Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 177

Thread: Rob's Strategies -- Science or Religion?

  1. #1
    One tenet of science is that when one has a theory that seems to be supported by evidence, one doesn't simply replicate the experiments that supported the theory. One designs an experiment to disconfirm the theory.

    If this seems complex or obtuse, it's not. It in every introductory experimental college class in existence.

    So I put the question to our resident "video poker expert", Rob Singer. What experiment would disconfirm your strategies? Are there experiments that would disconfirm your strategies? What experiment or body of data would serve to undermine your hypotheses?

    Surely you have considered what would be considered disconfirming results? If you have no way of disconfirming your theories, what you have is a belief system, a kind of religion, not a scientific theory or premise.

    So what kind or amount of evidence would disprove Rob Singer's strategies?

    Would anyone else like to contribute and suggest ways to disprove Rob's strategies?
    Last edited by redietz; 03-29-2016 at 10:06 AM.

  2. #2
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    One designs an experiment to disconfirm the theory?
    Perhaps science is the wildest-goose chase of those all, even worse than religion for dashed hopes.

    Eg, if everything truly does even out, then we're missing the point. A point of significant other value.

  3. #3
    Rob has never presented the science that backs up his claims. He says three mathematicians (I think they are in Europe) proved the basis for his strategy. At the same time, Rob admits that his "special plays" are at a mathematical disadvantage.

    Frankly, we have gone over this a hundred times.

    Why redietz persists makes me think his only goal is to continue to bash Rob.

    redietz let me save you the trouble: there is no proof that we know of, or that Rob has presented. I doubt we will ever see it. Close this book because you're just wasting time.

  4. #4
    Originally Posted by Bill Yung View Post
    Perhaps science is the wildest-goose chase of those all, even worse than religion for dashed hopes.

    Eg, if everything truly does even out, then we're missing the point. A point of significant other value.
    Well said. To disprove the strategy is to break the rules of the strategy. Which really explains why one would not remain and play after reaching a win goal. To just continue and break even IS missing the point.

  5. #5
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
    Which really explains why one would not remain and play after reaching a win goal. To just continue and break even IS missing the point.
    Wrong. As stated many thousands of times, starting over is no different than leaving and coming back at some other arbitrary time.

  6. #6
    Originally Posted by jbjb View Post
    Wrong. As stated many thousands of times, starting over is no different than leaving and coming back at some other arbitrary time.
    And that is where you are very, very mistaken....again and for the 5-thousandth time. Anyone who plays vp knows, regardless of how they play, that they are ahead at some point during their play much more often than they are not. What I've done is harness that particularly overlooked aspect of the game, apparently studied it far more than anyone here or anywhere really, and built my play strategy around it--and it is all driven by the obvious fact that every single session has nothing to do with any that have come before or that are yet to come, just as every single hand has the exact same definitive properties.

    For the 4-thousandth time, during SPS's development I had 3 math people review what I came up with. I accepted and changed a few things and kept most the same. They live in China, Germany, and the UAE (places I've lived in and/or worked in many, many times). I remember naming them on LVA Sports and maybe redietz does also. But it never really mattered since I hadn't seen or contacted any of them since 1999.

    Why have I not "proven" on paper that the strategy works consistently? I offererd to show my notes to the Wizard and his clan of so-called mathematicians, but as we all know by now all that offer did was scare them away. I offered to PLAY the strategy for a modest bet after people from multiple forums claimed I was lying, but as soon as anything came close to being solid they all escaped for the hills with the most foolish excuses imaginable.

    Besides, what I have on paper wouldn't satisfy the mensas. It's a strategy based on mostly optimal play, the proper bankroll, the most probably & least greedy win goal, giving luck more opportunity to appear---and all in any given session while climbing in denomination and game volatility. It's not all that difficult to understand. It only BECOMES difficult when the envious and hateful choose to apply long-term definitions to short-term play so they can "disprove" it using strict math. Like red yaks about all the time. I can feel his frustrations whenever he tries and fails to criticize me with any real meaning.
    Last edited by Rob.Singer; 03-29-2016 at 12:32 PM.

  7. #7
    Once again. It makes no fucking difference, whether anyone follows your strategy or not, if I restart when making a goal of it I leave and come back some other fucking day. Anyone who believes otherwise is a fucking moron!!!

    If this shit really fucking worked, you would've never have said a word about it and crushed the casinos until you owned them!!!

  8. #8
    I think the hit and run strategy can work. I have no math to prove it, only personal experience.
    I think if I added up all of the times I was ahead, with the amounts I was ahead, it would be more than my losses (if I kept to a tight loss limit).

    I say this only because I remember the times I would go into a casino with $1,000 and get up to $2,000 or $5,000 or $36,000 (on one occasion) and failed to leave at my peak. And (this is very important) had I left at my peak it would have offset various losing sessions that would follow.

    Last last year I asked everyone to keep a log of their play and I asked the question: were you ever showing a profit at some point?

    In EVERY session I have played so far this year, I have been ahead (even by one bet) at some point.

    Now, imagine if you cashed out with that profit -- even a profit of one bet -- what a difference it would make?

    Until you critics of this part of Rob's system show me a log of your play that shows you didn't have a profit at some point in all or nearly all or most of your sessions, I think you should give this part of Rob's system some thought and consideration. It's really not that outlandish.

    Now... for sports gamblers I don't think you would have the same results or expectation. With sports betting you make only a few bets that are win or lose. But with other games, whether they be craps, or roulette, or blackjack, or video poker or even slots, there are many bets in a session with payoffs that could give you a profit at some time during the session.

  9. #9
    Originally Posted by jbjb View Post
    If this shit really fucking worked, you would've never have said a word about it and crushed the casinos until you owned them!!!
    Here's why you won't crush the casinos: Rob realizes, and I realize, that you will not win a million dollars doing this. Anyone who realistically follows this plan knows that "wins" come in limited amounts. It might be a quad or a straight flush, or after hitting the Small in craps, or after hitting four passes at craps. That's when you take your win and call it a day or call it a session.

    It is ridiculous to think or even to ask Rob to crush the casinos.

    Ironically, the AP strategies don't crush the casinos either, do they? APs play for an advantage of maybe 1% -- and how much is that? Well, Rob's hit and run strategy might actually win more than your 1% advantage plays.

  10. #10
    Originally Posted by jbjb View Post
    If this shit really fucking worked, you would've never have said a word about it and crushed the casinos until you owned them!!!
    “There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”

    ― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe (Or, poster on an applied math prof's door.)

    BTW, would you be the same jb's in the hilarious thread http://www.gamblingforums.com/thread...g.3391/page-31 ?

  11. #11
    There is proof that Rob's strategies do not work -- the more hands you play, the closer the results tend towards the mean. Given that the mean (EV) is a negative number, the more hands you lose, the more money you expect to lose.

    Rob has laid out exactly ZERO evidence that his system works. Neither his opinions nor his claims of success are evidence, especially given he admits to enjoy stirring up trouble online.

  12. #12
    Originally Posted by RS__ View Post
    There is proof that Rob's strategies do not work -- the more hands you play, the closer the results tend towards the mean.
    That's more support for Rob's strategy to leave after you won.

    And you're right... we've never seen any proof. Has Bob Dancer ever provided any proof either?

  13. #13
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    That's more support for Rob's strategy to leave after you won.
    Rob's system says you should play a game where you expect to lose. Huh?

    Originally Posted by Alan
    And you're right... we've never seen any proof. Has Bob Dancer ever provided any proof either?
    Do math and simulations count (in your opinion) as proof?

  14. #14
    RS_, just ask yourself this... What would Jerry Logan do?? :-)

  15. #15
    I admit, I am envious of Rob. I have no super powers. The laws of probability do not bend to my will even a little bit. It annoys the hell out of me.

  16. #16
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Rob has never presented the science that backs up his claims. He says three mathematicians (I think they are in Europe) proved the basis for his strategy. At the same time, Rob admits that his "special plays" are at a mathematical disadvantage.

    Frankly, we have gone over this a hundred times.

    Why redietz persists makes me think his only goal is to continue to bash Rob.

    redietz let me save you the trouble: there is no proof that we know of, or that Rob has presented. I doubt we will ever see it. Close this book because you're just wasting time.
    I think closing this book would be splendid; it's a complete waste of time, other than the whole paranormal claim angle. Unfortunately, Rob keeps inserting references in this thread and that regarding his alleged history and systems. So anybody sitting down and reading Dan's forum for the first time is going to be exposed to Rob's suggestions that his is the way to win. If Rob just laid out his alleged personal history as evidence for his claims, fine. That would be like a brokerage service advertising last quarter's results. Rob, however, never adds "past results are no guarantee of similar future success." He doesn't claim to have won for a stretch in time; he claims to have solved negative video poker.

    As a respected journalist, you should be on board with pointing this out at every opportunity.

  17. #17
    Originally Posted by RS__ View Post
    Do math and simulations count (in your opinion) as proof?
    Do a simulation or use free software. What do you do after you hit a big win and show a profit? Do you keep playing or simulating or do you stop?

  18. #18
    Yes, Singer's ideas have been proven mathematically to be worthless. And yet, we still get the same silly nonsense from the mathematically illiterate. This is why con men thrive in our society. People are stupid.

  19. #19
    Redietz the only evidence I've seen are photos of big wins and newspaper articles published. I have seen nothing that tells me Rob didn't win what he said using his system. Have you?

    I believe he went thru the editorial process at Gaming Today. Are you accusing GT of publishing false information?

    And I never saw any claim by Rob that goes against the math of video poker. People can win on negative expectation machines.

    What is your evidence to back up your continued attacks on Rob?

  20. #20
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    Yes, Singer's ideas have been proven mathematically to be worthless. And yet, we still get the same silly nonsense from the mathematically illiterate. This is why con men thrive in our society. People are stupid.
    Would you mind for the benefit of those mathematically illiterate prove to me how it is not possible to win on negative expectation machines?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Top 10 Reasons to Try Rob Singer's Strategies
    By redietz in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-08-2016, 03:13 PM
  2. Bob Dancer: Claiming Free Play Strategies
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-19-2015, 02:27 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-26-2014, 11:32 PM
  4. "Free" strategies don't last forever
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 07-10-2014, 03:08 PM

Posting Permissions

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