and mkl I understand (PLEASE take no offense and me daring to lump you two together ;)), as they feel it important to reveal a fraud. The others, yourself included, seem to have no such intentions and are only offering assistance which he repeatedly denies. I just wonder what makes this different than the number of other systems posed to the forum.
Again Face, where is the stonewalling? I just don't see it when the guy is offerring all of it for review? Just because MathE is anal about not wanting to admit he hasn't asked him to provide what he's plastering all over here when he knows Mr. singer isn't capable of responding, doesn't mean he's sensible. In fact, read the original post by Mr. singer. That seems to say it's all there for anyone who wants it. Do you disagree?
Quote: NareedWhy bring up mkl at all? he's gone, can't we let him be gone?
Anwyay, I don't feel it important to expose a fraud. I said it's never wrong to do so. But Singer accused me of being jealous or something about his gambling success, to which I replied I don't believe him to be successful in gambling at all. If he can prove otehrwsie, he's welcome to do so.
You mean you want him to be lying about his winning, but you don't want to participate in the offerred wager that he can win at least 8 of 10 of his strategy sessions at a minimum +$25000 net profit? You just want to sit back, criticize, and pretend none of it is true and you want nothing to rattle that feeling. Do I have that about right?
Quote: JL2You mean you want him to be lying about his winning, but you don't want to participate in the offerred wager that he can win at least 8 of 10 of his strategy sessions at a minimum +$25000 net profit? You just want to sit back, criticize, and pretend none of it is true and you want nothing to rattle that feeling. Do I have that about right?
I wouldn't bet a penny against him because I don't believe he would pay once he lost.
Happy?
Quote: MathExtremistThe difference is that Singer has not only claimed that VP machines everywhere are intentionally unfair, but he has explicitly claimed to have performed experiments which verify that. We're asking to see that verification. If you parse through the conversations, nobody really cares whether Singer's betting system wins some percent of the time or whatnot. That's not interesting because we all know how systems work over time (i.e. they don't). But he allegedly uncovered a grand conspiracy that all VP machines are unfair, and he allegedly has evidence of that conspiracy. Except he won't share it with anyone, for reasons unknown to anyone but him (and speculated to by JL2).
This I get. Even myself, who has never played nor plans to play a hand of VP but whose career is game protection to include the laws that govern such machines, have an interest on the subject. But curious a person as I am, and even given the fact that this possibly concerns me professionally, I just no longer see the point of asking anymore. Yeah, I want to know. But I am convinced by the course of the subject thus far that I will NEVER know. So where does that leave us?...
We want to know to debunk him and rub it in his face. Can't, he'll never give the info.
We want to know so we, too, can play +EV and get rich. Can't, he'll never give the info.
We want to know because his claims have serious legal implications. Can't, he'll never give the info.
We want to know to help the guy out. Can't, he'll never give the info.
We want to know just cause we want to know. Can't, he'll never give the info.
I only see one purpose for continuing, which was sparked by this comment of yours...
Quote: MathExtremistSo we ask, and get rebuffed again ... and again ... and again. And when we get tired of asking, up comes a JL2 to jump down our throats for not asking some more. Sheesh.
Best I can figure, RobSinger posted his method many moon ago. He was called out on said post, caused a stir and left. Much conversation remained in his absense.
Things settled down, then JerryLogan arrived touting The Singer System. He was called out, caused a stir and left. Conversation remained in his absence.
The forum was dazed for a moment by the clean air, but soon resumed mind opening conversations.
RobSinger, displeased with the lack of attention, returned, again touting his system that now includes 2b hands of proof. Conversation resumes.
Just before he is ousted, RobSinger posts an ultimate challenge. This riles the forum. Conversation intensifies.
Out of the blue, JL2, who in no way is RS/JL1 but has uncanny knowledge about the subject, picks up the subject and runs with it. Conversation maintains furious pace.
The one reason to continue? As SOOPOO alluded to, publicity. I can't be the only one who believes this is nothing more than an attention grab to keep his name in the forefront of gaming conversation. Indeed, my above paragraph is nothing more than conspiracy theory, but I think it fits. If some here are really that invested to carry on, so be it. I won't complain anymore. I'd just like to see what would happen to this thread and it's supporters if it were given the mrjjj treatment.
From a gaming perspective....
If we continue and succeed with getting the info - big win but near impossible probability
If that info proves him wrong - no win, no loss, and a near definate probability
If that info proves him right - huge win but near impossible probability
If we continue and fail in getting the info - big waste of time and effort, very high probability
It seems we're guaranteeing a big waste of time and effort on not winning, all the while hoping for that nearly impossible chance to score that big win, a win that of course banks on the total illegitimacy of the gaming industry and control boards. And if we're losing, that only leaves the other side as the winner, which, of course, is Singer (and maybe Charlie Sheen). That's the way I see it, anyway. Unless I've gotten something wrong along the way.......?
Quote: SOOPOOI have to admit I am embarassed. I have been reading the back and forth from JL2 and the rest of the forum, when it just occurred to me, after reading all the posts, that JL2 is .............. J L 2, or......... JERRY LOGAN the 2nd. Okay statisticians.... what are the odds of a new Singer supporter joining the Forum, and coincidentally using the initials JL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But on the off chance that you are just a new poster, asking serious questions, the answer to all of your questions can be found in motive. Mr. Singer sells books about his magic system, and as long as there is chatter (publicity) about it there will be some who BUY it. If ever formally proven to a bunch of hooey, as of course it would, then the book sales would dry up. I believe (but do not know for a fact) that he has also given 'lessons' for remuneration.
Why do I have to correct this? His books, and I've read them, do not promote his strategy and detail none of it. His orginal tells how NOT to play the game, and the 2nd is about somewhere on the road in Nevada.
Quote: NareedYeah, without ridiculous preconditions like those he demanded in his post. Otherwise, as you don't seem ti understand, he's just blowing smoke.
As to ignoring facts, you seem to ignore the fact that plenty of people have asked Singer plenty of time for his evidence, and he has refused to show it. His latest offer isn't serious, either. Instead he sets up difficult and complicated conditions no one in his right mind would meet, not when by all indications they're chasing something as real as unicorn spit.
Nareed, I've already suggested and I'm sure you've seen it, for MathE to ask his questions and for the meeting without the conditions of the wager. But he just won't do it, and one can only summize that he is afraid to meet with Mr. singer for whatever reason. It seems sooooo simple yet you can't even pull MathE's teeth to get him to go through with it!
What other "complicated conditions" are there? And why if they exist, which I can't find anywhere, would anyone think they could not be mitigated also? It's like a gang cop-out session going on here. There may be a few of you hanging together on this by lying about what Mr. singer's said he would do because you may not like him out of anger or envy or boldness or whatever, but there are a lot of eyes watching.
Quote: NareedI wouldn't bet a penny against him because I don't believe he would pay once he lost.
Happy?
Is that a real answer? You don't think he invited to pay WoV for a reason? From my perch I see someone he trusts that would hold the cash among other things. What is it you're seeing?
Quote: JL2Is that a real answer?
No, it's all in your head.
Quote: EvenBobThis whole argument is ridiculous. You would never see it on a gambling forum. Singer would be labeled a scammer and people would generally ignore him. There is not a shadow of a doubt, to me, that Singer has nothing. He sounds and acts like every scammer I've ever seen.
Then I guess we're just all a bunch of dummies here, while the "gambling forums" have all the geniuses.
Good one.
Quote: JL2Then I guess we're just all a bunch of dummies here, while the "gambling forums" have all the geniuses.
Not at all. On gambling forums, we see scammers all the time, its very common. On this site, gambling systems aren't really the main topic and I get the impression many people here don't have that much experience with them. On gambling forums, scam artists like Singer are used for entertainment value, they get mocked and laughed at. Singer is an obvious scammer, his proof and evidence is always just out of reach, and always will be. And it will go on and on and on as long as you keep encouraging him.
Quote: JL2Nareed, I've already suggested and I'm sure you've seen it, for MathE to ask his questions and for the meeting without the conditions of the wager. But he just won't do it, and one can only summize that he is afraid to meet with Mr. singer for whatever reason. It seems sooooo simple yet you can't even pull MathE's teeth to get him to go through with it!
Go through with what, exactly? I'm not about to get on an airplane, spend my own time and money, just to go meet someone who believes all VP games are unfair based on testing no more than one of them, and who has never provided a shred of evidence that he properly tested anything. What I'm afraid of is wasting my time and money. In talking with you, I fear I'm failing on at least one of those counts.
Tell you what. If you can convince Singer to return to this forum and provide at least the test summary that thecesspit has described, we can talk more. If you can't, and if Singer refuses to address this topic in public, then we're at a stalemate. Most people here believe he has no evidence of unfair VP machines, and he has objectively provided no documented support for his flip-over unfairness conjectures. For some reason, you're willing to overlook his lack of published evidence and you believe, on blind faith, that he has the evidence but won't publish it for some unexplained reason. That's where this road ends unless you can somehow convince Singer to address the issue here again. But I've already tried and failed (via email) to get Singer to participate publicly in any such discussions.
This forum will be right here, publicly available, if he wants to "put up" his documented evidence. But he's not doing that -- he's excused himself and therefore chosen to "shut up" instead. Either way it's a done deal -- there's no point in further speculation over what he may or may not have done unless he comes forward with new information. But he likely won't do that, just like he failed to go through with (of all things) a debate in Vegas on one of his VP-games-are-unfair theories last time -- even after agreeing to do so in an email. To refresh your memories:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/video-poker/3959-debate-are-all-vp-games-non-random/#post47324
There's nothing new under the sun. Maybe JL2, you could ask him why he dodged the question not once but twice when presented with a public forum in which to describe his findings.
Quote: EvenBobNot at all. On gambling forums, we see scammers all the time, its very common. On this site, gambling systems aren't really the main topic and I get the impression many people here don't have that much experience with them. On gambling forums, scam artists like Singer are used for entertainment value, they get mocked and laughed at. Singer is an obvious scammer, his proof and evidence is always just out of reach, and always will be. And it will go on and on and on as long as you keep encouraging him.
So explain the "gambling system" involved with the machine testing issue. See, you seem to have stumbled over your own two feet while trying to be coy. People like you are always the easiest to deal with. They expose themselves and save others the effort.
Quote: MathExtremistGo through with what, exactly? I'm not about to get on an airplane, spend my own time and money, just to go meet someone who believes all VP games are unfair based on testing no more than one of them, and who has never provided a shred of evidence that he properly tested anything. What I'm afraid of is wasting my time and money. In talking with you, I fear I'm failing on at least one of those counts.
Tell you what. If you can convince Singer to return to this forum and provide at least the test summary that thecesspit has described, we can talk more. If you can't, and if Singer refuses to address this topic in public, then we're at a stalemate. Most people here believe he has no evidence of unfair VP machines, and he has objectively provided no documented support for his flip-over unfairness conjectures. For some reason, you're willing to overlook his lack of published evidence and you believe, on blind faith, that he has the evidence but won't publish it for some unexplained reason. That's where this road ends unless you can somehow convince Singer to address the issue here again. But I've already tried and failed (via email) to get Singer to participate publicly in any such discussions.
This forum will be right here, publicly available, if he wants to "put up" his documented evidence. But he's not doing that -- he's excused himself and therefore chosen to "shut up" instead. Either way it's a done deal -- there's no point in further speculation over what he may or may not have done unless he comes forward with new information. But he likely won't do that, just like he failed to go through with (of all things) a debate in Vegas on one of his VP-games-are-unfair theories last time -- even after agreeing to do so in an email. To refresh your memories:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/video-poker/3959-debate-are-all-vp-games-non-random/#post47324
There's nothing new under the sun. Maybe JL2, you could ask him why he dodged the question not once but twice when presented with a public forum in which to describe his findings.
I T-H-I-N-K you are beginning to get testy. Calm down please and count binary numbers or something.
A) Now there's an idea. I didn't know you weren't a Las Vegan, but I was right that the expense would concern you. So why not ask Mr. singer to cover your airfare much in the same way he's covering theceespit's? Certainly worth a try, no? Or would that take you too close for comfort?
B) First off, most people here, if that's even true, believe he has no evidence of "unfair" machine play because most people here are like me: they don't have a clue to what he's really talking about, and they remain silent because of that plus because of your status here and they don't want to embarrass you. Then, I'm not overlooking his evidence or lack thereof. All i know is what he posted, and that is very clear. He will provide everything if you meet him. You obviously have not done that in any meaningful way in Jan. otherwise he wouldn't have taken the time to post the challenge. This time you have specific questions. Go ahead and ask him. I have no power over him and I wouldn't know what to say anyway. And for the 10th time, it's his data, he says there's a reason why he doesn't want to provide info that would confuse the reviewer, so WHAT ON EARTH IS WRONG WITH MEETING HIM TO ACCOMPLISH THAT!!??
conclusion: You are afraid to meet him, even if he pays for your flights and hotels.
1. Either MathE will contact Mr. singer about the meet details/evidence & paying for his expenses to go to Vegas, or he will not. To me he seems more comfortable sitting in his chair claiming there was no testing done while having absolutely no intention whatsoever to meet and debate the guy, because now, after all these claims, imagine the humiliation he'd endure if there was testing done. No matter how much the original post says that Mr. singer wants to have his details reviewed in person, will MathE take such a risk? ODDS: MathE will play it safe again and he will not e-mail Mr. singer.
2. I thought this was a gambler's forum with some of the biggest & best. But where are they? There's certainly plenty who've said they don't believe Mr. singer can win & win over time with his play strategy, but why is there no one who'll take him up on his challenge to do just that with witnessed play sessions? People, come on, hiding in your holes just isn't becoming of such a group! ODDS: Sadly, not a soul will step forward. Again, having the ability to comfortably criticize from afar easily outdistances taking a risk. Suddenly to all, it looks as if Mr. singer just actually may win as he said he does. What a surprise!
Lastly: You're letting the guy make chumps out of you when you all had the chance to make a chump out of him. I'm glad I'm not in that group. I've really never seen a more comprehensive challenge anywhere by anyone, let alone a pro vp player. He gives us players all a good name.
Tell your boyfirend to stop acting like a child and show his findings without any more preconditions than a fair hearing. No trips to Vegas, no debates, no bets, no idiot conditions of any kind.
Then we'll talk.
As for you, either you're Jerry's or Singer's sock puppet, or a shill. This is too obvious to need saying, but I'm saying it anyway. In any case, you're nicely filling up the whole mkl left behind.
Quote: JL2conclusion: You are afraid to meet him, even if he pays for your flights and hotels.
False. You didn't read the provided link, which said:
Quote: MathExtremistI wish to extend to Mr. Singer the opportunity to debate on the following proposition:
All video poker machines contain intentionally non-random 'safety-net programming' which prevents the payback of a video poker machine from falling outside a specified payback range, and moreover there exist non-public regulations in all relevant gaming jurisdictions which permit such non-random programming.
I will take the negative.
Mr. Singer refused the offer, in spite of issuing a similar challenge to all comers just days earlier. To your point, if Mr. Singer pays for my flights and hotels, I will gladly meet Mr. Singer in a Las Vegas-area debate on the topic described in the above thread. I will also agree to review his 2.3B hands' worth of VP data, in person and in real-time, at my standard hourly consulting rate. The Wizard can attest to my qualifications to do so. However, that's likely to take quite a long time and quite a lot of his money, which is why the right approach is to publish the results and let others review it as and when they have free time -- not as an interactive exercise.
However, Mr. Singer has already refused to meet me once. No pun intended, but I wouldn't bet on him reconsidering.
Quote: NareedHere's a thought, JL2:
Tell your boyfirend to stop acting like a child and show his findings without any more preconditions than a fair hearing. No trips to Vegas, no debates, no bets, no idiot conditions of any kind.
Then we'll talk.
As for you, either you're Jerry's or Singer's sock puppet, or a shill. This is too obvious to need saying, but I'm saying it anyway. In any case, you're nicely filling up the whole mkl left behind.
I don't communicate with him. In my business, we look at anyone who doesn't want to deal in person as weak & irrelevant. Why don't you & MathE just admit it: there's nothing as complete as being able to meet with the author of something in order to be as clear and accurate as possible for the purpose of making a determination. By making silly claims that this or that can easily be put up on the internet is just showing fear. None of us has any idea whatsoever what format he used, so instead of making false claims grow a pair and contact the guy with your concerns. His post sure sounded like he was willing to do whatever it takes to prove his findings. Too bad the people here aren't of the same persuasion.
Quote: MathExtremistFalse. You didn't read the provided link, which said:
Quote: MathExtremistI wish to extend to Mr. Singer the opportunity to debate on the following proposition:
All video poker machines contain intentionally non-random 'safety-net programming' which prevents the payback of a video poker machine from falling outside a specified payback range, and moreover there exist non-public regulations in all relevant gaming jurisdictions which permit such non-random programming.
I will take the negative.
Mr. Singer refused the offer, in spite of issuing a similar challenge to all comers just days earlier. To your point, if Mr. Singer pays for my flights and hotels, I will gladly meet Mr. Singer in a Las Vegas-area debate on the topic described in the above thread. I will also agree to review his 2.3B hands' worth of VP data, in person and in real-time, at my standard hourly consulting rate. The Wizard can attest to my qualifications to do so. However, that's likely to take quite a long time and quite a lot of his money, which is why the right approach is to publish the results and let others review it as and when they have free time -- not as an interactive exercise.
However, Mr. Singer has already refused to meet me once. No pun intended, but I wouldn't bet on him reconsidering.
You're like Atty. General Holder when it came to where to try the guy responsible for masterminding the 911 attacks. First you claim something, then you leave us hanging.
You said he refused to meet you. Where'd he say that please? Doesn't that strike you as odd considering what he posted now? He's already said he'd do it. All you need do is ask him to delete the wager parts. While you're at it ask him about consulting fees etc. (sheeze, do you have any money to actually gamble with?). Who knows until asked? But I still think you'll duck doing that. Prove me wrong, and get the WoV to ask him to return with his responses while you're at it.
For the record, why would I doubt your qualifications? If someone came on and made conflicting & senseless statements saying that you were incapable and a post by you made me feel different, I'd just as passionately defend that aspect about you too.
Quote: MathExtremist
To your point, if Mr. Singer pays for my flights and hotels, I will gladly meet Mr. Singer in a Las Vegas-area
Hell has a better chance of becoming a skating rink before Jerry Singer springs for anything. Why would he sink his own ship by letting someone know he's a total fraud? (the Wiz says we can say whatever we like about people who have been permanently eliminated)
I have been lurking on this thread for quite a while. Although I am fully aware that I have not either the mathematical or technical knowledge that you all possess, I do have other significant qualifications.
I could be dead wrong about this, but I would wager a large sum of money that singer (I refuse to say Mr., since it is a fake name) does indeed have.2.3B hands of VP data, and if given to you for analysis, you will see for yourself that the non-randomness is indeed how he describes it. I am sure that he will even let you run your own tests on said machine, and you will verify his results. After he and Logan are done goading you into a wager, not for money, but for a published apology and testimony of his findings of non-random VP machines, he will use that to sell the masses and gain publicity. That is where the financial gain will lie for him (them).
Of course the machine he has at his home has been sufficiently doctored to provide these non-random events. A very fine programmer I have known for years claims he can change less that 5 lines of code on a machine to change the outcomes. Now, you won't be able to look at the Eproms code to see if anything has happened like that, but again, I would wager heavily that it has. Your testimony will imply that the findings are only that particular machine, but in the spirit of PT Barnum, only the part they need will be quoted.
