My Point Of View
Quote: JerryLoganYou're not dumb, so why keep the spin going?
There's no spin from my end. The explanation I've given -- that VP is based on a random deal of 5 initial and up to 5 replacement cards -- is as non-spin as you can get. VP works exactly as it would work if you dealt it by hand with physical cards.
Quote: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.
"You have to believe" is a statement of faith, Jerry. How do we know it was verified? What exactly was it that was verified? All I've read from Singer is that someone told him about confidential rules. He won't tell anyone what they are, but to him they mean that the games are non-random.
According to his own posts, if he wanted to actually demonstrate that the games were rigged, he could do so. He went so far as to claim he's hooked up test equipment to a VP machine (perhaps an oscilloscope?). If he has actual evidence of a rigged machine, nobody's seen it. Again, you're taking it on faith.
Again, Jerry, you've already said that you wouldn't believe VP games were random even if a gaming industry insider with hands-on knowledge of the RNGs and the regulatory process confirmed that with you directly. So clearly it won't matter what I say to you.Quote: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.
Quote: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.
No, I completely disagree that he's believable. He's not saying it, but the only logical conclusion of his claims are that the public regulations are a sham. The regulations as published require equally likely gaming outcomes. Singer suggests that the gaming outcomes (cards) in VP are *not* equally likely -- that they are not random and instead depend on the cards that have already been dealt. If that is true, it is a direct violation of the published regulations, making the VP games illegal.
Do you believe every VP game in Nevada violates NGC regulation 14?
Quote: WizardThank 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.
Obviously you agree with him on Singer and his play and results. I see no evidence in his ramble, just why he disagrees.
None of this makes Singer a liar, and to call him that is probably an insult to the guy.
But I don't want to see him suspended either. I like mkl and he's fun to watch squirm!
So, what you're saying is I could call anyone anything if I submit my rationale for doing so that's based on unsupportable assertions, hatred, envy, and heresay from other vp forums.
Not very cool.
Quote: MathExtremistThere's no spin from my end. The explanation I've given -- that VP is based on a random deal of 5 initial and up to 5 replacement cards -- is as non-spin as you can get. VP works exactly as it would work if you dealt it by hand with physical cards.
"You have to believe" is a statement of faith, Jerry. How do we know it was verified? What exactly was it that was verified? All I've read from Singer is that someone told him about confidential rules. He won't tell anyone what they are, but to him they mean that the games are non-random.
According to his own posts, if he wanted to actually demonstrate that the games were rigged, he could do so. He went so far as to claim he's hooked up test equipment to a VP machine (perhaps an oscilloscope?). If he has actual evidence of a rigged machine, nobody's seen it. Again, you're taking it on faith.
Again, Jerry, you've already said that you wouldn't believe VP games were random even if a gaming industry insider with hands-on knowledge of the RNGs and the regulatory process confirmed that with you directly. So clearly it won't matter what I say to you.
No, I completely disagree that he's believable. He's not saying it, but the only logical conclusion of his claims are that the public regulations are a sham. The regulations as published require equally likely gaming outcomes. Singer suggests that the gaming outcomes (cards) in VP are *not* equally likely -- that they are not random and instead depend on the cards that have already been dealt. If that is true, it is a direct violation of the published regulations, making the VP games illegal.
Do you believe every VP game in Nevada violates NGC regulation 14?
1. Your spin goes beyond the simplification of the deal/draw and you know it.
2. You're saying a paper would knowingly publish false information, or be so lax that they do not require verification before publishing such an important gaming industry story. And he did tell EVERYONE everything about what he learned from the interview. You're trying to make it appear as if he's holding something back. That means you know that's not the case but you need it to be that way.
3. He's said many times machines are not rigged. For you to continually accuse him of saying that means you're totally frustrated to the point of now having to lie as well as needing to block out any and all logic about the issue.
4. I've always believed the games were random until I read that article. It holds water, water that you just don't want to acknowledge exists.
5. I believe every Nevada machine is exactly as the regulations say they should be, and the disagreement stems from what Singer published....and what you claim based on what you are allowed to see.
Quote: MathExtremistThe 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.
I thought the selection of the draw cards was manufacturer-specific. They might use the 5 cards "on top of the deck" after the shuffle, or the remaining cards might be "continuously shuffled" until the "draw' button was pressed, or some other method, as long as the method meets the random requirements of the regs. Based on the regs all conforming methods produce a random outcome, but it may not be that "...all 52 cards are known as soon as the shuffle is completed'?
Edit: Sorry, I'm way late into this discussion.
Quote: JerryLoganI like mkl and he's fun to watch squirm!
So what you're saying is that you are intentionally baiting and trolling him? I'd say that should be sufficient evidence for....
Geez, Wiz, you don't have any rules against trolling.
Quote: JerryLogan2. You're saying a paper would knowingly publish false information, or be so lax that they do not require verification before publishing such an important gaming industry story.
Just to confirm, you don't believe Gaming Today would publish an article about the randomness of video poker games without verifying the facts. Perhaps you should read this article, then.
Quote: JerryLogan5. I believe every Nevada machine is exactly as the regulations say they should be, and the disagreement stems from what Singer published....and what you claim based on what you are allowed to see.
Jerry, you're unable to see the direct contradiction in front of your face. NGC Reg 14 requires random gaming outcomes in all gaming machines -- and the case of VP, the odds should correspond to the live-game probabilities. Singer believes that VP games use non-random gaming outcomes that do not correspond to dealing from a real deck of cards (and I quote: "random my ass!"). If you believe that every Nevada machine is exactly as the published regulations say they should be, then whether you know it or not, you're in opposition to Singer -- because if a game uses non-random outcomes, it does not comply with NGC Reg 14. You cannot rationally hold the position "the games are compliant with Reg 14" and simultaneously "the games are not compliant with Reg 14".
That's not to say that you don't (or can't) irrationally believe that the games are random and nevertheless believe that Singer is right. Holding self-contradictory beliefs is a human birthright.
Let me ask this: does Singer think that he can exploit the alleged non-randomness and detect a pattern of game elements? Is that the basis of his strategy?
Quote: allenwalkerI thought the selection of the draw cards was manufacturer-specific. They might use the 5 cards "on top of the deck" after the shuffle, or the remaining cards might be "continuously shuffled" until the "draw' button was pressed, or some other method, as long as the method meets the random requirements of the regs. Based on the regs all conforming methods produce a random outcome, but it may not be that "...all 52 cards are known as soon as the shuffle is completed'?
Edit: Sorry, I'm way late into this discussion.
No worries - in at least early cases, it was "shuffle all 52 cards into an array". The other methods are congruent and equivalently random. GLI-11 allows the VP RNG to send 5 and 5 or all 10, and when you're doing a high-speed RNG test those are basically the same operation. I'm not aware of any games that continuously shuffle the 47 cards until the draw button is pressed - that's a lot of unnecessary CPU cycles. If anything, you might poll the RNG continuously after the deal and then when the draw button is pressed, initiate a reshuffle (once) of the 47 cards. But that's only if you're worried about someone fitting deal cards to a point in the cycle, and that's only remotely a problem if (a) the machine is being hacked or (b) the RNG cycle is much shorter than 52!. Otherwise, simply cycling the RNG between hands the way slot games do it is good enough.
In any event. GLI-11 4.3.6 requires
Quote: GLI-114.3.6 Live Game Correlation. Unless otherwise denoted on the payglass, where the gaming device plays a game that is recognizable such as Poker, Blackjack, Roulette, etc., the same probabilities associated with the live game shall be evident in the simulated game. For example, the odds of getting any particular number in Roulette where there is a single zero (0) and a double zero (00) on the wheel, shall be 1 in 38; the odds of drawing a specific card or cards in Poker shall be the same as in the live game.
In no event could a VP game use non-random card drawing and get away with passing GLI-11.
Quote: MathExtremistLet me ask this: does Singer think that he can exploit the alleged non-randomness and detect a pattern of game elements? Is that the basis of his strategy?
I have seen Mr Singer note that he uses it to detect a cold cycle on a machine and use that as indication to use another machine.
Quote: MoscaSo what you're saying is that you are intentionally baiting and trolling him? I'd say that should be sufficient evidence for....
Geez, Wiz, you don't have any rules against trolling.
Assumptions and speculations based on feeling, without supportable evidence should be sufficient reason for....
Quote: JerryLoganAssumptions and speculations based on feeling, without supportable evidence should be sufficient reason for....
Oh, yawn, Jerry. Use it on someone who cares. You're a bully, you like being a bully, and so what. Sometimes I agree with you on gaming things, sometimes I don't. The rest of it is immaterial, except your constant poking at mlk is tiresome, and since you stick it in every single post it can't be avoided.
("Bully" assertion based on numerous instances of bullying. I will go through posts to find specific examples if necessary to substantiate this label, but I trust that it has been witnessed by enough here that doing so would be gilding the lily; it stands for itself.)
Quote: nope27Your 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.
.
You DO realize that the percentage of profitable sessions is meaningless, don't you? Only the aggregate result has any significance. Martingales almost always DO show a high per-session win rate. They also always show a net, total loss.
Quote: MoscaOh, yawn, Jerry. Use it on someone who cares. You're a bully, you like being a bully, and so what. Sometimes I agree with you on gaming things, sometimes I don't. The rest of it is immaterial, except your constant poking at mlk is tiresome, and since you stick it in every single post it can't be avoided.
("Bully" assertion based on numerous instances of bullying. I will go through posts to find specific examples if necessary to substantiate this label, but I trust that it has been witnessed by enough here that doing so would be gilding the lily; it stands for itself.)
Jerry doesn't mind "assumptions" or "made-up assertions" or any of the other things he so strenuously objects to if they come from his buddy, Rob Singer. Without a shred of proof, he takes completely on faith Singer's "made-up assertions" that he has won almost a million dollars playing VP, that he has a foolproof, infallible system for beating VP, and (even more ludicrous) that there are secret conspiracies to make the machines non-random.
Quote: MoscaOh, yawn, Jerry. Use it on someone who cares. You're a bully, you like being a bully, and so what. Sometimes I agree with you on gaming things, sometimes I don't. The rest of it is immaterial, except your constant poking at mlk is tiresome, and since you stick it in every single post it can't be avoided.
("Bully" assertion based on numerous instances of bullying. I will go through posts to find specific examples if necessary to substantiate this label, but I trust that it has been witnessed by enough here that doing so would be gilding the lily; it stands for itself.)
How about this: If YOU didn't care you wouldn't respond. So there's evidence right there that allows me to call you a liar.
I like these new rules!
Quote: MathExtremistJust to confirm, you don't believe Gaming Today would publish an article about the randomness of video poker games without verifying the facts. Perhaps you should read this article, then.
If there ever was a whiff of doubt, Frome's last paragraph is an ironclad clincher to the discussion. Anybody want odds on whether Singer or Logan respond?
Quote: JerryLoganHow about this: If YOU didn't care you wouldn't respond. So there's evidence right there that allows me to call you a liar.
I like these new rules!
Yeah, I care that I have to read you bullying other forum members. I hardly care what you think of me.
Quote: ShirkyIn the Seventies -- this is a pattern that's shown up on the network over and over again -- in the Seventies, a BBS called Communitree launched, one of the very early dial-up BBSes. This was launched when people didn't own computers, institutions owned computers.
Communitree was founded on the principles of open access and free dialogue. "Communitree" -- the name just says "California in the Seventies." And the notion was, effectively, throw off structure and new and beautiful patterns will arise.
And, indeed, as anyone who has put discussion software into groups that were previously disconnected has seen, that does happen. Incredible things happen. The early days of Echo, the early days of usenet, the early days of Lucasfilms Habitat, over and over again, you see all this incredible upwelling of people who suddenly are connected in ways they weren't before.
And then, as time sets in, difficulties emerge. In this case, one of the difficulties was occasioned by the fact that one of the institutions that got hold of some modems was a high school. And who, in 1978, was hanging out in the room with the computer and the modems in it, but the boys of that high school. And the boys weren't terribly interested in sophisticated adult conversation. They were interested in fart jokes. They were interested in salacious talk. They were interested in running amok and posting four-letter words and nyah-nyah-nyah, all over the bulletin board.
And the adults who had set up Communitree were horrified, and overrun by these students. The place that was founded on open access had too much open access, too much openness. They couldn't defend themselves against their own users. The place that was founded on free speech had too much freedom. They had no way of saying "No, that's not the kind of free speech we meant."
But that was a requirement. In order to defend themselves against being overrun, that was something that they needed to have that they didn't have, and as a result, they simply shut the site down.
Now you could ask whether or not the founders' inability to defend themselves from this onslaught, from being overrun, was a technical or a social problem. Did the software not allow the problem to be solved? Or was it the social configuration of the group that founded it, where they simply couldn't stomach the idea of adding censorship to protect their system. But in a way, it doesn't matter, because technical and social issues are deeply intertwined. There's no way to completely separate them.
What matters is, a group designed this and then was unable, in the context they'd set up, partly a technical and partly a social context, to save it from this attack from within. And attack from within is what matters. Communitree wasn't shut down by people trying to crash or syn-flood the server. It was shut down by people logging in and posting, which is what the system was designed to allow. The technological pattern of normal use and attack were identical at the machine level, so there was no way to specify technologically what should and shouldn't happen. Some of the users wanted the system to continue to exist and to provide a forum for discussion. And other of the users, the high school boys, either didn't care or were actively inimical. And the system provided no way for the former group to defend itself from the latter.
Now, this story has been written many times. It's actually frustrating to see how many times it's been written. You'd hope that at some point that someone would write it down, and they often do, but what then doesn't happen is other people don't read it.
The most charitable description of this repeated pattern is "learning from experience." But learning from experience is the worst possible way to learn something. Learning from experience is one up from remembering. That's not great. The best way to learn something is when someone else figures it out and tells you: "Don't go in that swamp. There are alligators in there."
Learning from experience about the alligators is lousy, compared to learning from reading, say. There hasn't been, unfortunately, in this arena, a lot of learning from reading.
Michael. For the love of god. Please. It won't work itself out. You can't have pure, unmoderated expression. You have users who are here to have fun at the expense of the group, rather than here to participate in the group. It's been studied. It is a phenomenon that is over 30 years old, it repeats itself, and you continue to think that this is different. It isn't. You are a mathematician, you know math. When you want to know about how people act, ask those who studied it. And please, learn from reading. There are alligators in the swamp. You can find out from watching them destroy your swamp, or you can see that someone has studied this and is reporting that they are dangerous to your swamp. It's your choice.
Quote: ShirkyThe third thing you need to accept: The core group has rights that trump individual rights in some situations. This pulls against the libertarian view that's quite common on the network, and it absolutely pulls against the one person/one vote notion. But you can see examples of how bad an idea voting is when citizenship is the same as ability to log in.
In the early Nineties, a proposal went out to create a Usenet news group for discussing Tibetan culture, called soc.culture.tibet. And it was voted down, in large part because a number of Chinese students who had Internet access voted it down, on the logic that Tibet wasn't a country; it was a region of China. And in their view, since Tibet wasn't a country, there oughtn't be any place to discuss its culture, because that was oxymoronic.
Now, everyone could see that this was the wrong answer. The people who wanted a place to discuss Tibetan culture should have it. That was the core group. But because the one person/one vote model on Usenet said "Anyone who's on Usenet gets to vote on any group," sufficiently contentious groups could simply be voted away.
Imagine today if, in the United States, Internet users had to be polled before any anti-war group could be created. Or French users had to be polled before any pro-war group could be created. The people who want to have those discussions are the people who matter. And absolute citizenship, with the idea that if you can log in, you are a citizen, is a harmful pattern, because it is the tyranny of the majority.
So the core group needs ways to defend itself -- both in getting started and because of the effects I talked about earlier -- the core group needs to defend itself so that it can stay on its sophisticated goals and away from its basic instincts.
Now, when I say these are three things you have to accept, I mean you have to accept them. Because if you don't accept them upfront, they'll happen to you anyway. And then you'll end up writing one of those documents that says "Oh, we launched this and we tried it, and then the users came along and did all these weird things. And now we're documenting it so future ages won't make this mistake." Even though you didn't read the thing that was written in 1978.
All groups of any integrity have a constitution. The constitution is always partly formal and partly informal. At the very least, the formal part is what's substantiated in code -- "the software works this way."
The informal part is the sense of "how we do it around here." And no matter how is substantiated in code or written in charter, whatever, there will always be an informal part as well. You can't separate the two.
Quote: SanchoPanzaQuote: MathExtremistJust to confirm, you don't believe Gaming Today would publish an article about the randomness of video poker games without verifying the facts. Perhaps you should read this article, then.
If there ever was a whiff of doubt, Frome's last paragraph is an ironclad clincher to the discussion. Anybody want odds on whether Singer or Logan respond?
Well at least you got SOMEONE to respond!
A small amount of research and this became easy. Singer mentions this writer in his videos and columns often, and has called him a hack and an empty pocket consultant who doesn't really play video poker. What he's mostly known for doing is rewriting his father's old articles over and over and giving them to the paper.
His last paragraph is just as flawed and misrepresenting as anything Mathextremist has said. The article obviously refers to what Singer's been saying, and if I remember right it was just about the time RS sent out a video newsletter explaining the facts & results, with shots of the machine in his garage hooked up to that testequipment along with the results that spit out of his printer from his testing. Notice Fromme didn't say anything about that, because he didn't want facts to get in the way.
Quote: MathExtremistJust to confirm, you don't believe Gaming Today would publish an article about the randomness of video poker games without verifying the facts. Perhaps you should read this article, then.
Jerry, you're unable to see the direct contradiction in front of your face. NGC Reg 14 requires random gaming outcomes in all gaming machines -- and the case of VP, the odds should correspond to the live-game probabilities. Singer believes that VP games use non-random gaming outcomes that do not correspond to dealing from a real deck of cards (and I quote: "random my ass!"). If you believe that every Nevada machine is exactly as the published regulations say they should be, then whether you know it or not, you're in opposition to Singer -- because if a game uses non-random outcomes, it does not comply with NGC Reg 14. You cannot rationally hold the position "the games are compliant with Reg 14" and simultaneously "the games are not compliant with Reg 14".
That's not to say that you don't (or can't) irrationally believe that the games are random and nevertheless believe that Singer is right. Holding self-contradictory beliefs is a human birthright.
Let me ask this: does Singer think that he can exploit the alleged non-randomness and detect a pattern of game elements? Is that the basis of his strategy?
I answered your 1st comment in a seperate post just before this. But looking at it again, it looks like you're trying to confirm that Gambling Today WOULD publish info without verifying it, is that right? If so, how does that apply to that article?
You're finally getting warm. Singer said the regulations that we read define the generally accepted definitions of how the machines operate as totally random. The part we DO NOT see, according to RS and not me and I'll try to get this acurate, give an interpretation to the word random which allows for a small range of parameters acceptable to the commission, casinos and manufacturers, while not needing to change the language in the publicly availavle version.
Singer seems to have done his best to prove his point, even on video, and how many vp gurus are you aware of that have self-tested a vp machine? Not that guy Fromme that's for sure, and Bob Dancer would never do it for fear that something might happen that would slow his product sales down or lose his gaming consultant jobs. In fact, Rs has gone beyond all that by his initial expose' in the first place.
There's an article Singer did about his exploitation of the patterns he said he can detect. He said he does not use them while playing his strategies other than to leave a machine that's in a cold cycle. If it's hot and he wins his goal, he leaves anyway. I thought that strange until I met with him, because to him it's the win goal that matters most and nothing else. He did say however, that he's won about $20,000 to $25,000 (I don't remember the exact amount but he published it) on the side studying and attacking these patterns. something about being at a multidenomination machine and when he detects it being hot he runs up to the highest denomination, and it's been successful if his win claim is right.
It's impossible to follow this, it's all she said/he said.
Quote: TheNightflyJerry, how much have you won with this strategy and why on earth are you such a staunch defender of RS? I understand that you are beginning your lessons with RS so it seems that all you have to go on is is word... how many sessions will it take before you can form your own opinion on the strategy based upon your personal experience? I saw the RF you posted - I've hit RF's too and I've never met RS.
About $4300 in my 1st training session with him. We're meeting in Laughlin at the end of the month for a go at the high limit $1 through $10 machine. I have to take a $12,000 bankroll per him.
It's not just this. I'm basically a lazy player who always loses because I never wanted to put in the effort to learn anything. I've always read Singer's articles (and have done a lot of reading his website recently) over the years because he's interesting, he's controversial, and his whole thing about doing everything for no charge intrigued me when you look at all the money grabbers in the vp business masquerading as winning advantage players. But what really put me over the edge about being serious about learning something from him was his video newsletters. You got to see not only the professional side of the guy but the personal side. He took us through his large home inside and out, and he showed us his cars and why he got them or was getting rid of some of them, he talked about his work and education history and he gave a glimpse of his family etc. He even gave an incredible demonstration of his ability with some kind of butterfly knife, I guess from his days in his government job or something. If you had just read all his stuff on the Internet and got a bad taste, as even I did at times, you'd have never guessed that he was nothing like that at all.
He's committed to training me for up to 6 sessions, and 4 of them have to be in Laughlin. He hates these Indian casinos around here. I'm 3-0 so far. Undefeated. I've hit many royal flushes over the years up to the $5 level and I've never had a winning year.
Quote: thecesspitSo... no-one has the original article, or a link to the article/video of Rob's machine hooked in the basement.
It's impossible to follow this, it's all she said/he said.
You might ask him about the video and the article. I think he ended his videos recently and the links on his site don't work any more, probably because he said he's shutting down in Jan.
Really? Rob Singer calling Elliot Frome a hack is like you calling the Wizard an innumerate. (Sorry, Wiz - we all know you're not an innumerate.)Quote: JerryLoganSinger mentions this writer in his videos and columns often, and has called him a hack
Elliot Frome has been responsible for the mathematical analysis of several proprietary casino games, and his work has been vetted and approved by the regulators at the Nevada Gaming Control Board. Let me say that again: Frome's work has been approved by regulators. Amazingly, you would prefer to ignore someone with industry experience as a gaming mathematician in favor of the far-fetched theories of someone whose evidence of non-random machines is "random my ass!".
This has turned into a religious debate, and I apologize to the assembled for not catching it sooner. Let's get back to the scientific method:
Jerry, if you or Singer have any shred of evidence whatsoever that any VP machine approved in any regulated U.S. jurisdiction is exhibiting non-random behavior, post that evidence here for peer review. In the absence of such evidence, your incredible claims will remain unsubstantiated, believed only by you and the hopefully few others willing to jettison common sense in favor of conspiracy theories and blind faith.
Quote: MathExtremistReally? Rob Singer calling Elliot Frome a hack is like you calling the Wizard an innumerate. (Sorry, Wiz - we all know you're not an innumerate.)
Elliot Frome has been responsible for the mathematical analysis of several proprietary casino games, and his work has been vetted and approved by the regulators at the Nevada Gaming Control Board. Let me say that again: Frome's work has been approved by regulators. Amazingly, you would prefer to ignore someone with industry experience as a gaming mathematician in favor of the far-fetched theories of someone whose evidence of non-random machines is "random my ass!".
This has turned into a religious debate, and I apologize to the assembled for not catching it sooner. Let's get back to the scientific method:
Jerry, if you or Singer have any shred of evidence whatsoever that any VP machine approved in any regulated U.S. jurisdiction is exhibiting non-random behavior, post that evidence here for peer review. In the absence of such evidence, your incredible claims will remain unsubstantiated, believed only by you and the hopefully few others willing to jettison common sense in favor of conspiracy theories and blind faith.
That's your opinion of Fromme. I didn't expect you'd agree with RS on that. Combing over some of Frommes columns I found one where he actually did take a trip to Nevada this year....to play the 5c machines. If's that's a knolwedgeable, well respected, and successful video poker expert extraordinaire, somebody please WAKE ME UP!
I don't have any evidence, why would I? And I don't really care one way or the other either. I'm just looking forward to being trained by the best in the business and hopefully turn my dreadful vp results around. Off to a good start wouldn't you say? If RS reads this then let him do what he wants. It looks like he's sticking to his word and not getting any more involved until after my next training though.
What do you mean by "small range of parameters"? Parameters that define what, exactly?Quote: JerryLoganYou're finally getting warm. Singer said the regulations that we read define the generally accepted definitions of how the machines operate as totally random. The part we DO NOT see, according to RS and not me and I'll try to get this acurate, give an interpretation to the word random which allows for a small range of parameters acceptable to the commission, casinos and manufacturers, while not needing to change the language in the publicly availavle version.
The regulation on the RNG meeting 95% chitest is public (14.040.2). It is true that the NGCB has approved different RNG algorithms for use within gaming machines, but all of them conform to the public regulations without needing to rely upon any non-public testing criteria.
I don't follow VP gurus at all, but I'm aware of far more gaming machine testing than you'd believe. Regardless, my background and qualifications aren't at issue here. Let's get Singer's testing evidence posted here for peer review. I'm sure there are at least a half-dozen people who would be very willing to run analyses on it.Quote:Singer seems to have done his best to prove his point, even on video, and how many vp gurus are you aware of that have self-tested a vp machine?
That means one of two things: either Singer is mistaken, or the games he is playing are in direct violation of the regulations:Quote:There's an article Singer did about his exploitation of the patterns he said he can detect.
Quote: NGC Regulation 14.040
2.(c) The [random] selection process must not produce detectable patterns of game elements or detectable dependency upon any previous game outcome, the amount wagered, or upon the style or method of play.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, here's what seems most plausible to me:
1) Singer has misinterpreted whatever he learned from his conversation with a gaming engineer as "the games don't need to be random all the time". That's not correct, but it might be easy to misinterpret if someone with only a lay understanding of randomness was speaking to a gaming machine firmware engineer. Firmware engineers aren't known to be the best geek-to-English translators.
2) Singer has misinterpreted the results of whatever testing he may have done on a single VP machine. I'm unaware of Singer's credentials in this area, but you can't just hook up an oscilloscope to a VP machine and "demonstrate that it is behaving non-randomly".
3) Singer cannot detect exploitable patterns in VP games, or tell when one is hot or cold. He only believes he can, and that belief alone should be sufficient demonstration that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
I'd love to see what the hook up he's using is. As JL suggests, I shall email him and see what he says...
Quote: MathExtremistI missed this post:
What do you mean by "small range of parameters"? Parameters that define what, exactly?
The regulation on the RNG meeting 95% chitest is public (14.040.2). It is true that the NGCB has approved different RNG algorithms for use within gaming machines, but all of them conform to the public regulations without needing to rely upon any non-public testing criteria.
I don't follow VP gurus at all, but I'm aware of far more gaming machine testing than you'd believe. Regardless, my background and qualifications aren't at issue here. Let's get Singer's testing evidence posted here for peer review. I'm sure there are at least a half-dozen people who would be very willing to run analyses on it.
That means one of two things: either Singer is mistaken, or the games he is playing are in direct violation of the regulations:Quote: NGC Regulation 14.040
2.(c) The [random] selection process must not produce detectable patterns of game elements or detectable dependency upon any previous game outcome, the amount wagered, or upon the style or method of play.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, here's what seems most plausible to me:
1) Singer has misinterpreted whatever he learned from his conversation with a gaming engineer as "the games don't need to be random all the time". That's not correct, but it might be easy to misinterpret if someone with only a lay understanding of randomness was speaking to a gaming machine firmware engineer. Firmware engineers aren't known to be the best geek-to-English translators.
2) Singer has misinterpreted the results of whatever testing he may have done on a single VP machine. I'm unaware of Singer's credentials in this area, but you can't just hook up an oscilloscope to a VP machine and "demonstrate that it is behaving non-randomly".
3) Singer cannot detect exploitable patterns in VP games. He only thinks he can.
1. I'm trying to quote what I remember. "Small range of parameters" may not be correctly worded but I do get the idea. I have no idea what a chitest is.
2. This is funny: "I'm sure there are at least a half-dozen people who would be very willing to run analyses on it." You mean just like there's always math people out there who are willing to offer a challenge to Singer??
3. Define "detectable pattern". It just may be RS's mind is more capable than they figured. Can you disprove that (other than the typical math person response of "it's highly unlikely")?
4. You can play with me because of my overall ignorance about this stuff, but you've already found you cannot play with Singer. You're on here bloviating on and on about what you read on the Internet about vp machine regulations and how Rs must be confused or reading this or that wrong or misinterpreting things and you continuously give the perception that you are the most knowledgeable person in the machine field, yet you always stop short of explaining your "credentials" other than to theorize about them. Singer put out videos, he wrote detailed articles with facts and names, and I've seen his credentials on his office wall that you seem to diss as if they were phonies. Why do you do that? Just as I can see you're no dummy, I've seen firsthand that he isn't either. It just doesn't make any sense.
Quote: JerryLogan4. You can play with me because of my overall ignorance about this stuff, but you've already found you cannot play with Singer. You're on here bloviating on and on about what you read on the Internet about vp machine regulations and how Rs must be confused or reading this or that wrong or misinterpreting things and you continuously give the perception that you are the most knowledgeable person in the machine field, yet you always stop short of explaining your "credentials" other than to theorize about them. Singer put out videos, he wrote detailed articles with facts and names, and I've seen his credentials on his office wall that you seem to diss as if they were phonies. Why do you do that? Just as I can see you're no dummy, I've seen firsthand that he isn't either. It just doesn't make any sense.
Videos and articles. Credentials on an office wall?
I really do hope ME explains his credentials, even though I'm certain that you will simply pooh-pooh them. Why you continue to defend someone who claims they've won close to $1,000,000 on VP when there's very, VERY little likelihood that they have, against people who are intimately involved with the gaming industry is beyond me. If RS wants to put up his dukes and fight the good fight then that's his choice but why are you, someone who has admitted ignorance of the facts, disputing what can be proven mathematically and quantitatively on behalf of someone who simply says he wins lots of money at VP? Other than keeping threads alive and having fun making silly, unfounded statements, what do you hope to achieve? You certainly can't prove RS is right (even if he is) and you certainly can't prove ME is wrong (even if he is). What gives?
Quote: TheNightflyVideos and articles. Credentials on an office wall?
I really do hope ME explains his credentials, even though I'm certain that you will simply pooh-pooh them. Why you continue to defend someone who claims they've won close to $1,000,000 on VP when there's very, VERY little likelihood that they have,
Given the method RS uses there is actually a reasonable chance he has made the money he claims, but is on the high side of the variance : e.g I'd put it at over 50% that he has won $900,000 over ten years. There's no easy way of verifying it, and I'm not making any bets on it.
I don't think Mr Singer claims that anyone can repeat his results. At least when I chatted to him about it, he made no claims that Jerry Logan, TheCesspit or any one else would repeat his success.
I find the stuff about hot and cold cycles highly suspect... knowing how things should be programmed there's no need for the human influence to add in the 5th card flip over or any other item. I doubt machines give make up hands to even out the percentage payouts, or do any other tricks... the only possibility is a flaw in Random Number Generator. Just like a random string of numbers from a Keno machine, or throws of a dice, there'll sometimes be patterns that don't actually exist.
Quote: JerryLoganQuote: SanchoPanzaQuote: MathExtremistJust to confirm, you don't believe Gaming Today would publish an article about the randomness of video poker games without verifying the facts. Perhaps you should read this article, then.
If there ever was a whiff of doubt, Frome's last paragraph is an ironclad clincher to the discussion. Anybody want odds on whether Singer or Logan respond?
Well at least you got SOMEONE to respond!
A small amount of research and this became easy. Singer mentions this writer in his videos and columns often, and has called him a hack and an empty pocket consultant who doesn't really play video poker. What he's mostly known for doing is rewriting his father's old articles over and over and giving them to the paper.
His last paragraph is just as flawed and misrepresenting as anything Mathextremist has said. The article obviously refers to what Singer's been saying, and if I remember right it was just about the time RS sent out a video newsletter explaining the facts & results, with shots of the machine in his garage hooked up to that testequipment along with the results that spit out of his printer from his testing. Notice Fromme didn't say anything about that, because he didn't want facts to get in the way.
Fromme did not say anything about that apparently because it is so nebulous as to be beneath commentary. At any rate, here is the paragraph that has earned a deflection and remains without a response to its substance:
"So, the question goes out to any of you who believe that the games are rigged: WHY do you play them? If the game is rigged so that the card you are randomly supposed to be dealt that gives you a Royal Flush is somehow discarded and replaced with garbage – then video poker would be nothing more than a slot machine. And by now, you all know how I feel about slot machines. If the games are rigged, then strategy is meaningless, paytables are meaningless and I guess the gambling laws are meaningless. In Nevada (and in many other jurisdictions), any video game that utilizes virtual real life objects (dice or cards, etc..) MUST have them play as they would in the real world – in other words, RANDOMLY. Until someone brings me absolute proof of anything but, I’m going to believe this is the case. Otherwise, why bother with any of it?"
Quote: JerryLoganMosca, just how overwhelmingly important IS this place to your life anyway??
Not at all. But standing up to bullies is important to my life. Because remaining quiet is the same as going along. I could delete my login and life wouldn't change a bit, except for that there would still be someone bullying people around, that I knew about. And I can call you on it. So I will.
Quote: MoscaNot at all. But standing up to bullies is important to my life. Because remaining quiet is the same as going along. I could delete my login and life wouldn't change a bit, except for that there would still be someone bullying people around, that I knew about. And I can call you on it. So I will.
Seconded. Unfortunately he's as likely to get a kick out of being banned as he is being here bullying people (I guess it makes him feel important or recognized or... something) so he'll just keep doing what he does as long as he can get away with it and then play the martyr when he gets the boot.
Quote: TheNightflyVideos and articles. Credentials on an office wall?
I really do hope ME explains his credentials, even though I'm certain that you will simply pooh-pooh them. Why you continue to defend someone who claims they've won close to $1,000,000 on VP when there's very, VERY little likelihood that they have, against people who are intimately involved with the gaming industry is beyond me. If RS wants to put up his dukes and fight the good fight then that's his choice but why are you, someone who has admitted ignorance of the facts, disputing what can be proven mathematically and quantitatively on behalf of someone who simply says he wins lots of money at VP? Other than keeping threads alive and having fun making silly, unfounded statements, what do you hope to achieve? You certainly can't prove RS is right (even if he is) and you certainly can't prove ME is wrong (even if he is). What gives?
Here's your reason: I'm learning from the guy and I'm ahead $4300 in one training session. He's a very interesting person in gaming and he leads a good life. Even the Wizard eluded to that in his review or whatever it was. I've also committed to posting results, good or horrible, on each of my upcoming trainings so others can get a little more of an idea to make their criticism with instead of doing so, blindly.
The only person who can prove if he's right or wrong is him, and when he offers to do that everyone runs and hides, through the years.
Why are you dissing his credentials anyway? Have you seen his video enewsletters where he shows everything about himself, his gambling, and that machine he tested? Are you upset that his book & column publishers are two longtime respected entities in LV? Have you not seen him on TV or listened to him on the radio? And I suppose you want to believe both his college diplomas from the '70's are fraudulent too. Hell, I'll bet if I put a picture of my Boise St. degree up most would say THAT'S a fake! Yes, I'd like to see why ME thinks he should be believed. Yes.
Quote: JerryLogan2. This is funny: "I'm sure there are at least a half-dozen people who would be very willing to run analyses on it." You mean just like there's always math people out there who are willing to offer a challenge to Singer??
No - the ubiquitous chest-thumping you call a "challenge" has to do with whether Singer can win a particular hand or session of VP, or whether he has tax returns from gambling winnings, or something else that is ultimately predicated on luck. I don't care about any of that.
But I very much challenge the veracity of Singer's claim that he hooked up a VP machine to a Rohde & Schwartz test device and found evidence of non-random gameplay. I've asked to see the test results, but you've said: "I don't have any evidence, why would I? And I don't really care one way or the other either." That's obviously false - you base your faith in Singer's far-fetched claims in large part on the supposition that he has evidence that all VP games (not just the one he tested) are intentionally programmed to be non-random.
Quote:3. Define "detectable pattern". It just may be RS's mind is more capable than they figured. Can you disprove that (other than the typical math person response of "it's highly unlikely")?
Please. You think the regulation was written with people in mind? It says "The selection process must not produce detectable patterns of game elements", and that doesn't refer to anyone's capable mind. If a computer can detect patterns in the game elements, the RNG is not allowable.
This is, in fact, exactly how they test the RNGs for compliance with this regulation. Among other things, gaming labs run what's called a serial correlation test to determine whether subsequent numbers are correlated with each other. An RNG might pass a standard distribution test like chisquare but fail a serial correlation test. The important part is this: if there were any truth to the claim that Singer can detect and exploit a pattern in VP cards or hands, the RNG in that machine would, at a minimum, fail the serial correlation test. There is no way Singer's claim can be truthful if the machines are legal. Therefore, either the machines he plays should not have been approved, or Singer is mistaken about his capable mind (and so are you).
Quote:4. You can play with me because of my overall ignorance about this stuff, but you've already found you cannot play with Singer. You're on here bloviating on and on about what you read on the Internet about vp machine regulations and how Rs must be confused or reading this or that wrong or misinterpreting things and you continuously give the perception that you are the most knowledgeable person in the machine field, yet you always stop short of explaining your "credentials" other than to theorize about them. Singer put out videos, he wrote detailed articles with facts and names, and I've seen his credentials on his office wall that you seem to diss as if they were phonies. Why do you do that? Just as I can see you're no dummy, I've seen firsthand that he isn't either. It just doesn't make any sense.
I'm not interested in playing (with either you or Singer), bloviating, or giving perceptions of anything, though it's good feedback that I've given you the perception that I am a knowledgeable person in the machine field. My goal on this forum is to opine credibly on how the machines work, based on intrinsic evidence, logic and first principles, without needing to rely on whatever credentials I may or may not have. In other words, I don't want this to be about the messenger, just the message. Singer, to my knowledge, has never worked for a gaming vendor, written code for a gaming machine, or worked with gaming regulators -- yet you believe him in spite of that because he says he spoke to someone who did those things. However, when I asked you whether you'd take it from the proverbial horse's mouth -- if you were told "Singer is wrong, the machines are random" from someone who did meet those criteria -- you said "no". That's why this needs to be about the message and not the messenger. Because from what you've shown about your unwavering faith in Singer's baseless assertions, in spite of the vast direct evidence to contradict them, it wouldn't matter who I am or what I've done. If I were John Daley (IGT's VP of video poker), you still wouldn't believe me -- you'd think it was just more support for this secret industry cover-up. And you'll continue believing that Singer alone can exploit patterns in VP machines, and it will continue to not matter.
"So, the question goes out to any of you who believe that the games are rigged: WHY do you play them? If the game is rigged so that the card you are randomly supposed to be dealt that gives you a Royal Flush is somehow discarded and replaced with garbage – then video poker would be nothing more than a slot machine. And by now, you all know how I feel about slot machines. If the games are rigged, then strategy is meaningless, paytables are meaningless and I guess the gambling laws are meaningless. In Nevada (and in many other jurisdictions), any video game that utilizes virtual real life objects (dice or cards, etc..) MUST have them play as they would in the real world – in other words, RANDOMLY. Until someone brings me absolute proof of anything but, I’m going to believe this is the case. Otherwise, why bother with any of it?"
"Beneath commentary"? The guy is always so starved for words that he rearranges old articles and spews them over and over again. See where he says "Otherwise, why bother with any of it"? Yeah right. The guy is ALWAYS responding to things Singer says in his columns, and it was obvious that he was one of RS's members who received his newsletters.
I've already responded to the 2nd paragraph to ME. It's the same old lie that people like him perpetuate about Singer that he claims machines are "rigged". Rs has never said that and he even stated that here in his brief appearance.
Quote: MoscaNot at all. But standing up to bullies is important to my life. Because remaining quiet is the same as going along. I could delete my login and life wouldn't change a bit, except for that there would still be someone bullying people around, that I knew about. And I can call you on it. So I will.
Bingo! I think I've found the 2nd sure thing out of 5!
Quote: JerryLoganThe only person who can prove if [Singer] is right or wrong is him, and when he offers to do that everyone runs and hides, through the years.
That's not true. I think we're all interested in seeing whatever evidence Singer has for his claim that video poker machines are intentionally programmed with non-random behavior, and do not simply work by randomly dealing 5 initial cards and then up to another 5 replacement cards. Again to the Wizard's credit, there are several members of this forum who are capable of cutting through hype and performing a critical analysis on statistical data, including the Wizard himself. That may not be true on the other gambling-related forums to which Singer has posted, but it's true here.
However, Singer is at least smart enough to know that he can't fool those members, so I very much doubt we'll ever see this alleged evidence of non-randomness. And that means the whole ball of yarn is just, well, a yarn.
Quote: MathExtremistNo - the ubiquitous chest-thumping you call a "challenge" has to do with whether Singer can win a particular hand or session of VP, or whether he has tax returns from gambling winnings, or something else that is ultimately predicated on luck. I don't care about any of that.
But I very much challenge the veracity of Singer's claim that he hooked up a VP machine to a Rohde & Schwartz test device and found evidence of non-random gameplay. I've asked to see the test results, but you've said: "I don't have any evidence, why would I? And I don't really care one way or the other either." That's obviously false - you base your faith in Singer's far-fetched claims in large part on the supposition that he has evidence that all VP games (not just the one he tested) are intentionally programmed to be non-random.
Please. You think the regulation was written with people in mind? It says "The selection process must not produce detectable patterns of game elements", and that doesn't refer to anyone's capable mind. If a computer can detect patterns in the game elements, the RNG is not allowable.
This is, in fact, exactly how they test the RNGs for compliance with this regulation. Among other things, gaming labs run what's called a serial correlation test to determine whether subsequent numbers are correlated with each other. An RNG might pass a standard distribution test like chisquare but fail a serial correlation test. The important part is this: if there were any truth to the claim that Singer can detect and exploit a pattern in VP cards or hands, the RNG in that machine would, at a minimum, fail the serial correlation test. There is no way Singer's claim can be truthful if the machines are legal. Therefore, either the machines he plays should not have been approved, or Singer is mistaken about his capable mind (and so are you).
I'm not interested in playing (with either you or Singer), bloviating, or giving perceptions of anything, though it's good feedback that I've given you the perception that I am a knowledgeable person in the machine field. My goal on this forum is to opine credibly on how the machines work, based on intrinsic evidence, logic and first principles, without needing to rely on whatever credentials I may or may not have. In other words, I don't want this to be about the messenger, just the message. Singer, to my knowledge, has never worked for a gaming vendor, written code for a gaming machine, or worked with gaming regulators -- yet you believe him in spite of that because he says he spoke to someone who did those things. However, when I asked you whether you'd take it from the proverbial horse's mouth -- if you were told "Singer is wrong, the machines are random" from someone who did meet those criteria -- you said "no". That's why this needs to be about the message and not the messenger. Because from what you've shown about your unwavering faith in Singer's baseless assertions, in spite of the vast direct evidence to contradict them, it wouldn't matter who I am or what I've done. If I were John Daley (IGT's VP of video poker), you still wouldn't believe me -- you'd think it was just more support for this secret industry cover-up. And you'll continue believing that Singer alone can exploit patterns in VP machines, and it will continue to not matter.
1. Instead of all your jumping up and down and screaming, why don't you simply ask RS to see his results, in person of course because the next cry will be how fake they probably are, and even then I suspect you'll come up with some other conspiracy theory because you'll be so beside yourself. So why don't you announce right now what exactly it would take for you to absolutely believe what he tested and videoed?
2. I don't know anything about how machines are programmed and I don't care to. All I know is what RS said and he did in exploiting the hot & cold cycles. On that one I am accepting his word on faith and nothing else.
3. In your part about correlation tests: Are you saying that no program can ever change while in operation without human involvement? In other words, no flaws? Ever? On the enforcement issue which I didn't see much discussion on, I don't believe anyone checks or enforces anything in the field unless a machine breaks down, needs to be reported for breaking down, then has to be started up again after repair. This is the gaming business man, and all the casinos, the states, and the manufacturers want is players losses to mount up so each can get their cut. No one's going to do anything to slow that down. This is the real world of big bank screw-ups, Wall Street theifs, and politician greed. You think the CASINO BUSINESS and their motley crews are beyond all that?
4. You continue to ignore the points of fact when it comes to RS, and you do so because your mind just couldn't bear how it would be if you were required to face a different but real truth. That I clearly see. No amount of fancy mkl-inspired multi-sylable eloquent words can cover that up. The difference in why I prefer to believe Singer over you is because he offers every bit of evidence that you do, yet he goes a step beyond that and has published it, videoed it, and offered to prove all of it while everyone runs away after shooting a barb or two. All you do is quote theory and regulations that we can all view. You refuse to supply credentials, instead hiding behind some intellectual cloak. I'm beginning to think that maybe you work at IGT or have, and were at odds with the gentleman who gave RS the info, BTW, RS recently put out that person's name on another forum for people (critics like you) to check with, and he said he's still there and is now some kind of a big shot. I'm beginning to suspect the sour grapes theory applying to this.
Quote: MathExtremistQuote: JerryLoganThe only person who can prove if [Singer] is right or wrong is him, and when he offers to do that everyone runs and hides, through the years.
That's not true. I think we're all interested in seeing whatever evidence Singer has for his claim that video poker machines are intentionally programmed with non-random behavior, and do not simply work by randomly dealing 5 initial cards and then up to another 5 replacement cards. Again to the Wizard's credit, there are several members of this forum who are capable of cutting through hype and performing a critical analysis on statistical data, including the Wizard himself. That may not be true on the other gambling-related forums to which Singer has posted, but it's true here.
However, Singer is at least smart enough to know that he can't fool those members, so I very much doubt we'll ever see this alleged evidence of non-randomness. And that means the whole ball of yarn is just, well, a yarn.
Same thing, different post.
Quote: MathExtremistQuote: JerryLoganThe only person who can prove if [Singer] is right or wrong is him, and when he offers to do that everyone runs and hides, through the years.
That's not true. I think we're all interested in seeing whatever evidence Singer has for his claim that video poker machines are intentionally programmed with non-random behavior, and do not simply work by randomly dealing 5 initial cards and then up to another 5 replacement cards. Again to the Wizard's credit, there are several members of this forum who are capable of cutting through hype and performing a critical analysis on statistical data, including the Wizard himself. That may not be true on the other gambling-related forums to which Singer has posted, but it's true here.
However, Singer is at least smart enough to know that he can't fool those members, so I very much doubt we'll ever see this alleged evidence of non-randomness. And that means the whole ball of yarn is just, well, a yarn.
Same thing, different post. Then why don't you just contact him, ask to see the data or video if he still has it, and identify what it'll take for you to believe him 100%?
Sound so simple to a simpleton like me!
Now I have to ask, and this is theoretical of course but you thrive on theory: WHAT WILL IT DO TO YOU WHEN HE PROVES HE'S RIGHT??
I just had an idea. Why don't you work with him on that, and at the same time you and others can challenge him to play a series of his sessions and bet him on it? I'd LOVE to see that whole thing go down once and for all, and the Wizard can make it some sort of media event. Even Dancer wouldn't miss it!
I gotta get back to work.
Quote: JerryLoganThen why don't you just contact him, ask to see the data or video if he still has it
I believe I've already done that. Several members of this forum, including me, have asked to see any evidence multiple times. So far, nothing.
Quote:Now I have to ask, and this is theoretical of course but you thrive on theory: WHAT WILL IT DO TO YOU WHEN HE PROVES HE'S RIGHT??
If Singer provides conclusive evidence that demonstrates that all video poker machines are using intentionally-programmed non-random behavior, rather than using a software RNG to deal 5 cards and draw up to another 5 cards, I will gladly acknowledge that and eat my words to the contrary. I'm nothing if not honest with myself.
Now, what will you do if Singer's evidence fails to pass muster, or if no evidence is provided at all?
Quote: JerryLogan[q/]Fromme did not say anything about that apparently because it is so nebulous as to be beneath commentary. At any rate, here is the paragraph that has earned a deflection and remains without a response to its substance:
"So, the question goes out to any of you who believe that the games are rigged: WHY do you play them? If the game is rigged so that the card you are randomly supposed to be dealt that gives you a Royal Flush is somehow discarded and replaced with garbage – then video poker would be nothing more than a slot machine. And by now, you all know how I feel about slot machines. If the games are rigged, then strategy is meaningless, paytables are meaningless and I guess the gambling laws are meaningless. In Nevada (and in many other jurisdictions), any video game that utilizes virtual real life objects (dice or cards, etc..) MUST have them play as they would in the real world – in other words, RANDOMLY. Until someone brings me absolute proof of anything but, I’m going to believe this is the case. Otherwise, why bother with any of it?"
"Beneath commentary"? The guy is always so starved for words that he rearranges old articles and spews them over and over again. See where he says "Otherwise, why bother with any of it"? Yeah right. The guy is ALWAYS responding to things Singer says in his columns, and it was obvious that he was one of RS's members who received his newsletters.
I've already responded to the 2nd paragraph to ME. It's the same old lie that people like him perpetuate about Singer that he claims machines are "rigged". Rs has never said that and he even stated that here in his brief appearance.
Because you trimmed your question preceding my "nebulous" comment, you have contorted that response. For the record (which does not seem to matter that much to certain posters), here is your original statement: "Shots of the machine in his garage hooked up to that testequipment along with the results that spit out of his printer from his testing. Notice Fromme didn't say anything about that, because he didn't want facts to get in the way." That deflection to a non-germaine topic is what led to the "nebulous" comment. And it remains significant, in that neither any facts nor any figures have been adduced to date.
No one has to contact Singer. He has been graciously offered a generous opportunity to expound, explain and, if he cares to, answer questions and comments right here. This would be a fine forum to examine any of the multitude of his assertions, and it seems that quite a few participants are more than ready for such an education. Too bad that he and supporters are not.
Quote: MathExtremistI believe I've already done that. Several members of this forum, including me, have asked to see any evidence multiple times. So far, nothing.
If Singer provides conclusive evidence that demonstrates that all video poker machines are using intentionally-programmed non-random behavior, rather than using a software RNG to deal 5 cards and draw up to another 5 cards, I will gladly acknowledge that and eat my words to the contrary. I'm nothing if not honest with myself.
Now, what will you do if Singer's evidence fails to pass muster, or if no evidence is provided at all?
If you worked for me I'd suspend you for never being able to answer a straigh question, until the last one.
Where have you asked RS to see anything, and how do you know he has seen it? I certainly haven't, and I've seen him say he spends very little time here. All I saw was him practically begging for someone to challenge him on his play, in person and on his already acheived results (both of which several of you can't believe) and he got nothing from that. If you want to see what he has, why not be thorough like most analytical people are, and e-mail him for absolute clarity. I myself would like to see how you do that, given the high & almighty opinion you have of your intellectual status. You ain't gonna be talking to me, you'll be talking to someone who very likely has more than you can handle. Take it from me, the deeper into something you get with that guy, the less confidence you'll have on your original point of view.
If it can be conclusivly determined that Singer is full of it based on what he provides, my opinion of him will drop significantly and I will say so right here (if I'm not suspended :)
No one has to contact Singer. He has been graciously offered a generous opportunity to expound, explain and, if he cares to, answer questions and comments right here. This would be a fine forum to examine any of the multitude of his assertions, and it seems that quite a few participants are more than ready for such an education. Too bad that he and supporters are not.
Sancho, how confused are you? And don't feel the need to use those big words since I don't understand most of them.
The fact that Fromme watched his newsletters absolutely does have significance here. The guy has nothing to talk about, and at the very least he could have discusses his feelings about it but he didn't, and it's because of the data Singer provided. Would've made Fromme look stupid. I would have gone a step further and questioned how in the world RS got ahold of a new machine anyway? But there it was, looking straight out of the floor at Eastside Cannery.
No one has to contact Singer? What I saw him offer was to meet with anyone who wanted to take the time to review his entire play strategy in order to completly understand it and see it in realtime action before making their criticisms and fraud/liar accusations. Nothing was mentioned about the machine testing issue, at least I did not see anything.
...Quote: JerryLogan
Blah blah blah
same shit, different day.
Nothing was mentioned about the machine testing issue, at least I did not see anything.Quote: JerryLogan
That is because no one has apparently seen the results of that so-called "testing."
Quote: SanchoPanzaNothing was mentioned about the machine testing issue, at least I did not see anything.
That is because no one has apparently seen the results of that so-called "testing."
If Singer wants us to believe that he sat down next to a machine on the casino floor, opened it up, and connected his SingerScope to it and analyzed its secrets...come to think of it, that's no more totally asinine than any of a dozen other things he's said in the recent past. But at least JERRY believes him...no god is without purpose unless he has at least ONE disciple.
Quote: MathExtremistNow, what will you do if Singer's evidence fails to pass muster, or if no evidence is provided at all?
He will bluff, bluster, call everyone names, post a torrent of badly written, nongrammmatical nonsense, and throw in some remark about how anyone who doubts The Great Singer must be a gay liberal. In other words, same ol' same ol'. He would no sooner acknowledge that he is wrong than cut his own throat.
The preceding was an "assertion". I also made it up, in the sense that I did not copy it from anyone else. L. O. L.
Quote: JerryLoganWhere have you asked RS to see anything, and how do you know he has seen it? I certainly haven't, and I've seen him say he spends very little time here. All I saw was him practically begging for someone to challenge him on his play, in person and on his already acheived results (both of which several of you can't believe) and he got nothing from that. If you want to see what he has, why not be thorough like most analytical people are, and e-mail him for absolute clarity.
If it can be conclusivly determined that Singer is full of it based on what he provides, my opinion of him will drop significantly and I will say so right here (if I'm not suspended :)
Singer started this thread, and he and I were exchanging messages frequently until recently (which, oddly, corresponded with your return...). If you think he hasn't seen the past few days' worth of material, by all means send him a link. Tell him the entire forum wants to see his evidence that all video poker machines are intentionally programmed with non-random behavior, whatever that evidence may be.
I have already asked multiple times to see his results, here on this public forum and not in a private email. That's what "peer review" means. If he's unwilling to submit his evidence in a public forum to a skeptical audience, it's as if there is no evidence at all. That's just basic science. And without any evidence at all, Singer's assertions are supported by nothing.
I mean, presumably you wouldn't believe Singer if he said "Hey look, I've just discovered secret laws of mathematics that show 2 + 2 = 56. I verified it with a supercomputer at MIT. But the people at MIT asked me not to discuss it publicly, so I won't." There is overwhelming evidence that two plus two is not, in fact, fifty-six (and that there are no secret laws of mathematics). Before buying into this theory, I would think you'd want to see some form of evidence, right?
There is just as much overwhelming evidence that video poker machines are not, in fact, intentionally non-random (and that there are no secret gaming regulations). Before buying into this theory, I would think you'd want to see some form of evidence, right?
