Why Won't Alan Consult a Mathematician?

[redietz]

The same old silly debates are occurring on existing threads. I have tried to pin Alan down on these, but he's a slippery devil, so let's try again.

Alan, is there a reason you won't consult professional mathematicians, you know -- the guys with the doctorates, regarding the alleged value of Rob's machinations? Do you simply not trust mathematicians? Are they not in your Rolodex? Do you honestly believe that Rob, who may be a genius, has stumbled onto the single combination of strategies that can beat negative games and prove mathematicians wrong?

What is your motivation? You have two populations here -- one has some math-savvy people, but not guys with doctorates, who think the Singer strategies are hokum. The other consists of Rob, and then assorted folks not really making any math presentations at all. It seems to me that consulting established accredited experts might be helpful. You know, the guys who teach math for a living. Maybe even the guys who write the programs for the video poker machines.

I don't see this debate in American Casino Guide. I don't see this debate in any math journals. Any ideas why? Maybe you should bring Rob's brilliance to these other audiences.

[Alan Mendelson]

The same old silly debates are occurring on existing threads. I have tried to pin Alan down on these, but he's a slippery devil, so let's try again.

Alan, is there a reason you won't consult professional mathematicians, you know -- the guys with the doctorates, regarding the alleged value of Rob's machinations?

Why? Because the mathematicians will tell us the same thing that Rob has told us: all of his special plays are at a disadvantage mathematically. We all know that. Rob has told us.

Why do you keep asking the same question? All of us know the special plays are at a mathematical disadvantage. And, quite frankly, it's why I don't play Rob's way. So I have a better question for you.

Ask Rob why his special plays that are a mathematical disadvantage made him a winner? Because that's really what the discussion is all about.

[arcimede$]

Ask Rob why his special plays that are a mathematical disadvantage made him a winner? Because that's really what the discussion is all about.

No one knows if he is a winner. I haven't seen him in a rush to have his IRS copies sent to you, Alan. He hasn't provided the support for his system that he said he would 6 months ago. He has never shown in any evidence he lived in a big house despite years of claiming exactly. Not to mention the AZ records only show him living in an apartment. His claims of the 5th card flip-over were shown to be bogus. He claimed to live in Carefree and not live in Carefree. And, to top it all off he now claims that reaching a win goal is not his primary goal in a session.

How many lies does a person have to be caught at before Alan starts questioning whether Singer ever won squat.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc I don't know that you caught him in any lies. But you forgot to mention his claim that video poker machines are not random! And that's how I got to meet and know Rob when I interviewed him about that claim.

But we are going around and around and around like a circle that never ends. Enjoy....

[redietz]

I think careful language is needed here. We don't know if special plays made Rob a winner. It may have been what he ate for breakfast each day, and Rob thinks its his special plays, but he's wrong. Correlation is not the same as cause-and-effect, which is such a cliche, but somebody's gotta say it.

The problem with what Rob presents is not that he's "a winner" a la Charlie Sheen, but that he's saying there's a cause-and-effect. And he says that following his prescription will lead to others experiencing the same cause-and-effect. Unfortunately for us, "the math" can't come up with a way this can be cause-and-effect. It appears to be magic, magic which Rob says only he understands fully. Rob the shaman.

Rob's winning appears to be as likely to do with what Rob ate, the quality of his bowel movements, or his telekinesis, as it has to do with special plays or progressions or win goals.

[Alan Mendelson]

I think careful language is needed here. We don't know if special plays made Rob a winner.

Exactly right. We don't know. Rob said he used his special plays 5% of the time. What if he used them only 1% of the time? What if he got real lucky on a few royals or quads at the $10 or $25 level to give him a win of about $100K per year?

I said before that winning $100K per year while playing at the $10 and $25 level is not that great a feat, and I know other players who also win that much at those levels.

[Rob.Singer]

Watching arci tell his same lies over again is like sweet music to my ears. It simply means the collective of what I've said and exposed about him continues to take its daily toll.

Redietz, I spent years trying to have public, recorded play sessions/meetings/bets with those "mathematicians" in LV you speak of--including the dellusional arci--and they all ran for the hills as soon as the 11th hour of reality approached. And now, unless the timing is right for interested parties, there's not much in the way of proof that can get done on a forum outside of arguing and having fun with the insults. And if Alan were to "consult" with a bunch of kool-aid-drinking liberals from academia, what good would it do without me there? All you've done is create another unlikely step in the disagreement process.

Alan, the only thing you didn't mention about the special plays is that I know they are at a disadvantage when looked at in the long-term. Mathematically, they are not in a single short-term session. I've shown how arci presents an agenda-driven case over using all the facts, and I'll give you even more. While his chances at hitting quads overall might be 1 in 420--or 1 in 360 when he holds 2pr.--in my strategy those numbers are reduced to 1 in 305 & 1 in 220 respectively.If he were either being completely honest in his analysis or maybe he just doesn't really understand the math as he purports to, he'd have included the true odds OVER THE LONG TERM. And it gets better. The odds increase in my favor when analyzed as occurring in a single session setting!

These are just some of the explanations people like Dancer, the Wizard, Frank, Fezzik, and himself never wanted to actually come face to face with. They also were afraid of seeing me win using a strategy they couldn't comprehend. Like I've said here often and taunted these math people with all the time in my Gaming Today columns, they all prefer to continue to do the safe thing over learn something they just can't allow themselves to--the safe thing being to blindly criticize. And that's why I've been eating these people for lunch for years....and thoroughly enjoying it!

[Rob.Singer]

Exactly right. We don't know. Rob said he used his special plays 5% of the time. What if he used them only 1% of the time? What if he got real lucky on a few royals or quads at the $10 or $25 level to give him a win of about $100K per year?

I said before that winning $100K per year while playing at the $10 and $25 level is not that great a feat, and I know other players who also win that much at those levels.

Special plays helped me win what I won. They are but a single part of what is an overall brilliant strategy. Without any one part, it would not have been successful, barring extraordinary luck.

[arcimede$]

While his chances at hitting quads overall might be 1 in 420--or 1 in 360 when he holds 2pr.--in my strategy those numbers are reduced to 1 in 305 & 1 in 220 respectively.If he were either being completely honest in his analysis or maybe he just doesn't really understand the math as he purports to, he'd have included the true odds OVER THE LONG TERM. And it gets better. The odds increase in my favor when analyzed as occurring in a single session setting!

As I've said many times, Singer makes all kinds of assertions but never, I repeat never, backs it up. How do the odds increased when we all know every hand is independent? Easy answer ... they don't. It's just another lie on top of all the other lies.

One can only wonder how Alan puts up with this obvious nonsense. It makes him look bad for hosting this crap and makes his product, Alan's best buys, look questionable.

[Alan Mendelson]

Gee Arc, why don't you ask what I am going to ask instead of pissing and moaning:

Rob, how do you get those numbers of one in 305 and one in 220 ??

Arc: use the forum to ask questions, not to insult.

[regnis]

Assuming both singer's and arci's numbers are accurate, I get back to this question. I am either going to hit the quad or leave broke, as I only have a few minutes left before I leave. So if you get a quad 1/420, and I can reduce that to a 1/360 or 1/305, knowing that long term it may be costing me some extra hands, have I not increased my chance at getting the quad and going home a winner. And since each hand is independent, isn't the odds still 1/420 on each subsequent hand. So short term (yes--I said the phrase short term and was not struck down) did I not increase my chance for a quad by misplaying that 1 hand. And how many hands would it take to make up whatever long term dimunition in return that the 1 hand may have caused, or how many hands did it cost me.

[redietz]

The "kool-aid-drinking" liberals from academia have doctorates in mathematics. Are you saying, Rob, that you understand math better than they do? Just come out and say it, then. Don't be shy about your credentials. No need to call them names.

By the way, I live around the corner from East Tennessee State, and it's not exactly a bastion of "kool-aid-drinking" or "liberals," whatever they are. I don't think the politics of the guys with math doctorates is going to effect the analysis of Rob's "systems," but we could clear that up by only consulting hard-core Republican mathematicians. There are a few of those, you know.

[arcimede$]

Gee Arc, why don't you ask what I am going to ask instead of pissing and moaning:

Rob, how do you get those numbers of one in 305 and one in 220 ??

Arc: use the forum to ask questions, not to insult.

Simple Alan, I have a brain. I already know what he stated is a lie, so why would I ask a meaningless question? I responded in a manner fitting his decision to make blatantly false statements.

[arcimede$]

Assuming both singer's and arci's numbers are accurate

They can't both be accurate. There is only one version of math in this universe ... unless, of course, you are claiming Singer lives in an alternate universe.

[regnis]

They can't both be accurate. There is only one version of math in this universe ... unless, of course, you are claiming Singer lives in an alternate universe.

So answer please based upon your numbers. I would be interested in the actual numbers in the stated situation.

[arcimede$]

So answer please based upon your numbers. I would be interested in the actual numbers in the stated situation.

OK, here's a shot ... the odds of hitting a quad holding a pair are 1 in 360. The odds of hitting a quad in DDB before any dealt hand is 1 in 420.

If you think you will play about 10 more hands then the odds of hitting a quad are 10*1/420 or 1 in 42. So, if you get 4 extra hands for holding 2 pair you then have 14*1/420 or 1 in 30. If you just hold the pair you have 1/360 + 1/42 or 1 in 38. The 4 extra hands delay your departure by around 30 seconds.

The bottom line is you improve your chances from 1 in 38 to 1 in 30 and that doesn't include others things like FHs, Flushes, etc. that you might get in the extra 4 hands.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, thanks for your numbers. I am hoping Rob will respond.

Rob, how do you get those numbers of one in 305 and one in 220 ??

[slingshot]

It's not the math, or anything you can concoct that decides if you win. All you can do is sit at the right machine, at the right time, and give your best shot. All else is irrelevant.

[Vegas Vic]

OK, here's a shot ... the odds of hitting a quad holding a pair are 1 in 360. The odds of hitting a quad in DDB before any dealt hand is 1 in 420.

If you think you will play about 10 more hands then the odds of hitting a quad are 10*1/420 or 1 in 42. So, if you get 4 extra hands for holding 2 pair you then have 14*1/420 or 1 in 30. If you just hold the pair you have 1/360 + 1/42 or 1 in 38. The 4 extra hands delay your departure by around 30 seconds.

The bottom line is you improve your chances from 1 in 38 to 1 in 30 and that doesn't include others things like FHs, Flushes, etc. that you might get in the extra 4 hands.

The odds of hitting in those 10 hands might indeed be 10*1/420, but this snapshot approach doesn't match the reality of sitting at the VP machine. The machine doesn't look at one's odds of hitting in groups of 10, or 20, or even 420. If the odds of hitting are 1/420 before any dealt hand (your exact words), and each dealt hand is completely independent from any previous dealt hand or any future dealt hand, then the odds for EACH AND EVERY hand will always be 1/420. If it makes you feel warm and fuzzy that your odds in the upcoming 10 hands are 1/42, more power to you. When it comes time to push that button, you're still staring 1/420 directly in the face.

[regnis]

Vegas Vic-exactly my point. I could be accused of leading the witness but I got the answer I was looking for.