Challenge to Singer / Argentino

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

This doesn't need to be this hard. Flat wager of $25,000. Wager is that Rob can win 8 of 10 sessions, playing his system, and after the 10 sessions also be positive. A winning session is a minimum of +$2,500.

---

This doesn't prove anything! A progressive betting system is designed to do just this and provide wins in the short term. The proven math is that it can't not sustain that win rate or small wins into the long-term. The wager would have to be something fairly longterm to show whether Singer's system can win at the rate of $100k a year that he claims.


Why are you people getting hung up on this session win crap? THAT is what a progressive system does! Many small wins MORE THAN OFFSET by a couple much larger losses. This is nothing new. Progressions have been around for hundreds of years and the mathematics is more than proven. Singers system is a progression, plain and simple. A couple small variations, but still very much a progressive betting system. And it will perform exactly like a progression betting system. He isn't doing anything that will change that math.

Do you know what the definition of insanity is? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. That is what this is....insanity! It is a progression systems. Progression systems can not win longterm. Proven math!

Then don't make the bet. Or make it 16 of 20. Or 24 of 30. But at least the terms I set forth are simple, clear, and concise. You all can work out the details.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

This doesn't need to be this hard. Flat wager of $25,000. Wager is that Rob can win 8 of 10 sessions, playing his system, and after the 10 sessions also be positive. A winning session is a minimum of +$2,500.
Rob will set forth how and when he changes denominations and/or games. He need not set forth special plays, etc.Otherwise, he plays his system and his progression of denominations, not an altered version as DanDruff has suggested.

Simple----put up the $$ everyone.

---

I don't know what his system consists of, but there are ways of having an advantage on that bet just playing straight up at a high denomination, as I've already explained.

I'm not one to deny Singer could have the best of that bet, I'm saying he could. Theoretically, his system could be so bad that it takes the probability of winning edge away from him, but I seriously doubt it.

In fact, if he posted up all of the specifics of his system, it would be very easy to break down overall and in the context of the bet. Maybe not very easy, but easy enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

Then don't make the bet. Or make it 16 of 20. Or 24 of 30. But at least the terms I set forth are simple, clear, and concise. You all can work out the details.

---

WTF!!
A progression betting system WILL win a high number of sessions and STILL lose money in the long run.

You guys are dense. No wonder you all lose year after year.

You can find it somewhere among all of these threads--unless Rob wants to re-post it. But he plays a certain number of hands at a certain level and then goes up, or down, based upon results. It isn't all that hard to understand but I certainly haven't committed it to memory. But Rob can post it again. It is not random.

I don't disagree with Kewl that 10 sessions is too small. But time doesn't allow for a much longer trial. So if we keep the bet simple as I described, I leave it up to those against him to decide if it is worth the risk just to show him up. Otherwise, no sense continuing this fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

Then don't make the bet. Or make it 16 of 20. Or 24 of 30. But at least the terms I set forth are simple, clear, and concise. You all can work out the details.

---

WTF!!
A progression betting system WILL win a high number of sessions and STILL lose money in the long run.

You guys are dense. No wonder you all lose year after year.

---

Kewl--as I just said, time probably does not allow for a lengthy trial. And by the way, I am a long time winner--I do not lose year after year. I do lose at VP which I play minimally for entertainment. I won at sports and craps when I played professionally, and I still am winning at horses. I play craps only once or twice a year now and usually lose.

And also, I was not the one calling for this wager all throughout these threads. I just get sick of the back and forth and the changing of terms so I set out a simple wager. We all know it ain't gonna happen.

This should also be obvious to anybody, but here's another suggestion if you want to test whether or not Singer's system works, and this is one where Singer should have the advantage (if his system is actually viable) but is actually at a considerable disadvantage.

Singer's session bankroll is $57,200, apparently. Here's the bet, and again, I don't have any skin in the game, admittedly:

Any amount the two bettors agree to and escrow. Singer can work his system all that he likes (on -EV paytables) and he must either win in excess of $57,200 or otherwise lose $57,200. This wouldn't have to be done in one day. At the point of either winning or losing, the money bet (between the opponents) would then be transferred to the victor. If Singer lost, he would have the option of making the bet again, however, if the person/people betting against Singer loses, then they have no such option unless Singer gives it to them.

If the system is going to win over the long-term, and Singer is allowed to make the bet unlimited times, then it shouldn't be a problem.

(For anyone curious, at a rough estimate, I put Singer--at best--at about 30-35% to win overall)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

Then don't make the bet. Or make it 16 of 20. Or 24 of 30. But at least the terms I set forth are simple, clear, and concise. You all can work out the details.

---

WTF!!
A progression betting system WILL win a high number of sessions and STILL lose money in the long run.

You guys are dense. No wonder you all lose year after year.

---

Kewl--as I just said, time probably does not allow for a lengthy trial. And by the way, I am a long time winner--I do not lose year after year. I do lose at VP which I play minimally for entertainment. I won at sports and craps when I played professionally, and I still am winning at horses. I play craps only once or twice a year now and usually lose.

And also, I was not the one calling for this wager all throughout these threads. I just get sick of the back and forth and the changing of terms so I set out a simple wager. We all know it ain't gonna happen.

---

I thought you were a lawyer?

You guys are losing EV by arguing with these imbeciles. Go out and make money and let them spread their trash around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

WTF!!
A progression betting system WILL win a high number of sessions and STILL lose money in the long run.

You guys are dense. No wonder you all lose year after year.

---

Kewl--as I just said, time probably does not allow for a lengthy trial. And by the way, I am a long time winner--I do not lose year after year. I do lose at VP which I play minimally for entertainment. I won at sports and craps when I played professionally, and I still am winning at horses. I play craps only once or twice a year now and usually lose.

And also, I was not the one calling for this wager all throughout these threads. I just get sick of the back and forth and the changing of terms so I set out a simple wager. We all know it ain't gonna happen.

---

I thought you were a lawyer?

---

At times--and now in my old age.

A lawyer and professional craps player? Interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

You guys are losing EV by arguing with these imbeciles. Go out and make money and let them spread their trash around.

---

I am out earning EV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

Then don't make the bet. Or make it 16 of 20. Or 24 of 30. But at least the terms I set forth are simple, clear, and concise. You all can work out the details.

---

WTF!!
A progression betting system WILL win a high number of sessions and STILL lose money in the long run.

You guys are dense. No wonder you all lose year after year.

---

Is this a challenge of Rob's system or a challenge of your beliefs? If you want a challenge of Rob's system then have Rob spell out what he will accomplish and bet on Rob succeeding or failing.

For years all I have heard is that Rob's system can't work--that it is mathematically impossible. Yet now, everyone says he is a favorite to win the bet. WTF???

Isn't the essence of his system that he isn't playing long term. Aren't you confirming what he has said for years?

My personal opinion is that Rob has been extremely lucky. He has had big wins and avoided the big losses. But I can't prove it nor do I care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

For years all I have heard is that Rob's system can't work--that it is mathematically impossible. Yet now, everyone says he is a favorite to win the bet. WTF???

Isn't the essence of his system that he isn't playing long term. Aren't you confirming what he has said for years?

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

My personal opinion is that Rob has been extremely lucky. He has had big wins and avoided the big losses. But I can't prove it nor do I care.

---

This.

No different from the civilians that hit the big lotteries or a huge slot jackpot like Mega-Bucks. Unfortunately, for the few that hit these, there are millions of losers playing the same games. His strategy is no different. One schmuck might come out ahead for every 100,000 losing schmucks. The losses WILL outweigh the wins. But go ahead and try if you'd like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Singer proposes a wager in such a way that he thinks no one will accept

---

You criticize Singers conditions as unreasonable,
and then you propose the terms below as a viable alternative?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

The only wager that would truly put Rob's "system" to the test, would be a wager involving results, not sessions on, but money won or lost over a somewhat long period of time....like 6 months. Six months worth of play. Someone follows Singer around, documenting (preferably video recording) all his play.

---

Oh yeah...follow Singer around for 6 months of play...that will work.

What a complete fucking tewl you are.

Someone following Singer around for 6 months would make a great TV reality show.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

Someone following Singer around for 6 months would make a great TV reality show.

---

Unless it was with Coach Belly. His hope is that the entire 6 months would be in a motel room ��

I'm no singer system supporter but it's pretty funny you guys don't want to bet because you think singer will win. You're making his point perfectly. Maybe I'll play ten sessions myself and quit with whatever it is I win. I'm still in for a c note however because I don't believe the system will hold up for ten sessions.