Jumping the Shark

[Rob.Singer]

We got as far as Virginia City after we left--a whole 30 miles so far--and we decided to stay nearby for another week before actually hitting the highways because it's so absolutely beautiful up here in these mountains. Oh, how wonderful life can be when you aren't paying the price for getting your priorities messed up! I took a picture of the town made famous by Bonanza and also from inside the Bucket of Blood Saloon for arci, knowing he'll never be traveling anywhere again BTW, if you look into the mirror to the left of a coffee machine, you'll see me snapping the pic with one of our FOUR PHONES + ONE CAMERA that drives "Spock" crazy because he can barely afford ONE!

I got a little more reading in this time, and what a surprise--my name's mentioned once or twice. I'll start with the part about Frank. He had some very serious personal problems, as anyone should now be able to tell who wants to be able to tell, from his virtual absence from the gaming scene. I sat at a bar in the Silverton and listened to just about his entire life's history, and it isn't pretty but was getting worse. In reality, I BELIEVE this is why he never wanted to know my strategy first hand at the machines, but I am not 100% certain. Arci has his own biased theory which I believe everyone else is laughing at. That's tested genius for you.

I too would like to see arci's simulations step-by-step, and exactly how he programmed it if he actually did one. I would guess if he did, he plugged in two pay tables, say 99.14% for 100 BP credits at each level if they needed to be played at each level, then maybe 99.7% for the 300 Advanced BP credits for whatever denominations they were to be played at. Then since he has no idea when the special plays are used or what they all are, all he can do is say how they lower EV, so they must create bigger "losses". There are also several other variables outside of special plays that he has no idea are included. And this is exactly why the Wizard did not want to do a simulation of my strategy when I talked to him. It was too complicated and required too much time to do correctly. But not for arci--he's such an exact scientist that when he doesn't want to believe in something, he claims he's done it and is smarter than all others combined! Or at least that's how one would dance away the time in a self-decorated nursing home.

Either way, if he did it I guarantee he took the easy way out, which is to say that whatever game EV was at the start, the more sessions played the closer to it he came. And that's precisely how it SHOULD look--to a dufus with a hair-on-his-butt agenda. Why even bother when no one argues with the math? What he likely did was, after compiling all known parameters, he gave it a 10,000 sessions command that already was inaccurate because it was lacking in important data as depicted above, and the entire file was corrupt from the start because each session runs into the next and into the next etc., as it systematically works it's way to overall game EV. What I did and what my data shows and you'll someday hopefully see, is run just 300 sims ONE SESSION AT A TIME, restarting the sim after each session's results so that there will be no cumulative corruption that will automatically, mathematically, get you to expectation after time. The results show an 87% win rate with an average win, including the losing sessions, somewhere around $3600-$3800 if I remember correctly. My friend will say there's no difference because his simulation takes it one at a time and there is no influence, but if he knew how simulations work instead of just partially reading up on them on the Internet, he'd know better.

Then I see arci still can't find that I lived on the Carefree Highway and not in Carefree. More tested genius for you. Keep trying, you'll find it. And I don't know a thing about facebook except that Cindy got some help from Marissa for it. Arci wants to believe because she didn't put up where she went to college other than when she studied Culinary Arts as her hobby (compared to his wife's fateful hobby of sitting for hours at the machines) while I was overseas, or what she did at Honeywell for 33 years, she didn't do any of it. Why not--I mean, compared to his wife, who's been thru and has to look forward to more untold suffering when Cindy's just having a great time in retirement, how else can he build his jealous fantasy in order to bear the truth? Come to think of it, I don't believe Cindy put up that she has two children and some grandchildren, their ages, or where they are these days either. WHY....THAT MUST MEAN THEY DON'T EXIST!! How's that go arci---bwahahahahahahaha? Nah--I prefer It's to the point, and it drives you nuts.

Arci, please stop insulting the forum host. His life is too much for you too?

[regnis]

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.

Also-did you pocket the mini wins and start over each time you hit the win goal or did you just keep running the simulation?

Show us the results--you can put an end to this and make your arch enemy look bad.

[Rob.Singer]

On top of that regnis, he doesn't have a clue as to what those 40+ credit soft profits are all about and how they're utilized towards the overall win goal of $2500 minimum. You just don't cash them out and keep going, as you say. Their chief purpose is to work with the structure to allow you to get back to BP on the next lowest level as often as possible. You want to book the soft profit, but you also want enough credits that go with them to go down in denomination--which is what separates a consistently winning player from an addicted player who goes UP when things are going well. Arci also, if I remember, biased when the royals were hit. They all hit on the 2 lowest levels of course, when in reality, in my approx. 300 sessions I actually played it, I had more at the $5 level than at the $1 level, multiple royals on $10, and one on $25.

THIS PARAGRAPH DELETED BY MODERATOR. SOME THINGS ARE JUST TOO MUCH.

Life is great!

[arcimede$]

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.

Singer's system plays 100 credits at BP and then 300 credits at a higher volatility game. In my simulation I simply counted down the credits. Once they ran out I move up in denom and repeated the process. The actual games used was input to each simulation. I also input the number of levels so you could run the program with 2-6 levels.

However, to make the program run fast I did not simulate the actual playing of a hand. I used the RNG to select a result for each hand instead based on the frequencies given by optimal play. This did not allow any special plays other than slightly changing the frequencies (which I did try a couple of times). The net result is exactly what anyone would expect. The return matched the ER of the games that were input. When I made slight changes to the hand frequencies (increase quad frequency and decrease FH frequency for example) the ER came down as expected. Keep in mind that the volatility skyrocketed. A person would need a huge bankroll to use this approach.

I always quit when a win goal was reached and captured the result. The session win rate also varied based on the games being played. It came down as the return of the games went down. All things we would expect given the well understood mathematics at work. I posted the results on freevpfree.

[arcimede$]

Also-did you pocket the mini wins and start over each time you hit the win goal or did you just keep running the simulation?

Show us the results--you can put an end to this and make your arch enemy look bad.

Yup, I pocketed mini wins which has exactly the effect one would expect (I made it another option in the program). When you pocket those wins you reduce the total number of session wins because you run out of credits sooner. However, it does reduce the amount of the loss when the goal is not reached since some of the credits are in your pocket. Instead of losing $57K the losses generally were in the $40-50K range.

EDIT: I just read Singer's response. Typical lies. I will have to see if I can resurrect the code. My old laptop died and the code resides on the hard drive.

[arcimede$]

OK, I found the code on a backup drive. Not sure if this is the latest or not, but it should be close.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kdy4l17y17z7932/simprogrs.cpp

[Rob.Singer]

Why don't you just answer the question instead of stammerring your way thru this. You are using your own version instead of the true SPS when you "just go to the next level when you run out of credits". What did you do with all the 40+ credit cashouts, and show us where, when, and how you ever went DOWN in denomination, including when you went down more than a single level after a single larger hit--which is an important part of ther strategy. And why don't you include every special play you now know of instead of using stupid "tested genius" excuses like "they reduce return" when I've proven by actually playing the strategy that they have ended quite a few sessions with huge hits.

This is what you get from biased, selective analysis. At least the Wizard had the courage to not do it instead of doing something at a 60% knowledge level, then try to lie his way thru it on the Internet where there is no accountability. Well, at least he's still happily married to a healthy wife That could be why he tells the truth and uses common sense. BTW, that "dropbox" you gave says it may include a virus on my computer. Anyone else get that?

[slingshot]

Get the required bankroll for the session at whatever levels-6- you can afford and do it at the casino. I play my computer's vp games sometimes, and it's a whole different world at the casino.

[Alan Mendelson]

I have to agree with Rob about one thing and I've said this all along: his overall system (not his special plays, and not his win goal methods) are so complex that unless you actually sit down with him and have him teach it to you in detail and then you consult with him you will not be able to follow it or play it on your own. There are just two many variables.

That doesn't mean the system can't work. It just means it is very difficult to make it work.

However, parts of the system anyone can use, including the one part I think everyone should use which is the win goals and loss limits. If only you stick to that part of Rob's system, I think anyone will come out way ahead when they play.

[regnis]

I can already hear him Alan--"The Math; The math!!!!!!

[arcimede$]

I have to agree with Rob about one thing and I've said this all along: his overall system (not his special plays, and not his win goal methods) are so complex that unless you actually sit down with him and have him teach it to you in detail and then you consult with him you will not be able to follow it or play it on your own. There are just two many variables.

What does that remind you of ...?

That doesn't mean the system can't work. It just means it is very difficult to make it work.

What part of every hand being independent don't you understand?

However, parts of the system anyone can use, including the one part I think everyone should use which is the win goals and loss limits. If only you stick to that part of Rob's system, I think anyone will come out way ahead when they play.

Nonsense. Yes, they will come out ahead some times not others ... just like any other method of play. Over time they approach the ER of their play just like everyone else.

[arcimede$]

I can already hear him Alan--"The Math; The math!!!!!!

If I hand you one apple and one orange how many pieces of fruit do you have? There's a reason the answer is two. Math is simply a reflection of real life processes. It was created to describe the reality we use every day. Why do some people choose to ignore it when they don't like the answer?

[regnis]

If I hand you one apple and one orange how many pieces of fruit do you have? There's a reason the answer is two. Math is simply a reflection of real life processes. It was created to describe the reality we use every day. Why do some people choose to ignore it when they don't like the answer?

I have 6 pieces of fruit, because I already had 4 of my own. That is why the math is just probability, not reality--not all knowing final proof of everything.


I couldn't resist Arci--that's why they used to call me the closer when we had a tuff witness to break. I would just get the jury pissed off at the witness without actually refuting anything he had said. Like Singer with you.

[arcimede$]

Yes, we can see that deflection rather than logic is your tool of choice. Doesn't change the facts I have stated.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, I've said this before: why can't you just accept the following:

1. Singer does not follow the conventional strategy of math and video poker.
2. His "special plays" all have a lower expected return or expected value.
3. He got lucky and won.

I said all along that if Rob wrote a book that said "How I beat the casinos for $1-million playing video poker" and left it at that, instead of calling it a system that others could follow, he would not be criticized.

Even so, how Rob plays is not the "conventional" or "accepted way." Yet, if you get lucky "special plays" can and do hit, and people can walk away with a profit even on negative expectation games, and tight money management can help you keep what you win, and having $173,000 in your "bankroll" can allow you to hit $2,500 win goals when you play on $10 and $25 machines.

You've really gotten bogged down by the math argument.

[arcimede$]

Arc, I've said this before: why can't you just accept the following:

1. Singer does not follow the conventional strategy of math and video poker.
2. His "special plays" all have a lower expected return or expected value.
3. He got lucky and won.

I have no problem accepting 1. and 2. Why do you group them with 3.? Alan, there's this little thing called logic. You should try it sometime. When someone shows they are completely dishonest then it's probably not a good idea to believe anything they say. This is just common sense.

I said all along that if Rob wrote a book that said "How I beat the casinos for $1-million playing video poker" and left it at that, instead of calling it a system that others could follow, he would not be criticized.

Could be true since he wouldn't need to keep lying all the time.

Even so, how Rob plays is not the "conventional" or "accepted way." Yet, if you get lucky "special plays" can and do hit, and people can walk away with a profit even on negative expectation games, and tight money management can help you keep what you win, and having $173,000 in your "bankroll" can allow you to hit $2,500 win goals when you play on $10 and $25 machines.

You've really gotten bogged down by the math argument.

No Alan, you get bogged down in your fantasy world where the laws of physics are suspended. Oh BTW, did you know I was winner of the last Powerball drawing? I just happened to be in Florida and bought a ticket ...

[Alan Mendelson]

Your bogged down with your personal battle with Rob. Instead of taking the high road and walking away you have to keep coming back over and over again to bring up the inconsistencies of this and that: addresses, homes, property, whereabouts. And all of that to the rest of us means nothing.

What interests the rest of us is does the guy have "something" that can help us win? And the answer is-- he does.

Just as the math helps us win, and just as conventional strategy helps us win, Rob has discovered somethings that can also help. None is guaranteed -- and not even conventional play on full pay machines is guaranteed. Hence the battle rages... and rages... and rages.

I think the rest of us are pretty much decided that we can pick and choose what's good and what's bad about Rob's system and methods. And that's the way it should be. And I think we are all sick of the battle between you two.

Let it go, Arc. You're a smart man. Let it go.

[Rob.Singer]

Your bogged down with your personal battle with Rob. Instead of taking the high road and walking away you have to keep coming back over and over again to bring up the inconsistencies of this and that: addresses, homes, property, whereabouts. And all of that to the rest of us means nothing.

What interests the rest of us is does the guy have "something" that can help us win? And the answer is-- he does.

Just as the math helps us win, and just as conventional strategy helps us win, Rob has discovered somethings that can also help. None is guaranteed -- and not even conventional play on full pay machines is guaranteed. Hence the battle rages... and rages... and rages.

I think the rest of us are pretty much decided that we can pick and choose what's good and what's bad about Rob's system and methods. And that's the way it should be. And I think we are all sick of the battle between you two.

Let it go, Arc. You're a smart man. Let it go.

Alan, the only post I've read here since my last post is this one. And what a surprise arci chose to tell a host of personal lies instead of explaining why he uses an accumulating influence simulation when he knows he'd be chopped to pieces if he did It the way the game is actually played. I'll let up on the guy and his troubles--heaven only knows....I know if it were me going thru his challenges, my head would be messed up too. But I certainly wouldn't be spending all the time he does, arguing and babbling on forums when such a bad turn in life arrives.

We decided to stay in this area for the summer. Lake Tahoe's our favorite spot on the planet, our son wants to visit for a week in June, Marissa will be here on a business trip in July, and we're taking a week's vacation thru SF & wine country in August. I'm not planning on playing again until around the first week in July, but get ready for what I expect will be more jackpot pics. It's just too much fun for us old folks around here. I'll look in from time to time to see if anyone wants any help learning how to play vp better.

I hope everyone enjoys their summer as much as we will!

[arcimede$]

Your bogged down with your personal battle with Rob. Instead of taking the high road and walking away you have to keep coming back over and over again to bring up the inconsistencies of this and that: addresses, homes, property, whereabouts. And all of that to the rest of us means nothing.

What interests the rest of us is does the guy have "something" that can help us win? And the answer is-- he does.

If you are referring to win goals they existed long before speedo invented his silly system. Hence, you haven't selected anything from speedos system ... yet you still give him credit. I suspect this has to do with your ego. You weren't smart enough to see what a crock his entire system is before you took it on yourself to interview him. You actually believe win goals make a difference despite having seen a mathematical proof that shows otherwise. You are being foolish but that's what happens egos control your decisions. Do you enjoy looking like an easy mark for ridiculous scams?

BTW, Singer's comments about my simulation are hysterical. He clearly doesn't have a clue. I'll get back to that when I have some time. Once again he tries to fool people with lies, is that any surprise?

[Alan Mendelson]

I think we have gone over this before, but let me state my position one more time. First you wrote this:

If you are referring to win goals they existed long before speedo invented his silly system. Hence, you haven't selected anything from speedos system ... yet you still give him credit.

I never said Rob created win goals and loss limits. In fact, I wrote about win goals and loss limits and read what others said about win goals and loss limits years before I ever met Rob. I'm pretty sure I told you this before. You are being silly thinking that I give Rob credit for win goals and loss limits because it's in just about every gambling and casino book I've ever read. In fact, everyone besides you seems to embrace win goals and loss limits, and why is that?

And then you wrote:

I suspect this has to do with your ego. You weren't smart enough to see what a crock his entire system is before you took it on yourself to interview him. You actually believe win goals make a difference despite having seen a mathematical proof that shows otherwise. You are being foolish but that's what happens egos control your decisions. Do you enjoy looking like an easy mark for ridiculous scams?

Well, that is certainly a lot of personal attacking in a few sentences. But I will explain once again... just as I have explained many times before.
It's not my job and it wasn't my job to pass judgment on Rob's system when I interviewed him. It was my goal to give him a fair hearing and show what his system is. Where I found fault with his beliefs, I stated so -- as in his claims about non-random machines. Unfortunately, Arc, you want to censor that which you disagree with. I disagree with you but I will not censor you either... just as I don't censor the beliefs of Rob that I disagree with.

And I know of no mathematical proof that win goals and loss limits do not accomplish what win goals and loss limits are designed to do. I find it hard to believe that you would for a moment urge someone who has reached their loss limit for the day to keep on gambling because the math says so. Nor can I believe you would urge someone to keep gambling after they have hit a big jackpot that will "make their day" because the math says so. If you really believe that someone who has reached their loss limit for the day must keep gambling because of some mathematical formula you need counseling.

And once again you used the word "scam." And I told you this -- unless you have proof of a scam or any criminal enterprise related to a scam, I will not allow you to accuse anyone of running or operating or being part of a scam. This is my final warning to you: have your proof of a "scam" and if you don't I will block you from this forum.

Finally, you wrote this:

BTW, Singer's comments about my simulation are hysterical. He clearly doesn't have a clue. I'll get back to that when I have some time. Once again he tries to fool people with lies, is that any surprise?

I don't think it was Rob who originally asked you for the information about your simulation. But please post more info when you have time. Also, post whatever mathematical proof you have that says to avoid loss limits and win goals as that would also be interesting reading.