Being Rob Singer

[redietz]

A friend recommended that I read the thread on the Wizard of Odds forum wherein Rob Singer made his challenge. So I read the entire thread and poked around a bit.

Some of life's mysteries were solved.

I have always wondered about the origins of Rob's disdain for math, theorists, geeks, and intellectuals. Well, it takes a special group of people to turn Rob Singer into a sympathetic, reasonable character, but the core group on the WoD forums managed to do it. It also takes a special group of people to stand in one corner, with Rob Singer in the other, and win a battle of hubris, but the crew on that forum managed that, too.

I suspect that if one took all of the participants in the WoD Rob Singer threads and asked for a show of hands as to who had ever gambled professionally, one would get two (and perhaps not that many). I can see how geeks and theorists get a bad name -- and that's speaking as a 56-year-old geek and theorist, albeit one who has gambled a bit.

There should be a word for intellectually incestuous, narcissistic orgies. If anyone comes up with one, let me know, and I'll suggest they rename their forum. At one point, I seriously considered the idea that maybe the posters were some fifth-grade gifted class.

My take on the WoD crew is that few, if any, are high stakes gamblers, and none of them win.

So Rob, if you have any intention of attending their semi-annual back-slapping meetings, let me know. I'll be happy to escort you, even though we disagree on most issues. It would be entertaining.

[Alan Mendelson]

redietz, I read with interest but I haven't got a clue as to what you meant in your post?

[redietz]

From the movie Being John Malkovich, with the idea that living from the other person's perspective for awhile informs you as to that person's motives. It's easy to see things from Rob's perspective in the WoD forum because the other posters are more obnoxious than Rob, and it appears to come naturally to them.

[Rob.Singer]

Certainly, having met with and talked to Wizard for several hours one day at Red Rock, I came away with what turned out to be a false impression. He asked me to post on his forum, so in time, I did. He told me one of his most sacred goals in the gambling business was to see proof that ANY vp machine was not operating totally random. Yet when I tried to present him and his team of "forum experts" with the data, they did everything in their power to not let that occur.

Redietz, I haven't read what I think you did over there in a very long time. But my recollection is there was ALSO a lot of banter between someone who supported what I've done and said, and the WoV "crew". And of course, whenever that happens and the frustration with me sets in, the solution has always been to eventually claim the poster was me (which it was not, and when I wrote to M.S. about it he showed weakness by saying how he had to side with his people since it was in the best interest of his forum).

[redietz]

They may be math whizzes, but sometimes they're lacking in logic. The dumbest posts I saw said that you could have inserted a couple lines of code that would alter the alleged randomness of the machine you had. What was dumb was that the same poster argued that all LV machines are random despite the fact that inserting a few lines of code would alter their results. So Rob Singer could/would have rigged a machine, but magically nobody else would/could.

I still suspect it's a fifth grade gifted class.

[slingshot]

They may be math whizzes, but sometimes they're lacking in logic. The dumbest posts I saw said that you could have inserted a couple lines of code that would alter the alleged randomness of the machine you had. What was dumb was that the same poster argued that all LV machines are random despite the fact that inserting a few lines of code would alter their results. So Rob Singer could/would have rigged a machine, but magically nobody else would/could.

I still suspect it's a fifth grade gifted class.

Red, I understand what you're saying-but I don't think any from the gifted to the dumber-than-dirt ever came up with short-term strategy, win goals (albeit sometimes small), or special plays at appropriate times. Forgive, but I still think it's a work of genius

[Alan Mendelson]

Win goals are nothing new. The special plays are unique. And you certainly have to applaud anyone who wins in a casino.

[redietz]

When I say "one poster" on WoD said this or that, I'm not really conveying the flavor of what went on in that thread. Wen one of the crew said something, there was almost always either explicit agreement or quiet. So even when someone made the "lines of code" logical gaffe, nobody called him on it.

Anyway, I had a couple of questions for Rob. I understand why you offered a wager on winning 7 out of 10 sessions (because you should), but I don't understand why you offered a wager stating you'd come out ahead by a significant amount. So why did you? And why do you think nobody, including the Wizard, took you up on it? Rob was offering to pay one guy's airfare and hotel to co-ordinate the challenge.

There was a lot of scathing rhetoric, but when actual money was mentioned, even though they argued the odds were in their favor, nobody even came close to taking Rob on. No Wizard. No consortium of the the crew that was lambasting him. Surely they could have put up 3K or 5K apiece if they were so sure of winning. Why didn't they?

[slingshot]

When I say "one poster" on WoD said this or that, I'm not really conveying the flavor of what went on in that thread. Wen one of the crew said something, there was almost always either explicit agreement or quiet. So even when someone made the "lines of code" logical gaffe, nobody called him on it.

Anyway, I had a couple of questions for Rob. I understand why you offered a wager on winning 7 out of 10 sessions (because you should), but I don't understand why you offered a wager stating you'd come out ahead by a significant amount. So why did you? And why do you think nobody, including the Wizard, took you up on it? Rob was offering to pay one guy's airfare and hotel to co-ordinate the challenge.

There was a lot of scathing rhetoric, but when actual money was mentioned, even though they argued the odds were in their favor, nobody even came close to taking Rob on. No Wizard. No consortium of the the crew that was lambasting him. Surely they could have put up 3K or 5K apiece if they were so sure of winning. Why didn't they?

Or why wouldn't anyone meet him for a FREE lesson or two?

[Rob.Singer]

Red, I included winning at least $25,000 net in 10 sessions because when the argument over whether I could win at least 7 out of 10 suddenly became a reality that the odds were in my favor of doing so and since one of the math experts finally woke up, the conversation then shifted to the same old subject: that I certainly do have a very good chance of winning at least 7 sessions, but the losers would surely be so big that they'd eat up all the profits--and more--from the multiple "small winning sessions". This of course, did what all other arguments against my short term strategy always does: ignore the fact that losers are almost always not of the big variety, and that there have always been many more huge winners than huge losers. Eventually, it became recognized--albeit, unadmitted-- that what I was saying had a distinct possibility of happening, so these geniuses whom I expected at he very least would pool their money together in a bet, ended up getting me banned instead, even though I did offer to pay for MathExtremist's expenses to witness everything.

Sling, since that time I indeed have been contacted by two of those "experts" and have trained both of them at machines. They may not be the sharpest tools in the shed when it comes to video poker dis ussion, but they know enough to do the smart thing behind closed doors.

[regnis]

This new found love between Red and Rob gives me hope for peace in the middle east.

[Alan Mendelson]

This new found love between Red and Rob gives me hope for peace in the middle east.

I can't trust the parties in the Middle East and I am suspicious myself of this kumbaya choir.

[redietz]

The folks on that forum thread used the line, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" quite a few times. This rankles me for two reasons. First, they use it as if readers should be learning something from their use of it. Dudes, I was using that line before most of you were born! Don't think you've discovered some great mantra -- that is hubris.

Second, Rob's fifth card flipover claims are only marginally more extraordinary than their claims, which is that the machines are, each and every one, random. Basically, Rob claims to have seen 2 billion hands with double the flipover rate. That would be considered extraordinary, given our assumptions about how these things are supposed to work. Most of us, however, have not tracked and are not privy to 2 billion hands worth of data.

Now, how many of those folks have likely seen data on 2 billion hands, give or take? If they haven't seen data, then their categorizing what is normal for flipover rate is based on personal observation (anecdotal evidence) or based on nothing. Or based on assumption. Claiming a particular probability rate for flipovers based on no data would also indicate hubris.

Rob's claim is extraordinary, but so is their claim if it's backed by no data and just assumption. This is a classic case of people who should know better assuming they know something that they really don't. They assume they know, but they have no data. They just know "how it's supposed to be." One would think at some point they would realize -- aha, we have no data! Maybe that's why Rob can't pry a wager out of them.

No kumbaya here -- just disgust with "science guys" who are giving bad science lectures.

[Alan Mendelson]

redietz, I always said Rob deserves a fair hearing, and everyone should see his info and make up their own minds. I sense you would agree with me as well -- that Rob has not yet had a fair hearing.

[redietz]

The fact is -- none of us, other than (presumably) Rob, has any fifth card flipover data. We all operate on the assumption that the vp machines are random -- we have no data that absolutely tells us they are as a group. We are so sadly lacking in data, we civilians do not even have data for a single machine. Now presumably, casinos would have data history for each machine -- I do not believe the Gaming Commission has anything like this and doesn't actually check for it -- they just make sure the chips are working. Casinos are not going to share individual machine history with anyone, and we're never going to see published results anywhere for a single machine or for all the machines or for anything as specific as fifth card flipovers. So we are all relying on faith in an industry and our assumptions. Well, good luck with those.

The fact is, we are all flying blind. We know nothing for a fact. We are speculating. Is Rob's fifth card flipover claim extraordinary? I do not know. If you check, you'll see I have made no comments regarding it. I simply do not know. And I know I do not know. People with no data claiming Rob is wrong about fifth card flipovers may be right. We don't know, because they have no data.

[Rob.Singer]

The nail I'm seeing that's being hit squarely on the head here is that not a soul knows anything about how the machines operate. That's what drove me to obtain (probably in a somewhat illegal manner, and it was "only" for about one billion hands) a machine to test an anamoly I noticed by playing....then doing trials for 45,000 hands on actual casino machines. I understand fully that everyone else wants proof of this, yet we all realize that no matter what is presented, claims of "fraudulent" and "I'd only believe in it if if were sworn to in court" would quickly take over. And I was very surprised and extremely disappointed that Wizard would never make good on his promise, when I readily had the data at hand to show him. Sure, there are those who want it to be that the regs they're allowed to see on the Internet trump anything anyone else says that might be different. That type argument, if you've followed them over time as I have, is weak at best, it's made by weak people at best, and it has no factual basis. It's simply wishful thinking, period. The nail in THEIR coffin appears once they panic by making stupid claims regarding how no casino would ever risk "having their doors shut" by not having machine that 100% comply with what they read on the Internet. Desperation debating at its finest.

[regnis]

I don't know how one would go about obtaining evidence of the actual randomness or the machine history. It would be next to impossible to provide enough factual basis for the gaming commission (who probably doesn't want to) or any other legal authority to be able to pursue this and subpoena the chips and history. If that could be done, the cost to fight the powerful casinos and gaming manufacturers would be prohibitive, but the class action could be worth billions.

I have had small battles in Illinois and Indiana with their respective gaming boards and they try to intimidate you and give you the run around. While I was able to win on each occassion, it was a long tiring process, and only a few thousand up to 135,000 was at issue. I can only imagine in a class action re VP what you would be up against.

[Rob.Singer]

Regnis, an additional block wall I hit was when I tried to get the NGC to meet with me and look at my "evidence" on the 5th card thing. That told me no one is interested in having feathers of any kind ruffled when it comes to the sanctity of the machines. And if I went to court with it, the industry would have buried me in expenses, etc.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob if you really had the evidence and the proof I promise you a major news organization on the level of 60 Minutes or the NY Times would be all over your story. But you have no proof. What you have (records of your tests) would not hold up in court, and you gave back the machine.

[Dan Druff]

Rob if you really had the evidence and the proof I promise you a major news organization on the level of 60 Minutes or the NY Times would be all over your story. But you have no proof. What you have (records of your tests) would not hold up in court, and you gave back the machine.

This reminds me of UFO conspiracy stories.

The UFO sighter always claims to have clear, irrefutable proof, but is miraculously ignored by the entire mainstream media.

When asked to present the proof, they always come up with excuses why they can't.

IGT is a huge company and it simply would not be worth it for them to "rig" the games in any way.

And if someone did, a story where a player conclusively proved the machines cheating would be MAJOR, and one of many news outlets would grab it.

In reality, Rob is full of crap as usual.

I am not even a fan of the pseudo-intellectual group of idiots on WoV/WoD, but Rob once again is making ludicrous claims that fail to hold up to scrutiny.