Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Rob's betting strategy?

  1. #1
    I think there's a reference to Rob's incremental betting strategy here...?

    http://stickman.casinocitytimes.com/...-machine-64740

    I get the strategy, I would like if possible to hear a bit more reasoning behind it..Rob, would you mind please?

  2. #2
    This author is saying the same things, albeit in very simple terms, on a different date. Notice how he says increasing denomination will work many times (however, he gives no details on HOW he would do it other than just keep banging away on a higher denom.) but when that big loss comes it will "wipe all the smaller wins out". What he has no inclination of is how the are also big "wins" that happen--and much more often than the big losses. He'd never say that though because of two things: it wouldn't fit his agenda/message he's trying to get across; and, he has never tried a structured decrease-in-denomination strategy with any level of discipline over any amount of time, so he really knows nothing about it.

    His point on whether machines are biased or not (he doesn't believe it): he claims he's played machines where he's won a lot and others where he's lost a lot....then they both suddenly turned. That doesn't explain anything to any degree, because maybe the machines were biased when he played and lost. No casino who "cheats" would ever keep the hoax on the same machine(s) for an extended period. Just as in life, where success comes to those willing and able to adapt & adjust, it's the exact same thing with casinos and machines.

  3. #3
    I don't disagree with anything you said, I was more interested in your reasoning behind doing the increase in bet.
    Are you thinking because you've play x hands you're more likely to get better ones perhaps at a higher bet, or what?
    Not criticizing here, just trying to learn and possibly use it next casino trip. thanks Rob for answering

  4. #4
    It's not that higher denomination VP gives you more winners, it's that when you do hit a winner it might be big enough to wipe out losses and give you a profit to leave. Is it a Martingale? To a certain degree it is. Though a Martingale more closely describes a progression of even money bets.

  5. #5
    It's a progression type system that only provides more variance. It is something like comparing blackjack to DDB. You won't get many big wins playing blackjack but you also won't lose as much (assuming the same level of betting). With DDB you will win more often but also lose more when you do lose. Singer's system is the same. You win the higher percentage of the time but the big losses wipe out those wins over time. You really need to be psychologically prepared for when the big losses do hit.

    Of course, the bottom line is there is no advantage. Your expected return over time is unchanged.

  6. #6
    So arci, please explain exactly how psychologically prepared one needs to be in order to handle the big wins that wipe out the big losses?

    Ryme (and Alan): It's common sense that a player would expect to see a large hit or two during most sessions, whether they're playing with 2400 credits or even less. The progression in denomination is one thing--there's also the continuing progression in game volatility where the big winners are not difficult to hit but can be huge. That's also why the special plays are used, which is in order to increase the possibility of getting them.

    Arci's right--the expected return remains unchanged, and in fact goes down when you throw in how the special plays are mathematically expected to affect results. But that's EXPECTED return, as in the "theory of it all". What ACTUALLY happens within an individual session is quite different, and is the single most important reason why it's fruitless to apply long-term expectations to short-term play. That's why I harp on always starting the next session over at your lowest denomination, and never to jump up in denomination and continue playing after an exciting big win that most people would be more than happy to go home with.

  7. #7
    The only psychological problem big wins create is increased addiction potential. This would clearly be a problem for those who are already admitted addicts like Singer.

    Singer's special plays do not generally create chances for more big wins. In most cases they reduce your chances for a big win. That is why they are obvious nonsense. You can also see how Singer flows from reality (expected results do not change) into his fantasy world (where simple math fails).

  8. #8
    What ACTUALLY (Rob's caps) happens to Rob is either different or different in Rob's mind from what happens to other people. That's why I think Rob has a super power and should be tested by the James Randi Educational Foundation.

    For those familiar with super hero movies, Rob's abilities are similar to those of The Scarlet Witch in the Avengers films. The laws of probability are suspended in Rob's immediate vicinity, and events bend to his will regardless of the math.

  9. #9
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    So arci, please explain exactly how psychologically prepared one needs to be in order to handle the big wins that wipe out the big losses?

    Ryme (and Alan): It's common sense that a player would expect to see a large hit or two during most sessions, whether they're playing with 2400 credits or even less. The progression in denomination is one thing--there's also the continuing progression in game volatility where the big winners are not difficult to hit but can be huge. That's also why the special plays are used, which is in order to increase the possibility of getting them.

    Arci's right--the expected return remains unchanged, and in fact goes down when you throw in how the special plays are mathematically expected to affect results. But that's EXPECTED return, as in the "theory of it all". What ACTUALLY happens within an individual session is quite different, and is the single most important reason why it's fruitless to apply long-term expectations to short-term play. That's why I harp on always starting the next session over at your lowest denomination, and never to jump up in denomination and continue playing after an exciting big win that most people would be more than happy to go home with.
    Rob, I presume the 2400 credits would be with the sp strategy?

  10. #10
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    The only psychological problem big wins create is increased addiction potential. This would clearly be a problem for those who are already admitted addicts like Singer.

    Singer's special plays do not generally create chances for more big wins. In most cases they reduce your chances for a big win. That is why they are obvious nonsense. You can also see how Singer flows from reality (expected results do not change) into his fantasy world (where simple math fails).
    You dodged the issue. Big wins do come with the special plays, but the majority of them come from optimal plays. With this style of play and what you regularly sidestep, is the big losses being far fewer than the big wins. The math you're so in love with doesn't have to stay in line with typical beliefs. A lesson on this follows:

    Look at it like you and the missus went for the big win by both retiring far earlier than you should have. Given what we know today from the path it's taken, it obviously didn't work. And why not? Well, you had no real structure to your plan and you pushed it too far. She didn't need to live the casino life and indeed, she should have instead have been respected to the tune of a more healthier lifestyle. Yet here you are---stunned and disbelieving that the math failed you. Odds say females should live much longer than she actually did. You rolled with that theory, but reality came along and slapped you upside the head.

    The math is not always right. Theory sounds good from the safety of your computer. How's it appear as you weep over her grave? Think about it.

  11. #11
    More hilarious nonsense from the little man. I suspect we can extract a lot of projection from this comment. He realizes he lived an unhealthy lifestyle which led to his addiction and loss of his inheritance. He wishes he would have stayed with his job instead of trying to become a Vegas big shot. A lifetime of failures.

    Not to mention that whenever Singer tries to tie my wife's life long health problems to casinos you know he is very stressed out. No doubt, Spock uncovering his house sitting has made him tense. Caught with his pants down he does what he always does, projects.

  12. #12
    Rob's good with language. Technically, he can house sit and say he is at "his home" because the word "home" has no legal requirement of ownership.

    That's why we have the title of the other thread regarding his "home."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Live betting & halftime betting NBA blowouts
    By Dan Druff in forum Sports & Sportsbetting
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-28-2016, 04:21 PM
  2. Betting the horses vs betting on craps
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-28-2014, 03:33 PM
  3. Betting for the Dealers in Craps
    By russkg in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-19-2013, 12:20 AM
  4. Sports Betting in California?
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-31-2012, 10:03 AM
  5. Betting big on KK pre flop: you still have to get lucky.
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-23-2012, 07:54 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •