Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 119

Thread: Jumping the Shark

  1. #21
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    Alan, if you polled any math challenged group of people you probably would find some that couldn't add 2 and 2. What exactly do your polls have to do with anything based in reality?

    BTW, I would call Singer a liar and a con man at any dinner party. Try again.
    Sometimes the math challenged have more common sense than the math experts. Rob talks about common sense. That seems to go by you. That you would call Singer a liar and a con man at a dinner party doesn't say much for you.

  2. #22
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Actually redietz you give Rob too much credit for things he really doesnt do. When you boil down Rob's play and practice it really is just a very simple strategy of trying to leave with more money and going for smaller wins with a better chance of succeeding.

    Where Rob has failed comes down to two things:

    1. He has promised to show data to support his claims about irregularities with machines
    2. He has promised to show data from math experts to support his claims that his way is better
    Alan, we're leaving for our travels this afternoon, and I've only looked at the last two posts on this thread by you and redietz. Since usually I respect what you both have to ask and say, I'll give both a reply before leaving for what will be a while. I'll start with your two items above:

    1. Data that supports irregularities with the machines: That's in several boxes in storage, and I have not yet been able to go down there--and probably won't for a while as we travel elsewhere since my daughter and her family are right now relocating to Minnesota. I still have this question for you and anyone else: One summary page shows the required parameter on fifth card flipovers to be nearly double the expected mathematical rate after somewhere near a billion hands. Is that what you want to see, or do you need all the supporting back pages? And what will you do with it? Remember, it almost certainly won't be believed by critics who will never see machines as anything but random, as witnessed by my offer to bring the entire package to LV to show the Wizard and his doubting "expert", Mathextremist (who BTW still has a notice on one of his websites saying how he will look at any and all evidence that shows any Nevada machine not to be random)--who immediately called the whole thing off when I did all the legwork to make it happen. These AP's just cannot allow anything like this to enter into the realm of what their belief systems are, just as how the NGC turned down my offer to show them for unexplained reasons.

    2. I also have the information proving that my play strategy is a consistent, and overall, winner. As I've said many times, this data is NOT something that tries to rewrite the math books on long-term expected results. It is a short-term, single-session by single-session representation of how playing my strategy will most often result in a win, time after time, including how large losses and the more frequent large wins affect overall results--negative machines or not....tiny percentages of course mean nothing in TODAY'S session, which as we know, they ALL ARE. In other words, where the so-called math people would say that after a $20,000 royal and a profit of $$11,875 for a single session would eventually be brought to it's knees by expectation, a short term individual session-by-session analysis shows that not to be case at all--by a wide margin. Every "expert" will always acknowledge that "anything can happen in any given session". It's the only way they can rationalize someone winning on -EV machines. But imagine if, along with the discipline to actually do what you say, you maximize every (or almost every) opportunity to hit a session-ending winner that comes your way (special plays) and combine that with an over-abundance of bankroll compared to your win goal along with a structured denominational and game-volatility increase. Any math person will readily agree that this approach will produce a prescribed winner far more often and not, and if they actually took the time to look at how this approach is capable of producing many smaller wins and an abundance of huge winners in a session-by-session analysis instead of simply plotting this session onto some inappropriate long-term graph that shows the math eventually snatching all the wins away because it says it HAS to over time, they wouldn't be so fuzzy & unknowledgeable when arguing with me. I have pages that show it analyzed in the short-term just as I've described. Is that what you're looking for? I know people like arci are waiting to see how my numbers defeat the math over time and as I've told him and others many times, that's not what this is about. It doesn't add anything up or use curves to explain anything. It's a simple "what will happen" in an individual session, when they're played as individual sessions with all the advantages of the SPS, over and over again, and how the large winners are much more probable than the large losers.

    Redietz, you asked when I'm going to respond to the post that Spock likely spent the better part of two months compiling data from here and there from what I remember, then opining and asserting in an unsupportable anti-RS rant. First off, I don't have the time or desire to go thru the same nonsense again. I have a life, while he apparently does not. It would also surprise you to know what other names he's posted under--and who he really is--on other forums....and who he's been on THIS one. Anyway, the only item I'll mention is the usual lie about me posting under other handles. I do not post under other names unless I say that prior to posting. Ever. All "Spock's" misrepresentations about those other posters is simple corrupted opinion. Jatki who posted here has a name--Virgil something. I am not him, and sometime after he arrived on the scene we agreed to play a game spoofing arci and his neurotic tendencies about me. It worked in spades, and thus began the exciting "chipping away" process that saw arci coming apart at the seams several times. All it took was a few well-placed digs on his personal life And now, with the humiliation of Dancer coming about after his video poker addiction caught up with him like I've always predicted it would, it's as if I'm on Cloud 9. These AP's....if they only thought as much about their marriages as they do about vp.....

    I'll be back in time.

  3. #23
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Sometimes the math challenged have more common sense than the math experts. Rob talks about common sense. That seems to go by you. That you would call Singer a liar and a con man at a dinner party doesn't say much for you.
    Oooo....I just saw this! WHAT dinner party Alan? You think arci's ever gonna be able to get out of the nursing home for some enjoyment again?

  4. #24
    Actually, Rob, I think your data for #1 is useless because you returned the machine. We will never know if this was a programming defect, or a glitch in that particular machine, or something that is visible in other machines. Why you gave away the "evidence" is beyond me. Had I been you and I detected something which gave me reason to think "the fix was in" I would have done everything possible to preserve the evidence. If I recall your data is in the form of printouts which also means it probably can't be checked and tested easily.

    I don't doubt how you could win money using your system of taking profits.

  5. #25
    one of the most popular ways to play. It's dynamite. So I ask again, has ANYONE actually tried it? This goes along with Rob's question, "What will you do with the info?"
    Today, I took the measley $10 the casino sent me and started playing 5-10-25-50 cent artt. I got up to $50 and probably shoulda stopped there-but I kept on till I lost it. SO, now I take $20 to start with ddbp at 50 cents and am a little worried that I did wrong by not stopping at $50. By good fortune, after only a few hands, 4 J's came up and now I have over a $100. So I am going to stop the next time and just accept a small win goal. Notwithstanding, I LOVE this game. And the extra one or two denominations DOES make a difference. I used to play 5-10-25 cents.

  6. #26
    slingshot is this a local casino and what do you estimate is the cost of going to and from the casino (travel)?

  7. #27
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    slingshot is this a local casino and what do you estimate is the cost of going to and from the casino (travel)?
    Local. I'm 35 miles away-$10 pays for the gas. I told a friend about the Horseshoe and he came and lost his arse and said he'd never come back. So what do they do? Send him two $80 free play certificates PLUS a $25 one! I get $25 every thursday and play once a week. They also sent him two buffet offers. They cut mine in half! $100 is what I make a day at my job. They also send me $10 for Fridays, Sundays and Wednesdays. I opted for the $25 day, but had other things to do this Thursday and came Friday.

  8. #28
    That's one of the things that irks me Sling--no one will try it with either real money or a simulation. Arci is always yelling at me when I run a simulation for my own curiosity--he says I should run 10,000 simulations.

    So I propose that someone-whether arci or anyone else--run them. And lets see the results and put this matter to rest.

    If it works, does Singer get a Pullitzer??

  9. #29
    Regnis, I've stated previously I already simulated Singer's SPS. It returned exactly what anyone should expect ... the games ER. I also happen to understand the proof I've referenced many times that a betting system cannot change the ER of a game. Why would any intelligent person waste any more time on a worthless system? That would be for people who don't have a clue.

    I had to laugh at Speedo's rather lengthy response. He's projected many times that long replies indicate he is feeling pain. Chuckle, chuckle. Not to mention his daughter was already in Minnesota months ago ... at least according to her facebook page. Looks more like this is a typical situation of Singer running away with his tail between his legs. He's done it many times before when things aren't going his way.

  10. #30
    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    no one will try it with either real money or a simulation
    The problem with a simulation is that the simulation cannot mimic Rob's actual strategy about when to move up and down in denominations and when to get up and leave with a profit. Simulations are basically a stream of running a defined set of decisions over time. But Rob's system isn't a defined set -- it is a variable set. There are various judgment calls that have to be made along the way. Rob tells us this, which is what complicates his system for others to understand or practice. And that is one of Rob's obstacles in the poker community -- people can't easily learn it.

    Take sling for example -- a devoted follower of Rob's system. Yet, he is always asking questions. No harm in that, of course. But I don't have to ask questions about conventional strategy for Bonus Poker, for example -- I have the strategy down cold. Same with Aces and Faces and Jacks or Better, or double double bonus. Rob's system and strategy is more complex.

    Here's a simple example: how do you explain to someone that they should quit after reaching a ten percent win goal? How do you explain to someone that after you lost $200 playing one-dollar video poker that you should move up to $2 videopoker for a chance to recover your losses and finish with a profit? These are concepts that are totally foreign to conventional players because they think only one way -- which is the odds of drawing cards. They don't think about win amounts because if they did they would embrace win goals and changing denominations to meet those win goals.

    When you suggest win goals the conventional players argue that win goals do not change the odds of the game. They're right. But Rob isn't talking about odds -- he's talking about winning. That is the problem. Rob is traveling one road, the conventional players are traveling on another road, and their destinations are different. Rob is seeing the "win" destination while the conventional players are looking for the "odds" destination.

  11. #31
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    The problem with a simulation is that the simulation cannot mimic Rob's actual strategy about when to move up and down in denominations and when to get up and leave with a profit. Simulations are basically a stream of running a defined set of decisions over time. But Rob's system isn't a defined set -- it is a variable set. There are various judgment calls that have to be made along the way. Rob tells us this, which is what complicates his system for others to understand or practice. And that is one of Rob's obstacles in the poker community -- people can't easily learn it.

    Take sling for example -- a devoted follower of Rob's system. Yet, he is always asking questions. No harm in that, of course. But I don't have to ask questions about conventional strategy for Bonus Poker, for example -- I have the strategy down cold. Same with Aces and Faces and Jacks or Better, or double double bonus. Rob's system and strategy is more complex.

    Here's a simple example: how do you explain to someone that they should quit after reaching a ten percent win goal? How do you explain to someone that after you lost $200 playing one-dollar video poker that you should move up to $2 videopoker for a chance to recover your losses and finish with a profit? These are concepts that are totally foreign to conventional players because they think only one way -- which is the odds of drawing cards. They don't think about win amounts because if they did they would embrace win goals and changing denominations to meet those win goals.

    When you suggest win goals the conventional players argue that win goals do not change the odds of the game. They're right. But Rob isn't talking about odds -- he's talking about winning. That is the problem. Rob is traveling one road, the conventional players are traveling on another road, and their destinations are different. Rob is seeing the "win" destination while the conventional players are looking for the "odds" destination.
    Good points, Alan. I believe you have to play and learn the hard way. Yes the small wins occur. In my case, it was my first game to play and I decided to play the full strategy out as if I'd not hit my win goal. I mean $50 out of $10 free play is not the usual. I should have cashed out at $40 whenever I realized the machine wasn't spitting out the 2 pairs as before. Think of it this way, though. A $5 player like you may have played a 50 cents/$1/$2/$5 with a freeplay of $50 and with the same hands I had found yourself up $500. I'm pretty sure I would have left with at least $400 instead of continuing. I think the artt strategy gives a small-time player a great opportunity to win. Now as for the questions, I want to learn as I go=and normally one of the questions would have been should I have stopped at $45-50 and played another machine.

  12. #32
    Should have said "would have found yourself up by $250".

  13. #33
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Here's a simple example: how do you explain to someone that they should quit after reaching a ten percent win goal? How do you explain to someone that after you lost $200 playing one-dollar video poker that you should move up to $2 videopoker for a chance to recover your losses and finish with a profit? These are concepts that are totally foreign to conventional players because they think only one way -- which is the odds of drawing cards. They don't think about win amounts because if they did they would embrace win goals and changing denominations to meet those win goals.

    When you suggest win goals the conventional players argue that win goals do not change the odds of the game. They're right. But Rob isn't talking about odds -- he's talking about winning. That is the problem. Rob is traveling one road, the conventional players are traveling on another road, and their destinations are different. Rob is seeing the "win" destination while the conventional players are looking for the "odds" destination.
    So Alan, what is the difference between winning and odds? Do win goals change the odds? If not, how do you end up winning when the odds are against you?

  14. #34
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    So Alan, what is the difference between winning and odds? Do win goals change the odds? If not, how do you end up winning when the odds are against you?
    I think the answer is you don't lose but you win less overall.

  15. #35
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    So Alan, what is the difference between winning and odds? Do win goals change the odds? If not, how do you end up winning when the odds are against you?
    Arc, you keep asking the same question and the answer is the same: win goals do not change the odds.
    How do you win? You win by cashing out when the meter shows there are more credits than when you started. That's how you win when the odds are against you.

    This is exactly what I wrote about. You look at the long term math -- the odds -- and overlook that people win individual hands all the time, and when they cash out those short term winners they can in fact have more money than when they started.

