My Point Of View

I don't know whether they are the same person, but I'm confident he / they find the obsession with the question very entertaining.

I highly doubt that they are the same person. JL was unable to remotely explain what RS was doing. RS explained it pretty well, and game me one specific example of a 'special play'. I think RS's 'attacks' on forum members were acceptable, and that the responses from the forum members were also acceptable. JL crossed the line quite frequently. I am so intrigued by RS, I just can't figure out his motives. If as all say he is not selling anything, I do not understand why he would continue to espouse a clearly losing strategy. It seems like he is intelligent enough to understand the 'you can't add negative numbers to get a positive' concept. Anyway, I love the back and forth banter. I would lay 20 - 1 that they are not the same person.

I'm pretty sure your all sock puppets of The Wizard and Michael Bluejay.

Quote: SOOPOO

I highly doubt that they are the same person. JL was unable to remotely explain what RS was doing. RS explained it pretty well, and game me one specific example of a 'special play'.

But changing from knowing something to not knowing something is a pretty easy cover. You play more ignorant, or you can play smart. Sorta like some people in poker games to cause someone to believe they are a weak player, when they are not.


There are other things that would take more work to change, but I don't know that that's one of them.

Quote: SOOPOO

I highly doubt that they are the same person. JL was unable to remotely explain what RS was doing. RS explained it pretty well, and game me one specific example of a 'special play'. I think RS's 'attacks' on forum members were acceptable, and that the responses from the forum members were also acceptable. JL crossed the line quite frequently. I am so intrigued by RS, I just can't figure out his motives. If as all say he is not selling anything, I do not understand why he would continue to espouse a clearly losing strategy. It seems like he is intelligent enough to understand the 'you can't add negative numbers to get a positive' concept. Anyway, I love the back and forth banter. I would lay 20 - 1 that they are not the same person.

Then you would win that bet. I see ......ZERO (whom I noticed has been suspended several times himself) gets cornered, and his only way out is to make believe he's got it all figured out so he can put his "highly analytical" mind at ease. Logan had you pegged so much that he really got to you, didn't he. And to think, all it took was one simple word from me to set you off.

The Wizard could confirm identities by doing something else that seems to have slipped by the resident genius and anal-neurotic: check the ISP's for similarity.

BTW SOOPOO, if a clearly losing strategy is being ahead over $985,000 from the machines only, then I'll take it. Plus I could prove it and prove I can win realtime if anyone ever closed their mouths and wanted to challenge me for a change. But, as I told MathEx before, safety comes first to theorists.

So I'll leave you folks by asking a few of you to please tone down the insults--unless you want them back when I return after JLs next high-limit training. If anyone wants free training, free books, or just free advice, you know how to contact me. If you feel like separating with $250/hour that I've seen him advertise , just give the other guy a call and he'll give you by-the-book optimal play training.

Quote: RobSinger

The Wizard could confirm identities by doing something else that seems to have slipped by the resident genius and anal-neurotic: check the ISP's for similarity.
.

ISP spoofing or anonymizing is easily accomplished.

RS- I would LOVE to watch you play, but, unfortunately for me, I don't get to Vegas that often... I am skeptical enough, as you can tell, that I would not feel comfortable putting my own money at risk. I do have one additional question for you... What would you say your winnings are on a dollar bet basis, meaning, say, you made 100,000 bets at $10 per and are up $50,000, then, you 'make' 5%? The math guys here would say if you are playing 98% machines and occassionally making suboptimal plays, say, to 97.5%, that they could figure out how many standard deviations your actual success rate is from expected. If you have that data and would share it it would be interesting to us skeptics. Thanks.

I'll state it again... hitting 80% winning sessions is not an amazing feat if you make your sessions end by hitting a win goal (around 5-10% of the credits at risk). It's not anything magic in Rob Singer's method (even if looking at it was what made me find it out).

I could make the bet that the Cesspit Playing Method hit 80% winning sessions.

What's more key is if the idea of taking small wins -during a session- and putting them to one side can counteract the sessions where you lose the whole lot.

I don't know. I make no claims on that, Mr Singer does and other's make claims it's not possible to do over the long run. The next part of that would be arguing what the long run is (how short is the long run, or how long is the short run).

Quote: SOOPOO

I highly doubt that they are the same person. JL was unable to remotely explain what RS was doing. RS explained it pretty well, and game me one specific example of a 'special play'. I think RS's 'attacks' on forum members were acceptable, and that the responses from the forum members were also acceptable. JL crossed the line quite frequently. I am so intrigued by RS, I just can't figure out his motives. If as all say he is not selling anything, I do not understand why he would continue to espouse a clearly losing strategy.

Perhaps he's found a system that works for him and he's running with it. There's nothing wrong with that. In craps, some players throw in the occasional hardway or other prop bet into the mix and have a better time of it. That increases the house edge but so what? It's supposed to be about having fun, not just minimizing your hourly expected loss (that's easy - sleep in).

I'm not going to wade through all of Singer's material, so I don't know if he actually claims his multi-denomination poker system is +EV (if he does, he'd be incorrect), but there's nothing wrong per se with playing a negative, increase-as-you-lose betting progression. The problems with system hucksters are (a) they don't know what's going on, and (b) they try to sell other people on their secret systems. To the extent that Singer isn't charging anyone for his VP progression systems, and if he's not deluded into thinking he's got the edge by making suboptimal plays, I can't really fault him on that.

What I can fault him on is the nonsense about secret regulations and intentionally programmed non-randomness in VP machines. I'd lay dollars to donuts that he misinterpreted whatever conversation he may have had with gaming vendor employees or consultants in the past. There is no conditional subroutine in any RNG-driven VP machine that decides what the second five cards are based on the first five. The algorithm for VP is simple: shuffle the whole deck into an array, deal out the first five cards, and then deal out up to another five based on the draw/hold decision. The first 10 cards (indeed, all 52 cards) are internally known as soon as the shuffle is completed. See GLI-11, 2.3.3 (b)-ii-A. GLI Standard 11. Note that GLI is not a government entity, but a commercial, for-profit testing lab. Here's how to reach them, if anyone has any questions on what's legal vs. what's not in a VP machine:
GLI offices and phone numbers

(Note: I contrast RNG-driven games with central-determinant, like NY or WA, where the VP machines are really display mechanisms for virtual scratch tickets.)

There are tests to tell if two writers are actually the same person. That is how they figured out Joe Klein wrote Primary Colors. I don't know that much about it, but I think it starts with simple things, like average number of letters per word, ratio of commas, and words per sentence. Anybody care to investigate?

I see that Jerry's suspension ends tomorrow, by the way.

Quote: Wizard

There are tests to tell if two writers are actually the same person. That is how they figured out Joe Klein wrote Primary Colors. I don't know that much about it, but I think it starts with simple things, like average number of letters per word, ratio of commas, and words per sentence. Anybody care to investigate?

I see that Jerry's suspension ends tomorrow, by the way.

I've focused on what I consider to be some (possible) dead giveaways, but one thing I have noticed that possibly contradicts my theory is that RS doesn't make nearly as many grammatical mistakes as JL. I'd be interested in applying those tests to JL and RS's posts.

It DOES seem, however, that Singer is getting verrrrrrry testy at the repeated suggestions he's receiving here that his "system" and his "theories" are a steaming heap o' hooey. You'd think he'd be used to that by now. But as you've noted, Jerry will be dashing in tomorrow on his white charger to save the fair Singer from his slanderers. I can hardly wait.

Quote: RobSinger

Then you would win that bet. I see ......ZERO (whom I noticed has been suspended several times himself) gets cornered, and his only way out is to make believe he's got it all figured out so he can put his "highly analytical" mind at ease. Logan had you pegged so much that he really got to you, didn't he. And to think, all it took was one simple word from me to set you off.

The Wizard could confirm identities by doing something else that seems to have slipped by the resident genius and anal-neurotic: check the ISP's for similarity.

BTW SOOPOO, if a clearly losing strategy is being ahead over $985,000 from the machines only, then I'll take it. Plus I could prove it and prove I can win realtime if anyone ever closed their mouths and wanted to challenge me for a change. But, as I told MathEx before, safety comes first to theorists.

So I'll leave you folks by asking a few of you to please tone down the insults--unless you want them back when I return after JLs next high-limit training. If anyone wants free training, free books, or just free advice, you know how to contact me. If you feel like separating with $250/hour that I've seen him advertise , just give the other guy a call and he'll give you by-the-book optimal play training.

The second paragraph, above, violates the forum rules against name-calling.

Everybody please note that RS's departure will coincide with JL's return.

And to those of you who wonder what Singer gets out of all this, you now have your answer. He has apparently been able to fool SOME people, and separate them from their money.

This is why I keep my fool proof way of beating Casino War to myself.
All you haters!

Quote: mkl654321

The second paragraph, above, violates the forum rules against name-calling.

Everybody please note that RS's departure will coincide with JL's return.

And to those of you who wonder what Singer gets out of all this, you now have your answer. He has apparently been able to fool SOME people, and separate them from their money.

Huh, which line says that? He's talking about Bob Dancer in the last paragraph.

Quote: mkl654321

Jerry will be dashing in tomorrow on his white charger...

This one?

Quote: MathExtremist

This one?

Best post. Ever.

Quote: TheNightfly

Quote: MathExtremist

This one?

Best post. Ever.

Look at the size of the engine compartment, you could fit a full blown 428 hemi in there.

Quote: RobSinger

So I'll leave you folks by asking a few of you to please tone down the insults--unless you want them back when I return after JLs next high-limit training. If anyone wants free training, free books, or just free advice, you know how to contact me. If you feel like separating with $250/hour that I've seen him advertise , just give the other guy a call and he'll give you by-the-book optimal play training.

Thank you for your contact information.
I am stuck in the rain in LA trying to make it to Chicago and on to Spain. Nasty winter weather.

I wish I had my computer with me.
I have my laptop only (yuck) and have been checking all computer code that a friend of mine and I have programmed your playing systems. Well, only 2 of them.
After adjusting for your "special plays" am confident we have captured your style of VP play in a computer simulation.
I still need time to verify all our work and hope to ask a few questions about other types of "special plays" for other VP games as soon as I return home.


Why are you removing your website? It contains good information about who you are and what you do.

Happy Holidays.

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: TheNightfly

Quote: MathExtremist

This one?

Best post. Ever.

Look at the size of the engine compartment, you could fit a full blown 428 hemi in there.

I had one just like in the picture.
Was red.
nasty drum brakes.
But only had a 318 V8 2V carb.

The girls still liked it!

Your nightmare is back! I thought I was out for good but lucky dogs that you are, the only one who will tell it like it really is, returns.

About the comparison to RS, if there's no way to prove I'm not the guy and if anyone still wants to believe different then tough bananas. I saw mkl go through another assertion-filled ramble on how he's arrived at his very thoughtful, time consuming, mathematically analyzed conclusion that I'm RS because of how he showed up when I was suspended. Absolutely brilliant, another masterpiece from the guy who promised never to return after going through the humiliation of being suspended right in the midst of when he thought he was impressing everybody!

I've noticed in this thread is something I've brought up several times. What you have is Rob Singer posting about published articles that explained certain things he discovered as a Gambling Today writer, and instead of delving into any of it the easy way out is taken by claiming he said there were secret clauses or something. You have him coming right after the critics boldy challenging them to proof of his winnings and proof of his playing, yet all he gets in response is either nothing or excuses. Come to think of it, that's all he got when he put those same things in that paper. Says alot, and he said it all when he said you critics would rather be safe than sorry.

Isn't that the type of Charger the guy on Burn Notice drives? A 318 2bbl....that wouldn't keep up with a 4 cyl. Nissan these days.

Welcome back Jerry! Some of us missed you. It is tough to stay fair and balanced on this site!

Quote: JerryLogan

What you have is Rob Singer posting about published articles that explained certain things he discovered as a Gambling Today writer, and instead of delving into any of it the easy way out is taken by claiming he said there were secret clauses or something.

This is what he said:

Quote: RobSinger

Regs. which are outside the scope of that which is available to the public via the internet--i.e., confidential interpretation of what's meant by "random".

Singer apparently believes that all video poker machines have some intentionally programmed non-randomness, such as the ability to draw near-miss cards more frequently than would be expected. He supports this belief by claiming that some gaming director told him about confidential regulations, and with anecdotes like "It just does not happen in video poker. Random my ass!"

That's not how the games work - they work as you would expect, by randomly shuffling a deck of virtual cards and dealing from the top of the deck, just like you would with physical cards. Intentionally dealing near-miss cards is strictly illegal, just as it is in slot games. I don't know what Singer was actually told, and he's loathe to repeat it, but whatever it was he apparently misinterpreted the message. There may be technical standards confidential to each company on how each company's RNG actually works (this is true), but those technical standards must still comply with the RNG regulations for each gaming jurisdiction.

But Jerry, you recently suggested that you wouldn't believe statements like these even if they came from someone with industry experience working on gaming machine RNGs, so instead, let me use a simple analogy. There is a tall box with a small, round hole in the top, and another small, round hole in the bottom. There is a marble on the floor by the bottom hole. When you take the marble and put it into the top hole, you hear a rolling noise and then the marble comes out the bottom hole.

Without knowing more, what is more plausible:
1) The box contains a ramp of some sort to guide the marble from the top hole to the bottom hole.
2) The box contains secret military technology to dematerialize the marble, send it to a government testing facility where its molecular structure is altered slightly, and then back to the box where it appears at the bottom hole.

Sometimes what's in the box is what you think is in the box.

Quote: mkl654321

You claim to do something that no one in human history has ever been able to do, and that over 400 years of mathematical science says is impossible. That makes you either a fraud or an idiot. "Nuff said, indeed.

This post has been brought to my attention as a violation of rule #1 (no personal insults). Before I decide what to do about it, what specifically is the claim RS is making that you're referring to?

Math Extremist

I have read RS comments on this in the past. It seems that it is a sticking point with you. One of the arguments I have seen him mention before is the fact that there are "secret regs" having to do with meeting minimum payouts on a machine. In otherwords if it was possible for a machine to continously have dumb people playing it and making improper holds the payout for that machine would skew low. The machine then would kick into a secondary program that would allow it to catch up to bring the payback more close to normal. I realize this is a very low and extreme possibility. However based on my own experience with gaming manufacture I do think it is done. I used to test the table master games, and they were internally set to a payback. That payback swung back and forth a certain percent but always stayed within the limits. I would like to hear yours or the Wizards thoughts on this as I have always wondered.

Quote: thlf

Math Extremist

I have read RS comments on this in the past. It seems that it is a sticking point with you. One of the arguments I have seen him mention before is the fact that there are "secret regs" having to do with meeting minimum payouts on a machine. In otherwords if it was possible for a machine to continously have dumb people playing it and making improper holds the payout for that machine would skew low. The machine then would kick into a secondary program that would allow it to catch up to bring the payback more close to normal. I realize this is a very low and extreme possibility. However based on my own experience with gaming manufacture I do think it is done. I used to test the table master games, and they were internally set to a payback. That payback swung back and forth a certain percent but always stayed within the limits. I would like to hear yours or the Wizards thoughts on this as I have always wondered.

That's a good question, but it's not how the regs work. The regulations for games in which the player may exert strategy over the outcome are based on optimal play, not total play. For example:

Quote: NGC Reg 14.040

Minimum standards for gaming devices. All gaming devices submitted for approval:
1. Must theoretically pay out a mathematically demonstrable percentage of all amounts wagered, which must not be less than 75 percent for each wager available for play on the device.
(a) Gaming devices that may be affected by player skill must meet this standard when using a method of play that will provide the greatest return to the player over a period of continuous play.

(emphasis mine)

The games available on the TableMaster platform aren't as volatile as VP -- usually blackjack, 3CP, or other house-banked card games with mostly even-money payouts. So the swings between high and low converge on the payback much more quickly than in VP.

But blackjack is a good example here: if someone sat down at a TableMaster game and just kept banging on the "hit" button, they'd lose every hand except the blackjacks and drawn 21s (assuming there's an auto-stand feature -- I can't remember). That player's payback would be less than 10%, well underneath the required 75%. If there were a secondary program to allow the player to catch up, it would have to give the player blackjacks all the time. That doesn't happen.

The reason blackjack is such a good example here is because it's a game that is played both on gaming machines and live tables. The regulations also say that a virtual version of a live game must behave the same way as the live game, and we both know that there's no secondary program on a live blackjack game. If someone hits and busts all the time at a live game, they're just a bad blackjack player -- the dealer doesn't secretly stack the deck to give them better cards so they can catch up, though it'd be funny to see them try. But if the live game and electronic version thereof need to behave the same way, then the secondary program you suggest isn't allowed on a virtual blackjack game (or on VP for that matter). Here's what the regulations say:

Quote: NGC Reg 14.040

2. Must use a random selection process to determine the game outcome of each play of a game. The random selection process must meet 95 percent confidence limits using a standard chi-squared test for goodness of fit.
(a) Each possible permutation or combination of game elements which produce winning or losing game outcomes must be available for random selection at the initiation of each play.
(b) For gaming devices that are representative of live gambling games, the mathematical probability of a symbol or other element appearing in a game outcome must be equal to the mathematical probability of that symbol or element occurring in the live gambling game. For other gaming devices, the mathematical probability of a symbol appearing in a position in any game outcome must be constant.

(emphasis mine)

So the regulations about meeting minimum payouts aren't secret, they're published. If this whole thing is based on a misinterpretation of 14.040.1(a), it might make sense that Singer would claim that there's some secret "catch-up" program. But there isn't, not in Nevada or any other properly-regulated jurisdiction.

Interestingly enough, the concept of a secondary program *has* been used before, but in the other direction. In early online casino software, if an operator took a big loss at the expense of a slot jackpot or other winner, some software packages would tighten up the systemwide payback in an effort to recoup the money more quickly. It was a difficult task trying to convince them that players could tell the difference between a rigged game and a square one, but eventually they came around.

Quote: MathExtremist

This is what he said:

Singer apparently believes that all video poker machines have some intentionally programmed non-randomness, such as the ability to draw near-miss cards more frequently than would be expected. He supports this belief by claiming that some gaming director told him about confidential regulations, and with anecdotes like "It just does not happen in video poker. Random my ass!"

That's not how the games work - they work as you would expect, by randomly shuffling a deck of virtual cards and dealing from the top of the deck, just like you would with physical cards. Intentionally dealing near-miss cards is strictly illegal, just as it is in slot games. I don't know what Singer was actually told, and he's loathe to repeat it, but whatever it was he apparently misinterpreted the message. There may be technical standards confidential to each company on how each company's RNG actually works (this is true), but those technical standards must still comply with the RNG regulations for each gaming jurisdiction.

Forgive me for deleting your box with marbles example because I did not understand it.

But let me say this about that: my observation and follow-on conversations with RS about machine randomness is basicly what you said, but with a little more reasoning included. These "near misses" also include the right cards at times to complete the win, such as my Royal a few weeks ago where I was dealt a straight along with four cards toa royal, and I drew one card that flipped over for the royal. This type of scenario may well be just what the machine ordered in order to stay within certain percentages the regulations require the machines stay within. He also says these other than random events are necessary overall in order to comply with the specific defenition of random in the confidential portion of those regulations.

I don't find that so difficult to believe and who cares anyway, I'm still going to play and everyone else is still going to play, including all those APers who think their poop don't stink compared to mine. Why, because we CAN'T stop playing and the casinos know it.

Last, this person that RS talked to was long ago identified in that paper, I remember reading about it. I also remember RS reporting on a number of odd issues including his big wins that nobody wanted to believe so he gave the editor W2 copies for people to come in to see for themselves and they also printed a big one. If this guy is so confused and/or he's making anything up, why would the paper have reported on any of it and HOW could they report on any of it? To me it all just adds to his credibility, which went a long way in accepting his offer to train me, especially on this next one where I'm bringing $12,000 with.

Quote: JerryLogan

Forgive me for deleting your box with marbles example because I did not understand it.

It was just an example of Occam's Razor -- that the simplest explanations are often correct.

Quote: JerryLogan

These "near misses" also include the right cards at times to complete the win, such as my Royal a few weeks ago where I was dealt a straight along with four cards toa royal, and I drew one card that flipped over for the royal. This type of scenario may well be just what the machine ordered in order to stay within certain percentages the regulations require the machines stay within. He also says these other than random events are necessary overall in order to comply with the specific defenition of random in the confidential portion of those regulations.

I know that's what he says, but he's wrong. Everything you've described, and everything he's described, is more simply explained by the straightforward interpretation of the regulations. That is, it's being dealt randomly. In a random game, you'll get lucky and hit royals. In a random game, you'll get unlucky and have near-misses. Both of those are legal. What's not legal is intentionally programming near misses. That was a *huge* issue in the 1980s with Universal Distributing because that's exactly how their slot games worked. As a result, we have:

Quote: NGC Reg 14.040

All gaming devices submitted for approval
3. Must display an accurate representation of the game outcome. After selection of the game outcome, the gaming device must not make a variable secondary decision which affects the result shown to the player.

This regulation was added in 1989 after the Universal situation. You can read more about that in chapter 4 of "License To Steal" by Jeff Burbank - it's a fascinating story. The point is, intentional near miss programming is *illegal* in Nevada. And by the same token, the flip side is also illegal: forcing a win if the RNG drew a losing outcome.

The only way Singer's "confidential regulations" theory holds water is if these regulations have no force or effect. It's just silly to think that, but don't take my word for it -- call the NGC yourself: (702) 486-2000.

My larger point is this: you, Singer, me, everyone's default intuition about randomness is flawed. We're not wired to think about it properly, and it takes a lot of conscious effort to overcome that. Humans are wired to see patterns in random data and infer causality. You're doing it for VP, so is Singer. Roulette players see patterns of red or black all the time even though they mean nothing. It's human nature. But don't let that faulty wiring let you fall for some confidential regulations mumbo-jumbo. Everything that you've ever seen in a VP game can easily be explained by straightforward randomness, and everything you've ever seen in a VP game could just as easily have happened if you were dealing from a real deck of cards.

Quote: Wizard

This post has been brought to my attention as a violation of rule #1 (no personal insults). Before I decide what to do about it, what specifically is the claim RS is making that you're referring to?

Let me hazard a guess---it was JerryLogan who brought this to your attention, right?

Before I respond, I'd like to quote a few Rob Singer remarks from the same thread:

ME: I've read enough on this forum to see how you're so deeply into yourself,

(from the same post) You should have substituted several legal classes for all those math-oriented sliders you engaged in before your head got so big.

except for this mlk654321 character. I'm not sure why he doesn't want it to have been that Jerry did get that $1 royal, but I can only guess from his previous confused comments that he's envious.

I understand all the inuendos and insinuations he throws mlk654321's way, but truthfully, if you waste the time reading thru all that stuff as I have, how can anyone disagree with any of it? (my note: how, indeed????)

The Wizard could confirm identities by doing something else that seems to have slipped by the resident genius and anal-neurotic: check the ISP's for similarity. (RS is referring to me here)

(end quotes)

So any sanctions against me should certainly apply to Singer as well, but I'd like to point out why calling him a liar and a fraud are not insults, but rather, the "undeniable truth" (to use a famous Singerism):

Singer's claims are twofold:

1. He claims to have won almost a million dollars playing -EV video poker machines, and playing them suboptimally to boot.
2. He claims to have a "system", apparently some kind of Martingale, which has helped him achieve this goal. However, when pressed for details, he always (as in, ALWAYS) starts to ramble and dissemble, and then goes off on a tangent about how the machines are not really random. He has never formally explicated his "system" to the extent that it could ever be empirically tested and/or simulated by anyone (including on his website). Whenever anyone presses him on this, he defaults to personal insults. In any case, no such system has a prayer of working, so his claim to have such a system is self-refuting, and no actual explication of the system is necessary to prove it false: only the claim that it works is necessary to do so.

THEREFORE, I definitely consider Rob Singer to be both a liar AND a fraud, in that he claims to have done, and to continue to be able to do, something that we ALL know is patently impossible: consistently win at negative expectation video poker. If, on the other hand, he has simply gotten fabulously lucky over the years, and believes that his "system" is why he's had that fabulous luck, that indeed makes him an idiot. However, given the vanishingly small probability that he actually has achieved the wins that he claims, I view "fraud" as much more likely.

I do not know the extent to which RS has sold his systems to anyone, or otherwise collected money for his "advice", but if that extent is zero, then he is not, technically, a fraud; merely, a liar.

Quote: DeMango

Welcome back Jerry! Some of us missed you. It is tough to stay fair and balanced on this site!

Fox news has the same problem...

Quote: Wizard

This post has been brought to my attention as a violation of rule #1 (no personal insults). Before I decide what to do about it, what specifically is the claim RS is making that you're referring to?

Short version: to be able to consistently win at a negative expectation gambling game, using a "system" or "method" that overcomes the mathematics of said negative expectation gambling game. His claims of a lifetime win of nearly a million dollars are extremely unlikely to be true; his claims of a system that has enabled and does enable him to do that are an absolute certainty to be false.

Quote: mkl654321

something that we ALL know is patently impossible: consistently win at negative expectation video poker.

We ALL do not KNOW that.
My problem with Mr Singer is his low session total played.
Rob Singer on his website claims to have played "only" Total Professional Sessions:427

I do not know his "meaning" of Professional Sessions.

After programming his 2 popular styles of play in a computer to simulate his results, with most of his "special plays" accounted for, I ran 10,000 runs of 427 sessions and have showed over an 86% session overall profit. Some even higher than his reported close to $1 million profit to date. I used his bankroll and betting limits he claims he has used from his post at his website.

But I say only 427 sessions?
What would the next 427 sessions hold?
The other 14% of the sessions had losing net results.

Quote: DeMango

Welcome back Jerry! Some of us missed you. It is tough to stay fair and balanced on this site!

Yeah, I kind of missed all the personal attacks. Rob Singer tried valiantly, but he just doesn't have the talent that our resident (until he gets thrown out) Master of Nastiness has. Besides, imagine the pressure cooker that was building as Jerry seethed for a week, unable to respond to everybody's "made-up assertions" (a Jerryism: ALL assertions, including the ones he makes himself, are "made-up"), and unable to publicly insult any ethnic, racial, societal, or sexual group. Life must have been hell at home and at work. We provide a valuable service here in relieving that prssure.

Yes, but what was the sum total of all the sessions... there's the rub.

Quote: nope27

We ALL do not KNOW that.

Actually, "we" do know that, and have known it for hundreds of years.

Quote: mkl654321

something that we ALL know is patently impossible: consistently win at negative expectation video poker.

Actually, "we" do know that, and have known it for hundreds of years.

Your statement was incomplete since there is a difference in the "short run" and the theoretical long run.

My computer simulations have shown that in the short run that Mr Singer claims to be in, 472 sessions, over 86% of computer sessions showed a net profit.

Anyone can consistently win at negative expectation video poker in the "short run".
Mine and my friend's computer simulations prove my above statement to be 100% truthful.

I would love to see your computer simulation results showing a 100% session loss rate over the same 427 sessions.

Quote: mkl654321

Short version: to be able to consistently win at a negative expectation gambling game, using a "system" or "method" that overcomes the mathematics of said negative expectation gambling game.

His claims of a lifetime win of nearly a million dollars are extremely unlikely to be true; his claims of a system that has enabled and does enable him to do that are an absolute certainty to be false.

I have no reason to question Rob Singer's honesty in his claims.

Words are words, proof is proof...but really... who cares.

He has played in only 400+ sessions with over a $30k bankroll. Must be nice!
I say he goes bankrupt after playing just 1000 sessions.


Remember 98steps Craps System! He was going to accept Mr Bluejay's challenge.
But, I'm almost 100% certain that having lost good $$$ and his investors confidence, all system style of play, the longer one plays. will all fail, just a matter of time.

So, if you are up at any point in your lifetime of play...STOP and go to the bank...
become a better lover for your spouse...always EV+

Quote: nope27

Your statement was incomplete since there is a difference in the "short run" and the theoretical long run.

My computer simulations have shown that in the short run that Mr Singer claims to be in, 472 sessions, over 86% of computer sessions showed a net profit.

Ahhhh, I understand now. 86% of the trials of 472 sessions showed a profit.

I assumed that 86% of the 472 sessions showed a profit was what you were stating.

That is.... interesting for sure.

Quote: MathExtremist

I know that's what he says, but he's wrong. Everything you've described, and everything he's described, is more simply explained by the straightforward interpretation of the regulations. That is, it's being dealt randomly. In a random game, you'll get lucky and hit royals. In a random game, you'll get unlucky and have near-misses. Both of those are legal. What's not legal is intentionally programming near misses. That was a *huge* issue in the 1980s with Universal Distributing because that's exactly how their slot games worked.

I'll stick with this point because that's the main issue. You clearly absolutely believe, from reading what you and everyone else are allowed to read from the regulations, that there is nothing that goes beyond that. Simple to understand.

RS believes differently, he published an article on it that the whole world could read, could check out the substance with the guy at the gaming company, and his Gambling Today paper apparently stood behind him when he did all that. What I gather from that is there were plenty of shocked people back then just as you are now. Only rather than investigating based on the facts and contacts that were provided with the article, the math people who disagreed stuck with their ages-old routine of being safe and not sorry. So, we once again have the discussion and it will probably come up again and again as long as Rs is alive to irritate others with his truth.

All I can say is gambling is a big time business with state government involvement, and saying there are regulations that go beyond the eyes of the public is not only not far fetched, it's pretty common at least in some of the contracts we have with governments for delivery services.

Ooh....Ooh! I see mkl is scrambling to save face with long-winded bursts that he just can't seem to make himself feel good enough about to make him quit. Gotta love the guy!

Quote: thecesspit

Ahhhh, I understand now. 86% of the trials of 472 sessions showed a profit.

I assumed that 86% of the 472 sessions showed a profit was what you were stating.

That is.... interesting for sure.

Exactly.
I wondered why Mr Singer has played only 427 sessions. I am sure some are many hours long as my simulations do show.
1000 session length net profit drops to 64%
5000 session length net profit drops to only 32%

remember a session has a win and loss stop.

So, sure in the very short run, Mr Singer's system of play can and does win with net session profit.

It would be more interesting to see if he tracked his handle along with number of hands played. I doubt he gathered any accurate records that could be shared.
But I could be wrong in that assumption.

Hey Wiz

How long is it going to take for you to get sick of being the kindergarten teacher on this board.

Quote: thlf

Hey Wiz

How long is it going to take for you to get sick of being the kindergarten teacher on this board.

I've been wondering the same thing, and I'm just about to stop visiting the forum. Too much non-gambling stuff.

MathExtremist, I have been looking through the NGC regulations, and specifically Reg. 14. While the regulations are impressive, I am more interested in enforcement of those regs and penalties for noncompliance. Do you have any knowledge of enforcement activities?

Quote: Headlock

I've been wondering the same thing, and I'm just about to stop visiting the forum. Too much non-gambling stuff.

MathExtremist, I have been looking through the NGC regulations, and specifically Reg. 14. While the regulations are impressive, I am more interested in enforcement of those regs and penalties for noncompliance. Do you have any knowledge of enforcement activities?

You don't provide much input anyway.

Quote: JerryLogan

RS believes differently, he published an article on it that the whole world could read, could check out the substance with the guy at the gaming company, and his Gambling Today paper apparently stood behind him when he did all that. What I gather from that is there were plenty of shocked people back then just as you are now. Only rather than investigating based on the facts and contacts that were provided with the article, the math people who disagreed stuck with their ages-old routine of being safe and not sorry. So, we once again have the discussion and it will probably come up again and again as long as Rs is alive to irritate others with his truth.

I met a gentleman in Las Vegas last summer, he is a member here, maybe he will post his results, writing down numbers as he played at a video poker machine at The Plaza casino. I had to ask what he was doing, he said "sit down" and told me he was keeping results of what he called the "5th car flip" if I remember right. That was my first introduction to the name Rob Singer.

After dinner he showed me his results on his computer and they were close to what Mr Singer had claimed to find in 40,000 hands.
This gentleman had over 150,000 hands documented with machine numbers, date, time etc, I was impressed with his attention to so many details and had told me he contacted Mr Singer about his results and that Singer said he was about to finish his studies on the idea and both are convinced that certain plays in VP does not produce random results.

https://wizardofodds.com/news/Chat-wih-Rob-Singer.html
tells what I am talking about.

I say the math does not lie and Mr Singer and my acquaintance has short term results showing something may not be right.

update: my acquaintance, after I emailed him, has sent me his Excel data file. I will look it over and post results in another thread. Interesting stuff.

Quote: Headlock

I've been wondering the same thing, and I'm just about to stop visiting the forum. Too much non-gambling stuff.

MathExtremist, I have been looking through the NGC regulations, and specifically Reg. 14. While the regulations are impressive, I am more interested in enforcement of those regs and penalties for noncompliance.

Do you have any knowledge of enforcement activities?

Excellent point.
Just because there is a law against something,
IF no one enforces it, big deal to the law!

Just like the US Government, Wall Street, AIG, Freddie and Fannie and the Mortgage Industry.

Quote: JerryLogan

RS believes differently, he published an article on it that the whole world could read, could check out the substance with the guy at the gaming company, and his Gambling Today paper apparently stood behind him when he did all that. What I gather from that is there were plenty of shocked people back then just as you are now. Only rather than investigating based on the facts and contacts that were provided with the article, the math people who disagreed stuck with their ages-old routine of being safe and not sorry. So, we once again have the discussion and it will probably come up again and again as long as Rs is alive to irritate others with his truth.

Anyone got a link to this article so we can all read it instead of imagining what it might say?

Quote: JerryLogan

I'll stick with this point because that's the main issue. You clearly absolutely believe, from reading what you and everyone else are allowed to read from the regulations, that there is nothing that goes beyond that. Simple to understand. RS believes differently, he published an article on it that the whole world could read, could check out the substance with the guy at the gaming company,

We've already established that you wouldn't even believe the guy at the gaming company if he told you "Singer is wrong: all gaming machines *do* have to comply with the public regulations". You believe Singer based on third-hand conversations, while I know he's wrong from first-hand experience. Since that doesn't matter to you, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I just think you'd be more thoughtful when considering the implications of Singer's theory. There's a big difference between non-public technical standards which facilitate the adherence to public regulations and non-public rules which override the public ones. Singer is basically not only saying "there are secret regulations" but that "the public ones are a lie". Do you really find that plausible?

Quote: Headlock

I've been wondering the same thing, and I'm just about to stop visiting the forum. Too much non-gambling stuff.

MathExtremist, I have been looking through the NGC regulations, and specifically Reg. 14. While the regulations are impressive, I am more interested in enforcement of those regs and penalties for noncompliance. Do you have any knowledge of enforcement activities?

Sure. There's the book "License to Steal" that I already quoted from. Also, all the NGC meeting minutes are published online: http://gaming.nv.gov/agendas.htm#agendas

For more, contact the NGCB enforcement division:
http://gaming.nv.gov/enf_main.htm

Quote: JerryLogan

Your nightmare is back! I thought I was out for good but lucky dogs that you are, the only one who will tell it like it really is, returns.

About the comparison to RS, if there's no way to prove I'm not the guy and if anyone still wants to believe different then tough bananas. I saw mkl go through another assertion-filled ramble on how he's arrived at his very thoughtful, time consuming, mathematically analyzed conclusion that I'm RS because of how he showed up when I was suspended. Absolutely brilliant, another masterpiece from the guy who promised never to return after going through the humiliation of being suspended right in the midst of when he thought he was impressing everybody!

I've noticed in this thread is something I've brought up several times. What you have is Rob Singer posting about published articles that explained certain things he discovered as a Gambling Today writer, and instead of delving into any of it the easy way out is taken by claiming he said there were secret clauses or something. You have him coming right after the critics boldy challenging them to proof of his winnings and proof of his playing, yet all he gets in response is either nothing or excuses. Come to think of it, that's all he got when he put those same things in that paper. Says alot, and he said it all when he said you critics would rather be safe than sorry.

Isn't that the type of Charger the guy on Burn Notice drives? A 318 2bbl....that wouldn't keep up with a 4 cyl. Nissan these days.

Yeah but the guy on Burn Notice totals his every week and mysteriously keeps replacing it with an identical one. Must have a garage full of em.

Quote: MathExtremist

We've already established that you wouldn't even believe the guy at the gaming company if he told you "Singer is wrong: all gaming machines *do* have to comply with the public regulations". You believe Singer based on third-hand conversations, while I know he's wrong from first-hand experience. Since that doesn't matter to you, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I just think you'd be more thoughtful when considering the implications of Singer's theory. There's a big difference between non-public technical standards which facilitate the adherence to public regulations and non-public rules which override the public ones. Singer is basically not only saying "there are secret regulations" but that "the public ones are a lie". Do you really find that plausible?

You're not dumb, so why keep the spin going? Third hand conversations that you would not believe if your mother were involved? Singer is wrong? Then give me your theory on the following, which you keep ducking.

You're a writer for a LV paper on gambling. You write a controversial article exposing something not previously known to the public after interviewing a software engineer at a big machine manufacturing company. You identify the company and the name of the person interviewed in your article. Your paper gets contacted and that manufacturing company asks for the columnist to come to their executive offices, meet with them, and sign an agreement not to publicly talk about it (or however Singer recently described it to you). He includes all that in a follow on column. The paper management supports all of it, publishes all of it, and you have to believe they'd never do so unless everything was verified.

This is all clear as day to vp players who used to read him religiously, and there must have been many because of his tenure at that paper. So I ask, how could this have been, if it's all a lie or whatever you're calling it? He puts his reputation on the line back then and survives; you make statements like "from 1st hand experience" and have no accountability whatsoever by saying that.

I think you see why he's believable. I don't see where he's saying the regulations that we see are a lie. He said the ones we do not see explain the official interpretation of the ones we do see.

BEN, you're right! I've seen at least 3 of those Chargers blow up (so far).

Quote: mkl654321

Singer's claims are twofold:

1. He claims to have won almost a million dollars playing -EV video poker machines, and playing them suboptimally to boot.
2. He claims to have a "system", apparently some kind of Martingale, which has helped him achieve this goal. However, when pressed for details, he always (as in, ALWAYS) starts to ramble and dissemble, and then goes off on a tangent about how the machines are not really random. He has never formally explicated his "system" to the extent that it could ever be empirically tested and/or simulated by anyone (including on his website). Whenever anyone presses him on this, he defaults to personal insults. In any case, no such system has a prayer of working, so his claim to have such a system is self-refuting, and no actual explication of the system is necessary to prove it false: only the claim that it works is necessary to do so.

THEREFORE, I definitely consider Rob Singer to be both a liar AND a fraud, in that he claims to have done, and to continue to be able to do, something that we ALL know is patently impossible: consistently win at negative expectation video poker. If, on the other hand, he has simply gotten fabulously lucky over the years, and believes that his "system" is why he's had that fabulous luck, that indeed makes him an idiot. However, given the vanishingly small probability that he actually has achieved the wins that he claims, I view "fraud" as much more likely.

I do not know the extent to which RS has sold his systems to anyone, or otherwise collected money for his "advice", but if that extent is zero, then he is not, technically, a fraud; merely, a liar.

Thank you for backing up your accusation with specifics. That is what I wanted to see.

To clarify my rules, I consider a personal insult an unsubstantiated and unflattering statement about somebody. If you're going to say something derogatory about another member, I request you back it up with evidence and reasoning, in the same post.

In this case, you make a cogent argument, so you're okay.