Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 257

Thread: Discussing Rob Singers Systems

  1. #21
    Alan-you are wrong. Of the handful of gamblers who can win, you have most of them right here on your Forum. Imagine how blessed you are to have all of that expertise at your disposal, and you refuse to acknowledge it or use it to your advantage. You too could expect to win--every time you play--because they have taken the randomness right out of the game. Bad cards--don't worry. The math rules over all and you will win. Dice are cold--not to worry. Remember--you expect to win so you will win.

    Now go get em Alan--you can do it.

  2. #22
    Regnis, I was going to respond to the arci illogic, but you did a very fine job again in undressing him. He's gotten tired over the years of always being rendered irrelevant whenever he brought up his nonsensical Martingale comparison, so this time he tried to apply a little of that "tested genius" spin to it. Nice job continuing to expose his drivel.

    Alan, I actually DO expect to win every time I go into a casino to play, as long as I'm going to play one of my strategies. I don't win each time of course, but with a historical 80% & greater win rate using them, why WOULDN'T that be the case? And I have no idea why anyone would go into a casino for entertainment and after losing, say "oh well, I expected to get pounded into the ground". Exactly how much "entertainment" can that be anyway?

  3. #23
    No regnis, I can't go get 'em. I can only say what I believe. And the only advice I can give to the people who follow my advice is simply this: No matter what is said about math and expected return and comps and advantage play techniques --- it's still gambling. Do it with recreational money. Do not expect to win, but do enjoy and protect the wins when they come. And do not gamble more than you can afford to.

    And for those players who do win because they have the games and the promotions and the strategies all figured out, more power to them. I think it's great that people win. If no one won, what would be the point of going to a casino?

  4. #24
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    And I have no idea why anyone would go into a casino for entertainment and after losing, say "oh well, I expected to get pounded into the ground". Exactly how much "entertainment" can that be?
    You missed the point Rob. People who go to a casino for entertainment and gamble with entertainment dollars don't get pounded into the ground when they lose.

  5. #25
    That's not true for the majority of those who play for fun. No one plays without the hope of the thrill of the win. If you as a for-entertainment player go in with $1500 and lose it, then hit the ATM and casino credit or cash a check and lose even more, then you've been pounded into the ground and there can be no fun in that....and that is a very common occurrence among casino patrons. Portraying it as some kind of enjoyable activity is not keeping in touch with readers.

  6. #26
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    That's not true for the majority of those who play for fun. No one plays without the hope of the thrill of the win. If you as a for-entertainment player go in with $1500 and lose it, then hit the ATM and casino credit or cash a check and lose even more, then you've been pounded into the ground and there can be no fun in that....and that is a very common occurrence among casino patrons. Portraying it as some kind of enjoyable activity is not keeping in touch with readers.
    Rob, you always like to come back and argue with if and if and if and if.

    If someone keeps running to the ATM they are not using entertainment dollars. I can't help those people. If you don't know what your entertainment budget is you have a problem.

  7. #27
    Denying people who play for entertainment cannot be pounded by the casino begs for the real truth. I'm sorry Alan, but if you've been this enthralled by casino action for so many years, and your claims of not being able to win are correct, you've consistently been pounded into the ground by that which you call "entertainment".

    You seem to want to win. You seem to make all those trips to casinos with the hope that you'll win. But if you don't win, are you really saying you still had a good time? It also seems that you spend far too much time going to casinos, and if you're not going to them you have to be writing about gambling. And you consider that "entertainment"? I disagree with that premise. You should call it what it really is for the sake of clarity and openness. It's only fair you know, and truth should never be frowned upon.

  8. #28
    Here you go again, Rob, preaching from your pulpit claiming you know what makes everybody tick. Maybe Arc is right -- maybe everything you say that is critical of others is a reflection of your own life, how you got pounded by the casinos, about your own failure as an AP?

    I never claimed to be an AP. Heck... I never claimed to win. I honestly enjoy the action and playing the various games, going to shows, enjoying the dinners, the shopping sprees, the gifts, the parties.

    What I regret -- and I have now firmly adopted win goals -- is pouring back the big wins without taking them home first to be enjoyed. And I have always had loss limits. Most of us do, Rob. I dare to say that the people without setting loss limits are those who think they have an edge over the casinos and believe that if they keep playing they will win. Do you really have loss limits Rob because you think you have an edge over the casinos, don't you?

    And you're right about my writing about the casinos -- it's not entertainment. It's business. According to Alexa.com (you can check this for yourself) 82.6% of the visitors that come to this site visit this forum. Thank you.

  9. #29
    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    Arci-for an otherwise intelligent man, you come off a boob every time you call Singer's system a Martingale. There is a very big difference--in the Martingale your win is only your initial bet--or, giving you your Blackjack--slightly more if you hit the BJ.

    In Singer's system, there are small wins but there are huge wins at the higher level--way more than the initial bet and way more than the BJ. So please, drop the Martingale comparisons and stick to your strengths--the math--the math.

    There are other reasons to attack his system, and you have certainly done so to excess, but please drop the martingale.
    Clearly you don't understand the basic concept. In both systems you place a bet (or bets) and then increase it in an attempt to win back previous losses. By increasing the bet you cover those losses quite often. However, the big problem occurs when you hit the limit and can no longer increase your bet. When that happens you have a big loss that exactly matches the gains you receive when you do recover your bets.

    The mathematics is basically the same. Yes, the details are different, but the bottom line is the same.

    Your comment about all the winners being here is ridiculous. If you're going to make stuff up at least add a /sarc on the end.
    Last edited by arcimede$; 07-25-2013 at 06:05 PM.

  10. #30
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Here you go again, Rob, preaching from your pulpit claiming you know what makes everybody tick. Maybe Arc is right -- maybe everything you say that is critical of others is a reflection of your own life, how you got pounded by the casinos, about your own failure as an AP?
    Bingo ... give that man a big prize.

  11. #31
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    Clearly you don't understand the basic concept. In both systems you place a bet (or bets) and then increase it in an attempt to win back previous losses. By increasing the bet you cover those losses quite often. However, the big problem occurs when you hit the limit and can no longer increase your bet. When that happens you have a big loss that exactly matches the gains you receive when you do recover your bets.

    The mathematics is basically the same. Yes, the details are different, but the bottom line is the same.

    Your comment about all the winners being here is ridiculous. If you're going to make stuff up at least add a /sarc on the end.
    No--in the Martingale you have no opportunity for a large win---period. Give it up.

    As to the comment about winners, if you can't see that it was tongue in cheek you really are lost in the math books. Get your nose out of the biooks and get a sense of humor.

  12. #32
    I don't know about the others, regnis, but I got a chuckle out of the winners comment. And I hope you didn't bite off your tongue since it was planted so well in cheek.

  13. #33
    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    No--in the Martingale you have no opportunity for a large win---period. Give it up.
    So, doubling down is not allowed in BJ using Martingale? Martingale is a general rule like I explained above.

    But that isn't even the worst of it. The key is the average win. While you have a chance for a bigger win that also means you have fewer small wins to end up with an average win that is close to a push. This is measured by variance. So, while you have opportunities for bigger wins you also win less often increasing the odds of a failure which cancels out the big win effect.

    Once again you are basically claiming that mathematics does not work. I guess that's to be expected when someone actually falls for the Singer nonsense. You should start with the idiots guide to math. Maybe you'll learn what the word "proof" means.

  14. #34
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    So, doubling down is not allowed in BJ using Martingale? Martingale is a general rule like I explained above.

    But that isn't even the worst of it. The key is the average win. While you have a chance for a bigger win that also means you have fewer small wins to end up with an average win that is close to a push. This is measured by variance. So, while you have opportunities for bigger wins you also win less often increasing the odds of a failure which cancels out the big win effect.




    Once again you are basically claiming that mathematics does not work. I guess that's to be expected when someone actually falls for the Singer nonsense. You should start with the idiots guide to math. Maybe you'll learn what the word "proof" means.
    Once again you show your hatred for Singer overrides any common sense. You claim it's a Martingale but then you give it all types of qualifiers. The fact is, that although he increases his denomination, it is not a Martingale system. The small win by doubling down is nothing like a royal at $5 or $25. So just admit it and drop it.

    More important, I am not saying anything about math or whether his system works. I do not play his system nor do I endorse it. I am only pointing out that you negate your good points when you try to make it into a Martingale argument.

    Chill Einstein

  15. #35
    I don't consider Rob's system to be a "Martingale" because my understanding of a "Martingale" is that you keep doubling your bet. His system prescribes increasing bet denominations with the goal of hitting a win that will wipe out previous losses and provide a win sufficient to reach a win goal.

    I think his critics use the term "Martingale" because Rob's system increases bets (denominations) and because the term "Martingale" has a universal negative connotation.

    As I said, I don't consider it a Martingale.

    I do think that it has pros and cons. The obvious "pro" is that by increasing denominations and by having a big enough bank roll you will eventually hit a big winner that will wipe out previous losses and give you a win goal. But like a true Martingale the "con" is that you have to have a big enough bankroll and eventually if you have a big run of bad luck you will max out on video poker denominations.

    But rather than discuss whether or not Rob's system is a Martingale or is Martingale-like I would like to simply ask is it practical for "regular gamblers" to use?

    There are various studies, reports, statistics that say the average "bankroll" for a Las Vegas visitor arriving at the airport is $500. I have presented interviews here with gaming experts who say that figure is the cash that the average visitor brings to Vegas but they take out more from ATMs during the course of their stay. So I have this question: just using a daily budget of $500 can someone following Rob's system really win much money unless they get very lucky?

    Sure... we've all heard stories and we've all experienced ourselves some lightning strike when we turned $300 into a $4,000 royal or even something better. It happens. But do those wins come about through Rob's system or do they come about through luck whether you are playing Rob's system or not?

  16. #36
    Alan-as someone who only had 1 royal in 10 years (I have now had 5 this year in very limited play), I believe that anyone hitting the number of royals and other big quads that Rob described was LUCKY, regardless of what system was being used. However, if you told me that Rob's system, as he says, is designed to take advantage of that good luck and maximize the win when that luck hits, then I would tell you to talk to Arci-lol.

  17. #37
    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    Once again you show your hatred for Singer overrides any common sense. You claim it's a Martingale but then you give it all types of qualifiers. The fact is, that although he increases his denomination, it is not a Martingale system. The small win by doubling down is nothing like a royal at $5 or $25. So just admit it and drop it.

    More important, I am not saying anything about math or whether his system works. I do not play his system nor do I endorse it. I am only pointing out that you negate your good points when you try to make it into a Martingale argument.

    Chill Einstein
    You can take a man to knowledge but you can't make him learn.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marting...ting_system%29

  18. #38
    It doesn't matter if it's a Martingale or not. The question is... can it make you win?

  19. #39
    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    No--in the Martingale you have no opportunity for a large win---period. Give it up.

    As to the comment about winners, if you can't see that it was tongue in cheek you really are lost in the math books. Get your nose out of the biooks and get a sense of humor.
    And that's the whole point here-it doesn't matter if Rob won near 1 mill or if anyone can win-it's all about personal prefereces. I've seen numerous strategies and variations posted here and all dissed off because each has his own idea about how to play. So, maybe it wasn't tongue in cheek.

  20. #40
    So slingshot, do you have any proof (really, proof) that Rob's system makes you win?

    Now, I do want to say this: playing the system or methods taught by Dancer and Grochowski have not made me win.

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
  •