Printable View
I guess that another way to put all of this is: Every math property and expression doesn't have a physical counterpart, just as the physical (life) isn't entirely mathematical.
It would be nice, maybe, but things just don't work that way. Unless, again, you're into the metaphysical.
Regarding Rob's "challenge" :
Rob, arci did the math ages ago -- your estimated per session win rate should be somewhere near 80%. So why should someone reward you for winning four out of five sessions? The entire problem with your strategies lies in the rare but unavoidable whacking you get every great while, not in the win rate per session. You're proposing a sucker bet. Why should someone pay you extra, in this case 25K, for a normal, middle-of-the-bell-curve modal outcome?
So redietz are you agreeing that Rob does have a winning method? 80% win sessions ain't bad in my book.
If you want to stick with what you say arci did whenever to say 80% was a good win rate when he did not have a 100% understanding of how the strategy is played, because no one does but me until someone gets brave enough to sit at a machine with me for a thorough training & understanding, then you should have no trouble going with the SPS actual win rate of over 85%. Now we'll move onto what you call a "sucker bet".Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
You're actually acknowdging my win rate, which is a start. You've never done that until being coerced into doing so by this "challenge". NOW we're getting somewhere.
So what you're claiming--for lack of a better word but as always, minus the important details--is how that "big whacking" which you say is unavoidable and which does in fact occur (albeit the highest ever was $33,000 from a session bankroll of $57,200) would apparently snatch away all of my "smaller" wins. So I, as an actual player of this strategy, must once again ask you if you ever listen when I explain that the critics continuously ignore the fact that the "big winners" come more frequently than those "big whackers", and they are at times bigger than the biggest of whackers (as in the biggest session win was $96k, and there have been others from $30k to just over $50k in addition to countless others in 5-figures). Does that ever sink in?
So with this in mind as well as you being very careful not to step in the traps I set at WoV regarding the win rate portion of the bet, what would be your reason for not accepting the "ahead by at least $10k/$12.5k after 4/5 sessions part? Surely I'll get whacked in one of them, right?
You've gotta be kidding, Alan. To paraphrase from Whale Hunt in the Desert, "Some players eat like birds and shit like bears."Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Surely, Alan, a respected journalist such as yourself is not confusing the term "win rate" with "winning money overall?"
Redietz why don't you respond to Rob, instead of me?
Complete and utter hogwash. Alan, you really need to quit commenting on things you know nothing about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Not only that, but you entirely missed my point. I was referring to your claim that a person's luck varied based on how long they had been playing. That some magic exists early in a session that allows them to win and then vanishes as the day goes on causing them to lose whatever they may have gained. Yes, sounds pretty crazy, doesn't it. The sad thing is that is exactly what you said.
To redietz and arcimedes: What I think doesn't matter at this point. Rob has offered you a challenge: ahead by at least $10k/$12.5k after 4/5 sessions.
I would like to see your response.
How I miss Mickey...
Winning 80% of sessions isn't difficult. Especially if your win goal is 5% of your session BR and you'll be upping bets when you lose. It'd be like someone saying a martingaler is gonna lose this session -- chances are, martingaler is gonna win, as he may have to only have 20 winning bets in a session, as long as he doesn't lose 10 in a row. (About 1 in 613 a red/black martingaler in roulette will lose his 1,023 unit bankroll on any given sequence,,,if my math is correct.)
How do you martingale video poker? Please explain. Also Rob has given us specific dollar amounts.
Question Rob. When you have a losing session (stop loss of 57k offset by "soft" profit of whatever amount) do you replenish your bankroll out of pocket minus the soft profit or go on to the next 57k and replenish from those profits?
It's been called a modified martingale. It's not the classic martingale as it changes denomination among other things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Just trying to understand this question- no offense. If each session begins w/$57k, would it matter where the money came from? Wouldn't you just add wins and subtract losses?:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaug
I don't even read Singer's comments. They are generally all lies and nonsense. He lost all credibility long ago when he wouldn't provide any tax forms. Challenges based on short term play are meaningless. Of course, you would have to understand a little math to know this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Rob made a million bucks on "short term play".
Who gives a s''t about the long term??
And I think that is the whole point behind his system.
A decent question.Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaug
When I've had a losing session--which have always been exactly the way you described it since I've never lost 100% of my session bankroll in a single session--one of two things happen. If I'm ahead for THE CURRENT YEAR more than my session loss, I replenish the bankroll from that profit. But if it's at the beginning of a year or at any point in the year where a session loss puts me behind for the year, that's where the "overall bankroll of 3x a session bankroll" comes into play. It's happened twice if I recall correctly.
I do that on paper and that's how I kept a cumulative total on my site and how I reported progress in GT every week.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
Of course it is, only arci shows his frustration with it's consistent--ie, "long-term" success--by throwing in foolish assertions & deflections.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
I can only IMAGINE how his poor missus suffered all those years with his "I'm always right!" &"what you're saying is not important because I SAY IT'S NOT!" brow-beating she endured, until she made him pay with her final escape. Which is why his dumb comments are taken with a grain of salt, as they say....:)
If he really made any money he would not have lived in a small apartment (and been evicted) nor would he have refused to show his tax forms. His lies were made obvious by his own actions. Only a complete fool would believe him based on zero evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis