Jumping the Shark

[Rob.Singer]

I see arci has been stumped and is buying time to scour the Internet on how simulations work.....and then, more importantly to someone so neurotic about thinking he's made everyone see it his way, how to spin it. He "doesn't have time now"? Permit me to laugh--what ELSE does he have!?

Here's how a proper simulation of SPS should work:

1. Select the two games with their next to best pay tables, and command it to optimal play with 400 credits, as required, at each denomination in a 100/300 split.
2. Select the six levels of denominations along with a $2500 minimum win & quit point.
3. Identify the 40 credit minimum cashout. THEN, COMMAND IT HOW TO REACT. The credits either go into a soft profit pool, or, as part of a larger cashout, are used to recover current and previous level(s) losses with the goal being to start at BP again either in the current denomination or in a previous denomination--always going as low as possible, and while always putting at least 40 credits at your current playing level into the soft profit pool.
4. Identify how and when....and what....each special play is / is to be used.
5. Identify when the top denomination is not to be played.
6. Clear the sim and record the results after each session. I paid someone in the UAE $1500 to run it both ways, and the results were hugely different. In accumulating influence mode, the results ALWAYS approached expectation. When run as independent sessions, the win rate was what I reported earlier--and slighy better than I actually experienced in real session play. (And, do not bias it to only hit royals on the two lowest denominations.)

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, I am looking at your "simulation" guidelines and I just marvel at the complexity of your system and wonder how anyone could follow it?

[regnis]

Alan--it's easy to follow. Follow the bread crumbs like Hansel and Gretl.

But seriously, it's time to give up when they state that win goals and loss limits have been proven to NOT work. Your last response to Arci is so perfect yet he will not give it up.

[Rob.Singer]

Rob, I am looking at your "simulation" guidelines and I just marvel at the complexity of your system and wonder how anyone could follow it?

No doubt it's very complicated, which is the kind of effort it took to be able to beat the vp machines consistently. The wizard knew it would be a gargantuan effort so he passed. So didn't Dancer's original programmer Dean Zamzow, and I offered him $1000 to do it. It's also why I had to pay the 3 math guys overseas $1500 apiece to review & comment. But to a "tested genius" like arci....it's NO PROBLEM! Just make up your own rules, claim you know it all, then dodge, scramble, and lie when pinned into the corner--and all while doing so behind the safety of a computer, knowing he'll never have to answer any of it face-to-face.

But you know what Alan? It may look complicated in writing, but it becomes very, very simple at the machines. I don't need pen & paper most of the time because it's all whole dollar numbers, but there's nothing wrong if someone wants to use them. And it is really, REALLY interesting to do once you get going, because you go in knowing you have a very high probability of winning your session, only you have to have the stomach for what you have to go thru to get there.The hardest part of it all? Actually following thru on doing what you are suppose to do, and not letting outside distractions, influences, or your own weaknesses get in the way.

[slingshot]

No doubt it's very complicated, which is the kind of effort it took to be able to beat the vp machines consistently. The wizard knew it would be a gargantuan effort so he passed. So didn't Dancer's original programmer Dean Zamzow, and I offered him $1000 to do it. It's also why I had to pay the 3 math guys overseas $1500 apiece to review & comment. But to a "tested genius" like arci....it's NO PROBLEM! Just make up your own rules, claim you know it all, then dodge, scramble, and lie when pinned into the corner--and all while doing so behind the safety of a computer, knowing he'll never have to answer any of it face-to-face.

But you know what Alan? It may look complicated in writing, but it becomes very, very simple at the machines. I don't need pen & paper most of the time because it's all whole dollar numbers, but there's nothing wrong if someone wants to use them. And it is really, REALLY interesting to do once you get going, because you go in knowing you have a very high probability of winning your session, only you have to have the stomach for what you have to go thru to get there.The hardest part of it all? Actually following thru on doing what you are suppose to do, and not letting outside distractions, influences, or your own weaknesses get in the way.

Doing the artt was cumbersome at first. Then it started becoming second nature and really easy-even keeping up with where you are. I don't have the bankroll to start with the 6 denom single play, but I'm sure I would probably have to keep up slowly at first.

[arcimede$]

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?

No, you specifically stated that Singer's system had some good qualities. You were referring to win goals. Hence, you gave him credit. Otherwise, since you don't agree with anything else in his system, there would be no need to even mention his system.

And, it is not true that "everyone" believes win goals and loss limits are valid. That kind of erroneous generalization is just plain silly and discredits everything you said. For example, on vp.com Bob Dancer specifically stated that win goals provide no benefit.

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.

Yes, we've covered this before and yet you continue to speak gobbledygook. There would be no problem with you mentioning Singer's system if you, in every segment, also explained that his statements about advantage play and claims that everyone can win with his system are mathematically proven to be false. You don't do that, hence you are promoting a lie.

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.

The proof applies to ALL betting systems. The proof shows they provide no benefit. Once again you demonstrate that you are totally clueless. You should quit making these kind of silly statements as they have been proven to be false. It doesn't matter what you "believe". You are WRONG.

And, no one said a person "must keep gambling". All I have done is point out it makes no difference over time. Is this too hard for you to understand? Do you know what "makes no difference" means?

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.

I have provided the proof that no betting system changes the return of a game. Singer claims his betting system does in fact provide better results than standard optimal play. He claims his system will win on negative games. All of those claims are meant to lead people astray, hence it is proven to be a scam.

For example, take some of old scams where magical elixirs were sold to unsuspecting marks. They were told they would make a person feel better and since they contained alcohol they actually did. However, the message being sold was they would cure ills that they would never cure. That's why they were scams.

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.

I never said Rob originally asked me. Do you even read my comments?

[arcimede$]

I see arci has been stumped and is buying time to scour the Internet on how simulations work.....and then, more importantly to someone so neurotic about thinking he's made everyone see it his way, how to spin it. He "doesn't have time now"? Permit me to laugh--what ELSE does he have!?

Here's how a proper simulation of SPS should work:

1. Select the two games with their next to best pay tables, and command it to optimal play with 400 credits, as required, at each denomination in a 100/300 split.
2. Select the six levels of denominations along with a $2500 minimum win & quit point.
3. Identify the 40 credit minimum cashout. THEN, COMMAND IT HOW TO REACT. The credits either go into a soft profit pool, or, as part of a larger cashout, are used to recover current and previous level(s) losses with the goal being to start at BP again either in the current denomination or in a previous denomination--always going as low as possible, and while always putting at least 40 credits at your current playing level into the soft profit pool.
4. Identify how and when....and what....each special play is / is to be used.
5. Identify when the top denomination is not to be played.
6. Clear the sim and record the results after each session. I paid someone in the UAE $1500 to run it both ways, and the results were hugely different. In accumulating influence mode, the results ALWAYS approached expectation. When run as independent sessions, the win rate was what I reported earlier--and slighy better than I actually experienced in real session play. (And, do not bias it to only hit royals on the two lowest denominations.)

Except for 4. that is how my simulation works. Hence, Singer must be claiming that special plays, which actually reduce the ER, will increase the ER. Anyone making that claim, without some form of documentation as to how this magic is performed, is trying to con people. And, he cannot provide any such documentation because it is provably false. YES PROVEN TO BE FALSE.

[Alan Mendelson]

No, you specifically stated that Singer's system had some good qualities. You were referring to win goals. Hence, you gave him credit. Otherwise, since you don't agree with anything else in his system, there would be no need to even mention his system.

Of course I give him credit for talking about win goals and loss limits -- I give him credit for using them as part of his strategy. And if you want to twist that into saying that I give him credit for inventing the concept of win goals and loss limits then you have a very twisted thought process.

And Arc, I must admit that there are others who don't embrace win goals and loss limits. You mention Bob Dancer and I must admit Bob Dancer has lost a lot of money chasing strange promotions. Frank Kneeland doesn't embrace win goals either -- and here's a guy who admits he never gambled his own money in FOURTEEN YEARS of playing video poker.

The rest of your post is more of your silly argument over what constitutes reporting and journalism and when it comes to gaming just common sense.

For the umpteenth time: Rob Singer's special plays are at a mathematical disadvantage. But when they hit, he says he can hit a win goal that allows him to stop playing and enjoy the rest of his life whether that be going home or enjoying the casino. It is good advice to hit a win goal and enjoy more than gambling. I embrace that strategy.

And for redietz: yes, win goals and loss limits would help everyone if they used them. Even Rob Singer would be better off today if he hadn't sunk $53,000 into the VP machines chasing his losses on one trip.

If you don't have loss limits when do you stop gambling? When the credit cards are maxed out?
If you don't have win goals when do you stop gambling? When you missed the dinner, and the show, and the night in the hotel room you paid for, and lost it all back?

To both Arc and redietz: there is a time to separate your mathematical theories and the cash in your pocket in the real world. Think about that.

[Rob.Singer]

Except for 4. that is how my simulation works. Hence, Singer must be claiming that special plays, which actually reduce the ER, will increase the ER. Anyone making that claim, without some form of documentation as to how this magic is performed, is trying to con people. And, he cannot provide any such documentation because it is provably false. YES PROVEN TO BE FALSE.

More of the same, which in plain English means more lies. You didn't program #3 because you never figured it out and whenever you attempted to explain it, you were way off. And you have no clue what #5 is.

You also know better than to assert what you did about ER. Paytables and, by default, "expected returns" are completely irrelevant in SPS. ER is only for those who expect to play the session for the rest of their life. ER means nothing in a single session, and therefore taking advantage of whatever possible & reasonable session-ending opportunities are presented, has a positive effect on session results--which will almost always be far greater than artificial "game ER".

Wise up. And see if you can spend more time making up stupid replies next time around.

[arcimede$]

Alan, you forgot to respond to the part of my comment that covered the PROOF that win goals and loss limits provide no benefit. Are you being intentionally dishonest?

And, there's a reason I used the fruit analogy with regnis. Mathematics is a description of the "real world". The math in those proofs is simply using the fact that hands are random and thus independent of one another. Your ridiculous attempts to claim they are somehow different is beyond silly and bordering on real dishonesty as you have been given the facts more than once.

If you make these claims again you will be intentionally lying. You are welcome to your beliefs, but when those beliefs are proven to be wrong you need to quit claiming they have value.

BTW, you quit gambling whenever you feel like it. Quit making this difficult.

[arcimede$]

More of the same, which in plain English means more lies. You didn't program #3 because you never figured it out and whenever you attempted to explain it, you were way off. And you have no clue what #5 is.

You can actually see #3 in the code if you look. The variable "pocketed" is used to implement putting 40 credits into your pocket. Anyone can easily see you're lying again. As for #5, I implemented that by allowing the specification of any number of levels. While I don't implement the decision process I allow both to be simulated thus covering all bases. I didn't have to have to "have a clue" and since you've never specified any it would be impossible for anyone to know. Chuckle, chuckle.

You also know better than to assert what you did about ER. Paytables and, by default, "expected returns" are completely irrelevant in SPS. ER is only for those who expect to play the session for the rest of their life. ER means nothing in a single session, and therefore taking advantage of whatever possible & reasonable session-ending opportunities are presented, has a positive effect on session results--which will almost always be far greater than artificial "game ER".

Wise up. And see if you can spend more time making up stupid replies next time around.

Nice projection as I once again have made a fool out of you. BTW, I calculate the ER across multiple sessions. That is what someone wanting to understand a system wants to know. How will I do over time? It is understanding whether your claim "has a positive effect on session results" is true. If they will lose more money on average playing SPS why would they play it?

