Geez, all I asked was for a system's founder to design or explain a way to disprove his system. This is experimental lab 101 stuff. You have to be able to design a disconfirming experiment if you have a cogent theory. If you can't disprove something, then it's a religion. It's outside the realms of science.
Religion or science -- What's the difference if it makes money?
Maybe.......maybe it doesn't!Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
They can. However, the probability is they will lose more often than they win and they will lose more than they win. That is what expected return means. The question is do you want to proceed with a high likelihood of losing or a high likelihood of winning. I think most smart people prefer to proceed when they have a good chance of winning. Isn't that why you play expert strategy most of the time?Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Where did I say "you must lose"? I said over time the odds are you will lose. And, the more negative the game, the more likely you will lose.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Yes, that's why I do use correct, expert strategy 99.99% of the time. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN ROB SINGER LOST. And that's my point.Originally Posted by arcimede$
You (meaning his critics who are self-proclaimed APs) cannot call him a loser because he plays negative expectation games. In fact, he has a history of winning that was documented in a weekly newspaper. And I know redietz says he respects the editorial process and I honestly doubt that the editors of GT would allow Rob Singer to openly lie in their newspaper.
There are a lot of critics here who say Rob is lying. Well, how about putting up some PROOF that he lied? And where he lives or lived or what he said about the storage locker with the remains of Jimmy Hoffa inside it, and the secrets about how the pyramids were built and the second gunman who killed JFK, or any of the other hullabaloo, has no bearing on his casino wins or the reports about them in GT.
He has no history or proof of anything. As I've said before, showing some pictures of jackpots is no proof of PROFITING. Again, your $100k royal IS proof of that.
You would obviously want it to all come down to this. Yet if you as an "AP" we're asked to prove your claims that you win, how would you go about proving anything about it? And please, don't use the AP-cop-out line of "why, I only play when I have an advantage, so theory proves I'm a winner!" While you're digging up actual proof, see if you can get Bob Dancer to prove anything he's been claiming over the past 15 or more years also....other than abusing his ex-wife, that is.Originally Posted by jbjb
Alan, you're aware that I've put up more "proof" for lack of a better word, over the years than any gambler anywhere. Nothing is proof-positive, but just as I've been he only one ever to prove I've been banned from playing vp at a NV. casino, my pattern and history of documenting huge wins, having my managing editor take hate calls of disbelief while he held actual W2G's in his hand, offering large bets that I was truthful on my strategy consistently winning vs. those awful -EV machines, etc. etc., is far far more than anyone's ever done in this respect.
These critics here just don't want any of it to be, so they keep struggling and fighting themselves over it by making stupid statements.
I'll offer up the same type of bet I offered the naysaying geniuses at WoV. You can pool your funds together any way you like: How do you like my chances at winning one session with a win goal at 5% of my session bankroll? Sound like an easy thing to do or is it something tough?
OK, even Redietz is thinking it's easy, and he is poking himself in the eye simultaneously.
Now, how do you like my chances of winning my 2nd session? Come on all you math experts---did it get any tougher....or is it somehow exactly the same easy task as it was the first time?
So let's go to a 3rd session. Still easy....or did it get tougher? Then a 4th, and finally, a 5th. I have somewhere around an 87% session win rate over my career playing it. So come on, predict how many I'll lose!
Here's the bet: $25k says I'll win at least four out of five sessions, and another $25k says I'll be up at least $12,500 at the completion of the five sessions ($10,000 after four if each session is a winner).
Now I expect no one here will take this bet because even the big-talking pack of fools on WoV shriveled up into the safety of their corners when they were facing something similar. You see, we have all this bloviating about how what I've done isn't possible, so here's your opportunity to either take both ends of the bet, or at least explain (without displaying your hurt feelings, please) why these wins just aren't possible.
Rob when the APs come forward to "win this easy money" I will be there to record it.
Is the bet to be played out over five weeks?
Take off that stupid mask you big baby.
It would be played according to whatever my schedule allows me--and where. But really, anyone with any brains would not take this bet because they already know full well that what I've been saying for years is the undeniable truth....that if a strategy has a high % of winning a comparatively small win goal in TODAY's session, then that probability does not ever change on any given session. And, they also know that most "losing" sessions lose only a small portion of the session's bankroll, and that their horror of all horrors would also be validated--that there are many more huge winning sessions than there are huge losing sessions, in addition to the many smaller winning sessions.Originally Posted by quahaug
All in all, it would take the dumbest person in the world to not see--or more specifically, not WANT to see this--for the exact way that it is and has been, rather than stick with their theories and flawed belief system about any of it.
Quahaug if Rob had to play all five sessions in one day he would probably lose. We all know that the wins just don't repeatedly come... except for maybe the math guys who think a positive expectation video poker game should function like an ATM.
/threadOriginally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Rob, I'm asking for a means of disconfirming your strategy. You haven't addressed what I've requested at all. What experiment or series of results under what conditions would disprove what you say are your strategies?
This is simple, basic experimental protocol 101. Every college student in a lab faces this. You have a theory. Then you design an experiment to disconfirm your theory.
So what, I ask for the upteenth time, would disconfirm your theories?
I have an answer for my stuff. Do you have an answer for yours?
Bad luck, redietz, bad luck. Even the math - driven APs will tell you that, except they'll call it bad variance.
Alan, I don't think you'd pass any of those experimental lab classes if that was your response.
Alan reminds me of the kid who got 99%, and said he lost a percent because he showed up for classes one time.
Funny... but for my first semester of my senior year at Syracuse University I got a 4.0 without going to ANY classes. All of my classes (broadcast law, anthropology, public speaking - interviewing, some economics course, and some other class that I don't remember) had an option for writing a PAPER in lieu of the various exams. I wrote a 42 page paper on broadcasting meeting the needs of minorities in Central New York and I did it by interviewing various minority community leaders when I wasnt working as a DJ from Midnight to 6 on WFBL. The paper got an A from all 5 professors. Hence the 4.0 and I made the Chancellors List that semester.Originally Posted by Bill Yung
Why would Rob have to show how his system would fail?Originally Posted by redietz
Is this how government contracts get to be so expensive?
Show me how to make something work.
It never ceases to amaze me how, in my seven plus years of (pa-?)trolling the gambling forums, the very people who daily thus profess their gaming acumen just can't see that the winner is the guy with the best story. There is no right or wrong, but only a good story. (Unless, I think, you can make an even more convincing story of this "fact", itself.)Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote