Rob's Strategies -- Science or Religion?

[a2a3dseddie]

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...

I have somewhere around an 87% session win rate over my career playing it. So come on, predict how many I'll lose!

Are you sure Alan? Wouldn't he win 4 out of the 5 sessions in 1 day? Or does going home for the day after hitting a win goal on the first session then coming back the next hour/day/week/month increase his odds of success so that those wins will repeatedly come?

[redietz]

Eddie, you're missing the gist. Rob has super powers. He needs to rest between uses of those powers to recharge, just like the Scarlet Witch.

[Alan Mendelson]

Are you sure Alan? Wouldn't he win 4 out of the 5 sessions in 1 day?

I don't know. That's my answer.

But my experience has been it is very unusual to continue to win for long periods of time.

If I look back on my years of playing VP (yes there were a couple of exceptions) I would have one big winner or a few smaller winners and that's it.

Sure, twice in my life I hit two royals on the same day. But that happened only twice in my life. There were many, many sessions where I didn't even have a four of a kind.

As I understand it, Rob's strategy is to hit a session winning hand. How many "session winning hands" can you expect in a day?

If there is one person who is being reasonable about what might happen when you play -- it's Rob Singer -- and not the "math guys" who think that playing a positive expectation game will make them winners.

[Rob.Singer]

If someone accepted my offer to bet--and after all the dumb comments by Redietz it's disappointing to not be able to watch him in a meltdown as the challenger--I have no idea how many sessions I'd play the first day. I only play overnight, so it would be limited by a number of hours. I would stop after one session and get some sleep if I were tired, because I'd be playing a strategy that requires far more concentration than simple optimal play (which in itself is a main part of my method). And I may or may not be able to do it all on the same trip because of other commitments.

Part of my strategy is being in good shape in order to withstand the mental & physical rigors of sitting at a machine in case the session gets prolonged. That's not yet a problem for me. Yesterday afternoon I beat my 10 yr. old grandson in a foot race, then my wife & I beat him and our daughter in touch football. You takin' notes red?

As for red's question about how I'd "discomfirm" or whatever confusing thing he meant: ask me to train you, then play as I do. Tell us your score and take it from there. But you're gonna need more that a 25c bankroll. Perhaps someone like spock can pool his quarter-play bankroll with yours on this? It'd be a start.

[redietz]

Glad to see you're working out, Rob. I started two-a-days myself. No fun when you're 58. Sixteen laps in the CPA tonight. Everything is arduous, slow work. But get back to me in 90 days, and we can schedule a 5K or something.

There's nothing confusing about figuring out what would prove that what you do doesn't work. It's kind of required. Otherwise you might make up all kinds of excuses that have nothing to do with what's actually happening. You know, now I'm a professional -- it counts; now I'm not -- it doesn't count; then I wasn't -- that doesn't count, now I am again this trip -- it counts.

[Alan Mendelson]

There's nothing confusing about figuring out what would prove that what you do doesn't work.

Let me turn it around:

What would prove that optimal play on a positive paytable would work? Answer: only an RNG that cooperates.

So to answer your question again redietz: What would prove that what Rob does doesn't work? An RNG that doesn't cooperate.

Now, you might say that Rob's methodology involving special plays needs a little more cooperation than someone who plays only optimal strategy and you would be correct. And you know what, redietz? Rob has said the same thing.

So why do you keep asking the same question again and again?

And since you don't want to take up Rob on his challenge, why not just sit with him and play his system and report back to us if you won or lost? No need to make a bet -- just play his way with him and report back.

Easy peasy.

[redietz]

Everyone with a theory needs to know how to disprove the theory. Otherwise you have a theory that is not falsifiable. That is a worthless theory.

Don't ask me. Ask a scientist. Ask a mathematician. You have a rolodex.

[Bill Yung]

Mathematicians' best trick, even for the furthest reaching number theories, is to assume something, and then show that this leads to a contradiction (or not, in which case simulate it to big numbers).

What you're thinking of is a bit beyond, more into the metaphysical. The standard idea is to devise an experiment which confirms theory; and then look for independent confirmation under various locations, equipment, etc. What seems to happen though with theory is that it becomes virtually confirmed when various fields of math and theoretical physics converge on the notion (, even before actually demonstrated in black and white).

Like when Schrodinger's Wave Equation stuff was worked in terms of set theory, and then, later, as explicit functional calculus. Another example, had there been no Higgs particle, as contentious and flawed as that might be still in theory, the entire Standard Model of particle physics would have fallen. Very unlikely from what has been already verified.

Sure, the metaphysical "final theory" has to let go somehow, because every thing dies, and is reborn. Right?

[a2a3dseddie]

But my experience has been it is very unusual to continue to win for long periods of time.

Would 10+ years meet your definition of a "long period of time"?

[Alan Mendelson]

Would 10+ years meet your definition of a "long period of time"?

No. Long periods of time at one session. My experience has been you win something big and then you lose it all back unless you pick your ass up out of the seat and leave. I call it "the grandma hits a winner and goes to the buffet strategy." It seems to work nicely for grandmas. I've never heard of an AP who used it.

[arcimede$]

No. Long periods of time at one session. My experience has been you win something big and then you lose it all back unless you pick your ass up out of the seat and leave. I call it "the grandma hits a winner and goes to the buffet strategy." It seems to work nicely for grandmas. I've never heard of an AP who used it.