I think they really want Mike to be an 'independent observer', because he is well known and respected in the gaming community.
That being said, I could be completely wrong, but we did a similar scam with laptops in the early '00's by showing that a machine was clocked much higher than it really was, by my aforementioned friend 'hiding' a couple of lines of code in the BIOS. The higher speeds netted about $400 more per machine sold, and we sold a boat load of them.
I vote that we just let the thread die, and let singerloganII drift elsewhere for there fun.
And again, I could be completely wrong....
Quote: avargov
Of course the machine he has at his home has been sufficiently doctored to provide these non-random events.
..
Any real test with an observer would be done in a real casino. Who cares if he has a mountain of faked results, you'd have to be brain dead to believe they're real.
Quote: EvenBobHell has a better chance of becoming a skating rink before Jerry Singer springs for anything. Why would he sink his own ship by letting someone know he's a total fraud? (the Wiz says we can say whatever we like about people who have been permanently eliminated)
I know - the only point I was making by my comment is that I've already attempted to meet Singer for a "debate" or "challenge", and it was he, not I, who avoided the issue. Comes now JL2, requesting that I "try again". Exactly how many times should I attempt a discussion with someone who fails to answer basic questions and then hides behind acolytes?
Quote: MathExtremistExactly how many times should I attempt a discussion with someone who fails to answer basic questions and then hides behind acolytes?
If he's a fraud, he'll never meet you. If he's for real (he's not), he has no reason to meet you, unless he's got a scam planned. People who have a lock on casino wins don't go around showing it to people. Unless they're Thorp, who ruined BJ forever for the players who were counting cards for a living and keeping their mouth shut about it.
Quote: EvenBobIf he's a fraud, he'll never meet you. If he's for real (he's not), he has no reason to meet you, unless he's got a scam planned.
I must agree. If Singer were actually interested in the pursuit of truth, he'd have posted his test results a long, long time ago for public review. He didn't. Now he's got JL2 covering for that failing by rattling off a litany of excuses, like "it's too hard to post them on the Internet" or "the results are too complicated for anyone to understand without his face-to-face explanation." If one can learn Relativistic Quantum Field Theory over the Internet (OCW rocks, btw), then one can learn how to interpret 2.3B rows of simple statistical data over the Internet, too.
Quote: JL2
I T-H-I-N-K you are beginning to get testy. Calm down please and count binary numbers or something.
A) Now there's an idea. I didn't know you weren't a Las Vegan, but I was right that the expense would concern you. So why not ask Mr. singer to cover your airfare much in the same way he's covering theceespit's? Certainly worth a try, no? Or would that take you too close for comfort?
Lets be clear, Mr Singer has offered to cover my flight as a third party adjudicator/administrator of any bet if it happens. Not to review his data, but as part of the conclusion of a large bet he has offered up.
Quote: MathExtremist"it's too hard to post them on the Internet" or "the results are too complicated for anyone to understand without his face-to-face explanation."
They're skewed in his favor anyway, they're useless. Always start by assuming everything about a person like this is phony, and work from there.
Quote: JL2most people here are like me:
This just made my day!
The question now is - should we consider it a personal insult or just a hilarious joke?
(sorry hotblonde, just a joke - I hope!)
Quote: EvenBobAny real test with an observer would be done in a real casino. Who cares if he has a mountain of faked results, you'd have to be brain dead to believe they're real.
Are you as sour and negative at home as you portray on here??
Quote: EvenBobIf he's a fraud, he'll never meet you. If he's for real (he's not), he has no reason to meet you, unless he's got a scam planned. People who have a lock on casino wins don't go around showing it to people. Unless they're Thorp, who ruined BJ forever for the players who were counting cards for a living and keeping their mouth shut about it.
And a skeptic like you would have said the exact same thing before Mr. singer had his much publicized meet with the Wizard....and guess what?...you'd have been wrong then too. Any surprise there?
