Rob's Strategies -- Science or Religion?

One tenet of science is that when one has a theory that seems to be supported by evidence, one doesn't simply replicate the experiments that supported the theory. One designs an experiment to disconfirm the theory.

If this seems complex or obtuse, it's not. It in every introductory experimental college class in existence.

So I put the question to our resident "video poker expert", Rob Singer. What experiment would disconfirm your strategies? Are there experiments that would disconfirm your strategies? What experiment or body of data would serve to undermine your hypotheses?

Surely you have considered what would be considered disconfirming results? If you have no way of disconfirming your theories, what you have is a belief system, a kind of religion, not a scientific theory or premise.

So what kind or amount of evidence would disprove Rob Singer's strategies?

Would anyone else like to contribute and suggest ways to disprove Rob's strategies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

One designs an experiment to disconfirm the theory?

---

Perhaps science is the wildest-goose chase of those all, even worse than religion for dashed hopes.

Eg, if everything truly does even out, then we're missing the point. A point of significant other value.

Rob has never presented the science that backs up his claims. He says three mathematicians (I think they are in Europe) proved the basis for his strategy. At the same time, Rob admits that his "special plays" are at a mathematical disadvantage.

Frankly, we have gone over this a hundred times.

Why redietz persists makes me think his only goal is to continue to bash Rob.

redietz let me save you the trouble: there is no proof that we know of, or that Rob has presented. I doubt we will ever see it. Close this book because you're just wasting time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Yung

Perhaps science is the wildest-goose chase of those all, even worse than religion for dashed hopes.

Eg, if everything truly does even out, then we're missing the point. A point of significant other value.

---

Well said. To disprove the strategy is to break the rules of the strategy. Which really explains why one would not remain and play after reaching a win goal. To just continue and break even IS missing the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slingshot

Which really explains why one would not remain and play after reaching a win goal. To just continue and break even IS missing the point.

---

Wrong. As stated many thousands of times, starting over is no different than leaving and coming back at some other arbitrary time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

Wrong. As stated many thousands of times, starting over is no different than leaving and coming back at some other arbitrary time.

---

And that is where you are very, very mistaken....again and for the 5-thousandth time. Anyone who plays vp knows, regardless of how they play, that they are ahead at some point during their play much more often than they are not. What I've done is harness that particularly overlooked aspect of the game, apparently studied it far more than anyone here or anywhere really, and built my play strategy around it--and it is all driven by the obvious fact that every single session has nothing to do with any that have come before or that are yet to come, just as every single hand has the exact same definitive properties.

For the 4-thousandth time, during SPS's development I had 3 math people review what I came up with. I accepted and changed a few things and kept most the same. They live in China, Germany, and the UAE (places I've lived in and/or worked in many, many times). I remember naming them on LVA Sports and maybe redietz does also. But it never really mattered since I hadn't seen or contacted any of them since 1999.

Why have I not "proven" on paper that the strategy works consistently? I offererd to show my notes to the Wizard and his clan of so-called mathematicians, but as we all know by now all that offer did was scare them away. I offered to PLAY the strategy for a modest bet after people from multiple forums claimed I was lying, but as soon as anything came close to being solid they all escaped for the hills with the most foolish excuses imaginable.

Besides, what I have on paper wouldn't satisfy the mensas. It's a strategy based on mostly optimal play, the proper bankroll, the most probably & least greedy win goal, giving luck more opportunity to appear---and all in any given session while climbing in denomination and game volatility. It's not all that difficult to understand. It only BECOMES difficult when the envious and hateful choose to apply long-term definitions to short-term play so they can "disprove" it using strict math. Like red yaks about all the time. I can feel his frustrations whenever he tries and fails to criticize me with any real meaning.

Once again. It makes no fucking difference, whether anyone follows your strategy or not, if I restart when making a goal of it I leave and come back some other fucking day. Anyone who believes otherwise is a fucking moron!!!

If this shit really fucking worked, you would've never have said a word about it and crushed the casinos until you owned them!!!

I think the hit and run strategy can work. I have no math to prove it, only personal experience.
I think if I added up all of the times I was ahead, with the amounts I was ahead, it would be more than my losses (if I kept to a tight loss limit).

I say this only because I remember the times I would go into a casino with $1,000 and get up to $2,000 or $5,000 or $36,000 (on one occasion) and failed to leave at my peak. And (this is very important) had I left at my peak it would have offset various losing sessions that would follow.

Last last year I asked everyone to keep a log of their play and I asked the question: were you ever showing a profit at some point?

In EVERY session I have played so far this year, I have been ahead (even by one bet) at some point.

Now, imagine if you cashed out with that profit -- even a profit of one bet -- what a difference it would make?

Until you critics of this part of Rob's system show me a log of your play that shows you didn't have a profit at some point in all or nearly all or most of your sessions, I think you should give this part of Rob's system some thought and consideration. It's really not that outlandish.

Now... for sports gamblers I don't think you would have the same results or expectation. With sports betting you make only a few bets that are win or lose. But with other games, whether they be craps, or roulette, or blackjack, or video poker or even slots, there are many bets in a session with payoffs that could give you a profit at some time during the session.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

If this shit really fucking worked, you would've never have said a word about it and crushed the casinos until you owned them!!!

---

Here's why you won't crush the casinos: Rob realizes, and I realize, that you will not win a million dollars doing this. Anyone who realistically follows this plan knows that "wins" come in limited amounts. It might be a quad or a straight flush, or after hitting the Small in craps, or after hitting four passes at craps. That's when you take your win and call it a day or call it a session.

It is ridiculous to think or even to ask Rob to crush the casinos.

Ironically, the AP strategies don't crush the casinos either, do they? APs play for an advantage of maybe 1% -- and how much is that? Well, Rob's hit and run strategy might actually win more than your 1% advantage plays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

If this shit really fucking worked, you would've never have said a word about it and crushed the casinos until you owned them!!!

---

“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”

― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe (Or, poster on an applied math prof's door.)

BTW, would you be the same jb's in the hilarious thread http://www.gamblingforums.com/thread...g.3391/page-31 ?

There is proof that Rob's strategies do not work -- the more hands you play, the closer the results tend towards the mean. Given that the mean (EV) is a negative number, the more hands you lose, the more money you expect to lose.

Rob has laid out exactly ZERO evidence that his system works. Neither his opinions nor his claims of success are evidence, especially given he admits to enjoy stirring up trouble online.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

There is proof that Rob's strategies do not work -- the more hands you play, the closer the results tend towards the mean.

---

That's more support for Rob's strategy to leave after you won.

And you're right... we've never seen any proof. Has Bob Dancer ever provided any proof either?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

That's more support for Rob's strategy to leave after you won.

---

Rob's system says you should play a game where you expect to lose. Huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

And you're right... we've never seen any proof. Has Bob Dancer ever provided any proof either?

---

Do math and simulations count (in your opinion) as proof?

RS_, just ask yourself this... What would Jerry Logan do?? :-)

I admit, I am envious of Rob. I have no super powers. The laws of probability do not bend to my will even a little bit. It annoys the hell out of me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Rob has never presented the science that backs up his claims. He says three mathematicians (I think they are in Europe) proved the basis for his strategy. At the same time, Rob admits that his "special plays" are at a mathematical disadvantage.

Frankly, we have gone over this a hundred times.

Why redietz persists makes me think his only goal is to continue to bash Rob.

redietz let me save you the trouble: there is no proof that we know of, or that Rob has presented. I doubt we will ever see it. Close this book because you're just wasting time.

---

I think closing this book would be splendid; it's a complete waste of time, other than the whole paranormal claim angle. Unfortunately, Rob keeps inserting references in this thread and that regarding his alleged history and systems. So anybody sitting down and reading Dan's forum for the first time is going to be exposed to Rob's suggestions that his is the way to win. If Rob just laid out his alleged personal history as evidence for his claims, fine. That would be like a brokerage service advertising last quarter's results. Rob, however, never adds "past results are no guarantee of similar future success." He doesn't claim to have won for a stretch in time; he claims to have solved negative video poker.

As a respected journalist, you should be on board with pointing this out at every opportunity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

Do math and simulations count (in your opinion) as proof?

---

Do a simulation or use free software. What do you do after you hit a big win and show a profit? Do you keep playing or simulating or do you stop?

Yes, Singer's ideas have been proven mathematically to be worthless. And yet, we still get the same silly nonsense from the mathematically illiterate. This is why con men thrive in our society. People are stupid.

Redietz the only evidence I've seen are photos of big wins and newspaper articles published. I have seen nothing that tells me Rob didn't win what he said using his system. Have you?

I believe he went thru the editorial process at Gaming Today. Are you accusing GT of publishing false information?

And I never saw any claim by Rob that goes against the math of video poker. People can win on negative expectation machines.

What is your evidence to back up your continued attacks on Rob?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Yes, Singer's ideas have been proven mathematically to be worthless. And yet, we still get the same silly nonsense from the mathematically illiterate. This is why con men thrive in our society. People are stupid.

---

Would you mind for the benefit of those mathematically illiterate prove to me how it is not possible to win on negative expectation machines?

Photos of big wins don't prove you left or are ahead lifetime. That's all that matters. Alan, your $100k royal is proof of that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I think closing this book would be splendid; it's a complete waste of time, other than the whole paranormal claim angle. Unfortunately, Rob keeps inserting references in this thread and that regarding his alleged history and systems. So anybody sitting down and reading Dan's forum for the first time is going to be exposed to Rob's suggestions that his is the way to win. If Rob just laid out his alleged personal history as evidence for his claims, fine. That would be like a brokerage service advertising last quarter's results. Rob, however, never adds "past results are no guarantee of similar future success." He doesn't claim to have won for a stretch in time; he claims to have solved negative video poker.

As a respected journalist, you should be on board with pointing this out at every opportunity.

---

Again you are all arguing the existence of fairy dust. It's the internet, people lie, gamblers lie more than the average person. Therefore, if you are taking anything you read on a gambling forum on the internet as gospel, you should probably wear a helmet when you leave the house.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

Once again. It makes no fucking difference, whether anyone follows your strategy or not, if I restart when making a goal of it I leave and come back some other fucking day. Anyone who believes otherwise is a fucking moron!!!

If this shit really fucking worked, you would've never have said a word about it and crushed the casinos until you owned them!!!

---

This is what makes you an obvious hack in the vp world. First, when someone begins to explain anything, if it agitates you then you feel you have to soothe yourself by unleashing a tirade of vulgarity. Good luck with that. Then, because you don't understand how if one hand is a loner then one session also is--unless you choose it to be all tied together for your own personal reasons--then you put on a display of ignorance. That, nothing can help.

[QUOTE=Alan Mendelson;40485]Here's why you won't crush the casinos: Rob realizes, and I realize, that you will not win a million dollars doing this. Anyone who realistically follows this plan knows that "wins" come in limited amounts. It might be a quad or a straight flush, or after hitting the Small in craps, or after hitting four passes at craps. That's when you take your win and call it a day or call it a session.

It is ridiculous to think or even to ask Rob to crush the casinos.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's a particularly interesting point.

Even while winning about $980k over the 10 years I played pro, I wasn't "crushing" any casinos. It's not that much as an avg. yearly income goes, unless you're someone like mickeycrimm, who believes there's some strange love by the vp community for having to hitchhike because you can't afford a car, or dental problems will fix themselves. And when you look at the fact that I had to use a proportionately high bankroll to accomplish it, the money won really wasn't bone-crushing fabulous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

That's more support for Rob's strategy to leave after you won.

And you're right... we've never seen any proof. Has Bob Dancer ever provided any proof either?

---

Alan, RS__ is an envious weirdo who makes all kinds of winning claims as an anonymous hack, and who claims "fear" is the reason he never explains anything other than he works for minimum wage at a casino.

No wonder he can't get past "play +EV and you will win/play -EV and you will lose.....no exceptions".

Here's what the critics have trouble with--the thinking aspect of playing vp. All the AP's can "think" about is the +EV/-EV part, and how it HAS to be the end-all in vp play. It's not. I saw that and built my strategy around it. Someone like redietz has extreme trouble believing 100.1% means you'll win, but 99.9% can never mean the same. Ever.

What the strategy has is a grounding in the math. There was no other way to start out. You already know there's a climbing and descending in denomination and game volatility as I progress. We also know the mathematically-driven frequency of the potential session-ending hands from the games I play. (I started out using 10/7 DB & 10/6 DDB and 9/6 DDB, but after a few years I had to change to SDBP/TBP+ as my main advanced BP games because of lowering pay tables up thru the $100 machines).

The strategy looked at the growing probability of the special quads, SF's, and royals as more hands were played without hitting them and which is figured over the long-term and not simply from the beginning of every session, and if one or more were hit that did not end the session then that was figured in too. So because I kept creeping up in denomination/game volatility as these weren't hit, the frequencies of hitting them became more and more "inviting". And when you add in the enhancement of the special plays specifically designed to supercharge those potential session-ending winners, good luck isn't really overall that far away. Which should explain to the non-blind here how every session is a session in and of itself only, just as every single hand of vp is

The reason those who can't let go of +EV=winning & -EV=losing, can't see how my consistent winning can ever be proven "on paper" is because they would never allow themselves to accept how valid it is, under these unique set of parameters, to utilize a reasonable & logical factor, which I have done, in order to produce a winner on paper prior to ever playing the strategy inside a casino. And this is where the so-called "math people" would never agree with me. It's like them getting stuck in 4th gear on a 5-speed transmission. They just aren't capable of letting themselves see this point.

I wonder... if Rob Singer said he only played positive expectation games would anyone doubt his wins?

Alan, since you support this assclown, accept the challenge. Give up your business, have him "train" and let us know when you own Caesars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

Alan, since you support this assclown, accept the challenge. Give up your business, have him "train" and let us know when you own Caesars.

---

Gee, it's an interesting idea... but Rob made a hundred thou a year playing video poker. That's not enough for me to quit my job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Gee, it's an interesting idea... but Rob made a hundred thou a year playing video poker. That's not enough for me to quit my job.

---

I thought you were planning on retiring soon and looking for a condo or something in Las Vegas? Who's to say you only have to make $100K/year? I'm sure you could play more than Rob did. Anyway, $100K/year isn't too shabby, especially for a retiree who enjoys gambling.

I am moving to Vegas strictly for tax purposes. I still will have to commute to LA for most of my TV work. My son is moving his business for the same reason -- taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Would you mind for the benefit of those mathematically illiterate prove to me how it is not possible to win on negative expectation machines?

---

No one said it was "impossible" to win any given session. What is mathematically proven is his strategy is worthless for improving your expected return over time. No different than those who think they can win by quitting at some magical time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

Photos of big wins don't prove you left or are ahead lifetime. That's all that matters. Alan, your $100k royal is proof of that!

---

You have no proof that Rob isn't ahead for his lifetime, or that he didn't win what he said he won.

All you and the rest do is say it is impossible that he won what he said he won because he played negative expectation games.

You have no other rationale for what you say. You have nothing else to support your claims.

His wins or loses aren't the issue. Really, is about whether it works or not. Short term positive variance doesn't mean shit. As far as I'm concerned, he's just a high rolling ploppy. I see these people all day long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

His wins or loses aren't the issue. Really, is about whether it works or not.

---

Help me out here: doesn't winning or losing tell us if his system works or not? Is there another measure that I don't know about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Help me out here: doesn't winning or losing tell us if his system works or not? Is there another measure that I don't know about?

---

I'm a lifetime winner at roulette. Does that mean my system works?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

No one said it was "impossible" to win any given session. What is mathematically proven is his strategy is worthless for improving your expected return over time. No different than those who think they can win by quitting at some magical time.

---

This is what I just can't embrace. If someone can win one session, why can't they win another?

Playing a negative expectation machine does not mean you will lose. You are saying you must lose. I just can't agree that you must lose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

I'm a lifetime winner at roulette. Does that mean my system works?

---

I am also a lifetime winner. Here's my story:

About 9 or 10 years ago, I went to Caesars over Memorial Weekend ONLY so that my son and his girlfriend could get a free room. I was there the weekend before with my wife (at the time). When I went for Memorial Weekend I really had no plans to gamble much and I didn't bring much money. In fact, I brought only $1,000. At the time I could not drive long distances by myself -- it was before my transplant and I was having problems with my diabetes control. So I flew.

As luck would have it, the first night (Friday night) I lost almost all of the thousand dollars for gambling. I had $120 of the gambling bankroll left. I called my wife and said "Jason has his room, I can leave. Get me a flight out." She couldn't. Southwest Airlines was sold out. I was stuck in Vegas until MONDAY!!!! So Friday night I stayed in my room and watched movies.

Saturday morning I had breakfast and walked around. As you might expect the casino was packed. The craps tables were full and I only had $120 of my gambling money left. So... I went to roulette and put a $20 bill on black.

It hit. I was paid four red chips and put the $20 bill back in my wallet. I left the red chips on black.
It hit again. I now had $40. Left it all on black... and it hit again. I now had $80.

Being the superstitious guy that I am -- I moved the $80 to red. And it hit.

I now had $160. Only time in my life I ever played roulette.

Then I went to a $10 craps table just as a new shooter was getting the dice. He went on a tear and I won something like a thousand dollars on his roll. It saved my weekend.

But yes, I too am a lifetime winner at roulette. My system worked. LOL

My roulette system is even better. it produces large wins.
I had 2 green chips left from a $2000 (or actually $1950) beating at craps. As I walked by the roulette table I said to myself that I should bet it on some dice combo equaling 7 as that's all I had seen at the craps table. The choices--16, 34, 25. I put the 2 green chips on 34. Lands 34. But wait--now after the spin the dealer says no bet on my $50 because someone else had also put a green chip on 34 and they can't determine whos is whos so the second one--mine--is no bet.

It didn't take long for me to get that paid once I demanded to see a supervisor as they knew from previous occurrences that I would file a complaint with the gaming division.

So instead of leaving -1950 I went back to craps and had one of my all time rolls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Help me out here: doesn't winning or losing tell us if his system works or not? Is there another measure that I don't know about?

---

What these guys are so desperately clinging onto is exactly what the Wizard says so foolishly: that "it doesn't matter if you win or lose--it's if you made a good bet" (and by a "good" bet they mean a +EV one). To this ilk, it makes no difference if you win on a -EV bet, since it's virtually "guaranteed you'll lose it all and more as time goes on".

Which, of course, has never been the case with me. Which in turn makes these guys crazy. You see, not only can they never say "there's also some big wins that come in addition to the many smaller wins"...they for some reason can't get their hands around the fact that if they agree a strategy gives an 80%+ opportunity of winning TODAY'S session, then why are't all sessions of equal capability? Which then leads them into "OK, win a bunch of little wins, then watch the math come and with one huge loss, snatch back all of them PLUS some more" because they can't figure in the big wins, which come more frequently than the big losses! Which, in turn as as you would expect, puts their minds into tilt.

My head tilts too---as I shake my head from side to side watching them continually struggle over this while making up ridiculous hypotheses just to cope!

Geez, all I asked was for a system's founder to design or explain a way to disprove his system. This is experimental lab 101 stuff. You have to be able to design a disconfirming experiment if you have a cogent theory. If you can't disprove something, then it's a religion. It's outside the realms of science.

Religion or science -- What's the difference if it makes money?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Religion or science -- What's the difference if it makes money?

---

Maybe.......maybe it doesn't!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

This is what I just can't embrace. If someone can win one session, why can't they win another?

---

They can. However, the probability is they will lose more often than they win and they will lose more than they win. That is what expected return means. The question is do you want to proceed with a high likelihood of losing or a high likelihood of winning. I think most smart people prefer to proceed when they have a good chance of winning. Isn't that why you play expert strategy most of the time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Playing a negative expectation machine does not mean you will lose. You are saying you must lose. I just can't agree that you must lose.

---

Where did I say "you must lose"? I said over time the odds are you will lose. And, the more negative the game, the more likely you will lose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

They can. However, the probability is they will lose more often than they win and they will lose more than they win. That is what expected return means. The question is do you want to proceed with a high likelihood of losing or a high likelihood of winning. I think most smart people prefer to proceed when they have a good chance of winning. Isn't that why you play expert strategy most of the time?

---

Yes, that's why I do use correct, expert strategy 99.99% of the time. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN ROB SINGER LOST. And that's my point.

You (meaning his critics who are self-proclaimed APs) cannot call him a loser because he plays negative expectation games. In fact, he has a history of winning that was documented in a weekly newspaper. And I know redietz says he respects the editorial process and I honestly doubt that the editors of GT would allow Rob Singer to openly lie in their newspaper.

There are a lot of critics here who say Rob is lying. Well, how about putting up some PROOF that he lied? And where he lives or lived or what he said about the storage locker with the remains of Jimmy Hoffa inside it, and the secrets about how the pyramids were built and the second gunman who killed JFK, or any of the other hullabaloo, has no bearing on his casino wins or the reports about them in GT.

He has no history or proof of anything. As I've said before, showing some pictures of jackpots is no proof of PROFITING. Again, your $100k royal IS proof of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

He has no history or proof of anything. As I've said before, showing some pictures of jackpots is no proof of PROFITING. Again, your $100k royal IS proof of that.

---

You would obviously want it to all come down to this. Yet if you as an "AP" we're asked to prove your claims that you win, how would you go about proving anything about it? And please, don't use the AP-cop-out line of "why, I only play when I have an advantage, so theory proves I'm a winner!" While you're digging up actual proof, see if you can get Bob Dancer to prove anything he's been claiming over the past 15 or more years also....other than abusing his ex-wife, that is.

Alan, you're aware that I've put up more "proof" for lack of a better word, over the years than any gambler anywhere. Nothing is proof-positive, but just as I've been he only one ever to prove I've been banned from playing vp at a NV. casino, my pattern and history of documenting huge wins, having my managing editor take hate calls of disbelief while he held actual W2G's in his hand, offering large bets that I was truthful on my strategy consistently winning vs. those awful -EV machines, etc. etc., is far far more than anyone's ever done in this respect.

These critics here just don't want any of it to be, so they keep struggling and fighting themselves over it by making stupid statements.

I'll offer up the same type of bet I offered the naysaying geniuses at WoV. You can pool your funds together any way you like: How do you like my chances at winning one session with a win goal at 5% of my session bankroll? Sound like an easy thing to do or is it something tough?

OK, even Redietz is thinking it's easy, and he is poking himself in the eye simultaneously.

Now, how do you like my chances of winning my 2nd session? Come on all you math experts---did it get any tougher....or is it somehow exactly the same easy task as it was the first time?

So let's go to a 3rd session. Still easy....or did it get tougher? Then a 4th, and finally, a 5th. I have somewhere around an 87% session win rate over my career playing it. So come on, predict how many I'll lose!

Here's the bet: $25k says I'll win at least four out of five sessions, and another $25k says I'll be up at least $12,500 at the completion of the five sessions ($10,000 after four if each session is a winner).

Now I expect no one here will take this bet because even the big-talking pack of fools on WoV shriveled up into the safety of their corners when they were facing something similar. You see, we have all this bloviating about how what I've done isn't possible, so here's your opportunity to either take both ends of the bet, or at least explain (without displaying your hurt feelings, please) why these wins just aren't possible.

Rob when the APs come forward to "win this easy money" I will be there to record it.

Is the bet to be played out over five weeks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quahaug

Is the bet to be played out over five weeks?

---

It would be played according to whatever my schedule allows me--and where. But really, anyone with any brains would not take this bet because they already know full well that what I've been saying for years is the undeniable truth....that if a strategy has a high % of winning a comparatively small win goal in TODAY's session, then that probability does not ever change on any given session. And, they also know that most "losing" sessions lose only a small portion of the session's bankroll, and that their horror of all horrors would also be validated--that there are many more huge winning sessions than there are huge losing sessions, in addition to the many smaller winning sessions.

All in all, it would take the dumbest person in the world to not see--or more specifically, not WANT to see this--for the exact way that it is and has been, rather than stick with their theories and flawed belief system about any of it.

Quahaug if Rob had to play all five sessions in one day he would probably lose. We all know that the wins just don't repeatedly come... except for maybe the math guys who think a positive expectation video poker game should function like an ATM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Quahaug if Rob had to play all five sessions in one day he would probably lose. We all know that the wins just don't repeatedly come... except for maybe the math guys who think a positive expectation video poker game should function like an ATM.

---

/thread

Rob, I'm asking for a means of disconfirming your strategy. You haven't addressed what I've requested at all. What experiment or series of results under what conditions would disprove what you say are your strategies?

This is simple, basic experimental protocol 101. Every college student in a lab faces this. You have a theory. Then you design an experiment to disconfirm your theory.

So what, I ask for the upteenth time, would disconfirm your theories?

I have an answer for my stuff. Do you have an answer for yours?

Bad luck, redietz, bad luck. Even the math - driven APs will tell you that, except they'll call it bad variance.

Alan, I don't think you'd pass any of those experimental lab classes if that was your response.

Alan reminds me of the kid who got 99%, and said he lost a percent because he showed up for classes one time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Yung

Alan reminds me of the kid who got 99%, and said he lost a percent because he showed up for classes one time.

---

Funny... but for my first semester of my senior year at Syracuse University I got a 4.0 without going to ANY classes. All of my classes (broadcast law, anthropology, public speaking - interviewing, some economics course, and some other class that I don't remember) had an option for writing a PAPER in lieu of the various exams. I wrote a 42 page paper on broadcasting meeting the needs of minorities in Central New York and I did it by interviewing various minority community leaders when I wasnt working as a DJ from Midnight to 6 on WFBL. The paper got an A from all 5 professors. Hence the 4.0 and I made the Chancellors List that semester.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Alan, I don't think you'd pass any of those experimental lab classes if that was your response.

---

Why would Rob have to show how his system would fail?

Is this how government contracts get to be so expensive?

Show me how to make something work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Funny... but for my first semester of my senior year at Syracuse University I got a 4.0 without going to ANY classes. All of my classes (broadcast law, anthropology, public speaking - interviewing, some economics course, and some other class that I don't remember) had an option for writing a PAPER in lieu of the various exams. I wrote a 42 page paper on broadcasting meeting the needs of minorities in Central New York and I did it by interviewing various minority community leaders when I wasnt working as a DJ from Midnight to 6 on WFBL. The paper got an A from all 5 professors. Hence the 4.0 and I made the Chancellors List that semester.

---

It never ceases to amaze me how, in my seven plus years of (pa-?)trolling the gambling forums, the very people who daily thus profess their gaming acumen just can't see that the winner is the guy with the best story. There is no right or wrong, but only a good story. (Unless, I think, you can make an even more convincing story of this "fact", itself.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

if Rob had to play all five sessions in one day he would probably lose. We all know that the wins just don't repeatedly come...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

I have somewhere around an 87% session win rate over my career playing it. So come on, predict how many I'll lose!

---

Are you sure Alan? Wouldn't he win 4 out of the 5 sessions in 1 day? Or does going home for the day after hitting a win goal on the first session then coming back the next hour/day/week/month increase his odds of success so that those wins will repeatedly come?

Eddie, you're missing the gist. Rob has super powers. He needs to rest between uses of those powers to recharge, just like the Scarlet Witch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie

Are you sure Alan? Wouldn't he win 4 out of the 5 sessions in 1 day?

---

I don't know. That's my answer.

But my experience has been it is very unusual to continue to win for long periods of time.

If I look back on my years of playing VP (yes there were a couple of exceptions) I would have one big winner or a few smaller winners and that's it.

Sure, twice in my life I hit two royals on the same day. But that happened only twice in my life. There were many, many sessions where I didn't even have a four of a kind.

As I understand it, Rob's strategy is to hit a session winning hand. How many "session winning hands" can you expect in a day?

If there is one person who is being reasonable about what might happen when you play -- it's Rob Singer -- and not the "math guys" who think that playing a positive expectation game will make them winners.

If someone accepted my offer to bet--and after all the dumb comments by Redietz it's disappointing to not be able to watch him in a meltdown as the challenger--I have no idea how many sessions I'd play the first day. I only play overnight, so it would be limited by a number of hours. I would stop after one session and get some sleep if I were tired, because I'd be playing a strategy that requires far more concentration than simple optimal play (which in itself is a main part of my method). And I may or may not be able to do it all on the same trip because of other commitments.

Part of my strategy is being in good shape in order to withstand the mental & physical rigors of sitting at a machine in case the session gets prolonged. That's not yet a problem for me. Yesterday afternoon I beat my 10 yr. old grandson in a foot race, then my wife & I beat him and our daughter in touch football. You takin' notes red?

As for red's question about how I'd "discomfirm" or whatever confusing thing he meant: ask me to train you, then play as I do. Tell us your score and take it from there. But you're gonna need more that a 25c bankroll. Perhaps someone like spock can pool his quarter-play bankroll with yours on this? It'd be a start. :)

Glad to see you're working out, Rob. I started two-a-days myself. No fun when you're 58. Sixteen laps in the CPA tonight. Everything is arduous, slow work. But get back to me in 90 days, and we can schedule a 5K or something.

There's nothing confusing about figuring out what would prove that what you do doesn't work. It's kind of required. Otherwise you might make up all kinds of excuses that have nothing to do with what's actually happening. You know, now I'm a professional -- it counts; now I'm not -- it doesn't count; then I wasn't -- that doesn't count, now I am again this trip -- it counts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

There's nothing confusing about figuring out what would prove that what you do doesn't work.

---

Let me turn it around:

What would prove that optimal play on a positive paytable would work? Answer: only an RNG that cooperates.

So to answer your question again redietz: What would prove that what Rob does doesn't work? An RNG that doesn't cooperate.

Now, you might say that Rob's methodology involving special plays needs a little more cooperation than someone who plays only optimal strategy and you would be correct. And you know what, redietz? Rob has said the same thing.

So why do you keep asking the same question again and again?

And since you don't want to take up Rob on his challenge, why not just sit with him and play his system and report back to us if you won or lost? No need to make a bet -- just play his way with him and report back.

Easy peasy.

Everyone with a theory needs to know how to disprove the theory. Otherwise you have a theory that is not falsifiable. That is a worthless theory.

Don't ask me. Ask a scientist. Ask a mathematician. You have a rolodex.

Mathematicians' best trick, even for the furthest reaching number theories, is to assume something, and then show that this leads to a contradiction (or not, in which case simulate it to big numbers).

What you're thinking of is a bit beyond, more into the metaphysical. The standard idea is to devise an experiment which confirms theory; and then look for independent confirmation under various locations, equipment, etc. What seems to happen though with theory is that it becomes virtually confirmed when various fields of math and theoretical physics converge on the notion (, even before actually demonstrated in black and white).

Like when Schrodinger's Wave Equation stuff was worked in terms of set theory, and then, later, as explicit functional calculus. Another example, had there been no Higgs particle, as contentious and flawed as that might be still in theory, the entire Standard Model of particle physics would have fallen. Very unlikely from what has been already verified.

Sure, the metaphysical "final theory" has to let go somehow, because every thing dies, and is reborn. Right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

But my experience has been it is very unusual to continue to win for long periods of time.

---

Would 10+ years meet your definition of a "long period of time"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie

Would 10+ years meet your definition of a "long period of time"?

---

No. Long periods of time at one session. My experience has been you win something big and then you lose it all back unless you pick your ass up out of the seat and leave. I call it "the grandma hits a winner and goes to the buffet strategy." It seems to work nicely for grandmas. I've never heard of an AP who used it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

No. Long periods of time at one session. My experience has been you win something big and then you lose it all back unless you pick your ass up out of the seat and leave. I call it "the grandma hits a winner and goes to the buffet strategy." It seems to work nicely for grandmas. I've never heard of an AP who used it.

---

Alan, you keep trying to fit a non-random paradigm over random events. Besides being quite silly, it makes you look bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Alan, you keep trying to fit a non-random paradigm over random events. Besides being quite silly, it makes you look bad.

---

No... I'm telling you what I experienced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Glad to see you're working out, Rob. I started two-a-days myself. No fun when you're 58. Sixteen laps in the CPA tonight. Everything is arduous, slow work. But get back to me in 90 days, and we can schedule a 5K or something.

There's nothing confusing about figuring out what would prove that what you do doesn't work. It's kind of required. Otherwise you might make up all kinds of excuses that have nothing to do with what's actually happening. You know, now I'm a professional -- it counts; now I'm not -- it doesn't count; then I wasn't -- that doesn't count, now I am again this trip -- it counts.

---

Now you've resorted to lying. Happens when feathers get a little ruffled.

I kind of like how I've done after retiring from 10 years as a professional player. I've done overall much better in the last 6 years.

Red's "theory" about there must be proof that my strategy doesn't work, seems to be the wording of the nutty professor. Doesn't surprise me though. He's tried everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

No... I'm telling you what I experienced.

---

Alan, if you base your views on your experience then you would have to believe machines are not random. Yet, you continue to state you believe they are random. Do you not see the contradiction? You really have two logical choices ... either accept your experience is worthless in determining an approach to VP or accept you really do believe the machines are not random. At least then people would realize where you stand.

Machines are random and are you telling me there can't be variance -- positive variance for the player?

Yes, there are probabilities. And yes, there are also actual results.

Sometimes you have to say people can and do win on negative expectation machines, and sometimes you have to say that when you decide to pocket winners when you do get lucky can help you win on those negative expectation machines.

You will not consider other alternatives because you believe there is only one possibility based on "probabilities." This is closed minded. There are other ways to win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Machines are random and are you telling me there can't be variance -- positive variance for the player?

Yes, there are probabilities. And yes, there are also actual results.

Sometimes you have to say people can and do win on negative expectation machines, and sometimes you have to say that when you decide to pocket winners when you do get lucky can help you win on those negative expectation machines.

You will not consider other alternatives because you believe there is only one possibility based on "probabilities." This is closed minded. There are other ways to win.

---

Sometimes you win on -EV machines, sometimes you lose. Sometimes you win on +EV machines, sometimes you lose. And of course there's variance -- without it, you wouldn't have the stance you do, that it's possible to have a winning system on a -EV game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Now you've resorted to lying. Happens when feathers get a little ruffled.

I kind of like how I've done after retiring from 10 years as a professional player. I've done overall much better in the last 6 years.

Red's "theory" about there must be proof that my strategy doesn't work, seems to be the wording of the nutty professor. Doesn't surprise me though. He's tried everything.

---

Point out where I "lied," Rob. I admit I only made it to 12 laps in the CPA last night, but my intent was 16, so that wasn't really lying. My legs were shot after a morning workout on asphalt.

I have no qualms with your personal history. Did Rob win? I'll say yes. Now the problem lies in your theory, which is that doing what you do in the future will enable other people to win. That, my friend, is either a theory or a belief. If it's a theory, then it can be falsified. If it cannot be falsified, then it's a belief and belongs in the realm of religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Point out where I "lied," Rob. I admit I only made it to 12 laps in the CPA last night, but my intent was 16, so that wasn't really lying. My legs were shot after a morning workout on asphalt.

I have no qualms with your personal history. Did Rob win? I'll say yes. Now the problem lies in your theory, which is that doing what you do in the future will enable other people to win. That, my friend, is either a theory or a belief. If it's a theory, then it can be falsified. If it cannot be falsified, then it's a belief and belongs in the realm of religion.

---

You're simply weird red. Nearly everything you say seems like you're struggling for the right words but have difficulty finding them, so you resort to esoteric replies.

Your lie in this case is in stating that I claim playing as a pro counted but my play since retiring from that status has not. I've never said anything like that, which you know. If you knew what you were talking about you'd have never made this crazy assertion.

Again, you're so weird. And I give myself credit for doing that to you. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

Sometimes you win on -EV machines, sometimes you lose. Sometimes you win on +EV machines, sometimes you lose. And of course there's variance -- without it, you wouldn't have the stance you do, that it's possible to have a winning system on a -EV game.

---

This deserves expansion. What you wrote is well-known to everybody, and everyone understands it including Alan. In fact, from the postings on this subject it appears he knows a bit more than you about it.

What you AP people disregard is if it happens today then there's nothing to stop it from happening again during the next session, the next, the next, etc. IE, it's an absolute that "the math" MUST reach into your pockets and re-claim every dollar won at some time or other. Everyone understands that someone who only plays +EV machines can lose continuously....and many of them actually do. The reason there's very few who do it the other way around, as I do, is nothing more than gambling discipline to be able to quit when ahead....and because vp creates addicts very easily, almost all session winners on negative OR positive EV games react exactly the way the casino draws it out for them: they lose it all back and more, either today or tomorrow.

Well, there are still things like statistical skew and kurtosis, and hyper-skew and hyper-kurtosis, which will eventually make or break the everyday gambler no matter the approach. Not exactly accounted for by the central limit theorem.

The Wizard used to(?) put it this way, "You gotta be shitting me!"

The reason Mike Matusow says, "Put some money away when you have it, because every poker player eventually goes broke again and again."