Alan, you keep trying to fit a non-random paradigm over random events. Besides being quite silly, it makes you look bad.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, you keep trying to fit a non-random paradigm over random events. Besides being quite silly, it makes you look bad.

No... I'm telling you what I experienced.

[Rob.Singer]

Glad to see you're working out, Rob. I started two-a-days myself. No fun when you're 58. Sixteen laps in the CPA tonight. Everything is arduous, slow work. But get back to me in 90 days, and we can schedule a 5K or something.

There's nothing confusing about figuring out what would prove that what you do doesn't work. It's kind of required. Otherwise you might make up all kinds of excuses that have nothing to do with what's actually happening. You know, now I'm a professional -- it counts; now I'm not -- it doesn't count; then I wasn't -- that doesn't count, now I am again this trip -- it counts.

Now you've resorted to lying. Happens when feathers get a little ruffled.

I kind of like how I've done after retiring from 10 years as a professional player. I've done overall much better in the last 6 years.

Red's "theory" about there must be proof that my strategy doesn't work, seems to be the wording of the nutty professor. Doesn't surprise me though. He's tried everything.

[arcimede$]

No... I'm telling you what I experienced.

Alan, if you base your views on your experience then you would have to believe machines are not random. Yet, you continue to state you believe they are random. Do you not see the contradiction? You really have two logical choices ... either accept your experience is worthless in determining an approach to VP or accept you really do believe the machines are not random. At least then people would realize where you stand.

[Alan Mendelson]

Machines are random and are you telling me there can't be variance -- positive variance for the player?

Yes, there are probabilities. And yes, there are also actual results.

Sometimes you have to say people can and do win on negative expectation machines, and sometimes you have to say that when you decide to pocket winners when you do get lucky can help you win on those negative expectation machines.

You will not consider other alternatives because you believe there is only one possibility based on "probabilities." This is closed minded. There are other ways to win.

[RS__]

Machines are random and are you telling me there can't be variance -- positive variance for the player?

Yes, there are probabilities. And yes, there are also actual results.

Sometimes you have to say people can and do win on negative expectation machines, and sometimes you have to say that when you decide to pocket winners when you do get lucky can help you win on those negative expectation machines.

You will not consider other alternatives because you believe there is only one possibility based on "probabilities." This is closed minded. There are other ways to win.

Sometimes you win on -EV machines, sometimes you lose. Sometimes you win on +EV machines, sometimes you lose. And of course there's variance -- without it, you wouldn't have the stance you do, that it's possible to have a winning system on a -EV game.

[redietz]

Now you've resorted to lying. Happens when feathers get a little ruffled.

I kind of like how I've done after retiring from 10 years as a professional player. I've done overall much better in the last 6 years.

Red's "theory" about there must be proof that my strategy doesn't work, seems to be the wording of the nutty professor. Doesn't surprise me though. He's tried everything.

Point out where I "lied," Rob. I admit I only made it to 12 laps in the CPA last night, but my intent was 16, so that wasn't really lying. My legs were shot after a morning workout on asphalt.

I have no qualms with your personal history. Did Rob win? I'll say yes. Now the problem lies in your theory, which is that doing what you do in the future will enable other people to win. That, my friend, is either a theory or a belief. If it's a theory, then it can be falsified. If it cannot be falsified, then it's a belief and belongs in the realm of religion.

[Rob.Singer]

Point out where I "lied," Rob. I admit I only made it to 12 laps in the CPA last night, but my intent was 16, so that wasn't really lying. My legs were shot after a morning workout on asphalt.

I have no qualms with your personal history. Did Rob win? I'll say yes. Now the problem lies in your theory, which is that doing what you do in the future will enable other people to win. That, my friend, is either a theory or a belief. If it's a theory, then it can be falsified. If it cannot be falsified, then it's a belief and belongs in the realm of religion.

You're simply weird red. Nearly everything you say seems like you're struggling for the right words but have difficulty finding them, so you resort to esoteric replies.

Your lie in this case is in stating that I claim playing as a pro counted but my play since retiring from that status has not. I've never said anything like that, which you know. If you knew what you were talking about you'd have never made this crazy assertion.

Again, you're so weird. And I give myself credit for doing that to you.

[Rob.Singer]

Sometimes you win on -EV machines, sometimes you lose. Sometimes you win on +EV machines, sometimes you lose. And of course there's variance -- without it, you wouldn't have the stance you do, that it's possible to have a winning system on a -EV game.

This deserves expansion. What you wrote is well-known to everybody, and everyone understands it including Alan. In fact, from the postings on this subject it appears he knows a bit more than you about it.

What you AP people disregard is if it happens today then there's nothing to stop it from happening again during the next session, the next, the next, etc. IE, it's an absolute that "the math" MUST reach into your pockets and re-claim every dollar won at some time or other. Everyone understands that someone who only plays +EV machines can lose continuously....and many of them actually do. The reason there's very few who do it the other way around, as I do, is nothing more than gambling discipline to be able to quit when ahead....and because vp creates addicts very easily, almost all session winners on negative OR positive EV games react exactly the way the casino draws it out for them: they lose it all back and more, either today or tomorrow.

[Bill Yung]

Well, there are still things like statistical skew and kurtosis, and hyper-skew and hyper-kurtosis, which will eventually make or break the everyday gambler no matter the approach. Not exactly accounted for by the central limit theorem.

The Wizard used to(?) put it this way, "You gotta be shitting me!"

The reason Mike Matusow says, "Put some money away when you have it, because every poker player eventually goes broke again and again."