Printable View
Where did the 5% risk of ruin come from? I'd like to see the math on that one. I'm not sure anyone truly understands the finer points of this betting system including Singer himself so who modeled it and how?Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplay
Drich or Mission or RS_ can chime in if they want Redietz, but I believe the chance of this happening is about 0.046% (probability an event with a 5% chance of occurring does not occur in 150 attempts of the event).Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
So Singer changes gears and gets kewlJ and Mickey to start feuding?
All part of the plan and it seems the plan is working.
Maybe we can get Spiderman involved with the morality police?
You think that was the reason?Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplayI remember mistakenly thinking back then in 2009, that the casinos were disabling double-up to make hand-turn over quicker - that is, with double-up enabled,the players would waste time deliberating over whether to double up or not, instead of playing hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
I always thought it was because they realized that double up was a true 50/50 proposition which they don't like to begin with.
Also, it could be beat in the right circumstances.
I know when I would lock up the machines with double up it would always confuse the attendants.
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by RS__
Basically it seems that Singer, kewlJ and MC care.
It seems that kewlJ cares the most though.
Which is odd, cause I thought he would be teamed up with ZK by now, trying to prove shuffle machines are cheating everyone with Chinese Playing Cards.
I think if one could prove that they would make more money per hour compared to counting cards?
Seriously though... Spiderman/kewlJ (am I missing other aliases?) says he isn't going to post anymore and after that, he posts about 100 times in record fashion!!
Even when these two get together on something, all they can do is lie.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJActually the number Singer first posted was that he had played 150-200 sessions without losing the 57K. I know exactly where that quote is, if there is any question. I guess we have just dropped to the lower end. But still the point is it will be outrageously long odds against.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Where did I ever say I went "150-0"? I didn't, because I had some session losses. Remember $33k being my biggest session loss? And the $57,200 is a session bankroll. I never lost a full session bankroll.
That's confusing for everyone. I developed and played/teach the strategy. The RoR is not even close to 5%.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowmeWhere did the 5% risk of ruin come from? I'd like to see the math on that one. I'm not sure anyone truly understands the finer points of this betting system including Singer himself so who modeled it and how?Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplayDrich or Mission or RS_ can chime in if they want Redietz, but I believe the chance of this happening is about 0.046% (probability an event with a 5% chance of occurring does not occur in 150 attempts of the event).Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
It is quite simple. Singer is or was using progressive wagering and stop limits as a way to overcome negative expectation and that simply can not be done. It's a proven mathematical fact and every person who plays by math has told him that what he is claiming is/was impossible, including Shackleford, Dan Druff and many members here.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowme
Mickey too was once on the side of mathematics. But Mickey's new alliance with Singer, apparently means that mickey is going to back ALL of Singer's claims now, whether proven or not, whether mathematically impossible or not. They are buddies. Fuck the math. And Mickey's new alliance with Singer also apparently means that Mickey is going to start cussing at and attacking anyone who challenges Singer's faulty or alternative math, just as Singer has always done. I like Mickeycrimm. I find his story fascinating. I have great respect for his AP ability. I have never attacked, nor disrespected him, and I am not going to get into the name-calling and trolling that Mickey went to last night. I can't explain why mickey is now backing everything Singer says and attacking people who disagree with the faulty math.
It's quite simple: A progressive betting system simply changes the groupings of wins and losses. It can not change the total outcome, What you end up with is a series of small wins and eventually a much larger loss that wipes out all those smaller wins and then some. There is nothing new about this. Progressive betting cannot overcome negative expectation. Period. Mathematically impossible.
In Singers latest answer to this he made the rather bizarre statement that his results, which continue to defy the mathematics were able to do so because he was on the extreme end of the bell curve as far as variance and results. Translation he was extremely lucky. His original claim which is what many of us challenged was that he had done this for 10 years for a million dollars. After he came out with his newest claim that he was the one to find and play the double up for nearly six years, he has amended this original claim concerning the Singer System, down to 4 years and $375k. Even 4 years and $375 is not short term variance. This claim just continues to be preposterous.
And this claim continuing to be preposterous, is part of Singers credibility. Since he is offering no proof for his newer bigger claim that is supposed to rock the AP world, no tax records (he has destroyed them), no paperwork from casinos, we are supposed to take him at his word. And that is where credibility come into play. And that is why this all ties together, along with his publicly available financial history, which includes bankruptcies, evections and legal judgement from an apartment complex at a time in question, when he claims to have been rather "well-off". I am not picking on Singer, but none of it makes any sense. None of it is credible.
How do you know? Let's see the Math. Show your work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerThat's confusing for everyone. I developed and played/teach the strategy. The RoR is not even close to 5%.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowmeWhere did the 5% risk of ruin come from? I'd like to see the math on that one. I'm not sure anyone truly understands the finer points of this betting system including Singer himself so who modeled it and how?Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplay
You claimed there was a 5% risk of ruin with his bankroll and strategy. How did you calculate that? Let's see the Math.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJIt is quite simple. Singer is or was using progressive wagering and stop limits as a way to overcome negative expectation and that simply can not be done. It's a proven mathematical fact and every person who plays by math has told him that what he is claiming is/was impossible, including Shackleford, Dan Druff and many members here.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowme
Mickey too was once on the side of mathematics. But Mickey's new alliance with Singer, apparently means that mickey is going to back ALL of Singer's claims now, whether proven or not, whether mathematically impossible or not. They are buddies. Fuck the math. And Mickey's new alliance with Singer also apparently means that Mickey is going to start cussing at and attacking anyone who challenges Singer's faulty or alternative math, just as Singer has always done. I like Mickeycrimm. I find his story fascinating. I have great respect for his AP ability. I have never attacked, nor disrespected him, and I am not going to get into the name-calling and trolling that Mickey went to last night. I can't explain why mickey is now backing everything Singer says and attacking people who disagree with the faulty math.
It's quite simple: A progressive betting system simply changes the groupings of wins and losses. It can not change the total outcome, What you end up with is a series of small wins and eventually a much larger loss that wipes out all those smaller wins and then some. There is nothing new about this. Progressive betting cannot overcome negative expectation. Period. Mathematically impossible.
In Singers latest answer to this he made the rather bizarre statement that his results, which continue to defy the mathematics were able to do so because he was on the extreme end of the bell curve as far as variance and results. Translation he was extremely lucky. His original claim which is what many of us challenged was that he had done this for 10 years for a million dollars. After he came out with his newest claim that he was the one to find and play the double up for nearly six years, he has amended this original claim concerning the Singer System, down to 4 years and $375k. Even 4 years and $375 is not short term variance. This claim just continues to be preposterous.
And this claim continuing to be preposterous, is part of Singers credibility. Since he is offering no proof for his newer bigger claim that is supposed to rock the AP world, no tax records (he has destroyed them), no paperwork from casinos, we are supposed to take him at his word. And that is where credibility come into play. And that is why this all ties together, along with his publicly available financial history, which includes bankruptcies, evections and legal judgement from an apartment complex at a time in question, when he claims to have been rather "well-off". I am not picking on Singer, but none of it makes any sense. None of it is credible.
Again, I did not say that you went 150-0 with no losing sessions. I said exactly what you claimed that you did not have THAT full bankroll losing session, that would wipe out all those smaller wins. That big losing session that is the downfall of EVERY progressive betting system. You apparently avoided that because you were extremely lucky, "or on the far, far side of the bell curve" is what we are now to believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I am not going to waste any more time with this. Singer has shown no proof of his newest claim, that is supposed to rock the AP world. He has no paperwork, he got rid of it all. Why would someone making a claim they KNOW will be challenged by the community do that? I don't know, but he did.
So with no proof, we go to his credibility and he has none. Almost everything he has ever said turns out to be a lie or mathematically impossible and unsubstantiated. And when you challenge him on the math, you get attacks. And now apparently mickey is going to join in on that troll playbook strategy on behalf of his new buddy.
It just keeps getting weirder and weirder. No wonder GWAE or any other mainstream discussion format wants any part of this. Two words: Zero credibility!
I guess the best part of all this is picturing in my mind how flustered kew is making himself to be. Quivering, mumbling to himself, and sweating. Wish we had a video!Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJIt is quite simple. Singer is or was using progressive wagering and stop limits as a way to overcome negative expectation and that simply can not be done. It's a proven mathematical fact and every person who plays by math has told him that what he is claiming is/was impossible, including Shackleford, Dan Druff and many members here.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowme
Mickey too was once on the side of mathematics. But Mickey's new alliance with Singer, apparently means that mickey is going to back ALL of Singer's claims now, whether proven or not, whether mathematically impossible or not. They are buddies. Fuck the math. And Mickey's new alliance with Singer also apparently means that Mickey is going to start cussing at and attacking anyone who challenges Singer's faulty or alternative math, just as Singer has always done. I like Mickeycrimm. I find his story fascinating. I have great respect for his AP ability. I have never attacked, nor disrespected him, and I am not going to get into the name-calling and trolling that Mickey went to last night. I can't explain why mickey is now backing everything Singer says and attacking people who disagree with the faulty math.
It's quite simple: A progressive betting system simply changes the groupings of wins and losses. It can not change the total outcome, What you end up with is a series of small wins and eventually a much larger loss that wipes out all those smaller wins and then some. There is nothing new about this. Progressive betting cannot overcome negative expectation. Period. Mathematically impossible.
In Singers latest answer to this he made the rather bizarre statement that his results, which continue to defy the mathematics were able to do so because he was on the extreme end of the bell curve as far as variance and results. Translation he was extremely lucky. His original claim which is what many of us challenged was that he had done this for 10 years for a million dollars. After he came out with his newest claim that he was the one to find and play the double up for nearly six years, he has amended this original claim concerning the Singer System, down to 4 years and $375k. Even 4 years and $375 is not short term variance. This claim just continues to be preposterous.
And this claim continuing to be preposterous, is part of Singers credibility. Since he is offering no proof for his newer bigger claim that is supposed to rock the AP world, no tax records (he has destroyed them), no paperwork from casinos, we are supposed to take him at his word. And that is where credibility come into play. And that is why this all ties together, along with his publicly available financial history, which includes bankruptcies, evections and legal judgement from an apartment complex at a time, he claims to have been rather "well-off". I am not picking on Singer, but none of it makes any sense. None of it is credible.
Go ahead kew, try and tell redietz' "university math professor" that winning a session that has at least an 80% chance of winning, is because of LUCK :)
Face it--you're sour and beside yourself over this. You're unable to make this all about you, you're super worried that your Internet life is taking a hit, so you're flailing.
May I suggest a visit with your good friend Bob N.? I hear he might let you use one of his safe spaces for a few hours a day. There you'll be allowed to tell all the lies you want, cry, jump up and down screaming uncontrollably like a 3-year old....and you can even count the flowers on the wall on two adjacent walls at once!
Here's a flash kew. Do you keep your tax returns (assuming you file) for the past 20 years? Yours are probably easy peasy simple, mine haven't been in years. And why would you keep stacks of W2G's along with all that garbage? Are you aware you are allowed to toss your returns etc. after 3 years? Do you know that even the IRS's policy is to destroy filings older than 7-years old? Would you anticipate people asking to see your returns 10-15 years down the road? And the casinos---is it ME who controls how long they keep copies and records?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Sure you can use all of the Government's regulations and casino rules as your own personal twisted logic to whine about me.
BUT YOU LOOK STOOPID DOING IT
And let me tell you one more thing about credibility. When someone chooses a handle, they build up credibility or lack of credibility on that handle. That is why most AP's use the same handle throughout the community. And why people that aren't credible or develop a reputation for trolling and being a game player create sock puppets and alternative handles. So they can hide. To Singer's credit he uses the Rob Singer handle (most of the time).
Know what I am talking about unowme? I wonder where coach belly is? :rolleyes:
Goodbye. I am off to work. Not going to waste time with this crap today.
What are you implying?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
There are currently 18 users browsing this thread. (4 members and 14 guests)
coach belly, mickeycrimm, Rob.Singer, unowme
I'm leaving my desk now for a few hours, but I'll stay logged on so that you can see me and unowme are browsing at the same time.
A person with two (or more) devices, laptops, tablets, phones can be logged on under multiple handles. Just more games from the troll crowd.
This site grows more ridiculous every day. Dan no longer ever participates in discussions, nor cleans anything up. His interest is the monopoly game and making baseball picks, which he isn't very good at.
I see. I ask a tough question like how did you calculate the 5% risk of ruin and you can't answer it so now I'm a 'sock puppet' and a troll. What's your major malfunction? I've got news for you sonny. I am not an AP. I have never claimed to be one and I am not part of any AP community. Instead, I am a Vegas Fanatic and I happen to have had a career and own a business that's based in Systems and Statistical Analysis.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
I have been following this board since it was in the Vegas section of Alan's Best Buys. I knew Alan and Rob back when both were posting in the Las Vegas Advisor Free For All 10 years ago. Rob was an asshole back then too....and Alan was always helpful pointing out good Vegas deals. I posted on this thread because I've been following this exploit since the Wired article and thought I had some valid contributions for the group here regarding the legality and morality of the play. Disagree with me all you want, but do it through your ideas not by dismissing me as some regular poster posing as someone else. That's weak and wrong and reflects more on what kind of person you are than me. I guess that's how you welcome new users to Vegas Casino Talk.
And here is a news flash for you Ron. This isn't about tax returns, or any of the other little side fights that spring up. This is about credibility. And that is why, on this forum, this topic of your new greatest claim has dominated for the last week or so. And everyone is getting all hot and bothered. Choosing sides. Oddly not the usual sides. And it is why here on this forum, this is breaking news. The biggest thing to hit the AP/gambling community in years or maybe ever. How ever you want to word it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
But to the rest of the gambling community, the rest of the world, it doesn't even get a mention. Absolutely no interest. To the rest of the real world, including the gambling community, this is just more Singer Bullshit. Just another chapter in the Singer book of tales. You and your claim, all your claims, including this new earth-shattering claim are irrelevant. Likewise, I and my debukes of your claim are irrelevant. But that is mostly about you. You have zero credibility so any claims you make have zero credibility. Nobody cares one way or the other. It truly is the boy who cried wolf scenario.
Not really the great explosive ending you were hoping and looking for is it?
I said "roughly" didn't I? You know why I said that, because I don't know the exact numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowme
I am not a "math guy". I don't know all the mathematical formulas...for even the things I do to make a living. Don't need to. It is about mathematical principals and those much smarter than I have long ago proved these principals. And Singer is going against these proven mathematical principals. There is a name for that. It is voodoo.
Furthermore no one can post the exact numbers like risks or odds for Singers claims, because Singer never fully explains anything. He makes very general claims and statements and when someone challenges based on mathematical principals and facts, he gets nasty and starts with attacks, usually having nothing to do with anything. And if he gets challenged enough, his story and numbers will change. Now you tell me any of what I just said isn't true.
So no one can come up with exact numbers, because he doesn't give exact numbers and the numbers and information he does provide are constantly changing. But you don't need exact numbers. It is mathematical principals, proven beyond any doubt and his claims all go against this.
Numbers matter in math. How do you know the risk of ruin isn't really .05% or 10%? Where did 5% come from? Did you just make it up?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJI said "roughly" didn't I? You know why I said that, because I don't know the exact numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowme
I am not a "math guy". I don't know all the mathematical formulas...for even the things I do to make a living. Don't need to. It is about mathematical principals and those much smarter than I have long ago proved these principals. And Singer is going against these proven mathematical principals. There is a name for that. It is voodoo.
Furthermore no one can post the exact numbers like risks or odds for Singers claims, because Singer never fully explains anything. He makes very general claims and statements and when someone challenges based on mathematical principals and facts, he gets nasty and starts with attacks, usually having nothing to do with anything. And if he gets challenged enough, his story and numbers will change. Now you tell me any of what I just said isn't true.
So no one can come up with exact numbers, because he doesn't give exact numbers and the numbers and information he does provide are constantly changing. But you don't need exact numbers. It is mathematical principals, proven beyond any doubt and his claims all go against this.
Yeah, not much interest. I'm in the odd position of hoping it's actually true because (1) it makes Argentino a liar to hundreds or thousands of readers regarding the provenance of his money, (2) it means he lied through his teeth to a journalist, Alan Mendelson, who was on his side, or Alan was in on it (which I do not believe), and (3) somebody didn't manage their money very well.
I'm really hoping GWAE does the interview(s). One problem is that Dancer and Anthony Curtis were both in Las Vegas when Argentino went off the rails denigrating a recently deceased advantage video poker player, and it was bad enough (since the guy's family read the stuff) that Gaming Today canned him. So there's a reputational cost that comes from publicly engaging Argentino, and the fact that Argentino has no expertise in any other area of gambling probably doesn't help. Because of that, the interview would be a one-topic, one-shot deal, so is the reward worth the risk? The one-shot interview, after all, involves a play that is likely extinct and legally debatable, so it's not the best one-shot topic in the world.
I still hope GWAE does the interview. Odds, however, are probably against it if all mickey got was a "thanks."
Regarding mickey's going over to the dark side, it's been my experience that these things usually happen when there's some quid pro quo in progress.
Just. Plain. Weird.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
This is too funny. Kew claiming "everybody's getting too excited over this" when he's the only one acting like someone stuffed a handful of jumping beans up his ass :)Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJI said "roughly" didn't I? You know why I said that, because I don't know the exact numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowme
I am not a "math guy". I don't know all the mathematical formulas...for even the things I do to make a living. Don't need to. It is about mathematical principals and those much smarter than I have long ago proved these principals. And Singer is going against these proven mathematical principals. There is a name for that. It is voodoo.
Furthermore no one can post the exact numbers like risks or odds for Singers claims, because Singer never fully explains anything. He makes very general claims and statements and when someone challenges based on mathematical principals and facts, he gets nasty and starts with attacks, usually having nothing to do with anything. And if he gets challenged enough, his story and numbers will change. Now you tell me any of what I just said isn't true.
So no one can come up with exact numbers, because he doesn't give exact numbers and the numbers and information he does provide are constantly changing. But you don't need exact numbers. It is mathematical principals, proven beyond any doubt and his claims all go against this.
Rob's complete lack of credibility... it would have added to his credibility...question his credibility about everything...THAT is what credibility is...created this lack of credibility...mind as to your credibility... still comes down to credibility...
Kew,
Merriam-Webster called, your lease on the word credibility is up. Want to renew?
Kj, I take issue with your statement that one handle brings credibility. I have multiple handles, but only one on each site. I feel these multiple handles brings me more credibility, since each one is consistent with each other. Bosox has said many times I’m one of the most consistent posters he’s ever seen. Since he doesn’t like any of my handles, this proves how consistent I am, and adds to my credibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
For the record, I have never had a sock puppet. When Colin kicked me off BJA for believing in tipping and sometimes defending casinos, I moved on. I never once tried to get back on with a sock puppet.
And I also think Moses is one of the most consistent, most credible, posters out there. He didn’t change when he went from one site to the next. You always know where he and his freinds are coming from. It’s refreshing to see such honesty from someone on these forums. That’s why I always check in on zenzone at least once a day. It’s also because Moses has a very unique, creative, sense of humor. Shout out to Moses!!!
....Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
Pure hogwash. I don't take anyone's side but my own. When errors are made I point them out. You modified what I said in your quotes. Sorry, got to point that out. You said Singer claimed he went 150 and 0. Sorry, you either made that shit up or can't read. Singer has always admitted to losing sessions. But pointing that out means I'm taking his side? So I best not point that out if I want to be on your side? Screw you. The facts are the facts. Quit making shit up as you go and we are honky dory.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Now, all these various and sundry ways you and redietz have come up with that Rob could have gotten the sequence from someone else. So far it's just pure conjecture on your part. Here's the thing. If Rob was able to find someone to tell him that then don't you guys think you could do the same thing? KJ, you attempted to get it out of the author that what he published was correct. That failed. Then you contacted Nestor. That failed. But you guys should keep at it. If you really want to shoot Rob down on this then find the person or persons who supposedly told him. If he was able to find them then most assuredly you talented guys can do the same. It's your best shot at discrediting Rob. Make a community project out of it. Start a thread here and everyone network information obtained. Get to it! Times a wastin.'
Until you can do that my opinion is the preponderance of the evidence is Rob's story is true.
I'm not understanding this 150 sessions of VP for +375k. Obviously all sessions are not winning. Session win goal is 2500. There would have to be a hell of alot of sessions played to net 375k out, I'd imagine. Since the starting bankroll was 57k or whatever and never got depleted then I guess the claim is there never was never a losing session? What am I missing? Not that it matters.
The origin of the 5% figure was Redietz asking me the odds against a 5% probability event going 0 for 150 - I have no horse in the race beyond that sir.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowmeWhere did the 5% risk of ruin come from? I'd like to see the math on that one. I'm not sure anyone truly understands the finer points of this betting system including Singer himself so who modeled it and how?Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplayDrich or Mission or RS_ can chime in if they want Redietz, but I believe the chance of this happening is about 0.046% (probability an event with a 5% chance of occurring does not occur in 150 attempts of the event).Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Yes. It was naive thinking to be sure. As you say, a better reason is because you can safely churn more playthrough with the added 50/50 bet (as for beating it, well that's a hell of a good reason to stop it too.) - just like the odds bet in craps if a player is being rated for their play (that's why a few casinos limit the max odds bets to 2 or 3 to 1). But retrospectively, I now believe the primary reason was the Nestor/Kane bug that Ron discovered independently. The reasons you gave are valid and are most likely secondary and tertiary (with my reason only a very small fractional quaternary component of its elimination) motivations for eliminating it (I'm sure it can be found in small shops around the country on very rare occasions like convenience stores, bar tops in dive bars, rural/smaill indian casinos, etc.).Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
For those 4 years I played probably a little more that 150 of my SPS sessions having nothing to do with the DU glitch, but not many more. So we use 150.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPen
My session br was $57,200, but my overall gambling bankroll for my quest was 3X that figure. Naturally I had some losing sessions, but because of the strategy's structure where you go up and down in denominations and have multiple 40+ credit cash outs in different denoms along the way--and the fact that if I played thru the $100 level without hitting my $2500 min. win goal I'd quit and go home losing whatever amount--I never had a session where I lost $57,200 ($33k was the largest as I said).
What most people miss is that SOME sessions end with a very large net win, far more than the $2500 goal, because of some lucky Aces or royal hit or whatever at a hi limit. Most sessions do end up winning between $2500 and $3500, but it's the larger ones that mitigate all of the losing ones.
I know this flies in the face of standard math, which says no "system or distribution of wins can overcome negative expectation games" etc. But we're talking about a very small % here, vs. using a comparatively large bankroll to reach a 5% win....each and every session. And in sessions that have at least an 80% or better chance of winning, attaining +$375k in 150+ sessions is not far fetched.
First of all- one has to PLAY the strategy. It can be mentally tiring and can take some time on some days. Quads or whatever don't always come quickly. And before anyone gets started, I don't play the higher denominations-in fact I like the other strategies for my play. So no, I'm not a millionaire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerFor those 4 years I played probably a little more that 150 of my SPS sessions having nothing to do with the DU glitch, but not many more. So we use 150.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPen
My session br was $57,200, but my overall gambling bankroll for my quest was 3X that figure. Naturally I had some losing sessions, but because of the strategy's structure where you go up and down in denominations and have multiple 40+ credit cash outs in different denoms along the way--and the fact that if I played thru the $100 level without hitting my $2500 min. win goal I'd quit and go home losing whatever amount--I never had a session where I lost $57,200 ($33k was the largest as I said).
What most people miss is that SOME sessions end with a very large net win, far more than the $2500 goal, because of some lucky Aces or royal hit or whatever at a hi limit. Most sessions do end up winning between $2500 and $3500, but it's the larger ones that mitigate all of the losing ones.
I know this flies in the face of standard math, which says no "system or distribution of wins can overcome negative expectation games" etc. But we're talking about a very small % here, vs. using a comparatively large bankroll to reach a 5% win....each and every session. And in sessions that have at least an 80% or better chance of winning, attaining +$375k in 150+ sessions is not far fetched.
I agree. I think it was the bug that was the main reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplay
I remember talking about it to a few pals when they were taking them out but we just figured what I said earlier because that information wasn't known yet.
The other thing about double up, though, is you don't get rated on that play, so it kinda defeats the purpose if playing flat.
However, to get even money in the Casino is always worth investigating... am I right?
Double Up is still around... it isn't completely taken out of Vegas.
It isn't very wide spread though.
I am not sure if the Fremont took all of the double up features out of their games since they moved all the machines around but it was less than a year ago they had it all over the place.
Although if you know anything about that Casino they have recently got serious about being Slots of Fun.
They still have plenty of stand alone progressives that are positive.
Currently they have one 35k Reel Machine that is positive. It starts at 10k.
It was there two days ago so it may have got hit.
I have to head down there a bit later and look around because another machine is just about over 4k that starts at 1k and that is just free money.
First thing is first though I have to watch the Sharks get sliced up by the Blues!
Yes you're right IMHO. I think there were some casinos that did count the double-up towards tier points and player's club points. IIRC, many originally did this and then got wise to it and changed the system to not count it. But for the sake of argument let's say it never counted for tier or rewards points. The casino is still exposed to greater risk since a small bet can be turned into a big profit with a lucky streak. Casino management wants to manage risk and (unlimited) 50/50 bets jeopardize risk management - making it much more difficult. They would love to have high variance on all bets, but of course no one would play if it gets too out of balance so they have to have variance at the "not too tart, not to sweet level". Anyhow, I believe they could limit the double-ups in the settings menu (I am not positive about this) and if they did, I think that I remember seeing 3 double-ups max occuring at a couple shops back then.Quote:
Originally Posted by monetI agree. I think it was the bug that was the main reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplay
I remember talking about it to a few pals when they were taking them out but we just figured what I said earlier because that information wasn't known yet.
The other thing about double up, though, is you don't get rated on that play, so it kinda defeats the purpose if playing flat.
However, to get even money in the Casino is always worth investigating... am I right?
Double Up is still around... it isn't completely taken out in Vegas.
It isn't very wide spread though.
By the way sir, ROR has no application here - ROR is meaningful for positive expectation games only. The ROR calculation is easy on negative expectation games like Ron's system (98.12% Bonus Poker)- the ROR is 100%.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowmeWhere did the 5% risk of ruin come from? I'd like to see the math on that one. I'm not sure anyone truly understands the finer points of this betting system including Singer himself so who modeled it and how?Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplayDrich or Mission or RS_ can chime in if they want Redietz, but I believe the chance of this happening is about 0.046% (probability an event with a 5% chance of occurring does not occur in 150 attempts of the event).Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
That is correct, which is why the 5% figure is nowhere near accurate. Conversely, as the bankroll increases playing -ev games, nothing changes in RoR, which is why you cannot use theory to analyze my play strategy. Similarly, RoR assumes a single game/single denomination setting.Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplayBy the way sir, ROR has no application here - ROR is meaningful for positive expectation games only. The ROR calculation is easy on negative expectation games like Ron's system (98.12% Bonus Poker)- the ROR is 100%.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowmeWhere did the 5% risk of ruin come from? I'd like to see the math on that one. I'm not sure anyone truly understands the finer points of this betting system including Singer himself so who modeled it and how?Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplay
Some time ago I could not get anyone to bet against me winning, after a million hands of 7/5 BP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Nobody would accept the condition of playing one million hands, they added another condition...that all hands be played at the same denomination.
I knew this would get KJ going. He slobbered all over himself about it posting up gibberish about how I've forgotten the math. Even redietz thinks I've "gone over to the dark side." LOL! I'm the only one that hasn't forgotten the math.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Why do you think monet plays with all his in-laws cards? Why do you think axel says he will play with someone else's card if he has their permission. The play is as old as the hills. Even Dancer does it. And even KJ has done it or at least his partner did.
Play a slightly negative game and generate freeplay.
Singer's progressive system is taylor made to produce great amounts of freeplay in the right spots. Let's give the house a half percent advantage. 100K in action has a theoretical loss of $500. If it generates $150 a week in freeplay for 3 months you've outran the theoretical loss by $2500. The freeplay is a 3% add on.
In the past guys have played 4 hours or so on $5 games that are just under 99% and generated $2K, 3K a month in freeplay. In playing the just under 99% games they are creating a real losers profile that the casinos love. But the casino is the sucker because they are just going to run off the freeplay and leave.
So, oh yeah, I've really gone over to the darkside. GTFO!
You were looking to angle shoot the play.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellySome time ago I could not get anyone to bet against me winning, after a million hands of 7/5 BP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Nobody would accept the condition of playing one million hands, they added another condition...that all hands be played at the same denomination.
It was my understanding that the 5% figure was the probability of losing your $56,000 bankroll before hitting your 'session win goal'. That would certainly ruin my day, but if that's not a RoR calculation then maybe we can call it a ROLYBIOS calculation (Risk of Losing Your Bankroll in One Session). Whatever we call it, I just want to understand exactly how that probablility of 5% was calculated...where did it come from?...what's the formula??Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplayBy the way sir, ROR has no application here - ROR is meaningful for positive expectation games only. The ROR calculation is easy on negative expectation games like Ron's system (98.12% Bonus Poker)- the ROR is 100%.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowmeWhere did the 5% risk of ruin come from? I'd like to see the math on that one. I'm not sure anyone truly understands the finer points of this betting system including Singer himself so who modeled it and how?Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplay
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmI knew this would get KJ going. He slobbered all over himself about it posting up gibberish about how I've forgotten the math. Even redietz thinks I've "gone over to the dark side." LOL! I'm the only one that hasn't forgotten the math.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Why do you think monet plays with all his in-laws cards? Why do you think axel says he will play with someone else's card if he has their permission. The play is as old as the hills. Even Dancer does it. And even KJ has done it or at least his partner did.
Play a slightly negative game and generate freeplay.
Singer's progressive system is taylor made to produce great amounts of freeplay in the right spots. Let's give the house a half percent advantage. 100K in action has a theoretical loss of $500. If it generates $150 a week in freeplay for 3 months you've outran the theoretical loss by $2500. The freeplay is a 3% add on.
In the past guys have played 4 hours or so on $5 games that are just under 99% and generated $2K, 3K a month in freeplay. In playing the just under 99% games they are creating a real losers profile that the casinos love. But the casino is the sucker because they are just going to run off the freeplay and leave.
So, oh yeah, I've really gone over to the darkside. GTFO!
I'm the guy who, many years ago and repeatedly since, delineated the advantages of "playing like Rob." Anyone in management eyeballing how he plays, especially when he first sets foot in a place, is going to put him at the head of the line in terms of comps and freeplay -- especially if he's truthful about lugging 55K around with him. I'd do the same, but nobody would believe me. "I'm here to play $1 video poker, and if I lose, I brought along 55K so I can keep firing at higher stakes." Hell, I'd expect a free suite and trip to the steakhouse if I could get anyone to buy that.
The problem is that "Singer" has spent decades and many dozens, if not hundreds, of his 7000 posts here emphasizing that he doesn't routinely play with a player's card, and that anyone relying on freeplay to turn a profit is a sucker and so on. Now if this was all an additional bedtime story to mislead hundreds or thousands of people, well, that's horrendous. The "Singer Systems" do not, as expressly stated in a hundred of posts of his, rely in any manner on freeplay to turn a profit.
You can apply RoR to a -EV game with some predefined limit. Even recreational gamblers have to consider how much money they should take to the casino if they want to last 1 hour on their favorite slot.
What doesn't apply to -EV gambling is the Kelly criterion / optimal bet sizing / bankroll growth. The optimal bet size is always zero. (In scenarios like what Mickey describes you need to factor in the value of mail, so you're back to considering a net +EV situation.)
This is 100% correct. Because what little elementary machine play I and my partner did, WAS completely dependent on the free play and mail offers, I must have asked Rob dozens of times and dozens of times he said exactly what Redietz just wrote that his Singer system was not dependent on free play or offers and that he did not play rated. And each time I questioned him, again probably dozens, maybe 50, I would beg him to share just exactly what it was that turned his -EV games into positive expectation, which is what you need to achieve what Rob originally claimed for 10 years and now is claiming for 4 years, $375k in profit....and he never did, never could.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Mickey, you know everything I just stated is true. This explanation of yours that it was the free play that made the difference is just false. The story is changing just as Rob always does and you seem now to be grasping at straws trying to legitimize the preposterous claims of your new friend.
You two dummies deserve each other. I always used a card when I played my strategy. The years I stated that I mostly did not use a card were the years I played the DU glitch....which was the same time period I was telling everybody I was still playing my strategy. Of course, redietz couldn't figure that out, and kew would never want to.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJThis is 100% correct. Because what little elementary machine play I and my partner did, WAS completely dependent on the free play and mail offers, I must have asked Rob dozens of times and dozens of times he said exactly what Redietz just wrote that his Singer system was not dependent on free play or offers and that he did not play rated. And each time I questioned him, again probably dozens, maybe 50, I would beg him to share just exactly what it was that turned his -EV games into positive expectation, which is what you need to achieve what Rob originally claimed for 10 years and now is claiming for 4 years, $375k in profit....and he never did, never could.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Mickey, you know everything I just stated is true. This explanation of yours that it was the free play that made the difference is just false. The story is changing just as Rob always does and you seem now to be grasping at straws trying to legitimize the preposterous claims of your new friend.
You idiots just can't stop getting caught in your own traps. Enjoy trying to wiggle out.
Ron, if that is the case, it is another case of your story and claim changing. I mean my arguments and challenges are based on what YOU said. And based on what YOU said, the math to this claim didn't add up. If you now are changing your story and claim to include that the thing that made this play +EV was the free plays and offers, that is not on me, that is on you. I argued and challenged what YOU said. It is not my job to try to figure out what you are or aren't lying about or what your story/claim may change to next. This is on YOU!Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I asked probably 50, maybe 100 times just what it was that would make a -EV play into a longterm winner and you never, ever said the free play. You always maintained that it was not. Had you said it was the free play, I would have understood that and not challenged you because that is what I and my partner were doing on a smaller scale.
All this lying and dishonesty is on you not me. And that is exactly what I am talking about with credibility.
I'm not sure why you are asking me where it came from as I did not declare that it was 5%. I merely answered Redietz's question about an event that had a 5% of occurring, not occurring over a course of 150 trials. In any case, here is a mathematical treatment of this for video poker:Quote:
Originally Posted by unowmeIt was my understanding that the 5% figure was the probability of losing your $56,000 bankroll before hitting your 'session win goal'. That would certainly ruin my day, but if that's not a RoR calculation then maybe we can call it a ROLYBIOS calculation (Risk of Losing Your Bankroll in One Session). Whatever we call it, I just want to understand exactly how that probability of 5% was calculated...where did it come from?...what's the formula??Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplayBy the way sir, ROR has no application here - ROR is meaningful for positive expectation games only. The ROR calculation is easy on negative expectation games like Ron's system (98.12% Bonus Poker)- the ROR is 100%.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowme
http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/VPRoR.htm
Yes, there were double up machines that gave points for doubling up. but not many that I know of, and all the ones I knew of were for comps only, so, it wasn't really worth doing just for that reason. I guess, before my time there could have been more around that were giving cash back.Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplayYes you're right IMHO. I think there were some casinos that did count the double-up towards tier points and player's club points. IIRC, many originally did this and then got wise to it and changed the system to not count it. But for the sake of argument let's say it never counted for tier or rewards points. The casino is still exposed to greater risk since a small bet can be turned into a big profit with a lucky streak. Casino management wants to manage risk and (unlimited) 50/50 bets jeopardize risk management - making it much more difficult. They would love to have high variance on all bets, but of course no one would play if it gets too out of balance so they have to have variance at the "not too tart, not to sweet level". Anyhow, I believe they could limit the double-ups in the settings menu (I am not positive about this) and if they did, I think that I remember seeing 3 double-ups max occuring at a couple shops back then.Quote:
Originally Posted by monetI agree. I think it was the bug that was the main reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplay
I remember talking about it to a few pals when they were taking them out but we just figured what I said earlier because that information wasn't known yet.
The other thing about double up, though, is you don't get rated on that play, so it kinda defeats the purpose if playing flat.
However, to get even money in the Casino is always worth investigating... am I right?
Double Up is still around... it isn't completely taken out in Vegas.
It isn't very wide spread though.
The Willams Blackjack was over 100% and had let it ride(different than double up since you are playing your wins into the next hand) and they had some places with very generous comps and some with cash back. It was only really worthwhile if you played the $1 version, but they only had those in a few places. The $1 versions were mostly in Reno and Lake Tahoe, some of best comps ever for me, including mall shopping, limos anywhere and the casino paid for it all, I would use the comps to buy gold jewelry from the gift shops (good times).
There were a few places that were giving points on the old multi-game machines when you feed in coins and banked them in the credit meter without ever having to play.
The Stardust had a slot machines that whenever you lined up 2 blue sevens (3 blue sevens was the top jackpot for 1k) it allowed you to feed in 3 more coins for a chance to spin the 3rd reel. it counted the coins going in and gave points when you did this. You could decline the 3rd reel spin and just cash out the coins, You could just keep doing that over and over without having to make any more spins. They had a 1% cash card on slots and comps, they also had various multipliers and point contests as well. Ithe hourly on that was very good and it wasn't very fun but I think it was worth about $15 to $20 an hour(perhaps $6 more per hour if you fast fed coins like a maniac, I can't remember now exactly what it was worth) with very little risk. And sometimes when you were finished and made the final spin you would connect with the $1k
As predicted, I even told KJ this in a PM. He was/is heading into the everyone hates KJ zone again like we have all seen in the past.
Robs story.
True or not, what's the big deal? If Rob is lying, what then? OH, big deal we get to call Rob a liar for the billionth time.
If Rob is telling the truth how will that affect your life? Will it help you sleep at night knowing Rob was telling the truth and made a bunch of money? Will you suddenly want a ride in his 2 million dollar RV? Perhaps you need a loan? Unless you are going to go out and look for machines like this and ask him for advice I can't see how this will help you. You are better off looking into the future for ways to make money, have fun, enjoy or improve your life, rather than worrying about what Rob did or didn't do. A little back and forth and a few gotcha moments are fun, but an obsession you can't turn off is not good. I doubt knowing the truth about this will help you in any way whatsoever in your life. Unless you do nothing but live for gotcha moments and you want to spend your days and nights trying to debunk Rob's claims. I don't care if God himself tells me Ron has been telling the truth about everything. I will never believe his VP Marty system works/worked.
I don't know that I agree with MC. I don't think it be all that hard to do some research and talk to people and come up with all the mechanics and a good story to convince people they played this. Unless Rob told MC something else or I happened to miss something critical. But as I said before Rob's explanation was very fluent and believable more so than someone just winging it as they went from no experience. It never seemed as if Rob was trying to convince me he played this, it's as if he just wanted to tell his story and suggestions if I were to want to explore more looking for the machines. I already had my own ideas. However, there was one thing I had not really thought of that could happen to make it possible. I would have to do more research on that aspect to know if it is true or not.
I would not want to make a bet on this either way, even if the truth and proof was seal in an envelope waiting to make my bet. I would have to be getting odds one side or the other and put much more thought into it.
JK, Rob said he would take a Lie detector test. I propose that we set this up. If Rob passes you pay for the test and a bet amount, and if Rob fails, he pays for the test and he pays you some bet amount.
I can't see any logical reason why Rob wouldn't do this since he already said he would be willing to. What say you Rob?
And KJ, if you are not willing to put your money where your mouth is, then I suggest you move on(but do what you want). Granted I don't know how good lie detector tests are but its a start. Rob and KJ would have to agree they would be willing to accept the test as 100% accurate, and if Rob fails he couldn't call the test bunk. I would say that he should have to put up an amount into escrow that gets distributed if he insinuates the test was wrong or go on about how he played this. And the same for KJ of Rob passes KJ cant claim Rob found a way to beat it.
Axel, I am not the one who is changing. And I am talking about Singer's progressive betting system, not the double up claim. AS he explained it, it was mathematically impossible and still is. I told him that. You told him that. Mickey Told him that. JBJB told him that. RS_ told him that. MaxPen told him that. Shackleford told him that. Dan Druff told him that. Every AP that even understands a little math told him that.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
He repeatedly said that he didn't even play rated and it wasn't the free plays and offers that changed the play from negative expectation to positive expectation. Now with mickey's help, Singer is completely doing a 180 and I am the bad guy?
I just want to be clear. Singer is now running with Mickey's explanation. That it was the free play and mailers that made his machine play (prior to the double-up discovery) a winning play. It had nothing to do with progression wagering or stop limits. Is that what you are now claiming Ron?
I was answering the question under the assumption that a person planned to play again after they hit their limit (for example playing 150 similar sessions as Redietz mentioned) versus never playing ever again. Unowme, the actual figure is about 61%. That is, if you are playing 8/5 Bonus Poker $1 denomination VP, betting 5 coins a spin,with a bank roll of $55,000 (and perfect discarding strategy - no "special plays"), the probability of achieving a bank roll of $57,500 is 61%. So now there is an event that has a 61% of occurring. Does anyone seriously believe that you can play Russian Roulette long enough to make almost $400000 like Ron says given this probability (39% chance of ruin before achieving the bank roll goal) ? Ok Ron is doing denominational switching, but the pull of gravity does not disappear. It would be onerous to compute this mathematically, it would be best done by simulation. Gravity wins. Anyone who doesn't believe this is delusional. Using a players club card(s) like other posters have suggested is the only way to beat the pull of gravity (on a negative EV game). Ron's financial goals may have been achieved via the Nestor/Kane bug, but certainly not playing straight up 8/5 bonus poker (with generous free play it may be profitable, but this was never stated until recently as other posters have pointed out).Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburger
Thanks Axel - it was less common than I remember it being. Do you happen to know if there were double-up limitations put in place at certain shops? That is you could only win a double-up up to three times for example, and then the option to double up would no longer be given. I seem to remember this being the case at certain places, but maybe I am getting this jumbled with online play, where this certainly was true in the early part of the mid-2000s.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfYes, there were double up machines that gave points for doubling up. but not many that I know of, and all the ones I knew of were for comps only, so, it wasn't really worth doing just for that reason. I guess, before my time there could have been more around that were giving cash back.Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplayYes you're right IMHO. I think there were some casinos that did count the double-up towards tier points and player's club points. IIRC, many originally did this and then got wise to it and changed the system to not count it. But for the sake of argument let's say it never counted for tier or rewards points. The casino is still exposed to greater risk since a small bet can be turned into a big profit with a lucky streak. Casino management wants to manage risk and (unlimited) 50/50 bets jeopardize risk management - making it much more difficult. They would love to have high variance on all bets, but of course no one would play if it gets too out of balance so they have to have variance at the "not too tart, not to sweet level". Anyhow, I believe they could limit the double-ups in the settings menu (I am not positive about this) and if they did, I think that I remember seeing 3 double-ups max occuring at a couple shops back then.Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
The Willams Blackjack was over 100% and had let it ride(different than double up since you are playing your wins into the next hand) and they had some places with very generous comps and some with cash back. It was only really worthwhile if you played the $1 version, but they only had those in a few places. The $1 versions were mostly in Reno and Lake Tahoe, some of best comps ever for me, including mall shopping, limos anywhere and the casino paid for it all, I would use the comps to buy gold jewelry from the gift shops (good times).
There were a few places that were giving points on the old multi-game machines when you feed in coins and banked them in the credit meter without ever having to play.
The Stardust had a slot machines that whenever you lined up 2 blue sevens (3 blue sevens was the top jackpot for 1k) it allowed you to feed in 3 more coins for a chance to spin the 3rd reel. it counted the coins going in and gave points when you did this. You could decline the 3rd reel spin and just cash out the coins, You could just keep doing that over and over without having to make any more spins. They had a 1% cash card on slots and comps, they also had various multipliers and point contests as well. Ithe hourly on that was very good and it wasn't very fun but I think it was worth about $15 to $20 an hour(perhaps $6 more per hour if you fast fed coins like a maniac, I can't remember now exactly what it was worth) with very little risk. And sometimes when you were finished and made the final spin you would connect with the $1k
Cheers, TP.
I don't know what he is claiming I don't care to go back and read it, feel free to quote the important parts. Rob told me he didn't make much on actual real AP plays. He said he played some $1 machines such as FPWD for the most part. I'm not including his system or the bug, I don't consider those things normal AP play. certainly not his system since I'm sure that's probably -EV, unless he was playing in situations where the mail and whatnot was really good, if so, I would like to point out that Rob has been downing and calling out that type of AP including other good AP stuff and not very good, profitable or viable.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJAxel, I am not the one who is changing. And I am talking about Singer's progressive betting system, not the double up claim. AS he explained it, it was mathematically impossible and still is. I told him that. You told him that. Mickey Told him that. JBJB told him that. RS_ told him that. MaxPen told him that. Shackleford told him that. Dan Druff told him that. Every AP that even understands a little math told him that.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
He repeatedly said that he didn't even play rated and it wasn't the free plays and offers that changed the play from negative expectation to positive expectation. Now with mickey's help, Singer is completely doing a 180 and I am the bad guy?
I just want to be clear. Singer is now running with Mickey's explanation. That it was the free play and mailers that made his machine play (prior to the double-up discovery) a winning play. It had nothing to do with progression wagering or stop limits. Is that what you are now claiming Ron?
But THAT is what this discussion is about...his so called system, not the "bug" or most recent double up claim. And you do know about these claims because he has been making them for years (even longer on other forums and platforms) and you have many times weighed in that what he is claiming could not be.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
EXACTLY THE POINT! The claim has now changed to this is what Rob was doing that made his so called "system" profitable, when for decades he has adamantly claimed otherwise. Now you are getting back up to speed.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Yes, some places set limits on the number of double up's, more so nowadays. In the past, I don't think I ran into this very much. TBH I can't recall any from the early 2000s and prior that had limited the double ups set to less than 5, and only a few time I saw 5 max. I do recall some stopped once you got to a hand-pay. But most of the ones I played in the past seemed unlimited, but I obviously I never got an unlimited double up win. I have doubled up $5 wins into over $1200 many times. And doubled up $1200 double up wins as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplayThanks Axel - it was less common than I remember it being. Do you happen to know if there were double-up limitations put in place at certain shops? That is you could only win a double-up up to three times for example, and then the option to double up would no longer be given. I seem to remember this being the case at certain places, but maybe I am getting this jumbled with online play, where this certainly was true in the early part of the mid-2000s.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfYes, there were double up machines that gave points for doubling up. but not many that I know of, and all the ones I knew of were for comps only, so, it wasn't really worth doing just for that reason. I guess, before my time there could have been more around that were giving cash back.Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplay
The Willams Blackjack was over 100% and had let it ride(different than double up since you are playing your wins into the next hand) and they had some places with very generous comps and some with cash back. It was only really worthwhile if you played the $1 version, but they only had those in a few places. The $1 versions were mostly in Reno and Lake Tahoe, some of best comps ever for me, including mall shopping, limos anywhere and the casino paid for it all, I would use the comps to buy gold jewelry from the gift shops (good times).
There were a few places that were giving points on the old multi-game machines when you feed in coins and banked them in the credit meter without ever having to play.
The Stardust had a slot machines that whenever you lined up 2 blue sevens (3 blue sevens was the top jackpot for 1k) it allowed you to feed in 3 more coins for a chance to spin the 3rd reel. it counted the coins going in and gave points when you did this. You could decline the 3rd reel spin and just cash out the coins, You could just keep doing that over and over without having to make any more spins. They had a 1% cash card on slots and comps, they also had various multipliers and point contests as well. Ithe hourly on that was very good and it wasn't very fun but I think it was worth about $15 to $20 an hour(perhaps $6 more per hour if you fast fed coins like a maniac, I can't remember now exactly what it was worth) with very little risk. And sometimes when you were finished and made the final spin you would connect with the $1k
Cheers, TP.
On the computer, I doubled up stuff to some fantastic amounts to where I was like OH fuck, that's almost some 18 yo's in a row BS right there, I must be due to get hit by a bus and lightning at the same time, but instead I meet some hot chick.
Online many places are set to one time and you can only double up if your winning amount is over the bet amount.
Also, in the past, there were card readers that seemed to give you points on coin out(very few had this and not for long). Obviously, a double up win would work for that. I would have to think if that would help you in any way since you won't get points along the way.
This one really takes the cake. In his obsession with discrediting Rob's story KJ has thrown all credibility out the door. He has once again twisted my words into something they didn't mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Redietz, would you like to tell me you don't see KJ's lies and misrepresentations in this thread? Are you sure that you want to continue to align yourself with a pathological liar?
Thinking back a little bit I think Rob did say he would use free play and comps he got from his system playing. However, he made it a point to claim that was not where the real money was at, and that his system was the only reason he was making the money and that all came from the machines not from promotions or slot clubs. As to why playing for any predetermined time, point goals, just because you had an edge, or anything other than win/loss goals using his system was foolish and stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJBut THAT is what this discussion is about...his so called system, not the "bug" or most recent double up claim. And you do know about these claims because he has been making them for years (even longer on other forums and platforms) and you have many times weighed in that what he is claiming could not be.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
EXACTLY THE POINT! The claim has now changed to this is what Rob was doing that made his so called "system" profitable, when for decades he has adamantly claimed otherwise. Now you are getting back up to speed.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Rob has never said that freeplay made the difference on the play. A post or two back he only said he played with a card. KJ has twisted that into Rob now saying the freeplay was the difference. Just another pathological lie from the village idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJRon, if that is the case, it is another case of your story and claim changing. I mean my arguments and challenges are based on what YOU said. And based on what YOU said, the math to this claim didn't add up. If you now are changing your story and claim to include that the thing that made this play +EV was the free plays and offers, that is not on me, that is on you. I argued and challenged what YOU said. It is not my job to try to figure out what you are or aren't lying about or what your story/claim may change to next. This is on YOU!Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I asked probably 50, maybe 100 times just what it was that would make a -EV play into a longterm winner and you never, ever said the free play. You always maintained that it was not. Had you said it was the free play, I would have understood that and not challenged you because that is what I and my partner were doing on a smaller scale.
All this lying and dishonesty is on you not me. And that is exactly what I am talking about with credibility.
....Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
Rob has never claimed that freeplay is what made his system profitable. Not today, not yesterday, not 10 years ago. Just another pathological lie from KJ the village idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
You should help KJ and Redietz hunt down the person/persons that gave Rob the true sequence. It will put a big feather in all of your hats and put mud on my face and others. Like I said, if Rob could find that person/persons then you guys can to. Good luck with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb....Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
I agree, you have ALWAYS been this way. It just takes a little disagreement with you,or not seeing it KJ's way, or anything directed towards or about you, or the wind blowing in the wrong direction... for you to go full on KJtard.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJAxel, I am not the one who is changing.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
I just want to be clear. Again, all Singer has said is that he used a card with the system. KJ has turned that into "Singer is now running with Mickey's explanation. That it was the freeplay and mailers that made his machine play a winning play." Just another routine pathological lie by KJ.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Mickey this has nothing to do with Rob's recent claim involving the Game King double up glitch. I said my piece on that. The math works. That differs from most of his claims. But, I don't find it credible based on his history of deceit and claims. You and Axelwolf do find him credible and that is fine. It is up to each person to decide for them selves who they find credible. So that part of the discussion is over for me unless there is new information or supporting documentation coming.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmThis one really takes the cake. In his obsession with discrediting Rob's story KJ has thrown all credibility out the door. He has once again twisted my words into something they didn't mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Redietz, would you like to tell me you don't see KJ's lies and misrepresentations in this thread? Are you sure that you want to continue to align yourself with a pathological liar?
But based on Singer's continuing claims about his progressive / stop limit / special plays system, I am continuing to challenge the claims made, which have now been revised to 4 years, 375k won. Up until yesterday, you too made the same arguments that I am making, and now you seem to have done an about face. Are you even aware what you are now arguing? I suggest you pick up a copy of The Undeniable Truth about Video Poker by Rob Singer. That is what this discussion is about. His continuing claims that go against mathematical principals. AND he specifically shot down the idea of playing rated and receiving any kind of free play or offers as part of his system in the book. So I don't know why you or he are attempting to change these claims at this time. The claims are all documented. Documented in the books, documented in numerous times in 7500 posts on this forum, as well as many other forums.
Again, this has nothing to do with Singers recent double up glitch claim that you are finding credible. The fact that you find him credible on the double up play, should not change the fact that these other claims are mathematical "problematic". One has nothing to do with the other. This is is the Singer progressive wagering claims, that he is still making even today. Just to refresh your memory, here is a paragraph from Wizard, updated in the last couple months.
Briefly, Singer ridicules the mathematically based strategies that skilled players like me employ. Instead, he follows a progressive betting system, setting a small winning goal each day and ramping up the denomination of his bets until he hits his winning goal. He does not detail a holding strategy but advocates playing more conservatively than skilled strategies in some situations. It should go without saying that my position on video poker is 180 degrees away from Singer's. I had always filed Rob Singer with John Patrick in my folder of people who do not merit serious discussion. --from Micheal Shackleford's Wizard of Odds blog
Mickeycrimm, please stop with the pathological liar name calling and cussing that you did last night. You always say you don't attack people unless they attack you first. Well I haven't attacked you or called you any names. If I am misinterpreting something you are saying, or coming to a different conclusion that you mean, please explain it better, so that I will understand your position.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Now I don't know where you get that Singer said that he played with a card? I again refer you back to his book and can pull many, many quotes from this forum where he specifically says that he does not play with a card, when employing the Singer progressive betting system. And in no uncertain terms has he stated that free play is NOT a part of what makes this a winning system. Again, please understand we are not talking about this recent double-up "play", we are talking about what seems to be knows as the Singer VP strategy.
Please quote where I said, I find him credible. Please quote where I said I think he played the bug. I have NEVER EVER said I believe he made money with his system or that it has/had any merit to it. I have ALLWAYS said the opposite of that. Unless one can show me the machines are noticeably and predictably NOT random, I will never believe it.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJMickey this has nothing to do with Rob's recent claim involving the Game King double up glitch. I said my piece on that. The math works. That differs from most of his claims. But, I don't find it credible based on his history of deceit and claims. You and Axelwolf do find him credible and that is fine. It is up to each person to decide for them selves who they find credible. So that part of the discussion is over for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmThis one really takes the cake. In his obsession with discrediting Rob's story KJ has thrown all credibility out the door. He has once again twisted my words into something they didn't mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Redietz, would you like to tell me you don't see KJ's lies and misrepresentations in this thread? Are you sure that you want to continue to align yourself with a pathological liar?
But based on Singer's continuing claims about his progressive / stop limit / special plays system, I am continuing to challenge the claims made, which have now been revised to 4 years, 375k won. Up until yesterday, you too made the same arguments that I was making, and now you seem to have done an about face. Are you even aware what you are now arguing? I suggest you pick up a copy of The Undeniable Truth about Video Poker by Rob Singer. That is what this discussion is about. His continuing claims that go against mathematical principals. AND he specifically shot down the idea of playing rated and receiving any kind of free play or offers as part of his system in the book. So I don't know why you or he are attempting to change these claims at this time. The claims are all documented. Documented in the books, documented in numerous times in 7500 posts on this forum, as well as many other forums.
Again, this has nothing to do with Singers recent double up glitch claim that you are finding credible. This is the Singer progressive wagering claims, that he is still making even today. Just to refresh your memory, here is a paragraph from Wizard.
Briefly, Singer ridicules the mathematically based strategies that skilled players like me employ. Instead, he follows a progressive betting system, setting a small winning goal each day and ramping up the denomination of his bets until he hits his winning goal. He does not detail a holding strategy but advocates playing more conservatively than skilled strategies in some situations. It should go without saying that my position on video poker is 180 degrees away from Singer's. I had always filed Rob Singer with John Patrick in my folder of people who do not merit serious discussion. --from Micheal Shackleford's Wizard of Odds blog
LET ME EXPLAIN TO YOU AGAIN. (THIS IS ONLY REGARDING THE DOUBLE UP BUG PERIOD and perhaps the 200k hit)
Rob's explanation and stories about this were very fluent, it didn't even seem like he was trying to convince me he played it. There was no bragging either. It seemed as if he had more knowledge than someone who hadn't played it, at minimum, it seemed he at least he was shown by someone who had. Of course, I could come up with some explanations of how this could be and yet he never played it.
Rob could have read the story when it first came out. He could have since bought a machine that had the bug. He could have experimented using the information online. He could have gone out and looked for this situation in a casino and even found it on a small scale.
Axel I don't want to quibble about wording. AS far as the double up bug you and mickey both said something to the effect that you found Singers claim credible because he had information that only someone who played would have. I am sort of lumping the two of you (you and Mickey together), I apologize for that. I think Mickey went a little further and concluded that He believed Singer's claim and that he made the money he said (with the double-up). If Mickey disputes that or thinks that I am mis-characterizing his comments, I will look for the quote that led me to that conclusion.
I don't think you went quite as far as mickey. I don't think that you said one way or the other whether you believe he played the double up and made the money he claimed. You just said something to the effect that he had knowledge that only someone who made the play would have. And yes, Axel you specifically stated that you still didn't believe Singers claims about his progressive wagering claims, which is why it seemed so odd when you chimed in tonight, "barking at me". Perhaps you didn't realize what the discussion was about and assumed I was still challenging the double up play. I am not. I am done with that. I have my opinion and others have a different opinion. I am now specifically challenging the progressive wagering stuff and the reason is because Singer has specifically doubled down on those claims in the past few days.
This is interesting, because I said the same thing, and was jumped all over. Two possibilities I came up with were that someone told him the information after the fact and that after the story broke he went out and found a machine and discovered the correct sequence for himself. I even raised that same possibility that he may have played small scale, making some money after doing so.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Your 3rd scenario, that he purchased a machine after the story broke and discovered the bug that way, actually had not occurred to me. So that is yet another possible way. But I was just suggesting possible ways that he could now know about the play (and correct sequence) without having played it and people jumped all over me.
As far as I'm concerned when you twist my words around to mean something else it is an attack on me. When I said I thought I could make money with Rob's system by generating freeplay you twisted that into I was saying Rob was using freeplay to make a profit. Don't twist my words up and you won't get called a pathological liar.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJMickeycrimm, please stop with the pathological liar name calling and cussing that you did last night. You always say you don't attack people unless they attack you first. Well I haven't attacked you or called you any names. If I am misinterpreting something you are saying, or coming to a different conclusion that you mean, please explain it better, so that I will understand your position.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Now I don't know where you get that Singer said that he played with a card? I again refer you back to his book and can pull many, many quotes from this forum where he specifically says that he does not play with a card, when employing the Singer progressive betting system. And in no uncertain terms has he stated that free play is NOT a part of what makes this a winning system. Again, please understand we are not talking about this recent double-up "play", we are talking about what seems to be knows as the Singer VP strategy.
And I know full well that we are talking about his progressive betting system and not the double up play. You say "it's impossible." I say "It's impossible given a large enough sample space." That little qualifier "large enough sample space" is important. If you think his system is totally impossible then make a bet with him for one session and see how you come out. You'll be a big dog on the bet because it's a very small sample space. The smaller the sample space the more likelihood of success, the larger the sample space the more unlikely the chance of success.
Whether it's flat betting or progressive betting I don't play negative situations of any kind.
I learned earlier today that I'm not allowed to post Rob's Game King Glitch story on vpFREE. The decision was made by just one person who is the only moderator there. There are over 11,000 members of vpFREE but I'm sure most are currently inactive. Still a big audience to get shut out of. Dancer and vpFREE are closely associated. I don't think hiding the story from the members is the correct decision.
I did not realize you were saying that YOU could have made money via free play. Even now, having just gone back and re-read, I still don't see where you were referring to yourself. I thought you were referring to Singer.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
I don't consider 4 years and 375k a small sample size. That is a large enough sample size that you would expect the math to work and playing a negative EV game with no explanation of how he won, other than "the good side of the bell curve seems unrealistic to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
I actually emailed Richard Munchkin last night Just as I said and despite that I don't find Singer credible, I still encouraged Munchkin to have Singer on to tell the story so people can decide for themselves. I would have emailed Dancer as well but I don't know Dancer to talk to, where as I do know Munchkin. I do think Singer should have the opportunity to tell his story and let people decide for themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
I also continue to be surprised there has been no discussion at WoV. I am sure such a discussion would probably be biased against Rob, because of circumstances, but still there should be discussion, so people could decide for themselves. I am wondering if management shut down any discussion? :confused:
If I had a means to contact Shackleford, I would do so and suggest that he meet up and interview Singer, just as he apparently did when Singer's book came out. He could either video the interview as Mike likes to do, or at very least interview Singer and blog about it. Since Mike recently updated his blog concerning the original Singer system claim, there is apparently at least some interest in Singer, and I think this latest double-up bug would garner a lot of interest.
Thank you for that, sir. Just to clarify, I'm not claiming that you can beat the house to infinity with a martingale like system. I was questioning how that 5% figure was calculated. That's far different than the 39% chance you're estimating. Of course your calculation doesn't account for a progressive betting system which must significantly influence that probability of making a modest goal in a single session.Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplayI was answering the question under the assumption that a person planned to play again after they hit their limit (for example playing 150 similar sessions as Redietz mentioned) versus never playing ever again. Unowme, the actual figure is about 61%. That is, if you are playing 8/5 Bonus Poker $1 denomination VP, betting 5 coins a spin,with a bank roll of $55,000 (and perfect discarding strategy - no "special plays"), the probability of achieving a bank roll of $57,500 is 61%. So now there is an event that has a 61% of occurring. Does anyone seriously believe that you can play Russian Roulette long enough to make almost $400000 like Ron says given this probability (39% chance of ruin before achieving the bank roll goal) ? Ok Ron is doing denominational switching, but the pull of gravity does not disappear. It would be onerous to compute this mathematically, it would be best done by simulation. Gravity wins. Anyone who doesn't believe this is delusional. Using a players club card(s) like other posters have suggested is the only way to beat the pull of gravity (on a negative EV game). Ron's financial goals may have been achieved via the Nestor/Kane bug, but certainly not playing straight up 8/5 bonus poker (with generous free play it may be profitable, but this was never stated until recently as other posters have pointed out).Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburger
So, my thought is that one might be able to structure the betting progression and limits such that the vast majority of people that play it end up winners but a few lose more in total than the winners. It doesn't overcome the pull of gravity, but might explain how someone could in fact make 400K doing it...they just can't continue do it forever. That's why I questioned the 5% number (I know...it's not your number). That's the key to whether it's even possible. If it's 5% it's highly unlikely. If it's 39% it's impossible. If it's .05%...I'm not so sure. As John Maynard Keynes said "In the long run, we're all dead'.
I'm beginning to think the 5% claim was originally drawn from thin air though.
In any event, I just posted here to talk about the original topic which was whether exploiting the Double Up flaw was cheating or a crime or immoral. It's morphed into an attack on Rod Singer's credibility which I find less interesting than who might play him in the future movie biopic. Carry on!
I didn't mean for this to turn into a reason for anyone to get into arguments with axel or mickey. They were both willing to talk to me and I appreciate that. This was a big decision for me after holding the info in all these years and covering it up with perpetuating my playing SPS along with all my forum antics, and I realized there would be some who wouldn't comprehend the magnitude of what I did (as far as video poker is concerned) and/or who wouldn't want to believe me because they dislike me or never agreed with my play strategy as being successful. That's the way it is in the gambling world when you step outside the mainstream.
So I'm not going to go back and forth on this anymore. People have a right to their beliefs, even if they go overboard with it and it bothers them because it's ME who has divulged the info on this. Individuals can determine the story's veracity based on how axel and mickey believe I came across as I spoke to them about it, what I've written about the play and the Wired article here, my reasons for waiting this long to release this, and how it all fits in with my professional vp player retirement date along with its relationship to how & why I've conducted myself the way I have on forums since I discovered the play.
Apparently despite there being a certain bias against me out there, word IS getting around. I talked to a gaming media outlet yesterday who wanted to know what this was all about. It was surprising that no one there knew anything about the glitch, Kane or Nestor....but they knew who I was. Maybe these forums actually IS where the only truly knowledgeable people reside.
I'm not surprised either about vpfree's being paranoid to have me mentioned. If the same two people still run it, the husband and I have always gotten along, but his wife absolutely DESPISES me maybe more than anyone else ever anywhere--and I've even had a nice dinner with them back when. I think the same might be true at videopoker.com. The odd thing is, many of both forums' members have met with and talked with me over the years, and this story would be hugely interesting to them.
As I said, so be it. As big as this is and has been for me, it doesn't change anything now for myself or my family, and it's not gonna mend my broken foot. It also shouldn't be causing trouble amongst others.
As far as when and whether I've used a slot card--its simple. When I played my strategy for 4 years and during all of my play since Kane got caught, I always used/use a card. I've already explained my limited card use and why, during the 5-1/2 year glitch period. And during that period, because I basically was not using a card until purposely losing a small percentage of my win, I went with the story that I didn't use a card very often when supposedly playing my strategy, which I wasn't really doing, during that 5-1/2 year period. I know that confuses kew and is easy to claim "Singer's always hiding stuff and he keeps changing this and that" but it's always been very, very clear.
More disinformation. The bankroll is $171,600 not $57,200. BP contributed to 1/4 of my play, and the strategy is not as straight-up as this flawed calculation makes it out to be. It's neither a straight progression (it goes up and down) nor a single-volatility exercise. There is only one way to lose the $57200: get zero 40+ credit cash outs while losing 2400 credits. And can you guess how likely THAT is to happen? 39% my ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowmeThank you for that, sir. Just to clarify, I'm not claiming that you can beat the house to infinity with a martingale like system. I was questioning how that 5% figure was calculated. That's far different than the 39% chance you're estimating. Of course your calculation doesn't account for a progressive betting system which must significantly influence that probability of making a modest goal in a single session.Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplayI was answering the question under the assumption that a person planned to play again after they hit their limit (for example playing 150 similar sessions as Redietz mentioned) versus never playing ever again. Unowme, the actual figure is about 61%. That is, if you are playing 8/5 Bonus Poker $1 denomination VP, betting 5 coins a spin,with a bank roll of $55,000 (and perfect discarding strategy - no "special plays"), the probability of achieving a bank roll of $57,500 is 61%. So now there is an event that has a 61% of occurring. Does anyone seriously believe that you can play Russian Roulette long enough to make almost $400000 like Ron says given this probability (39% chance of ruin before achieving the bank roll goal) ? Ok Ron is doing denominational switching, but the pull of gravity does not disappear. It would be onerous to compute this mathematically, it would be best done by simulation. Gravity wins. Anyone who doesn't believe this is delusional. Using a players club card(s) like other posters have suggested is the only way to beat the pull of gravity (on a negative EV game). Ron's financial goals may have been achieved via the Nestor/Kane bug, but certainly not playing straight up 8/5 bonus poker (with generous free play it may be profitable, but this was never stated until recently as other posters have pointed out).Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburger
So, my thought is that one might be able to structure the betting progression and limits such that the vast majority of people that play it end up winners but a few lose more in total than the winners. It doesn't overcome the pull of gravity, but might explain how someone could in fact make 400K doing it...they just can't continue do it forever. That's why I questioned the 5% number (I know...it's not your number). That's the key to whether it's even possible. If it's 5% it's highly unlikely. If it's 39% it's impossible. If it's .05%...I'm not so sure. As John Maynard Keynes said "In the long run, we're all dead'.
I'm beginning to think the 5% claim was originally drawn from thin air though.
In any event, I just posted here to talk about the original topic which was whether exploiting the Double Up flaw was cheating or a crime or immoral. It's morphed into an attack on Rod Singer's credibility which I find less interesting than who might play him in the future movie biopic. Carry on!
Understand the data before reporting on it.
Thanks Axel - great memory recall.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfYes, some places set limits on the number of double up's, more so nowadays. In the past, I don't think I ran into this very much. TBH I can't recall any from the early 2000s and prior that had limited the double ups set to less than 5, and only a few time I saw 5 max. I do recall some stopped once you got to a hand-pay. But most of the ones I played in the past seemed unlimited, but I obviously I never got an unlimited double up win. I have doubled up $5 wins into over $1200 many times. And doubled up $1200 double up wins as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplayThanks Axel - it was less common than I remember it being. Do you happen to know if there were double-up limitations put in place at certain shops? That is you could only win a double-up up to three times for example, and then the option to double up would no longer be given. I seem to remember this being the case at certain places, but maybe I am getting this jumbled with online play, where this certainly was true in the early part of the mid-2000s.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Cheers, TP.
On the computer, I doubled up stuff to some fantastic amounts to where I was like OH fuck, that's almost some 18 yo's in a row BS right there, I must be due to get hit by a bus and lightning at the same time, but instead I meet some hot chick.
Online many places are set to one time and you can only double up if your winning amount is over the bet amount.
Also, in the past, there were card readers that seemed to give you points on coin out(very few had this and not for long). Obviously, a double up win would work for that. I would have to think if that would help you in any way since you won't get points along the way.
First off, my dark side reference was a Star Wars reference. Going over to the dark side has nothing to do with knowledge or expertise or skill. It has to do with the uses to which the knowledge or skill or expertise is put.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmThis one really takes the cake. In his obsession with discrediting Rob's story KJ has thrown all credibility out the door. He has once again twisted my words into something they didn't mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Redietz, would you like to tell me you don't see KJ's lies and misrepresentations in this thread? Are you sure that you want to continue to align yourself with a pathological liar?
Second, kewlJ got the gist correct with his misquote, but I have a thing about putting paraphrases in quotes. It's wrong and should not be done. So I'm okay with his paraphrase, but I am not okay with his putting words mickey did not exactly say in quotes. Repeat -- it is wrong.
Third, mickey, you know better than me perhaps, how many times "Singer" blew off the comp values and revenues in posts. What he said to you and Axel privately is one thing. What he posted for readers over decades is something else. So what should take precedent? His hundreds of posts over years on various forums or his hour-long private conversations in the last two weeks? The bad thing is, the more closely readers followed his public advice, the worse they would have done. So his most ardent supporters would have had the worst results. I see something wrong with that at its very core.
I don't think kewlJ is a pathological liar. You're implying that it's a bad thing to align yourself with a pathological liar, and yet "Singer" is self-reporting that he lied thousands of times in thousands of posts stretching decades. I wouldn't call that "pathological" if it was purposefully in service of protecting himself and screwing his readers. I'd call it "sadistic lying," because his readers/followers could have been spared by him simply not saying anything.
There are going to be situations where you're never ahead during the human-perceived artifact known as a "session" (I guess a session is designated as complete when you touch the sidewalk or gravel/dirt parking lot outside the casino). It will happen whether there is denominational switching or not, and regardless of what variant of vp you play (ddb,bp,dw,bdw,tdb,joker poker, one eyed jacks, all american poker and on and on and on). You will find that you can do the same sort of analysis I did for the 61% metric (using commercial grade VP software) for the duration of when you flat bet a particular vp variant and denomination (and then performing the same analysis when the next denominational switch and vp variant switch, if any is made). If your win goal is a couple pennies, then of course your probability to win that "session" will be high. Are you then going to quit forever after that ? If the answer is no then you will surely lose if the game is -EV. Your argument that you only play bonus poker 1/4 of the time so that the analysis has no traction is absurd (unless you switch to a +EV game like FPDW,FPOEJ,FPDDB or some other full pay variation that is over 100%). The same argument applies to any -EV game. So the other 3/4ths of the time that you spend on other -EV games will have the same result for the "session" (whatever the fuck that is). I think in your system you state that you eventually quit the "session" if things don't work out. But in aggregate your losses will exceed your wins no matter how you chunk out your lifelong play into "sessions". So if you start with a bankroll of $171,600 then of course the probability of winning $2500 for that "session" is more likely Ron, but for lifelong play it erodes to zero if you continue to play -EV games. By the way, I posted the caveat that my analysis was for flat betting a particular denomination and game even though you tried to misrepresent (what's new) things by ignoring that I stated this caveat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerMore disinformation. The bankroll is $171,600 not $57,200. BP contributed to 1/4 of my play, and the strategy is not as straight-up as this flawed calculation makes it out to be. It's neither a straight progression (it goes up and down) nor a single-volatility exercise. There is only one way to lose the $57200: get zero 40+ credit cash outs while losing 2400 credits. And can you guess how likely THAT is to happen? 39% my ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowmeThank you for that, sir. Just to clarify, I'm not claiming that you can beat the house to infinity with a martingale like system. I was questioning how that 5% figure was calculated. That's far different than the 39% chance you're estimating. Of course your calculation doesn't account for a progressive betting system which must significantly influence that probability of making a modest goal in a single session.Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplayI was answering the question under the assumption that a person planned to play again after they hit their limit (for example playing 150 similar sessions as Redietz mentioned) versus never playing ever again. Unowme, the actual figure is about 61%. That is, if you are playing 8/5 Bonus Poker $1 denomination VP, betting 5 coins a spin,with a bank roll of $55,000 (and perfect discarding strategy - no "special plays"), the probability of achieving a bank roll of $57,500 is 61%. So now there is an event that has a 61% of occurring. Does anyone seriously believe that you can play Russian Roulette long enough to make almost $400000 like Ron says given this probability (39% chance of ruin before achieving the bank roll goal) ? Ok Ron is doing denominational switching, but the pull of gravity does not disappear. It would be onerous to compute this mathematically, it would be best done by simulation. Gravity wins. Anyone who doesn't believe this is delusional. Using a players club card(s) like other posters have suggested is the only way to beat the pull of gravity (on a negative EV game). Ron's financial goals may have been achieved via the Nestor/Kane bug, but certainly not playing straight up 8/5 bonus poker (with generous free play it may be profitable, but this was never stated until recently as other posters have pointed out).
So, my thought is that one might be able to structure the betting progression and limits such that the vast majority of people that play it end up winners but a few lose more in total than the winners. It doesn't overcome the pull of gravity, but might explain how someone could in fact make 400K doing it...they just can't continue do it forever. That's why I questioned the 5% number (I know...it's not your number). That's the key to whether it's even possible. If it's 5% it's highly unlikely. If it's 39% it's impossible. If it's .05%...I'm not so sure. As John Maynard Keynes said "In the long run, we're all dead'.
I'm beginning to think the 5% claim was originally drawn from thin air though.
In any event, I just posted here to talk about the original topic which was whether exploiting the Double Up flaw was cheating or a crime or immoral. It's morphed into an attack on Rod Singer's credibility which I find less interesting than who might play him in the future movie biopic. Carry on!
Understand the data before reporting on it.
Anything that I would say here is speculation. It could be misinformation because there may be people he doesn't want to know he has money. It could be that PA authorities seized more than the amount that was needed to pay back The Meadows and he was unable to recover those monies. We do know that some amounts were spent on bails/bonds at various places.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21
I would say that one piece of information that we have that may point to the veracity of saying he owes the IRS is that he was represented by a federal public defender in federal court.
That is how he makes it sound, but that's also the impression I tend to get. If Kane had figured out how to recreate this himself, then what would be the purpose of bringing Nestor in in the first place? I think there are many details to this that we don't know, but I don't think there's enough hinted at one way or another for me to draw conclusions that Nestor's version is untrue in that regard.Quote:
Nestor says he flew to Vegas and helped Kane come up with the bottoms to press to activate this play. I would think Kane would have figured this out already. Nestor makes it sound like Kane got lucky one time with this bug and then called him. If that’s the case then why does Nestor only take credit for figuring out the double up feature? From the article you can tell Nestor is trying to justify his actions of not paying Kane what he agreed he’d do.
Your guess is as good as mine. Maybe Kane convinced him not to burn the Fremont out since it was the only place it seemed to work. After all, all sources agree Kane made the initial discovery.Quote:
The other thing that didn’t make sense is why Nestor flew home the first time. This was still a viable play at the Fremont. Kane made $100,000 in about a month at the Fremont and this was supposedly before he understood the double up feature. $100,000 in a month isn’t shabby money.
I don't know what the specific statute of limitations is on this. I do know that it is two years for a civil in some jurisdictions, but that can actually be extended if there is new information (not known before) that would lead to a cause of action.Quote:
I expect Kane isn’t talking because his lawyers told him not to. Kane still has his money and anything he says could backfire on him. I wonder if the stature of limitations is the same for criminal cases as with civil cases. I’m unclear if Kane is out the woods on this.
I don't know, maybe. I'd be surprised if he even had the double-up feature on at his house, to be honest.Quote:
Also, I still think the Golden King slot machine Kane bought for his house played a role. It’s not just the machine but he also had access to the technicians that serviced it. It didn’t pay jackpots but it probably gave him some idea how it worked.
If the misquotes were a one-off it would be no big deal. But KJ is twisting to much stuff around. Rob claims to have played about 150 sessions with SPS and KJ changes that to Rob claiming he went 150-0 with SPS. I claim I think I could make money with Rob's SPS by generating freeplay and KJ changes that to Rob now claiming freeplay is what made SPS a winner. This stuff just keeps piling up. I'm going to continue to point it out when I see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzFirst off, my dark side reference was a Star Wars reference. Going over to the dark side has nothing to do with knowledge or expertise or skill. It has to do with the uses to which the knowledge or skill or expertise is put.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmThis one really takes the cake. In his obsession with discrediting Rob's story KJ has thrown all credibility out the door. He has once again twisted my words into something they didn't mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Redietz, would you like to tell me you don't see KJ's lies and misrepresentations in this thread? Are you sure that you want to continue to align yourself with a pathological liar?
Second, kewlJ got the gist correct with his misquote, but I have a thing about putting paraphrases in quotes. It's wrong and should not be done. So I'm okay with his paraphrase, but I am not okay with his putting words mickey did not exactly say in quotes. Repeat -- it is wrong.
Third, mickey, you know better than me perhaps, how many times "Singer" blew off the comp values and revenues in posts. What he said to you and Axel privately is one thing. What he posted for readers over decades is something else. So what should take precedent? His hundreds of posts over years on various forums or his hour-long private conversations in the last two weeks? The bad thing is, the more closely readers followed his public advice, the worse they would have done. So his most ardent supporters would have had the worst results. I see something wrong with that at its very core.
I don't think kewlJ is a pathological liar. You're implying that it's a bad thing to align yourself with a pathological liar, and yet "Singer" is self-reporting that he lied thousands of times in thousands of posts stretching decades. I wouldn't call that "pathological" if it was purposefully in service of protecting himself and screwing his readers. I'd call it "sadistic lying," because his readers/followers could have been spared by him simply not saying anything.
I'm moderated on vpFREE. Rob was to when he was there. What this means is when you make a post it doesn't immediately go up on the site. The moderator will put the post up if he approves of it. So when I sent the Singer/IGT GAME KING glitch story to vpFREE the moderator emailed me back not approving the story but telling me it was interesting. He doesn't want any Rob Singer controversy on the site. To bad because the members are being shut out of a good story.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
There is just one moderator on vpFREE, the administrator. When I would send late night posts sometimes they were put up on the site by mid morning of the next day, sometimes they weren't put up until mid afternoon. I'm sure the moderator has other things to do than sit moderating the site all day.
The great bulk of members there are not moderated. That means their posts bypass the moderator and immediately go up on the site. Anyone who is not moderated can put the Singer story up. When the moderator catches up with it he will most likely send it to FREEvpFREE, the free speech arm of vpFREE. But at least some of the members will pick up on the story before he does that.
Mickey, you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing, twisting things I said. Here is the quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
I clearly said any losses of the entire 57k bankroll!Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Now the first part, I was a bit wrong. Rob said he played 150 so I divided his total win claim of 375 by 150 sessions and came up with exactly $2500 which was his win goal. If he was stopping at $2500 he would have needed to have hit the $2500 win goal every single one of those sessions to reach his $375k claim. Rob has since explained that sometimes he won more than the win goal and sometimes he stopped playing with a loss, so he would not of necessarily had to win every session.
But that is separate from the fact that he claims he never lost the entire 57k in 150 sessions and THAT is what I clearly said. We all sometimes misinterpret what people say. I do it. You do it. (you just did). It doesn't mean that most of us are intentionally setting out to lie. I take exception to that pathological liar comment. There are members here (and former) members that are pathological liar and constantly twist and manipulate. It just so happens you are now coming to the defense of one of them. No label's for him?
And as for the not losing the entire 57k bankroll in 150 sessions. This is what progressive wagering systems do. Shackleford compared Rob's progression to martingale. Said "it was a cousin to Martingale", and it is, except instead of raising after individual losses or wins, you are raising after a series of losses. But still works the exact same way. If you are playing a negative expectation game, all that is going to do is change the distribution of wins and losses, it can't change the total loss. So a player will end up with many small wins but eventually a large loss that wipes out all those small wins.
Miraculously Rob didn't encounter that huge loss. And his explantion for that s that he was on the far positive side of the bell curve. :rolleyes:
If a blackjack player, not counting cards or playing with an advantage, but playing -EV blackjack were to claim he was ahead after 150 sessions because he was on the far positive edge of the bell curve, do we accept that as a legitimate system?
If a roulette player, were to claim that he is a head 375k after 150 sessions, and can give no explanation as to why except he is on the far positive side of the bell curve, do we accept THAT as a legitimate system?