MC is correct, the second paragraph is a response from Rob. When I cut and pasted, the author portion identification (for the second paragraph) was not included. The last line is mine.
Sorry, for any confusion.
Printable View
MC is correct, the second paragraph is a response from Rob. When I cut and pasted, the author portion identification (for the second paragraph) was not included. The last line is mine.
Sorry, for any confusion.
In mickey's simplistic, one-sided world of bums, anyone can accept a bet while ignoring proper escrow amounts.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
When God said brains you thought he said rain and ran for cover. The 1st paragraph was written by Kim Lee. The 2nd paragraph was written by your lover, Rob Singer.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshotTHIS is the Kim Lee acceptance? When I saw the opening paragraph, I thought it was on! Then comes the second paragraph. Really? Let me join in with Alan and say I see 18 ho,ho,ho's in a row!Quote:
Originally Posted by Deech
Here's a scenario mickey--similar to a problem you might have come across if you weren't stupid enuf to have dropped out of school:
Lee puts up a $100k escrow. Singer hits a $100 royal. Lee owes Singer $400k. Lee stiffs Singer $300k. Two weeks later, mickey's still trying to figure this out. Two months later, Lee disappears/is never heard from again.
I wonder if the dropout will ever get it.....
He accepted Rob's basic challenge. The escrow could have been negotiated. But, noooooooooooo! Tap Dancing Rob pulled the "you don't have the right escrow amount!!! You don't have the right escrow amount!!! You have to put up escrow first!!!! You have to put up escrow first!!!!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerIn mickey's simplistic, one-sided world of bums, anyone can accept a bet while ignoring proper escrow amounts.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmWhen God said brains you thought he said rain and ran for cover. The 1st paragraph was written by Kim Lee. The 2nd paragraph was written by your lover, Rob Singer.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
Here's a scenario mickey--similar to a problem you might have come across if you weren't stupid enuf to have dropped out of school:
Lee puts up a $100k escrow. Singer hits a $100 royal. Lee owes Singer $400k. Lee stiffs Singer $300k. Two weeks later, mickey's still trying to figure this out. Two months later, Lee disappears/is never heard from again.
I wonder if the dropout will ever get it.....
The amount of escrow is a different issue than who has to put up first. But anyways, you all see the bullshit you have to go through in a futile attempt to get a bet down with Rob. It just ain't gonna happen. He's got more routes than Greyhound Buslines.
If Rob is serious about this public challenge then he will place his money in escrow before making the challenge.
Thanks for the clarification-it seemed like two separate challenges. After reading 4 times, I see it's a further explanation ow what COULD happen if Rob hit big. And I further see Rob accepted the original challenge. So I say play it by session until one says enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deech
Novel idea here--they both put it in escrow together.
This is getting silly.
Why not simplify it:
Agree to observe RS play VP using his own money for a predetermined amount of time; keep track of money in, money out.
If he's ahead at the end of the contest he wins; if behind, he loses.
Easy peasy.
V--this is like telling your clients that are involved in a divorce to come to some agreement on their own or spend 10's of thousands in legal fees and wind up with the same agreement after wasting several years of their lives. They aren't looking for the easy suggestions that we have presented here. it's all about the fight.
And why does there have to be a wager. Have Rob play his system and see what the results are. If he wins, he has the satisfaction of proving his case. If he loses, the rest of you will never get over the joy of proving he failed.
So why do we need $$$.
Don't you dare come up with anything laced with common sense! These clowns have an escape answer for that too. They claim my strategy is a "loser"--of course, because they want it to be and not because they expect it to be. So if I were to play 2 sessions....or 10 or even 50--they'd simply whine "but gee Rob, anybody including a monkey can win most sessions of "Martingale" video poker and win money overall IN THE SHORT TERM but play the long term and you're guaranteed to lose because you play 99 per cent games....but play 100.001 per cent games and we'll be afraid of you winning a whole lotta cash!"Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
These anonymous cowardly critics can keep saying these things because it's the only way they can cope.
Noone will evenTRY the strategy let alone believe it when played.. l played it starting at nickels and it takes nothing special but keeping up with where you are in the strategy and making plays accordingly. I can understand the hesitancy since you can't aimlessly pound away at the buttons without thinking-just playing according to whim.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Two questions:Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
1. Will Rob do this and accepting that his only "win" will be the money he wins on his own play?
2. Which critic or critics will observe and report on Rob's play?
The wager is what motivates the observer to spend his time watching Singer play.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
You would watch him play for free, wouldn’t you coach? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyThe wager is what motivates the observer to spend his time watching Singer play.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
I would pay to watch you play, Lola.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elaine M
And preferably in private :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Elaine MYou would watch him play for free, wouldn’t you coach? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyThe wager is what motivates the observer to spend his time watching Singer play.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Because ANY STRATEGY, SYSTEM, METHOD OR ANY OTHER BULLSHIT you concoct, WILL NOT beat a negative EV game....PERIOD!!! END OF FUCKING STORY!! Get it through your pea brained head!!Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshotNoone will evenTRY the strategy let alone believe it when played.. l played it starting at nickels and it takes nothing special but keeping up with where you are in the strategy and making plays accordingly. I can understand the hesitancy since you can't aimlessly pound away at the buttons without thinking-just playing according to whim.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Only STUPID IDIOTS fall for these systems scammers!
Jbjb is the question "can Rob beat a -EV game" or is the question "can Rob win at a -EV game"?
There is a difference.
Now Rob admits he's playing a -EV game.
AAlthough I only played it once, I was able to see it has the most promise of winning. Period. I'm thru here with this final post. You guys fight it out. Oh, wait. I forgot to leave without profanity, name calling, or ....whatever. Oh, well.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjbBecause ANY STRATEGY, SYSTEM, METHOD OR ANY OTHER BULLSHIT you concoct, WILL NOT beat a negative EV game....PERIOD!!! END OF FUCKING STORY!! Get it through your pea brained head!!Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshotNoone will evenTRY the strategy let alone believe it when played.. l played it starting at nickels and it takes nothing special but keeping up with where you are in the strategy and making plays accordingly. I can understand the hesitancy since you can't aimlessly pound away at the buttons without thinking-just playing according to whim.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Only STUPID IDIOTS fall for these systems scammers!
Alan THIS is flat out STUPID! Of course Rob or any idiot can record a short term, session win or win for the day. Anyone can and does do this. Roulette players, horse bettors....anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
What no =EV wagering player can do is win day after day (longterm) playing a -EV game or wager. And THAT is what Rob is claiming. A million dollars over 10 years....THAT is longterm winning and CAN NOT be accomplished playing a -EV game or wager. It just CAN NOT! This is proven math. No betting system, progressive or otherwise can change this. Nor can "stop limits". Nor can the funning little wording like "soft profits". Nor can only wagering when the machine telepaths to you that it is ready to pay off. It is ALL nonsense! It is all voodooism.
If Rob Singer is having profitable days at the casino it has nothing to do with this stupid progression system. The only way this guy is making money at the casino, are the days that end with him having a stomach full of jizz and an extra $20 bill in his pocket. ;) THERE is you Rob Singer winning system.
These crackheads couldn't win if I let them flip the deck over and pick their own cards. They're that fucking stupid!Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJAlan THIS is flat out STUPID! Of course Rob or any idiot can record a short term, session win or win for the day. Anyone can and does do this. Roulette players, horse bettors....anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
What no =EV wagering player can do is win day after day (longterm) playing a -EV game or wager. And THAT is what Rob is claiming. A million dollars over 10 years....THAT is longterm winning and CAN NOT be accomplished playing a -EV game or wager. It just CAN NOT! This is proven math. No betting system, progressive or otherwise can change this. Nor can "stop limits". Nor can the funning little wording like "soft profits". Nor can only wagering when the machine telepaths to you that it is ready to pay off. It is ALL nonsense! It is all voodooism.
If Rob Singer is having profitable days at the casino it has nothing to do with this stupid progression system. The only way this guy is making money at the casino, are the days that end with him having a stomach full of jizz and an extra $20 bill in his pocket. ;) THERE is you Rob Singer winning system.
How much does Elaine pay to get her stomach filled?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
I think part of Rob's strategy is NOT being a long term player. Gosh, he has win goals. Oh my! How horrible!
Didn't I recall some of the APs saying there's nothing wrong with a win goal when you play a -EV game?
Well, there you have it. Rob plays -EV games and has win goals and there is no tooth fairy.
When -EV video poker players play at high limits such as $25/coin they can win big. What's the argument?
The argument is only that APs have the position that over the long term you can't beat -EV games... and they are correct.
Rob Singer has not beaten -EV video poker, but he has won money at it.
Geesh. Can I spell it out any more clearly than that?
Highly highly highly doubtful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
It's not doubtful. It is complete nonsense. It is just fantasyland shit. Twilight Zone, alternative reality, against the math, nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjbHighly highly highly doubtful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You are just being ridiculous. He's playing for the most part video poker at $125 on every push of the button. On 8/5 Bonus which is his primary game a full house pays $1,000 and any quad pays a minimum of $3,125.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJIt's not doubtful. It is complete nonsense. It is just fantasyland shit. Twilight Zone, alternative reality, against the math, nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjbHighly highly highly doubtful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
And you think he can't hit a win goal of $2500 each time he plays?
LOL
He's not looking for abandoned multipliers on 25-cent Ultimate X machines.
It is YOU that continues to be ridiculous Alan. You cannot win longterm playing a negative expectation game.....PERIOD! Winning a million + dollars over 10 years (or is it 1.5 million now? I forget what Rob's latest claim is) just can NOT happen, playing -EV. No matter what you say....no matter what Rob or Harry or whatever his name is says....It is mathematically impossible, Alan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonYou are just being ridiculous. He's playing for the most part video poker at $125 on every push of the button. On 8/5 Bonus which is his primary game a full house pays $1,000 and any quad pays a minimum of $3,125.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJIt's not doubtful. It is complete nonsense. It is just fantasyland shit. Twilight Zone, alternative reality, against the math, nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
And you think he can't hit a win goal of $2500 each time he plays?
LOL
The sad thing is that I don't think this Rob Singer person is stupid. Although the machine telepathing him information makes me want to re-think that. :rolleyes:
This person knows damn well, that his claim is impossible. But he is a scammer. That is his thing. And while he is not stupid, nor believes his nonsensical claims, he has managed to find 3 or 4 people that are stupid enough to buy his load of crap. Mendelson, YOU are one of those morons. All you continue to do is embarrass yourself. In the end, even this Rob/Harry person is laughing at you. :(
He's not playing long term. That's your first mistake.
Your second mistake is that you got snookered by his talk about his system and you never asked the real question. So I'll ask it for you:
ROB: HOW OFTEN HAVE YOU REACHED YOUR $2500 WIN GOAL AT THE $1 OR $2 LEVEL?
I'll tell you right now, Rob has hit a $2500 win goal as often as anyone else after hitting a royal at $1 or $2.
He reaches his $2500 win goal because he plays at high limits and has the discipline to quit. That's what you call voodoo.
The other point you overlook is that his million dollars was over ten years. It wasn't in one day or one year. Ten years of playing high limit video poker. Is that really so unbelieveable?
Alan, I don't care about $2500 win goals. That is nonsense.
Your problem is that you think you can take many short term results and add them up to a longterm result. THAT is not the way it works. A player could hit 2 of 3 black on the roulette wheel, no problem. He may even do that several days in a row. But he cannot do that longterm. He can NOT hit 20,000 out of 30,000, or even 2000 out of 3000. You thinking he can, by continuing to hit 2 of 3 in the short term, over and over and over, is just fantasyland stuff. That is not the way real life and real math works.
Boy....the casinos must love you. If I ran a casino that you frequented, I couldn't give you enough money, because there is no amount that you wouldn't lose back and then some. Vegas was built from players like you.
As for this Harry / Rob person, he claims to have been a top executive...VP for a major corporation. I have no idea if that is true or not. Generally, I tend to believe people until they give me a reason not to. Based on almost everything else he says, being untrue, This story too is hard to believe.
BUT, it doesn't even matter. It doesn't matter one bit if he was a successful executive, with a very handsome retirement package. Or a retired successful executive that has blown through a good portion of his handsome retirement package. Or even some struggling retiree with no pension/retirement, struggling to get by on Social security, welfare and food stamps that he knows so much about, and running from financial legal judgements and evictions.
Non of that even matters. What matters is one simple FACT. His claims of winning a million dollars playing -EV video poker, using a progressive betting system and stop limits are BULLSHIT. Mathematically impossible. Get that through you freaking head Alan.
There you go again kewlj saying you can't add short term results to get a long term result. Stop talking about the long term. Just try to focus on a bunch of short term wins.
Oh my goodness. :rolleyes: Alan just save a step and have your SS and pension sent directly to Red Rock Casino. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You can insult me all you want because that's all you have -- insults. When you run out of points to make you insult.
Insult. Insult. Insult.
Your insults mean nothing to me.
KewlJ, the guy's just yanking your chain in the middle of the night because it doesn't cost anything.
Besides, I argue the same thing all of the time. When I'm haunting a Boyd buffet for seven or eight hours, the attendants point to the sign that says, "Two hour limit." I gently explain that every hour and a half, I walk out of the buffet to the restroom directly outside, then I come back in. So I'm never really at the buffet for more than two straight hours. I do the same thing at Golden Corral, except I go outside and catch a breath of fresh air before returning for my eight-hour hog-a-thon.
Now some argue that the calories actually add up in my stomach, but I tell them that each time I walk up to the food itself is a separate event, none connected with each other. So 800 calories ingested on the first trip is certainly within recommended guidelines and has nothing to do with the 1500 calories on the second trip (pasta) or the third trip to barbecue (1200 calories) and certainly nothing at all to do with dessert (don't ask). See, there is no long term if you say it's all short term.
It's exactly the same with video poker. I can't understand why you don't get this. Of course, my scale may eventually say that it's all one reality, but who you gonna believe, the scale or yourself? Argentino probably experiences the same thing vis-à-vis money. But you can't let pesky things like living in RVs define your reality. I say toss them in the scrap heap, along with the scale.
Now pardon me, Golden Corral opens at 9 AM, and I need to rest up. I'll be eating 17 sessions today...all of them winners.
I know you're trying to be sarcastic but in reality if you really pulled this off you'd have multiple meals for one price. And if you added up the value of the multiple meals you would, in effect, be adding up multiple win goals with one entry fee.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Congratulations. You came up with another explanation of what Singer does reaching multiple win goals with multiple short term sessions.
Brilliant.
Kewlj please clarify this for me. If Rob Singer said he only played 10/6 Double Double Bonus (available at Red Rock) you'd have NO dispute with any claims that he won money playing video poker?
You’d be a lot better off concentrating on paying your son back than you do to this nonsense....focus dummyQuote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Thanks so much. You grasp everything perfectly. Of course, there are the occasional days when I ingest some particularly bad potato salad, or when the hummus and ice cream don't quite mix. On those days I spew 8000 or 9000 calories, sometimes twice that, all over the nice tile floor of the Orleans buffet. Sometimes it's greenish; sometimes many colors. I didn't mention that because I don't want to scare away my students or potential students. So mum's the word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonI know you're trying to be sarcastic but in reality if you really pulled this off you'd have multiple meals for one price. And if you added up the value of the multiple meals you would, in effect, be adding up multiple win goals with one entry fee.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Congratulations. You came up with another explanation of what Singer does reaching multiple win goals with multiple short term sessions.
Brilliant.
People, of course, ask me that since I've mastered my session eating, why don't I enter professional food eating competitions. I tell them that I'm retired. I don't need the money. Still others ask me, if my session eating is successful, why don't I move the venue to Emeril's or Michael's. I explain, between burps, that I don't need the calories. Emeril's or Michael's food would be too rich for me. No need to be too rich, after all.
Of course, we have the perpetual critics who claim to have witnessed four pounds of barf exploding all over my Golden Corral table. To those people, I say, "Prove it." Bring me the paper towels my family used to clean me up. Show me the underwear stains from blowing bad potato salad out both ends of me. Because until you do, the idea that a person could not ingest 24000 calories a day is unproven. And I'm all about proof. In fact, I'll be giving a roundtable lecture with Joey Chestnut at the next Major League Eating conference. Unless they don't allow me. Then the lecture will be from my private suite. In a hotel somewhere. Probably.
Until next time, look for me in my glorious food truck, somewhere between South Dakota and Phoenix. I haven't left the truck since I cornered the market on Mennonite donut recipes. Mmmmmm good.
CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG??
There is no way that this wager can be done on a long term basis. So unless there is some number of "sessions" that the sides can agree upon, the event is not going to happen. So the only remaining thing to do is see if the sides can agree upon that number. Otherwise, we are just wasting time. Although I guess any time spent here anymore is a waste of time, other than a small bit of comic relief and a very few tidbits of actual useful information.
The wager will never happen. Even before escrow deposits are made Rob has to advertise it with the conditions in two newspapers.
The ads by themselves with the conditions could cost hundreds of dollars each.
Instead of 2 newspapers he should have you do an infomercial.
I think I have explained this many times Alan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
If someone makes a claim involving long-term winnings, that is to say not just a claim of hitting one or a couple one-time large jackpots, there are two hurdles to evaluating that claim. 1.) is it mathematically possible. And 2.) based on everything else the person has said and you know about the person, do you find such a claim credible. #2 has some subjectivity to it, #1 does not.
Now in Rob's case, despite that you don't understand t, the claim of winning 1 million dollars + (or is it 1.5 million now) over 10+ years is a claim of long-term winning.
So going back to the two step process. First hurdle....is this claim possible. If Rob was playing a better than 100% return, yes the claim would be possible. Quite simple, if you were playing a game with a 101% return, you simply need to play 100 million dollars through to have a theoretical win of 1 million. So that first hurdle would be cleared and you move on to the second hurdle of credibility.
Rob Singer's claim or claims has simply never cleared this first hurdle of "is it mathematically possible". He has never provided anything that mathematically allows for a return of over 100% from the less than 100% games he has played. Progressive betting and stop limits do not change a game from less than 100% to more than 100%. That is a mathematical fact. So Singer simply has not cleared that first hurdle.
You can think what you like about my claims, or similarly mickeycrimm's claims, or any other AP that has made claims. There is a mathematical basis for winning what we claim. We have cleared that first hurdle. You can choose to find us credible or not, based on everything else we say and know. That is subjective and your right. Remember that saying of mine "It just isn't that hard to figure out who knows what they are talking about and who is just talking". That is where this comes in.
But Singer's claims just have not even made it to that point. His claims have failed to clear that hurdle. Until he provides some mathematical reason of how he achieves longterm winning results playing a negative expectation game, there is no reason to even move to step #2.
Now if you are asking me a hypothetical situation, of had Singer's claims cleared that first hurdle of 'mathematical possibility', would I find him credible enough to believe his claims? Would I have found him credible enough that I think he "knows what he is talking?". The answer would be NO. I find him to be one of those guys "that is just talking".
Rob has some knowledge of VP, no doubt. So he can do a lot of talking. And muddy the water with things that might sound good and some funny phrases like "soft profits", but that is all these things are is just talk. Based on other areas, of many things Rob Singer (if that is what we are calling him) has said that simply are factually wrong, things about blackjack, things about casino personnel. all sorts of things that are just flat out not true, I would have to conclude that I didn't find his claims credible even if he had cleared hurdle #1 of 'mathematically possible'.
But no need for me to make that judgement call as he has not come close to clearing hurdle #1. His claims are not mathematically possible.
So there you have it Alan, Now manipulate and twist my words. Do your tap dance. Alan YOU are the dancing queen with all your tap dancing on this forum. Only thing is you are not young and sweet and only seventeen as the lyrics go. Maybe seven-TY. ;)
I'm not going to manipulate or twist your words kewlj because I don't know what Rob has won. All I've ever said is that it's possible someone playing high denomination video poker can win $100k a year. I still believe that.
Not on a consistent basis. Eventually you WILL go broke!Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You are manipulating Rob's claim. First, he doesn't claim to be playing "high denomination video poker". That higher denomination is the top end of his progression, not his normal wagering amount.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
But sure, if a player was playing $25 denomination as there regular denomination, it would be possible to hit a higher number of royals for number of rounds played, or a higher number of royals than "royal cycles". That would be called positive variance, also know as "good luck" and that can occur in the short term so possibly the player can do this resulting in a $100k year at that level.
But they can not do so year after year after year, for 10 consecutive years. That is getting into 18 y.o.s in a row territory. :rolleyes:
I also want to be clear about something else. I don't spend all my time challenging other players claims. There have been exactly two claims of earnings or results that I have found mathematically impossible. Rob's is the second. The first was a blackjack player claiming his super duper count allowed him to have winnings of 500% of the regular card counter. Most card counters play to about a 1% advantage. 500% increase would have this guy playing to a 5% advantage. That is just not possible from card counting. Even with perfect assistance from a computer you can not gain a 5% advantage from card counting.
So those were the two mathematically impossible claims I have challenged. I guess the third would be a guy claiming to have seen 18 y.o. s in a row. That wasn't a claim about winnings, just a mathematically impossible claim.
Now there have been many claims that cleared that first hurdle of mathematically possible, that I personally don't find credible. I never volunteer that opinion, unless someone asks me, as you did today. That is subjective and my opinion.
Kewlj I thought you were smart enough to read between the lines? Do you really think Rob Singer reached a win goal of $2500 playing $1 and $2 video poker? No. He won his money at $5 and $25 video poker. Why do you think he posts jackpot photos of $25/coin VP and not $1 and $2 jackpots? It's simply because he's making his money with quads when he's pushing the button for $125 per play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJI think I have explained this many times Alan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
If someone makes a claim involving long-term winnings, that is to say not just a claim of hitting one or a couple one-time large jackpots, there are two hurdles to evaluating that claim. 1.) is it mathematically possible. And 2.) based on everything else the person has said and you know about the person, do you find such a claim credible. #2 has some subjectivity to it, #1 does not.
Now in Rob's case, despite that you don't understand t, the claim of winning 1 million dollars + (or is it 1.5 million now) over 10+ years is a claim of long-term winning.
So going back to the two step process. First hurdle....is this claim possible. If Rob was playing a better than 100% return, yes the claim would be possible. Quite simple, if you were playing a game with a 101% return, you simply need to play 100 million dollars through to have a theoretical win of 1 million. So that first hurdle would be cleared and you move on to the second hurdle of credibility.
Rob Singer's claim or claims has simply never cleared this first hurdle of "is it mathematically possible". He has never provided anything that mathematically allows for a return of over 100% from the less than 100% games he has played. Progressive betting and stop limits do not change a game from less than 100% to more than 100%. That is a mathematical fact. So Singer simply has not cleared that first hurdle.
You can think what you like about my claims, or similarly mickeycrimm's claims, or any other AP that has made claims. There is a mathematical basis for winning what we claim. We have cleared that first hurdle. You can choose to find us credible or not, based on everything else we say and know. That is subjective and your right. Remember that saying of mine "It just isn't that hard to figure out who knows what they are talking about and who is just talking". That is where this comes in.
But Singer's claims just have not even made it to that point. His claims have failed to clear that hurdle. Until he provides some mathematical reason of how he achieves longterm winning results playing a negative expectation game, there is no reason to even move to step #2.
Now if you are asking me a hypothetical situation, of had Singer's claims cleared that first hurdle of 'mathematical possibility', would I find him credible enough to believe his claims? Would I have found him credible enough that I think he "knows what he is talking?". The answer would be NO. I find him to be one of those guys "that is just talking".
Rob has some knowledge of VP, no doubt. So he can do a lot of talking. And muddy the water with things that might sound good and some funny phrases like "soft profits", but that is all these things are is just talk. Based on other areas, of many things Rob Singer (if that is what we are calling him) has said that simply are factually wrong, things about blackjack, things about casino personnel. all sorts of things that are just flat out not true, I would have to conclude that I didn't find his claims credible even if he had cleared hurdle #1 of 'mathematically possible'.
But no need for me to make that judgement call as he has not come close to clearing hurdle #1. His claims are not mathematically possible.
So there you have it Alan, Now manipulate and twist my words. Do your tap dance. Alan YOU are the dancing queen with all your tap dancing on this forum. Only thing is you are not young and sweet and only seventeen as the lyrics go. Maybe seven-TY. ;)
I tried to stay away-but I can't fathom this. Progressive betting up AND down CAN change the results of a game IF stop limits (win goals) are used and it DOES NOT intefere with the math. If a casino complies with regulations, programming MUST be so that such and such percentage is paid out and such and such allowed as profit. It's called psudo rng that complies with randomness. I may be a dumb @$$ and fickle brain to you people, but I can experience and understand this concept in playing alone. And if you wonder why I don't bother with proving my meager profits, it's because you don't believe ANY claims on this forum. OK. Gonna discipline myself to stay away and shut up.
No sling. VP machines do not operate like slot machines. The payback on VP is determined by the paytable which is linked to random draws.
In slots the payback is determined by the "stops on virtual reels."
Not to my way of thinking. I totally disagree. Looks like I am a total maverick here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Kew is good at 2 things: providing indisputable proof that he lies about his gambling prowess, and displaying his lack of any knowledge about the game of video poker. He is the classic cop-out artist for the simpleton's answer to everything gambling related: Play +EV and you win/Play -EV and you lose.
At the same time, he continues to make his ridiculous, unproven and unsupportable claims about his own BJ play, if he really does play, that is. He claims to have the advantage because he counts, yet he continually contradicts that by peeling down the onion even further when challenged, by announcing how "partial counts" and "inaccurate counts" make the game "positive EV" to the astonishment of anyone with a brain...or partial brain. :)
This is evidence that he is nothing more than a complete phony, who obviously spends the majority of his days combing thru various forums, searching for posts which competently argue against his nonsense, thereby turning him into the uneasy neurotic you see on display every day. WoV is extremely tolerant towards self-proclaimed "AP's" yet kew managed to get thrown out because he couldn't control his bs-spewing. So he thought he'd come here and run it by others with a more practical approach. He got caught, and he is now in desperation mode.
Explain that. You're good at the unsupportable one-liners. So tell us, exactly how many of my sessions would it take for me to be a total loser after being ahead after playing 450 of them? Even better---give us the math on how long it would take me to turn into a total overall loser starting with session #1.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjbNot on a consistent basis. Eventually you WILL go broke!Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You can obviously do both of those, given your apparent rock solid handle on my play strategy. Or....I'll submit this task to anyone who thinks he or she knows the clear answer to it.
Let's have it kew! Let's see the math on your claim. Or are you copping out again to the armchair gambler's super secret special formula: +ev=win/-ev =lose?
You're just wrong. Ask the Nevada Gaming Commission technology division as I did.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshotNot to my way of thinking. I totally disagree. Looks like I am a total maverick here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Glad you finally admitted it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer