Given all the lies Singer has told in the past the best bet is he didn't win squat. If he did, it's not really any different than a lottery winner. Do you report on all the lottery winners?Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Given all the lies Singer has told in the past the best bet is he didn't win squat. If he did, it's not really any different than a lottery winner. Do you report on all the lottery winners?Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Also, if you were really "reporting" as you claim then you should be providing all the information on Singer. I've given you several examples of where he has made ridiculous claims. Wouldn't a good reporter place them right next to his claims of winning so an objective reader could form an educated opinion? Of course, you are not "reporting" as you have claimed. You are promoting just as I've always stated. Either that or you've really lost it.
(Please note: in error I hit "edit" instead of reply. Arc's post has not been altered in any way. I regret the error. -- Alan Mendelson)
Last edited by Alan Mendelson; 09-25-2011 at 08:33 PM. Reason: moderator error
Frequently the news media will report on lottery winners. In the early days of the various lotteries EVERY lottery winner was a big story. My Spanish teacher in 7th grade was the the first winner of the New York State Lottery-- it was $100,000.Originally Posted by arcimede$
Of course that was decades ago. And in those decades there have been literally hundreds of lottery winners, so each individual lottery winner is no longer a big story.
But there are still stories done about lottery winners. The last lottery winner I covered for the TV news claimed he had a system that used the statistics available from the California lottery official website which tracked the numbers and how often they were picked in the various drawings. He said he used those figures as part of his own fine tuning system to pick the winners. His system didn't have to work everytime -- it only had to work once for him.
I hope you now realize his claim was also complete nonsense. A stopped clock is right twice a day?Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
This is my response that should have appeared above:Originally Posted by arcimede$
Arc, all of those claims were discussed in my interviews with him and you can see those interviews and my responses on the website, including his claims that the machines are rigged.
Please look at this page: http://alanbestbuys.com/id132.html
Again, I offer you the opportunity to post your own findings here.
This website is a true free and open forum and as long as the posts are made in good taste and not libelous, please continue. All of your information and opinions that are critical of Singer's system are welcome.
Last edited by Alan Mendelson; 09-26-2011 at 12:40 AM.
Sorry Alan but you do not put Singer's claims in the proper light. In fact, you use them to make it appear he's really on to something. For example, "Well, in most video games that 5-percent of doubt leaves a big window for losing." demonstrates you have no clue what is meant by the 95% number. It has nothing to do with with "doubt". What it means is the machines pass a randomness test. That is, the dealing of cards is indistinguishable from true randomness ... which clearly eliminates various claims by Singer instead of adding "doubt".
So, even your supposed caveats contain a lie. In addition, you could provide some of his previous quotes like this one. "All VP players are fat and lazy" or his comments about being happy about the deaths of various proponents of standard VP. You know, things a good reporter would do.
I also see you didn't post Singer's comment from one forum where he admitted using his player's card while "educating" a person on his system. Instead you post a denial which is completely opposite of his admission. You'd think a good reporter would note that lie.
As I said before, it is nothing but an advertisement complete with misinformation. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Last edited by arcimede$; 09-26-2011 at 06:04 AM.
I think I properly addressed the position of Singer and the position of the Nevada Gaming Commission. I do not address hearsay, nor will I get involved in the childish war of words that went on in other forums-- but I do promise you it won't happen here. I also addressed the issue of "players cards" in the update of September 10, 2010 on page http://alanbestbuys.com/id132.html and it has nothing to do with whether or not his strategy or system is valid.Originally Posted by arcimede$
Once again you fail as a reporter. I said nothing about what other people say about Singer. I'm pointing out what he has said. If you don't think his own words are appropriate then what can I say. FAIL!Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
On the contrary, Arcimede$. I welcome whatever input Rob Singer wants to make here with his own words, just as I welcome your input. But if you are asking me to contribute to a mudslinging contest I'm not going to do it and I am not going to allow this forum to become a place for mudslinging either.Originally Posted by arcimede$
It has nothing to do with mudslinging ... that's just another rationalization on your part. I'm talking about Singer's own words written in various fora across the years. One would think a good reporter would want to understand exactly who he was dealing with. I guess not. In fact, I would have bet a lot of money you'd find a way to avoid documenting the real Singer.
Let me know when you decide to become a real reporter again.
Part 1
I decided to use my reply to this discussion as a rough draft (not completely edited) for an article. It is therefore long and more general in scope...
If I may interject I think I can clear this up. I especially liked Arci's bank statement analogy because he has related the issue of special plays to something which would indeed be functionally identical. The key word here is "functionally". One contains a randomizing element, the other does not. This changes everything, at least in so far as the two situations are perceived. Here's the quote as a refresher:
Arci can't seem to comprehend why Alan can't understand what to him is as plain as the nose on his face. And Alan seems unable to understand why Arci is missing to him what is so obvious as well.Originally Posted by arcimede$
I believe the reason for this is twofold:
1.There are many cognitive biases which make the accurate in-head evaluation of random events impossible for anyone. It is not a mental deviation to which some rare gifted individuals are immune. It is a ubiquitous human trait we all share. People that follow the math appear to have limited immunity, they do not; what they have is a workaround (more on this later).
2.If people apply different logic to identical situations they will often come to different conclusions, as is happening here. The only way to resolve something like this is to move back from the issue and conclusions, and evaluate the decision making process itself. Where randomness is involved this becomes even more difficult since the human mind is not actually wired to spot, understand, identify or in any other way comprehend randomness. Evolutionarily we have developed nothing but pattern recognition infrastructure. All learning and thought (patterns of neurons) is by definition pattern driven; what goes with this, what goes with than, what has to do with something else, etc... Our brains are pattern using, pattern driven, pattern creating, pattern recognition engines that without patterns would be lumps of fat.
A Shortcut to Heuristics
Let's talk for a moment about heuristics and cognitive biases. Cognitive biases are not insanities, nor are they unusual, aberrant, or in any way exceptional. They are simply a description of how all minds work. The human mind (animals as well) cannot always (or ever) make decisions with perfect and complete information. Conventional thought therefore uses heuristics (short cuts) to reach decisions when perfect information is not available (sadly, most of the time). Total reliance on heuristics that are inherently biased for decision making, even when more complete information is available, can lead to cognitive distortion (very common). Only when an individual is completely unaware and unwilling to accept that they have made a snap decision based on imperfect information, when better and more complete information is readily available, does the field of psychology step in and say, “Hay, you might have a problem”. Taking a shortcut when the other way was quicker and safer is silly.
If one wished to buy a car in under a lifetime, one would not look at (and test drive) every car available. They would look in the paper, pick out a few that fit their criteria, and make their purchase knowing full well they were using a time saving shortcut (heuristic). Only if they insisted that buying a car after seeing only four of them was equally as accurate as looking at thousands of them—assuming doing so was equally easy—would their biased application of a common useful heuristic be upgraded to a mental problem. The two methods of car acquisition are not equal in time expenditure, so the see-four-and-buy method is probably preferable, even if it is obviously inferior in result. To think that your chances of getting the best deal looking at four cars, or a thousand cars would be equal in result, would be insane. As long as you know you are taking a shortcut that is inferior in result, but far superior in time usage, you are fine.
The Road Not Taken
Perhaps the most problematic bias that effects casino patron's perceptions is the attentional bias. If left unchecked it will ride quietly roughshod through what's left of our rational thought, leaving confirmation bias and the illusion of control in its all too silent wake. The classic text book example of attentional bias is when one states emphatically that god answered their prayers, without considering all the times in their life they prayed and didn't get what they asked for, all the times they got something they wanted and hadn't prayed, and the even more common, not asking and not getting.
There are four (+1: the base rate occurrence of whatever was asked for) avenues of information that are imperative to make a rational and accurate assessment of whether or not god was really the source of one's wish fulfillment. If we assign “P” for “praying” and “G” for “Getting what you asked for” , and use + & - symbols to signify their presence or absence we get:
1.+P +G = Praying and getting
2.+P -G = Praying, but not getting
3.-P +G = Not praying, but getting anyway
4.-P -G = Not praying, and not getting (most common)
In the biased (normal) mind only option #1 is given attention with options 2-4 being completely overlooked or intentionally ignored, and what we are left with is unfounded confirmation in the prayer's mind. The only way to confirm this scientifically would be to go back in time, do nothing different except for not praying, and see if one then failed to get the what they had asked for in the other time-line. That's a nice way of saying, “it's not possible to be sure of anything”. The believer says, “I prayed, I got. End of story. Logic be dammed”. 75% of the information needed to make an informed decision is not present and not available, yet people seem happy, quite happy, to declare the puzzle completed with on 25% of the pieces even present.
Where this bias rears its ugly head in video poker is when people make a certain play and get a hand they wanted, and then attribute their hold to achieving the end result. The road not taken is neither considered nor available, and so we are left only with their destination, and their own biased belief that is was their choice of path that got them their.
Climbing Mount Everest Naked in the Snow
How does all this apply to quantifying, understanding and correctly evaluating randomness? Hmm... Good question. In order to accurately assess in your head an event involving randomness like video poker, one would need to accurately remember all the hands they had ever been dealt, all the cards they had ever held, and all the results they had ever gotten...but wait that's not all. One would also have to remember each and every combination with equal weight. This means that regardless of whether or not they had been dealt a pat Royal Flush in hearts, or the 2s 4c 6h 8s Td, neither could stand out more in their minds than the other, because they have equal frequency. How much the hands pay is irrelevant to the calculation. Unfortunately, for the cause of clear thought, how much these equally probably hands pay is not so irrelevant to the human mind. You'll remember a dealt Royal in Hearts. Good freeking luck remembering when you got dealt a 2s4c6h8sTd off suit.
And herein lies the problem. We lack the mental capabilities to identify or quantify randomness in our heads. In some really interesting studies I read, researchers showed participants truly random and simulated random number sequences (sequences made by people) and discovered a 28% bias towards people thinking the truly random numbers were fake, and the fake ones were truly random. That means that left to their own devices 78% of the time the subjects could not spot true randomness at all, and instead favored the non-random number sequences over the real ones. The conclusion is clear: truly random events seem biased and non-random to our pattern seeking minds and visa versa. We can't see the forest for the trees, because we have no idea what a twree even looks like or how to spell it.
You were wondering where the subheading title came from? As it turns out, climbing Mount Everest naked in the snow and accurately quantifying random events in your head are about on par in impossibility. Their difficulty diverges only in how it's perceived. People don't oft try to climb the highest mountain in the buff, but they try to make in-head judgments about random events all the time, sadly with equal chances of success.
Last edited by Frank Kneeland; 09-26-2011 at 02:09 PM.
PART #2
The Workaround
How then do summit the roof of the world in our full monty and quantify randomness in our heads??? Simple answer: We Don't! It is impossible and therefore an effort in futility. Stay warm and keep your clothes on. By the time we are done factoring in imperfect memory, selective memory, outcome bias, results bias, information bias, and all the other biased biases you might as well be putting a fanatic right wing conservative in charge of the pro choice moment. One cannot play video poker and make any accurate judgments about their play or the randomness of a machine in their head...can't be done.
To make any kind of accurate assessment of truly random events, especially ones generated by a computer, the best tool at our disposal is another computer. It takes a thief to catch a thief and only by fighting fire with fire do we have a chance for victory. Since computers use simple math to function, it is also possible to do the calculations by hand, merely much slower. The key element to this workaround for our imperfect memories and biased recollections is that we don't use our heads to make the judgments. You do the calculations outside your head, and you don't allow pointless personal preference to poison your perceptions.
The reason some folks seem to have limited immunity to human biases is not because they don't have them, it because they have adopted a workaround, and aren't trying to climb Mt. Everest in the snow sans kit, they are lazily lounging on the beaches of Tahiti, with a margarita in one hand, and letting math do the heavy lifting.
Try this simple mental exercise: Try to remember every single hand you have ever been dealt on a video poker machine over the course of your entire life with equal weight. Failed yet? Alright, now that we have established that this is impossible, put your faith in unbiased dispassionate probability math, if for no other reason because it is at least more likely to be telling you the truth than your own head, which we have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt is unerringly biased to a fault.
The only way to win, is not to play the game ~War Games
~FK
P.S The reason Arci's analogy was both correct and indecipherable to Alan, was because bank statements do not contain a random element and VP results do. As I said at the beginning, they are functionally identical, but once a random element was included in the analogy, it pushed understanding out of the realm of attainability for anyone using their head and conventional wisdom for decision making. This is one job best outsourced (not to China) to pure provable mathematics.
Last edited by Frank Kneeland; 09-26-2011 at 02:17 PM. Reason: Formatting
Here's my response, and it's final: I DON'T CARE. And except for you, I don't think anyone else cares either.Originally Posted by arcimede$
Frank, nice post. But Frank, I understood exactly what Arc was saying and nothing was indecipherable when he made this comment:
Do you question your bank statement? Do you hope it will come out higher next month than it should be by adding deposits and subtracting withdrawals? Essentially, that is exactly what you are doing when you believe applying special plays will lead to higher return. It is just as silly and just as easy to demonstrate ... which I done for you many times. How long are you going to ignore the facts?
Would both of you please refer these comments and questions to Rob Singer, because it is his strategy and his system that I reported on. Heck, I didn't come up with it. I just reported it. And my questions about Singer's special plays and what they do or don't contribute to his million dollars of wins were just that -- questions.
Thanks.
I wrote most of this post before I implicitly understood that you followed the math.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Also, the post is not intended to be directly about Rob's system. It is general knowledge about human failings and how to overcome them.
Should we put it in a new thread??? This one seems a bit tired and over-trodden.
Please post as a new thread. You might want to make some corrective edits too. Thanks.Originally Posted by Frank Kneeland
Why would anyone want to put these questions and comments to Singer? He's not the mark, he's the con man. I'm trying to help you, Alan. I already know the answer to every question I asked. I already know Singer will revert to name calling as he always does.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
And
YOU are the one who is advertising his con. YOU are the one that has failed to dig into the character of the con man. YOU are the one who ignores the evidence that almost all of what Singer has told you is based on lies. YOU are the only one who can correct this problem.
Editing Now. I'll Post it in a thread entitled, "The Only Way to Win and the Unclimbable Mountain".Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
New thread started.
EDITED TO ADD BY MODERATOR: THE NEW THREAD IS IN THE "OPEN FORUM."
Last edited by Alan Mendelson; 09-26-2011 at 08:22 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote