Thread Rating:

rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 157
  • Posts: 8413
December 26th, 2010 at 3:21:54 PM permalink
Quote: RaleighCraps

I do not agree that there should be a ban on posting any systems though.



But you shouldn't get to weasel around in posting ALL details necessary to analyse something. Might as well be posting spam then.
One person's freedom is another person's annoying crap.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
December 26th, 2010 at 3:42:07 PM permalink
Quote: RaleighCraps

I also recall the Ron Harris scam. What was his backdoor? Bet 1 coin, then 2, then 2, then 3, then 5, then 3, or something like that. Suppose someone had stumbled into that sequence and brought it to this board as his/her system. They would have been pointed to the math and shown the math to show how wrong they were. And then out comes the news, and what do you know, they were on to something. Do I think this is the case with Singer's system? No, but I think anyone who says he is 100% wrong, is themselves making a mistake.



That's not what Jerry and Singer are saying, though. They're saying that the machines are programmed non-randomly, in cahoots with regulations that we can't see. Harris was obviously breaking the law, but according to Singer, the non-randomness he thinks is in VP machines is both intentional and legal. He repeatedly says the machines are *not* rigged.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
JerryLogan
JerryLogan
Joined: Jun 28, 2010
  • Threads: 26
  • Posts: 1344
December 26th, 2010 at 3:49:52 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

That's not what Jerry and Singer are saying, though. They're saying that the machines are programmed non-randomly, in cahoots with regulations that we can't see. Harris was obviously breaking the law, but according to Singer, the non-randomness he thinks is in VP machines is both intentional and legal. He repeatedly says the machines are *not* rigged.



That's selective arguing. From what I've read here and elsewhere your last 2 sentences are right on. But also from what I've read and more in conjunction with the purpose of RaleighCraps post, RS is able to consistently beat the negative ev machines with his complex strategy, and that has nothing to do with the fact that he believes he's proven the machines to be non-random.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
December 26th, 2010 at 5:12:34 PM permalink
Quote: JerryLogan

RS is able to consistently beat the negative ev machines with his complex strategy, and that has nothing to do with the fact that he believes he's proven the machines to be non-random.



That cannot be the case. Either (a) RS beats the games *because* they are non-random, or (b) the games are random and RS has gotten lucky. We all know, even you, that no betting system can alter the EV of a game of independent random trials regardless of what that game is -- slots, VP, roulette, dice, coin-flipping, etc. In other words, if the game is operating as the proverbial book says it should -- for example, as described on the Wizard's site -- then Singer's play has been -EV and any winnings over ten years are due to luck and luck alone.

I suspect that you wouldn't claim Singer's strategy will work for a slot machine. However, if the games are indeed random (and they are, in spite of Singer's repeated protestations to the contrary), then there is little qualitative difference between the outcome distribution of a slot game vs. the outcome distribution of a video poker game. In both cases, the game is a random variable with many outcomes: >50% chance of losing, a small chance of a very large award, and other smaller awards appearing with roughly increasing probabilities. If random/non-random has nothing to do with it, the system should work just as well on slots. Does it?
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
JerryLogan
JerryLogan
Joined: Jun 28, 2010
  • Threads: 26
  • Posts: 1344
December 26th, 2010 at 5:27:04 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

That cannot be the case. Either (a) RS beats the games *because* they are non-random, or (b) the games are random and RS has gotten lucky. We all know, even you, that no betting system can alter the EV of a game of independent random trials regardless of what that game is -- slots, VP, roulette, dice, coin-flipping, etc. In other words, if the game is operating as the proverbial book says it should -- for example, as described on the Wizard's site -- then Singer's play has been -EV and any winnings over ten years are due to luck and luck alone.

I suspect that you wouldn't claim Singer's strategy will work for a slot machine. However, if the games are indeed random (and they are, in spite of Singer's repeated protestations to the contrary), then there is little qualitative difference between the outcome distribution of a slot game vs. the outcome distribution of a video poker game. In both cases, the game is a random variable with many outcomes: >50% chance of losing, a small chance of a very large award, and other smaller awards appearing with roughly increasing probabilities. If random/non-random has nothing to do with it, the system should work just as well on slots. Does it?



Here's what I've either read from him or was told by him in person: He does not claim to beat games because they aren't random. He says he's structured his play strategy so as to take the most advantage from whenever luck comes along, which includes something I've never been able to do: to walk away after reaching a certain win goal. I've never even set win goals but I'm going to start.

He does not claim to alter the EV of any game and I've seen him say that he doesn't give a rats butt about game EV until AFTER he's played. At that time after winning he's written something like how the machine he just played turned out to be +205%EV or whatever.

I wouldn't think you could compare how he does his thing to being equally able to do it with slots. My experience with those things is either feast or famine, mostly famine, and if you're playing any kind of game where you increase denomination after losing, it won't be long before you bust out on many of your tries. I think the trick with vp is that it has so many small wins that it keeps you in the game a long time and you'll eventually see a big winner most of the time, and to him a big winner is not necessarily one of the top winners. I really can't wait to try it again in Laughlin later this week.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
December 26th, 2010 at 6:26:21 PM permalink
Quote: JerryLogan

I think the trick with vp is that it has so many small wins that it keeps you in the game a long time and you'll eventually see a big winner most of the time, and to him a big winner is not necessarily one of the top winners. I really can't wait to try it again in Laughlin later this week.



That happens to be true for most multi-line slot games these days. You might try a similar martingale-style system with slot denoms, going from pennies up through quarters or dollars. It won't be +EV, but it may lead to the same type of distribution -- many small-ish wins, the occasional, soul-crushing loss. Plus, if you play any meaningful amount of time on $1 or more multiline slots, you'll get quite a bit of comp attention.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
JerryLogan
JerryLogan
Joined: Jun 28, 2010
  • Threads: 26
  • Posts: 1344
December 26th, 2010 at 7:24:56 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

That happens to be true for most multi-line slot games these days. You might try a similar martingale-style system with slot denoms, going from pennies up through quarters or dollars. It won't be +EV, but it may lead to the same type of distribution -- many small-ish wins, the occasional, soul-crushing loss. Plus, if you play any meaningful amount of time on $1 or more multiline slots, you'll get quite a bit of comp attention.



Not for me. The one thing I liked about RS's strategy was that I had quite a few smaller cashouts along the way, and those were almost all due to hitting small winners close to each other. He said those go a long way in eliminating those soul-crushing losses, but they still happen infrequently and are over time more than made up for with the huge wins. I can't see that happening with a slot machine.
dm
dm
Joined: Apr 29, 2010
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 699
December 27th, 2010 at 1:21:45 PM permalink
Quote: RaleighCraps

As a frequent lurker, and one who dislikes the troll posting and bickering, I am glad to see people get booted. As I have posted before, the forum was much easier to read before the latest generation of posters showed up. I am not saying there should not be any disagreements. That would serve no purpose. I do appreciate reading all the different views that people have, and am constantly surprised how some topics that would seem to be binary, end up having many different view points.

I do not agree that there should be a ban on posting any systems though. Yes, most of us on here realize that there is no system that can be utilized which will overcome the house edge, but not allowing people to post their system would be a mistake. Sure the Iron Cross is a lousy system, but it still is fun to play it once in a while, and at times, it does show a profit. And so does throwing a buck down on the 6 on the big wheel, although you'll never see one of my dollars on there.

While most of the time, I find what JL has written to be a waste of my time, I have enjoyed reading the whole Rob Singer system threads. While I am fairly certain the math people have it correct, I also recall the Ron Harris scam. What was his backdoor? Bet 1 coin, then 2, then 2, then 3, then 5, then 3, or something like that. Suppose someone had stumbled into that sequence and brought it to this board as his/her system. They would have been pointed to the math and shown the math to show how wrong they were. And then out comes the news, and what do you know, they were on to something. Do I think this is the case with Singer's system? No, but I think anyone who says he is 100% wrong, is themselves making a mistake.

Thanks Wizard for the forum, and for taking steps to get the forum back to enjoyable reading again.





Why would anyone post their system, knowing it is useless? It seems like they are looking for praise of their brilliance, to me. I think it is harmful for naive gamblers to encounter this stuff and start "wishing it were true". If ANYONE is posting their system for my benefit, please DON'T! It must bother the Wizard most of all.
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
December 27th, 2010 at 1:28:13 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

That cannot be the case. Either (a) RS beats the games *because* they are non-random, or (b) the games are random and RS has gotten lucky. We all know, even you, that no betting system can alter the EV of a game of independent random trials regardless of what that game is -- slots, VP, roulette, dice, coin-flipping, etc. In other words, if the game is operating as the proverbial book says it should -- for example, as described on the Wizard's site -- then Singer's play has been -EV and any winnings over ten years are due to luck and luck alone.

I suspect that you wouldn't claim Singer's strategy will work for a slot machine. However, if the games are indeed random (and they are, in spite of Singer's repeated protestations to the contrary), then there is little qualitative difference between the outcome distribution of a slot game vs. the outcome distribution of a video poker game. In both cases, the game is a random variable with many outcomes: >50% chance of losing, a small chance of a very large award, and other smaller awards appearing with roughly increasing probabilities. If random/non-random has nothing to do with it, the system should work just as well on slots. Does it?



I think that before you can possibly get any kind of rational explanation into Jerry's head, or anyone else's head, you have to be able to convince him why the statement:

"RS is able to consistently beat the negative ev machines with his complex strategy"

cannot possibly be true. Nor can any similar claims stated directly by RS, OR ANYONE ELSE, be true. Jerry has constantly deflected any attempts to show why that is the case, by calling the people who try to do so "liars", "cowards", "in denial", "envious", blah blah blah. Can Jerry get past his extreme propensity to personally attack anyone who teels him something he doesn't want to hear? Or can he get past that and begin to understand the underlying logic, and MAYBE, why neither RS nor anyone else on the planet can "consistently beat" ANY -EV game with ANY strategy?

He's gotten testy and called you names several times, but on the whole, he doesn't blow his cork as often with you as with others. Do you think that that gives you a fighting chance of getting him to see reason?
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
December 27th, 2010 at 1:33:42 PM permalink
Quote: Paigowdan

We all have those people who push our buttons, but to whom we are complelled to respond in a primal way, otherwise it just gets under our skin if let it slide. An "I gotta give him that needed jab right back" type of impulse. It creates pockets of bickering couples as part of our community: MKL & Jerry, etc. There can be a "bad marriage/relation" list formed from these pairings.



I realize that was the case with me, as in how I respond to things such as Jerry, and I had to force myself to stop reacting to him. I now respond only peripherally, and in one recent case, that of his utterly abhorrent and disgusting "Christmas greeting", I felt compelled nonetheless to rebuke him. Probably shouldn't have, though--his shameful post spoke for itself.

In any case, he's not long for this board; as surely as the night doth follow the day, he will go off the rails again. Then we can have threads go on for more than five posts without being hijacked by a foul-smelling diatribe against some group of people that Jerry hates.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw

  • Jump to: