Which is most likely to happen first: a new Singer challenge

Since we have seen quite a few of these materialize and then fizzle out on this forum I thought some people might find it of interest:

Rob Singer has been challenged -- and he accepts!!

What is the matter with you? Why are you soooo obsessed? Do you google search rob.singer/Jerry Logan every day hoping for a hit? Who cares? geeeez

Why are you bringing this crap here? Jerry/Singer has been banned more times then there are days of the week and now you're his mouthpiece? This thread should be deleted, this is a great place when the troll's are gone.

There were a number of different times when this forum had Singer challenges that never materialized, which included forum members. I'm hardly "his mouthpiece"; but I did think that at least some people who had followed this for the past year would find it interesting. Same with the image that was posted yesterday. Other than that I have not posted anything about Singer in months.

But since I've apparently outlived my welcome I'll move on.

I appreciate your efforts, Mr. Wog. I find your occassional posts amongst the most well thought out and informative of any poster. Do not leave us.

Quote: PaulEWog

There were a number of different times when this forum had Singer challenges that never materialized,

Thats because he always finds a way to weasel out of them. So the guy has been outed as a fraud, a liar, and has been banned, and we are still supposed to talk about his ridiculous challenge like it has credibility?

WHY???

Quote: PaulEWog

There were a number of different times when this forum had Singer challenges that never materialized, which included forum members. I'm hardly "his mouthpiece"; but I did think that at least some people who had followed this for the past year would find it interesting. Same with the image that was posted yesterday. Other than that I have not posted anything about Singer in months.

But since I've apparently outlived my welcome I'll move on.

I find this vaguely interesting as well. Thanks.

I would personally like to hit the Megabucks, so I selected that. And if I do win the Megabucks, I promise everyone that I will host the biggest WoV party this century!

Quote: PaulEWog

There were a number of different times when this forum had Singer challenges that never materialized, which included forum members. I'm hardly "his mouthpiece"; but I did think that at least some people who had followed this for the past year would find it interesting. Same with the image that was posted yesterday. Other than that I have not posted anything about Singer in months.

But since I've apparently outlived my welcome I'll move on.

Please don't move on. Some banned members were a big part of this forum before they were shown the door. I don't see the need to pretend that they never existed.

In another thread, I pointed out that even though he was banned MKL was still the top poster with 3412. At this very minute DJTeddyBear is tied with him.

Whatcha havin' for breakfast DJ?

Quote: benbakdoff

In another thread, I pointed out that even though he was banned MKL was still the top poster with 3412. At this very minute DJTeddyBear is tied with him.

It's easy to get a high post count in a short period of time when you get into a bitch-slappin flame-war with the entire forum community.

Quote: benbakdoff

Whatcha havin' for breakfast DJ?

Cocoa Pebbles. I'm just a 52 year old, big ol' kid.



By the way. . . .

I'm number one! Woo hoo!

As someone who hadn't been here regularly during the winter, I was afraid this thread was about "The Voice" or "American Idol 11". Now I wish it was.

In the long run, Rob's system will fail (doesn't matter what he's done so far, whether it's a lie or not), but since he is pretty much doing a Martingale, which has a high chance of winning in the very short term, he has more than a 50% chance to win this. I don't doubt he wins in well over half his sessions, but when he does lose, it's got a significantly higher chance of being a lot. Although it's a good bet overall on this other guy's part, he should prepare to lose.

Think of it like if you had to bet $100 on something, all at once. Which game would you choose to play? 1 hand on a 100%+ video poker machine would be the best technically, but a horrible choice if you want anywhere near a 50% chance of winning right now on 1 bet.

Does anybody besides Singer disagree with what I'm saying about Singer having a pretty good chance of winning this, despite his system as a whole being a loser?

BTW don't think of this as giving Singer a voice, just think of it as analyzing video poker, which we all love to do.

That's why Michael Bluejay and I went back and forth a few times on whether his challenges were beatable with a high probability even on negative games. Over a short enough session, variance trumps EV, and it's not hard to trade off EV for hit frequency. That's precisely what the Martingale does and why so many people still believe in it. A 10-step Martingale has well over 99% chance to win.

I'd think that a good basis for any betting system challenge going forward would be related to self-reported efficacy. If Singer (or anyone else) says he has a system that wins 85% of the time, test 100 sessions and observe 85 wins. Don't just play one or two and call it a day, certainly not for even money. And then factor in self-reported win amounts. E.g. a claim of "I win 85% of my sessions and I'm up $1,000,000 over 5 years" translates to a win rate of $100 per session if you assume 10,000 sessions over that timeframe. So regardless of what a "session" even is, each one has to win $100 on average. There's another factor to test -- even if the hit frequency metric is hit, does each session win $100 on average? You can break it down further into avg. winning session and avg. losing session, and fail the challenge if those numbers aren't observed either. Point is, if someone's going to stake real money on whether someone else can win in a casino, the parameters should be well defined and properly considered. You don't want to walk away saying "yeah, he won, but it doesn't prove anything".

Quote: MathExtremist

That's why Michael Bluejay and I went back and forth a few times on whether his challenges were beatable with a high probability even on negative games. Over a short enough session, variance trumps EV, and it's not hard to trade off EV for hit frequency. That's precisely what the Martingale does and why so many people still believe in it. A 10-step Martingale has well over 99% chance to win.

I'd think that a good basis for any betting system challenge going forward would be related to self-reported efficacy. If Singer (or anyone else) says he has a system that wins 85% of the time, test 100 sessions and observe 85 wins. Don't just play one or two and call it a day, certainly not for even money. And then factor in self-reported win amounts. E.g. a claim of "I win 85% of my sessions and I'm up $1,000,000 over 5 years" translates to a win rate of $100 per session if you assume 10,000 sessions over that timeframe. So regardless of what a "session" even is, each one has to win $100 on average. There's another factor to test -- even if the hit frequency metric is hit, does each session win $100 on average? You can break it down further into avg. winning session and avg. losing session, and fail the challenge if those numbers aren't observed either. Point is, if someone's going to stake real money on whether someone else can win in a casino, the parameters should be well defined and properly considered. You don't want to walk away saying "yeah, he won, but it doesn't prove anything".

It's not for even money though. It's paying out the win/loss amount. Otherwise, if it were for even money, say $10,000 regardless of the win/loss amount, Singer would have an 80%+ chance to win. It'd be no different than betting on a heavily weighted coin flip. He'd have the advantage in the short and long run. It'd be insanely safe/profitable for Singer.

Now what I'm wondering, is given that it's not for even money, does this mean that it's as simple as what I originally said (which I'm not 100% on), in that if they did this little bet over the long run, Singer would have some huge losses that would simply outweigh the 80%+ wins? Or can you not look at it like that? I'm just wondering if this bet would have the same result (after being done for infinite sessions) as the Martingale system itself. Tons of wins, huge loss. If the answer is no, well then not only does this guy have a crap chance in this one session, but it's a bad bet in the long run.

Quote: SilentBob420BMFJ

Now what I'm wondering, is given that it's not for even money, does this mean that it's as simple as what I originally said (which I'm not 100% on), in that if they did this little bet over the long run, Singer would have some huge losses that would simply outweigh the 80%+ wins? Or can you not look at it like that?

Of course you can look at it like that. In fact, it's even simpler: each play at a VP machine is independent of any other play. Since each play is -EV, the whole session/system is also -EV. What playing a betting progression does is alter the shape of the distribution of outcomes (where an "outcome" is now a series of plays rather than a single play) but not the mean (EV). So I can have many small wins and an infrequent huge loss, but the average of all that will converge on the same value as if I had flat bet for the same amount.

Quote: PaulEWog

But since I've apparently outlived my welcome I'll move on.

I'm sorry to see you've tendered your resignation. As far as I'm concerned, it is not accepted, and you're welcome back anytime. I thought your poll was in good humor.

Obviously, Bob didn't care for your post, but I wouldn't let his remarks speak for the whole board.

Quote: Wizard

I'm sorry to see you've tendered your resignation. As far as I'm concerned, it is not accepted, and you're welcome back anytime. I thought your poll was in good humor.

Obviously, Bob didn't care for your post, but I wouldn't let his remarks speak for the whole board.

Hey, Zippyboy weighed in before I did with his disapproval, why are you singling me out?

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I'm number one! Woo hoo!

Hey, I just noticed we're tied.

ooops! :P Sorry about that.

Quote: EvenBob

Hey, Zippyboy weighed in before I did with his disapproval, why are you singling me out?

True, Zippy didn't care for it either. However, I thought your post was much worse. It went too far, in my opinion.

Quote: MathExtremist

Of course you can look at it like that. In fact, it's even simpler: each play at a VP machine is independent of any other play. Since each play is -EV, the whole session/system is also -EV. What playing a betting progression does is alter the shape of the distribution of outcomes (where an "outcome" is now a series of plays rather than a single play) but not the mean (EV). So I can have many small wins and an infrequent huge loss, but the average of all that will converge on the same value as if I had flat bet for the same amount.

For his system, of course I knew that's how it was, but I was thinking that somehow it'd be different when the bet was a side bet placed on him winning or losing. But now that I think about it, of course it'd be the same, because the exact loss/win is what's being paid to the person, so it's the exact same result as if Singer was just playing by himself with no side bet. But like I said, if it was just "I bet you $10,000 I will win at this session", Singer would have a massive advantage.