Jumping the Shark

[arcimede$]

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.

Alan, repeating nonsense will never make it fact. And, this has nothing to do with short term or long term. It has to do with each individual hand being independent. There is no change that occurs between leaving one day and returning another time. If you think you could lose all your winnings by not quitting, you can just as easily lose them the next time you play. There is absolutely no difference between the two times as far as your next hands are concerned. That's what independence means. If you can't see this then you are fooling yourself. The logic is as simple as it gets.

If you don't accept this reality then you must believe that something happens between leaving one day and returning another. Some kind of magical fairy dust gets cast over the machines that now allows you win whereas you were doomed to failure by playing on. Have you always believed in magical fairy dust? Do you have any comprehension of just how idiotic your claims look to any math knowledgeable person? And I'm not talking PhDs, I'm talking high school math.

What a complete and utter farce you have made this forum by claiming absolute nonsense has any validity whatsoever.

[Alan Mendelson]

It has to do with each individual hand being independent.

YES!!! that's exactly right. And that is why it is possible for people to win at negative expectation games. It's also why Rob's "special plays" (while I don't endorse them) can also hit their target and win.

I like what regnis wrote. Why don't you show us your studies?

[arcimede$]

I reported on my sims for win goals when I did them. They are right here on your web site. I reported on Singer's stuff on freevpfree. It's all out there for anyone who wants to go find it. The bottom line is simple. Win goals don't make any difference. However, they clearly did not convince any one of you math-challenged individuals any more than the math proof I posted. It is clear you prefer to live in your fantasy worlds. So be it.

[Alan Mendelson]

You see Arc, this is where you just CANNOT do simulations of Rob's strategy. NO ONE CAN. And I concede, perhaps no one will ever be able to duplicate Rob's system since it has too many variables.

Now, I am not going to defend Rob's system as far as all of these variables are involved. For example, the variable that determines when to use a special play, or the variable about when to move up in denominations.

But there is part of Rob's system that I will always defend and that is setting and following win goals. To not follow a win goal may mean several things:

1. You're addicted
2. You're greedy
3. You hope for bigger wins to come
4. You fear someone else will hit a jackpot that you would have won (as in progressives)
5. You're just stupid risking what is now your money that you have won and the casino wants to get back

Now it has already been established and confirmed that ALL of Rob's special plays have a lower expected value than conventional play -- so there is nothing left to discuss about this.

[arcimede$]

Alan, do you understand what a mathematical proof provides? My sims are really quite meaningless compared to one. Unlike theories which might always be found to be wrong, a math proof removes all doubt. The proof I've provided a couple of times shows beyond any doubt that a betting system cannot affect the ER. And, as you indicated above, the only thing the special plays accomplish is lowing the ER.

The bottom line is your statement "NO ONE CAN" is irrelevant. Since we know special plays only lower the ER and the rest of Singer's machinations are nothing more than a betting system, we can apply that math proof to Singer's complete system. This means we can, with 100% confidence, say that Singer's system is worthless. That's 100% confidence.

It has nothing to do with my opinion, it has nothing to do theories, the only thing that is required to apply the proof is that hands played on a VP machine are random, fair and independent. Since that is a requirement placed on VP manufacturers then the discussion is over. Either you have to find a problem with the proof (it's really a simple proof) or you MUST accept that Singer's system is worse than optimal standard play. To deny this is to deny all math and is equivalent of claiming that 2+2 is not equal to 4.

That's it. To anyone with a functioning brain, there is no more to be said.

Sorry Alan, win goals provide no monetary advantage over an equal number of hands played. The only benefit that can be claimed is using win goals may reduce the number of hands played but even that is suspect. It is well known that people who leave casinos as winners are likely to return quicker than a person who loses.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, no one is arguing the "math" which is something you continue to argue. The math is the math.
Rob's entire system does not challenge the math EXCEPT in your view that over the long term someone at a negative expectation game must lose.

Yet even in the short run you concede that people can win. Just leave it at that, Arc, because that's all we're talking about here. That's all we've ever been talking about here.

[quahaug]

Arci said it. Its a function of number of hands played. More winning and less losing hands. Simple math.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arci said it. Its a function of number of hands played. More winning and less losing hands. Simple math.

At a negative expectation game you can also have more winning and fewer losing hands. Also, at a negative expectation game you can have fewer winning hands that pay more than what you lost in the larger number of losing hands.

[arcimede$]

The point Alan continues to miss is .... the discussion about whether a person can win or lose playing negative games is completely unrelated to the discussion of win goals. Of course, any person can win on any VP machine playing any way they may choose. In general, the worse the ER of a particular game the less often they will win. However, win goals change nothing but the length of time spent between certain hands. Nothing more and nothing less.

[regnis]

This becomes tiresome at some point, but here we go again. Win goals and loss limits keep you from losing back your profits or exceeding a comfortable loss (for that particular person's bankroll and tastes). That cannot be bad. It doesn't change the MATH; but it takes out the extreme lows and maybe some extreme highs.

But let's get back to the MATH. All that is is probability--it is not a definite result. It tells you the probability of something happening. As we all know, every hand, every spin, every hour, every day, there are millions of deviations from the probabilities, otherwise no one would gamble. So if, during those deviations, you take your profit or limit your loss, you have done a good thing.

And let us not forget that most of us are playing a negative game---therefore, if as Arci says, win goals and loss limits result in less play, mathematically that is good.

[Alan Mendelson]

I want to emphasize this as it relates to Rob's strategy:

And let us not forget that most of us are playing a negative game---therefore, if as Arci says, win goals and loss limits result in less play, mathematically that is good.

Rob's entire strategy is based on the idea to play less -- hit your win goal and stop playing.

[regnis]

I believe that Rob, within the context of his system, gave himself the best opportunity to win with his denomination changes, special plays, win goals, etc. (yes--I know the math says otherwise) I also, like you Alan, would never risk the amount he would risk for a small win goal. That all being said, I think that he was very lucky, and I don't think it would have ever worked for me with the paucity of royals and other big wins that I have had. So I take a few aspects that I like, and I move on. I don't think I'll spend 10 years arguing the merits.

[arcimede$]

This becomes tiresome at some point, but here we go again. Win goals and loss limits keep you from losing back your profits or exceeding a comfortable loss (for that particular person's bankroll and tastes). That cannot be bad. It doesn't change the MATH; but it takes out the extreme lows and maybe some extreme highs.

Nope, there is no evidence to support that claim. For all you know it may intensify a gambler's desire for more gambling increasing the number of trips to the casino which leads to larger losses over time. If anyone remembers Frank they should realize the only reason he considered Singer's was that it might lead to less gambling. He never reported his thoughts. I can only assume he found that there was nothing to substantiate you claim.

But let's get back to the MATH. All that is is probability--it is not a definite result. It tells you the probability of something happening. As we all know, every hand, every spin, every hour, every day, there are millions of deviations from the probabilities, otherwise no one would gamble. So if, during those deviations, you take your profit or limit your loss, you have done a good thing.

Or, you have boosted a person's chances for addiction.

And let us not forget that most of us are playing a negative game---therefore, if as Arci says, win goals and loss limits result in less play, mathematically that is good.

I've said "if" they result in less play then that is good. I've have never found any evidence one way or the other.

[arcimede$]

As for Singer the odds are he lied about his results. Not only that but he continues to push his system as being "better" than standard optimal play. Another obvious lie. I won't even bother with the hundreds of lies he continually spews as those who support him are completely blind to reality and live in their own little fantasy world.

[Alan Mendelson]

Actually, Arc, at this point there is really nothing left to discuss. You have accused Rob of lying and there is no way for us to prove that -- and that will forever be a disagreement between you and Rob along with other conflicts about claims. However, I caution you not to accuse him of lying without having proof that he lied. While Rob has not come forward with the proof he says exists, you also have the same obligation which is to prove the lies.

The rest of us seem to be in agreement that the "math" of the game is not in dispute. What is in dispute is how one chooses to play and the math does its own thing, so to speak, and you either get lucky or you don't from not playing the conventional way.

While you have reported that you have run Rob's strategy through various programs to test it, I would like to know how and when you applied the special plays and the changes in denomination?

And regarding Frank: Frank never made a good faith effort to determine what Rob's system was all about.

[arcimede$]

Alan, I checked the AZ records (as anyone can do) and Rob never lived in a big house as he claimed. His wife's own facebook page does not show her with any kind of degree let alone an engineering degree as he claimed. He claimed he did not live in Carefree and I showed one of his posts on another forum where he stated he lived in Carefree. The list goes on and on for anyone with any degree of common sense. Why would he lie about those things? And, what does it tell you about everything else?

This is not rocket science.

[arcimede$]

While you have reported that you have run Rob's strategy through various programs to test it, I would like to know how and when you applied the special plays and the changes in denomination?

I did the changes in denomination, that was easy. There is no way to do the special plays as Rob has never specified exactly what they are for every game. You know, never give away the recipe of your magical elixir.

And regarding Frank: Frank never made a good faith effort to determine what Rob's system was all about.

I seem to remember him spending a lot of time and actually preparing a report. However, he then decided not to post the report. We can all guess at his motives. I think any logical person would decide he didn't want to say bad things about Singer given his personality. Since we all know the math doesn't support Singer and Frank knows the math, the rest is easy.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, I checked the AZ records (as anyone can do) and Rob never lived in a big house as he claimed. His wife's own facebook page does not show her with any kind of degree let alone an engineering degree as he claimed. He claimed he did not live in Carefree and I showed one of his posts on another forum where he stated he lived in Carefree. The list goes on and on for anyone with any degree of common sense. Why would he lie about those things? And, what does it tell you about everything else?

This is not rocket science.

It may not be rocket science, Arc, but it's not good detective work either. Omission is not proof of lying. Whether or not he really lived in Carefree probably makes no difference to the rest of the world.

[Alan Mendelson]

I did the changes in denomination, that was easy.

Please explain how you did the changes in denomination. While I don't change denominations (except when my budget for that trip is smaller) I would like to see how you interpreted his strategy of changing denominations after both wins and losses. Thanks.

[Alan Mendelson]

Regarding Frank you wrote:

I seem to remember him spending a lot of time and actually preparing a report. However, he then decided not to post the report. We can all guess at his motives. I think any logical person would decide he didn't want to say bad things about Singer given his personality. Since we all know the math doesn't support Singer and Frank knows the math, the rest is easy.

We are all going to have to keep guessing as to what happened. What I know is this: Frank did not avail himself of the opportunity to have Rob fully explain or show or demonstrate his system. While Frank had email and phone conversations with both Rob and me, and while Frank even had lunch with me and my son at Caesars, Frank could not have made any kind of full research into Rob's system. Perhaps he felt it was pointless after the initial conversations since it didn't meet the strict math guidelines that Frank adheres to. If so, that was unfortunate.