Important Point

[Alan Mendelson]

I have no dispute with you Rob or your reports. I fully believe you won and could win using your system including win goals and moving up in denominations to reach the win goals.

My only question is how would you like to respond to redietz or other unbelievers? Or do you even want to bother?

[Rob.Singer]

That's not very easy Alan. The best way would be to play some sessions with he/them witnessing, but already you'veseen how a reasonable number of them wouldn't satisfy anyone. It's also a tough one because I only use a $5k gambling bankroll these days, and I don't think my wife would be happy with me doing that just to make a nobody like arci eat crow. So it's probably that family comes first, my career is over, and let the people decide. I tried multiple times to set up a playing bet with the one with the Wizzard coming my closest to reality. But again, they couldn't deal with how often I should win according to their "theories".

[regnis]

The way Rob plays, he should win more than 75% of his sessions. That's clear. Winning three of four would be exactly what was expected.

So are you saying that 75% is bad?? I would pay for a system that is 75% wins. You mathematicians really must be good as you're grinding out better than 75% on a + less than 1% advantage. Must be that "NEW MATH" they used to talk about when I was a kid.

[Rob.Singer]

First off regnis, his math is wrong. It predicts an 83%-88% win rate. The 75% comes from a loose, incomplete analysis that looks at straight optimal strategy over the "long term". But add in the special plays and the benefit gained from looking at the results of a single session of play--ie, the way every player plays, as in the "short term"--and it goes up around ten points.

Regardless, the math hacks have no choice but to claim the many smaller wins will be wiped out by the few larger losses, and nothing could be further from the undeniable truth as I've said many times before. These people, not knowing how to analyze such a strategy, are left with guessing that the more frequent, larger big wins do not more than make up for the few larger losers. They always say this because they get stuck in how to respond, other than to shreek "LIAR!"

[arcimede$]

Regnis, it's a Martingale like progressive where the bet keeps increasing. There's a small win goal so you see small wins but you also see big losses. The bottom line is the system does nothing to change the ER of the game. Singer claims it does which makes him a liar, plain and simple.

He claimed to have done an analysis but never produces it. The last time he was supposed to provide it was last October and as I predicted nothing was provided.

[Rob.Singer]

I often wonder why some people radiate such anger & conflict in their Internet spews when trying to force their opinions upon others. Arci has provided that answer, and continues to do so. The Good Lord has blessed some of us in our lives for all our lives. These others....well, after years of allowing the hatred, he eventually punishes them--some directly, and some even more severely, by making them suffer as they are made to watch a loved one suffer thru accidents or thru a bevy of cruel, decimating and life-sapping illnesses.

I'd say, rather clearly, that we are all witnesses to God's rath as we watch this unfold, perhaps as a lesson to all others who have lived decent & noble lives thus far. In the meantime, we all understand the victim's anger, and his need to keep calling the unaffected a "liar". He routes that dissatisfaction with his "unfair" predicament thru to the person who's healthy & happy life frustrates him the most.

Just remember this folks: What goes around always does come around, and in such a very righteous way. Treat a loved one or anyone other than that in a way that you would expect to be treated, for just a while or for the length of a brow-beating infected marriage, and you too WILL end up being the one having to live out your life on the Internet, while looking in the mirror each & every day asking why this happened to you.

Live a respectable life, and show kindness to others. Or be that guy.

[Alan Mendelson]

Regnis, it's a Martingale like progressive where the bet keeps increasing. There's a small win goal so you see small wins but you also see big losses. The bottom line is the system does nothing to change the ER of the game. Singer claims it does which makes him a liar, plain and simple.

Let's be factual here. Rob never claimed his strategy changed the expected return of the game. The expected return is determined only by the paytable. Your actual return will vary from that expected return according to how you play. If, for example, you hold only aces no matter what you are dealt in jacks or better, your actual return will differ from the expected return.

[Alan Mendelson]

Just remember this folks: What goes around always does come around, and in such a very righteous way.

Live a respectable life, and show kindness to others. Or be that guy.

Yes, remember that Rob.

[arcimede$]

Let's be factual here. Rob never claimed his strategy changed the expected return of the game. The expected return is determined only by the paytable. Your actual return will vary from that expected return according to how you play. If, for example, you hold only aces no matter what you are dealt in jacks or better, your actual return will differ from the expected return.

Alan, get a clue. Rob claims that anyone can win using his system on negative games. What do you call that? My or your expected return is different that the machine's expected return. Our ER includes the strategy we use and the errors we make (actually another form of strategy). It's unfortunate that the term ER is used for both but try to understand the context next time. However, since Rob claims you will win using his strategy he is claiming his strategy will turn a negative ER game into a positive ER situation for the gambler.

[Rob.Singer]

I concur Alan, although I've always preferred to advertise the "return" of the games I choose to play as actual, whether before or after I have results. Yes there is a mathematical "expected return" addressed by the games' paytables, but it's bogus/meaningless since no one will ever play that machine enough to even approach the theory behind the numbers.

Example: the $10 machine I recently hit four Aces on. It was a "shockingly poor" 9/5 paytable...one that was "very costly" but only theoretically and only if I were to play it into infinity. But I've made a career out of beating these supposedly "unbeatable" machines. I put $4000 into it, and I cashed out something like $9700 (go ahead Spock, check the actual picture, and when you see I'm off by a few bucks, call me a liar again then claim everything else I say or pictures I post are untrue). This $9700 means my actual return was almost 250%, and that is the only important statistic that ever has any meaning when playing any machine.

[arcimede$]

I often wonder why some people radiate such anger & conflict in their Internet spews when trying to force their opinions upon others.

Yes, we've seen you do this many times on various subjects. Your projection is obvious.

Arci has provided that answer, and continues to do so. The Good Lord has blessed some of us in our lives for all our lives. These others....well, after years of allowing the hatred, he eventually punishes them--some directly, and some even more severely, by making them suffer as they are made to watch a loved one suffer thru accidents or thru a bevy of cruel, decimating and life-sapping illnesses.

More projection and interesting that you blame God for your problems. What a cop out. You really need to take responsibility for all the lies and nonsense you continue to spread. If you really do believe in God then you must know a dark after-life awaits you.

I'd say, rather clearly, that we are all witnesses to God's rath as we watch this unfold, perhaps as a lesson to all others who have lived decent & noble lives thus far. In the meantime, we all understand the victim's anger, and his need to keep calling the unaffected a "liar". He routes that dissatisfaction with his "unfair" predicament thru to the person who's healthy & happy life frustrates him the most.

This projection tells us that Robbie thinks his life has been "unfair". Well, maybe if he didn't constantly lie he wouldn't be in the predicament he now finds himself. Remember, he claimed many times that anyone who lived in NV was a loser. Now, that's where he lives in a trailer no less. This is the man who dreamed so much of living in a big house that he lied about it while living in a small apartment.

Just remember this folks: What goes around always does come around, and in such a very righteous way. Treat a loved one or anyone other than that in a way that you would expect to be treated, for just a while or for the length of a brow-beating infected marriage, and you too WILL end up being the one having to live out your life on the Internet, while looking in the mirror each & every day asking why this happened to you.

Singer has often projected his abuse in the past. This is just another example where he admits to abusing family members and feeling bad about it. Yet, I suspect he still does exactly that after drinking too much.

Live a respectable life, and show kindness to others. Or be that guy.

Yes, we know you are "that guy". Instead of feeling sorry for yourself why don't you do something about it. Check yourself into a mental health clinic and ask them for help. Your malignant narcissism is treatable. The first step would be to admit all your lies. Once you release that burden from your conscience you have a chance to move beyond it. You will no longer NEED to protect that which you know is holding you locked in your current misery. You can start today.

[Rob.Singer]

Arci never gets it straight, perhaps because of a jealousy-driven agenda. I guess my pictures continue to put him over the edge. My apologies.

My "claim" is that my play strategies, if played exactly as I have played them, are true and proven winning strategies, and will allow any player a far better opportunity to win a session and win overall on ANY + or -EV game, than playing only optimal play on any "positive" only game. ER is irrelevant since no one will ever play the machine enough to realize it, ever.

And arci, please, no successful debater has ever run out of effective replies while resorting to saying everything's just a projection. You're making this too easy. After all my friend, who's the one with the "squeak squeak"?

Bottom line buddy....bottom line. Gets you every time.

[Rob.Singer]

Consistency is a beautiful thing. Not so for neurosis. One thing about arci: he's always shown that when he's worked up enough after reading some of my longer posts filled with zingers, he scrambles into line-item-veto mode!

God bless the poor guy

[regnis]

Regnis, it's a Martingale like progressive where the bet keeps increasing. There's a small win goal so you see small wins but you also see big losses. The bottom line is the system does nothing to change the ER of the game. Singer claims it does which makes him a liar, plain and simple.

He claimed to have done an analysis but never produces it. The last time he was supposed to provide it was last October and as I predicted nothing was provided.

Let's be clear about the claims that Rob's system is a Martingale. In a Martingale, let's say your initial bet is $5.00 The most you can ever win is that $5.00, so you may wind up risking a large amount of $$ just to win $5.00. In Rob's system, and I'm sure he doesn't need me to explain it, the opportunity exists to win much greater amounts with as small a hand as a full house at the higher denominations, not to mention the big quads.So can we at least stop using the Martigale claim.

As a side note, at the race track on Sunday, a novice was explaining (correctly) to his date that the favorite wins about 1/3 of the time. This is in fact historically correct over about 100 years. However, he was explaining to her that he was going to just keep doubling his bet until the favorite won. A parade of longshots had him broke in no time--and he forgets some favorites pay too low (like 2-5) for the Martingale to work. I resisted all urges to explain it to him as his date seemed impressed with his knowledge.

[redietz]

I'm glad to see that God's wrath has gotten Arci. I am taking a poll, however, and would like to know which god. Are we talking old testament god, Jesus, Allah, Zeus or whom?

I like to keep tabs on these things because, as a fervent worshipper of Beelezebub, I need to know from which direction the wrath is coming. I like to keep on the move.

[regnis]

I prefer in a gadda davida redietz.

[Rob.Singer]

I'm glad to see that God's wrath has gotten Arci. I am taking a poll, however, and would like to know which god. Are we talking old testament god, Jesus, Allah, Zeus or whom?

I like to keep tabs on these things because, as a fervent worshipper of Beelezebub, I need to know from which direction the wrath is coming. I like to keep on the move.

No, you really haven't "seen" it yet. We're still awaiting a display of arci's courage to put up that current picture. Only THEN will we see the result of God's wrath.....only then will you come to realize the reason behind his constant anger with people who have a healthy & happy life and say it, and only then will you get your good belly laugh.

[Rob.Singer]

Let's be clear about the claims that Rob's system is a Martingale. In a Martingale, let's say your initial bet is $5.00 The most you can ever win is that $5.00, so you may wind up risking a large amount of $$ just to win $5.00. In Rob's system, and I'm sure he doesn't need me to explain it, the opportunity exists to win much greater amounts with as small a hand as a full house at the higher denominations, not to mention the big quads.So can we at least stop using the Martigale claim.

He knows that Alan. This is just one of those instances where a frustrated critic looks for the "tiniest" of windows to go thru in order to pretend something that isn't, is, in order to scratch an unreachable itch.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, get a clue. Rob claims that anyone can win using his system on negative games. What do you call that? My or your expected return is different that the machine's expected return. Our ER includes the strategy we use and the errors we make (actually another form of strategy). It's unfortunate that the term ER is used for both but try to understand the context next time. However, since Rob claims you will win using his strategy he is claiming his strategy will turn a negative ER game into a positive ER situation for the gambler.

We have gone over this a hundred times: expected return is different from actual return. I don't understand why you can't separate the two?

Let me give you another real world experience but this time from the TV news business: the expected tenure of a TV station news director (the boss of the TV news department) is a bit less than three years. This is based on statistics of all of the TV stations in the USA. Yet, Ralph Renick in Miami at WTVJ was news director there for something like 32 years. Andy Brigham was news director at WTVH in Syracuse for about 20 years. So their actual tenure was different from their expected tenure. It's the same playing video poker.

Here's a gambling analogy: A shooter at craps is expected to roll the dice 7 times before he sevens-out. Some will have an actual "hand" that lasts two rolls, and some lucky players might roll the dice a hundred times.

[regnis]

Alan-Arci is always willing to recognize the ebbs and flows, except when it comes to Singer.