[Rob.Singer]

Your code shows nothing even close to how, when, and where the 40+ credits are "pocketed", and it ignores multiple levels of recovery. You're having trouble with this so let me help. You lose 400 credits on levels 1,2,&3 ($3200) with no cashouts. On level 4 (the $10 level in my case) you lose the 100 credits ($1000) with no cashouts on BP. You are now down $4200. You then lose 145 credits on $10 SDBP--vp's most superior game--still with no session cashouts yet, and you are now down $5650. On your next hand, you are dealt 7s 8d Jc Qs 4h. Now, because of the very slightly advantageous special play opportunity presented, you hold only the Jc, three more J's are drawn, and you have a $6000 hit.

You were down $5700 at the inception of your winning hand. Now you are UP $300. But how did you apply that $6000? That's what's important here, because it dictates how you'll proceed to your $2500 minimum session win goal. Almost everyone believes you "pocket" the $6k into the soft profit pool and play on at the $10 SDBP level with the remaining 150 credits before going to the $25 level. But because SPS was developed with mini-win goals being as important as the overall session win goal, this $6000 hit brings you BACK DOWN to the $2 BP level since your big hit allowed you to recover the $2500 lost on the $10 level, the $2000 lost at the $5 level, and the $800 lost at the $2 level, PLUS you are able to put at least 40 credits (70 @ the $10 level, or $700) into the soft profit pool. You cannot go back to $1 because with the recovery, there would not have been the ability to put at least 40 credits ($400) into soft profit. This is very important, and it is unlikely anyone who programmed punch cards could do anything more than try to pretend you understand it---just like you did with your unintelligible nonsense here on the other steps that stupify the "tested genius".

You made a fool out of yourself. The only reason SPS was developed was to win any given single session. You're clearly out of your league here. BTW, this is a holiday weekend. I hope you saved time to get another gourmet meal for home at KFC

And #5: that jibberish has nothing to do with how the strategy is played. You skip the $100 level if you lost thru the $100 level in the preceeding session, or two of the last four; and you skip it if, after losing in THIS session thru the $25 level, your avg. profit remains at least $2500 per session played YTD.

[Rob.Singer]

I have provided the proof that no betting system changes the return of a game. Singer claims his betting system does in fact provide better results than standard optimal play. He claims his system will win on negative games. All of those claims are meant to lead people astray, hence it is proven to be a scam.

Arci has never "provided" any proof that SPS does not win. In fact, I spent years proving that it does and he just doesn't like it. Come to think of it, what DOES this troubled guy like besides killing day after day writing on Internet forums like some introverted teenager waiting for life to just hand him a positive change he knows will never come.

He also makes claims that he wins with advantage play when, if you look at other information he provides--such as moving to LV just to be able to play those "optimal machines" every day, then predictably being forced to move away with his tail tucked firmly between his legs like so many failed "AP's" before him--it is obvious he is an angry man not living the "optimal life". Dancer's life similarly fell apart because of his same flawed beliefs. So didn't Skip Hughes', which ultimately cost him his life. The list goes on and on....providing absolute PROOF that advantage play is nothing more than a state of mind. And that, my friends, is the true SCAM being perpetuated in video poker, with a select few making money selling it and it's related products to so many unsuspecting players, under the guise that the same math that grows casinos will in some mythical way do the same for them, while a small collection of "true believers" such as we have here, are simple sheep being led astray out of personal weakness.

[arcimede$]

You can tell that speedo knows nothing of programing because what he described for resetting levels is exactly how the code operates. And, as I stated you can test either 5 or 6 levels so once again his system is completely covered except for the ER killing special plays. Face it speedo, I nailed your system and it works just exactly like the math predicts. Your babbling responses are nonsense and demonstrate you are clueless.

And, what the proof has shown is that NO betting system changes the return of a game. So, yes, it does cover SPS completely.

[Rob.Singer]

You say that but your supposed code does not. It's a simplified, generalized version of your not understanding what the exact process is. No amount of rambling exempts you from completely misrepresenting that which you're trying to push off as more of your neurotic pretending that you always know it all. Now I know why you never showed when you claimed you would meet me to be educated properly....twice. You're an open book arci.

[Alan Mendelson]

You say that but your supposed code does not. It's a simplified, generalized version of your not understanding what the exact process is.

Hence the reason your system cannot be proven, Rob. Important: Not proving it doesn't mean you didn't win the money. But not being able to prove it using simulations makes it difficult if not impossible to understand and believe in. So, you will always have the doubters and unfortunately there probably is no way to make them see it as you see it.

Frankly, how could you ever hope to convince Arc when he is so vocal about not following win goals and loss limits? It's hopeless.

Rob: change your method of operation and write a new book that's titled "I beat the casinos using a whacky system at video poker and won a million bucks." Then tell people the "whacky hands" you played (like busting three queens to hit a $100K royal) and how you change deomonimations (say you did it on a whim) and you'll be a folk hero.

Subtitle your book this way: I tried to play poker the "smart way" but I found out the "dumb way" worked better for me.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

[arcimede$]

If Singer could understand my code and it was wrong he would point out exactly where it went wrong. Instead, he makes it obvious to everyone he is bluffing. He hopes to keep fooling the fools.

And Alan, he might have been able to convince people he won at one time by just telling the truth. What we've seen is one lie after another. The pattern is obvious and his claims of winning fit the pattern perfectly. Just another obvious lie.

[Rob.Singer]

Hence the reason your system cannot be proven, Rob. Important: Not proving it doesn't mean you didn't win the money. But not being able to prove it using simulations makes it difficult if not impossible to understand and believe in. So, you will always have the doubters and unfortunately there probably is no way to make them see it as you see it.

Frankly, how could you ever hope to convince Arc when he is so vocal about not following win goals and loss limits? It's hopeless.

Rob: change your method of operation and write a new book that's titled "I beat the casinos using a whacky system at video poker and won a million bucks." Then tell people the "whacky hands" you played (like busting three queens to hit a $100K royal) and how you change deomonimations (say you did it on a whim) and you'll be a folk hero.

Subtitle your book this way: I tried to play poker the "smart way" but I found out the "dumb way" worked better for me.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

I know I can't really prove out the strategy on paper and "convince" the critics, because it is "proof" based upon a single session of play, with that individual event occurring several hundred times. When you simulate one session only, then you do it over and over again, you find it wins over 80% of the time with a very nice overall profit. It's influence free, meaning any reasonable pay table ER is virtually irrelevant, and what happened previously is meaningless. No long-term theorist would ever be able to get onboard, just as they deny the social, health, and financial problems that run rampant among AP's. And naturally, there's no proof like actually playing it--which no critic wants to do--or witnessing me playing it, but whenever a challenge was put forth they all ran for the hills.

I've always wanted to write the final book in the Undeniable Truth trilogy, and perhaps I will. As the days go by, it becomes increasingly clear that, based on the good life I have in retirement vs. the self-caused misery of many of my biggest critics, I did indeed find a far better way to approach vp play as well as being able to control my life as a gambler. Clearly explaining how I was successful with an unpopular strategy while opening it up in its entirety would be a best seller....and a must-read in the Shirley Dancer household.

[Rob.Singer]

If Singer could understand my code and it was wrong he would point out exactly where it went wrong. Instead, he makes it obvious to everyone he is bluffing. He hopes to keep fooling the fools.

And Alan, he might have been able to convince people he won at one time by just telling the truth. What we've seen is one lie after another. The pattern is obvious and his claims of winning fit the pattern perfectly. Just another obvious lie.

I explained what I saw. it's YOUR code--support it with precise clarity instead of trying to "wordsmith" your way out of it....CALL my "bluff".

[arcimede$]

I already called your bluff by providing the code for anyone to check. It's all there ... hence, you are looking more lame with every comment. If you can't back up your claims you are nothing but a whining baby. Maybe mommy will kiss your busted ego if you ask nice.