    And this is why Singer's win goal system will never make sense to you. As I wrote you and Singer are on different roads. And what will come as a shock to you Arc is that probably except for the AP community everyone else uses a win goal system just like Singer. But it might not be as formal as Singer's -- but they will quit when they are ahead, too.

    I remember the last time I played at Rincon. Two elderly ladies were next to me on VP machines in the no smoking section, where the machines are 25-cents through $2 denominations. The ladies were playing 25-cent double double bonus. When one of the ladies hit quad aces (no kicker) she stopped, cashed out and sat with her friend. When her friend his quad 6s she also cashed out and quit. They got up, smiling, and walked off.

  16. #36
    Alan, what you just posted is nonsense. If you can change your results by some mechanism (in this case win goals) then you have changed the odds. What the odds tell us is the likelihood of winning. Hence, if you win more using some technique you have changed the odds. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

    You are trying to wordsmith your away around the fact I have presented a proof that no betting system can change the ER (odds). Sorry, no intelligent person will fall for your silly narrative. The fact is win goals do not increase your results over time. That has been proven. Hence, as I said, your comment is nothing but BS.

    As for your ladies ... they probably moved to another bank of machines and kept playing. I see this all the time. As soon as a person hits a winner they believe the machine will go cold. Hence, they cash out. They just move to another machine as I see the same folks come back later on.

    Win goals do nothing to change a person's results over any fixed number of hands. Sorry. (And yes, I have simulated this as well)

  17. #37
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    Alan, what you just posted is nonsense. If you can change your results by some mechanism (in this case win goals) then you have changed the odds. What the odds tell us is the likelihood of winning. Hence, if you win more using some technique you have changed the odds. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

    You are trying to wordsmith your away around the fact I have presented a proof that no betting system can change the ER (odds). Sorry, no intelligent person will fall for your silly narrative. The fact is win goals do not increase your results over time. That has been proven. Hence, as I said, your comment is nothing but BS.

    As for your ladies ... they probably moved to another bank of machines and kept playing. I see this all the time. As soon as a person hits a winner they believe the machine will go cold. Hence, they cash out. They just move to another machine as I see the same folks come back later on.

    Win goals do nothing to change a person's results over any fixed number of hands. Sorry. (And yes, I have simulated this as well)
    Sorry, sir. That is total nonsense. IF I had left when I reached a win goal of $100 or more I would be FAR ahead this year. I've already beaten myself up enough about playing on and on after winning-but I'm not gonna let you have other people believe that win goals don't work.
    They DO, and sometimes the wins are big.

  18. #38
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
    Sorry, sir. That is total nonsense.
    No, it is a proven fact. Sadly, there are people like you that can't understand simple math. Keep in mind that like all random series there will be time spans using win goals where you will do better and time spans where you will do worse than not using win goals. Looking at your play for any short period of time is meaningless.

  19. #39
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    Alan, what you just posted is nonsense. If you can change your results by some mechanism (in this case win goals) then you have changed the odds. What the odds tell us is the likelihood of winning. Hence, if you win more using some technique you have changed the odds. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

    You are trying to wordsmith your away around the fact I have presented a proof that no betting system can change the ER (odds). Sorry, no intelligent person will fall for your silly narrative. The fact is win goals do not increase your results over time. That has been proven. Hence, as I said, your comment is nothing but BS.

    As for your ladies ... they probably moved to another bank of machines and kept playing. I see this all the time. As soon as a person hits a winner they believe the machine will go cold. Hence, they cash out. They just move to another machine as I see the same folks come back later on.

    Win goals do nothing to change a person's results over any fixed number of hands. Sorry. (And yes, I have simulated this as well)
    Arc, what you write is nonsense. You can jump up and down all day about the odds and I am telling you, and Singer will tell you, that his system does not change the odds. The expected return will always be the expected return. Does it really twist out your kishkas (Yiddish for insides, guts) that someone can actually walk away from a negative expectation game with a profit, and repeat this?

    Simulations are good for the long term but we all have had short term spurts of winning and the "art" (it is not a science that can be proven by simulations) of being able to say "I am going to walk away now" is how you become a winner.

    Even at a positive expectation game, if you don't know when to quit you risk losing it all back.

  20. #40
    OK--so where is the simulation that includes that aspect of Singer's system. With all the time wasted arguing this matter, where is the simulation (let the math guys determine how many hands, sessions, whatever). Let's get the answer once and for all.

    The simulation needs to mirror Singer in every respect, with a best attempt at duplicating the special plays.

    Arci--you say you ran 1. So like we all have asked Rob--produce the verification.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •