Why Won't Alan Consult a Mathematician?

[Rob.Singer]

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.

I don't know any math profs who are PhD's, but I'm sure there's a few. However, I wouldn't expect any of them to have more math gaming knowledge than the Wizard, and he backed away from all kinds of effort to obtain proof several years ago.

And yes, absolutely yes, most US college campuses are "bastions" of liberal & far left looney tune biases. What other such institutions would ever even think of hiring fine Americans such as Ward Churchill and Bill Ayers.

[redietz]

What does some self-proclaimed Wizard backing away from a wager regarding your claims have to do with people who have doctorates in mathematics analyzing your "systems?" And I'm not sure what you meant exactly, but almost all professors have doctorates, so was there a point there?

Rob, sometimes you need a good editor.

[Rob.Singer]

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

Correct....but not in arci's agenda-driven world. He has no choice but to project and theorize thru the use of obvious odds obtained via a compressed long-term view.

Through all this we see the theory of getting "extra hands" to accomplish who knows what with. The point of the special plays is to seize the opportunity--an opportunity that is not at all very likely to appear with those few theoretical extra hands that may or may not really be. And that's where, if I were analyzing the "long-term" effect of the opportunity for quads the plays create, the lower rates of hitting quads comes from. But I'm not doing that or playing to that, because it remains that you cannot apply long term theory to short term play.

[Alan Mendelson]

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.

This is a very interesting comment. In a way, you are supporting everything that Rob has ever said about why long term play is wrong.

[arcimede$]

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.

Your point? You essentially repeated exactly what I said trying to downplay part of it. However, you didn't refute anything I stated. The odds of hitting a quad are 1/420 for each and every hand. That doesn't change the FACT that for the next 10 hands the odds are 1/42. Or for the next 100 hands the odds are 1/4.2. If people thought they only had a 1/420 chance of ever hitting a quad I doubt they would play.

Next time if you have a point please make it more clear.

[arcimede$]

This is a very interesting comment. In a way, you are supporting everything that Rob has ever said about why long term play is wrong.

No, it doesn't support anything Rob has said. First of all a machine doesn't "look" at anything. Anthropomorphizing a machine is just plain silly to begin with. The person doing the looking is a person who wants to understand the basics of VP play.

Denial of simply probability mathematics only makes you and Vic look ignorant. Do you also deny your computer works? Why you ask? The electronics driving it is based on exactly the same mathematics. But hey, the fact those circuits only "look" at one electron at a time must mean something. Sheeeeesh.

[Alan Mendelson]

The odds of hitting a quad are 1/420 for each and every hand. That doesn't change the FACT that for the next 10 hands the odds are 1/42. Or for the next 100 hands the odds are 1/4.2. If people thought they only had a 1/420 chance of ever hitting a quad I doubt they would play.

Now a question from the "math challenged" which is me.

Why is it that on each and every hand that you play in video poker the odds of hitting a royal flush are about one in 40,000 and on each successive hand that you play the odds remain at one in 40,000 but you say, Arc, that "the odds of hitting a quad are 1/420 for each and every hand" but "for the next 10 hands the odds are 1/42"?

In other words, why do the odds for hitting a quad drop with additional hands played, but the odds for hitting a royal never change? At least I have never seen it written anywhere else that your odds of hitting a royal improve with the more hands you play.

In craps (and this is for our friend Frank Scoblete) we know that the odds of rolling a 7 are one in 6 and we say that odds of rolling a 7 are always one in six no matter how many times the dice are rolled.

But with quads in video poker it's different?

Please explain for the "math challenged." Thank you.

[arcimede$]

Through all this we see the theory of getting "extra hands" to accomplish who knows what with. The point of the special plays is to seize the opportunity--an opportunity that is not at all very likely to appear with those few theoretical extra hands that may or may not really be. And that's where, if I were analyzing the "long-term" effect of the opportunity for quads the plays create, the lower rates of hitting quads comes from. But I'm not doing that or playing to that, because it remains that you cannot apply long term theory to short term play.

This is actually pretty amusing. It's almost hysterical that a person pushing a strategy composed of multiple levels and hence breaking down a session into multiple blocks of hands then turns around and tries to get people to believe that multiple blocks of hands, in this case those achieved through ignoring his special plays, have no value.

Anyone with half a brain should be able to see just how his statement above conflicts entirely with having a system period. If it all gets down to one hand then how can any system help you? And, the fact is, no system based on multiple hands blocks will ever make any difference. So, in a way Singer is correct here. He just didn't realize it completely destroys all of his systems.

So, there we have it. According to Singer all multiple hand strategies are worthless. They all have a "long term" element to them since they are more than a single hand. This is even more than amusing ... it is absolutely hysterical.

[arcimede$]

Now a question from the "math challenged" which is me.

Why is it that on each and every hand that you play in video poker the odds of hitting a royal flush are about one in 40,000 and on each successive hand that you play the odds remain at one in 40,000 but you say, Arc, that "the odds of hitting a quad are 1/420 for each and every hand" but "for the next 10 hands the odds are 1/42"?

In other words, why do the odds for hitting a quad drop with additional hands played, but the odds for hitting a royal never change? At least I have never seen it written anywhere else that your odds of hitting a royal improve with the more hands you play.

Not as you play, Alan. Before you play. The odds of hitting a RF in your next 10 hands are 1/40000 + 1/40000 + ... Is simple arithmetic beyond you? Add them up and you get 10/40000. Exactly the same math I used for the quads.

In craps (and this is for our friend Frank Scoblete) we know that the odds of rolling a 7 are one in 6 and we say that odds of rolling a 7 are always one in six no matter how many times the dice are rolled.

But with quads in video poker it's different?

Please explain for the "math challenged." Thank you.

The odds of rolling at least one 7 over your next 10 rolls is what, Alan? Could it be 7*(1/6)?

It appears you want to make the odds the same no matter how many hands are being considered. If this is too difficult think about coin flips. The odds are 1/2 of seeing a head. Do you also believe the odds are 1/2 of seeing a single head in 10 flips?

[Alan Mendelson]

Not as you play, Alan. Before you play. The odds of hitting a RF in your next 10 hands are 1/40000 + 1/40000 + ... Is simple arithmetic beyond you? Add them up and you get 10/40000. Exactly the same math I used for the quads.

The odds of rolling at least one 7 over your next 10 rolls is what, Alan? Could it be 7*(1/6)?

It appears you want to make the odds the same no matter how many hands are being considered. If this is too difficult think about coin flips. The odds are 1/2 of seeing a head. Do you also believe the odds are 1/2 of seeing a single head in 10 flips?

Oooh, Arc, does this mean by your reasoning, that numbers are due to hit? Do you stand by a roulette wheel and see a board that is all red and say the odds are great that the next roll will be black? Uh oh... Houston, we have a problem.

[arcimede$]

Oooh, Arc, does this mean by your reasoning, that numbers are due to hit? Do you stand by a roulette wheel and see a board that is all red and say the odds are great that the next roll will be black? Uh oh... Houston, we have a problem.

No Alan, what has happened in the past for independent trials has no meaning at all. I've told you this over and over again. That is one reason a progression provides no advantage in VP play. Losing at previous levels does not increase one's chances of hitting on the next level. However, when discussing the FUTURE there is nothing wrong with looking more than a single event (hand) ahead. We wouldn't have a single electronic device if scientists didn't think in terms of MULTIPLE future events.

[regnis]

Can't have it both ways. If I have been rolling the dice for 5 minutes or 20 minutes or an hour, the odds of me throwing a 7 on the next roll are the same, and they are the same on every roll thereafter.

[redietz]

This is bizarre. I took very few math classes in college, although I did play hoops for the math grad team at Penn State (which is kind of like staying at a Holiday Inn -- it makes you look smart).

I have absolutely no problem following anything Arc has to say -- it's basic math with basic logic. I have no idea what kind of logic and/or math Alan is using. His responses baffle me. I'm serious -- Alan, you'd get canned halfway through any basic probability course if you kept plaguing the professor with your comments and hard-headedness.

I really don't believe Alan Mendelson is this thick, and I have it on semi-decent authority that Rob Argentino is not, so the only logical conclusion is that this "Rob Singer" stuff is half put-on, fueled by Rob Argentino getting half tanked a couple of nights a week.

[Alan Mendelson]

Specifically redietz, what do you have an issue with? You made some general comment but I can't tell what dispute you are referring to? This is not a math problem. This is a communications problem.

[Alan Mendelson]

No Alan, what has happened in the past for independent trials has no meaning at all. I've told you this over and over again. That is one reason a progression provides no advantage in VP play. Losing at previous levels does not increase one's chances of hitting on the next level. However, when discussing the FUTURE there is nothing wrong with looking more than a single event (hand) ahead. We wouldn't have a single electronic device if scientists didn't think in terms of MULTIPLE future events.

Hold on, Arc, you didn't answer my question.

So let me try one more time, and also your friend redietz might also want to respond to this:

Do the odds of getting four of a kind improve the more hands of video poker you play?
Do the odds of getting a royal flush improve the more hands of video poker you play?
Do the odds of rolling a 7 in craps improve the more times you roll the dice?
If the tote board at a roulette wheel shows all black, meaning that all of the previous spins produced a "black number" does the chance that the next spin will be a red number improve?
If you flip a coin a thousand times and all of the flips produce a heads, is there a greater than 50-50 chance that the next flip will be a tails?

The Gambler's Fallacy is committed when a person assumes that a departure from what occurs on average or in the long term will be corrected in the short term.

Source: http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...s-fallacy.html

[quahaug]

Hold on, Arc, you didn't answer my question.

So let me try one more time, and also your friend redietz might also want to respond to this:

Do the odds of getting four of a kind improve the more hands of video poker you play?
Do the odds of getting a royal flush improve the more hands of video poker you play?
Do the odds of rolling a 7 in craps improve the more times you roll the dice?
If the tote board at a roulette wheel shows all black, meaning that all of the previous spins produced a "black number" does the chance that the next spin will be a red number improve?
If you flip a coin a thousand times and all of the flips produce a heads, is there a greater than 50-50 chance that the next flip will be a tails?

The Gambler's Fallacy is committed when a person assumes that a departure from what occurs on average or in the long term will be corrected in the short term.

Source: http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...s-fallacy.html

I can't take it anymore! It's the odds BEFORE you play. It would be extremely unusual to not hit a quad in 999,999 hands but even if that happened the odds of hitting it on the millionth hand IS STILL 1/420.

[redietz]

This is not a communications problem. This is a logic problem.

Look, Alan, you can run simulations using Rob's progressions strategies and see what happens. You can run simulations running the special plays of which you aware and see what happens. So why don't you? You can run simulations with your win goal/stop loss stuff and see what happens. So why don't you?

What gives "Rob Singer" an out is that he and he alone can use his recipe of progression, soft-profit stashing, special plays at special times, all of which are Singer judgements. Since these decisions vary based on this or that, it is impossible to simulate them. His unique recipe, he says, enables one to beat negative EV machines, even though taken individually, the individual components of his "systems" do not beat negative EV machines.

This is classic. And obvious. And silly.

[Alan Mendelson]

redietz I have no idea what you are arguing about? I never said anything in support of any progression strategies.

Win/loss goals? It's very simple: if you quit when you're ahead you have more money than you started with. If you set a loss limit and stick to it, then you can't lose more. Do you have a problem with that?

As far as the other arguments about Rob's system, Rob should respond.

[Rob.Singer]

It's easy. Redietz is using the classic book argument that says over the "long-term", my success just cannot be. And that's the same rut all my math critics have been and remained in, which was only made worse for them every time one of them ran away from getting face-to-face proof at the last minute. On paper, they believe they have a good argument. In person however, it's just too much heat for them to fathom. For them to come to grips with the how and why of each session being in and of itself only, totally unrelated to any that have come before or any that have yet to come....funny, just like individual HANDS are. When you tell them that, then say you can sit down and show them how and why in less than an hour, for some reason it frightens the bejesus out of them. I think Frank was my best hope ever, and even he couldn't handle the undeniable truth.

Now, the best chance these doubting Thomases have of seeing the light, is by looking at all the wins being posted here on different days by people who play only -EV machines. If it happens TODAY, why believe it can't--or shouldn't--happen time and time again, and how is it these people can't comprehend the simple statement Alan just made about win and loss goal-setting. Very, very odd.

[redietz]

That's right, Rob, people posting here about their wins is proof positive that the "Singer systems" work. You're absolutely onto something.

Of course, it could be a sampling bias, but one would expect Singer and his folks to undeniably report each and every loss, especially the disastrous ones, because they are fine upstanding citizens and would never lead us astray.

Ummmm, looking back, there don't seem to be many people posting here who have losing sessions, other than Alan. Maybe that's the undeniable truth -- that folks who post on Best Buy's forum have discovered how to win almost every single time. And they never accrue any substantial losses.

Praise be -- we're saved!