Rob Singer has taken his act on the road again.

[RS__]

Robs system has well defined win goals and loss limits, that's not the problem. The wizard said he couldn't run a sim because of Robs claim that the machines aren't random.

Actually no, it doesn't. Rob's said it (win goal / loss limit) also depends on how he's doing for the year and other stuff.


Of course he'd try to squirm out of his system being run by a simulation with some bogus excuse that the "machines aren't random". How much evidence does he have that supports this claim? Even with the assumption the games aren't random, it'd still definitely be possible to code a simulation, with the non-randomness part included in the code (i.e.: when holding 4 cards, make the re-draw card be the same as the original 5'th card more frequent than expected on a random game).

[Bill Yung]

WoV is a platform for queers, idiot smokers, potheads, sick transvestites/transgenders, fat-asses, girly-men, atheists/agnostics, foreigners, minorities, self-proclaimed mensas too chickenshit to back up their hide-behind-their-computer words, and poor people who suck from the system. So anyone who rails against it is only telling the truth. Shack has seen better days. Why he continues to pimp himself out to that collection of freaks is a mystery.

http://www.gamblingforums.com/thread...-38#post-13293

White-collar scamming pays more than blue-collar scamming. Then again, you have to waste all of your life with it, and throw away any hope of an actual career in the real world. Then again, you have to have any hope of an actual career in the real world.

No gambler/gambling mentor has made anything of himself in the real world. Some have tried, but they all got caught. Even Thorp.

[Alan Mendelson]

RS__ I have never played in a casino where the HE at craps changes with the frequency of certain numbers rolling. If that were true the payoffs on the bets would not be fixed. Players might have their own actual return but there is only one expected return for every game whether it be craps or video poker. And despite Rob's comments that machines may not be random he still plays the same machines the rest of us play.

The only reason you can't simulate his strategy is you can't know when he's won enough or lost enough. There are no other reasons.

Yes, Rob's system is wrong and can't work according to the math. But he makes it work each time he stops playing with a profit. Simulate that.

[jbjb]

It can't be simmed because he just makes shit up as he goes in typical ploppy fashion.

[Alan Mendelson]

It can't be simmed because he just makes shit up as he goes in typical ploppy fashion.

Is "ploppy" some new word you picked up reading articles online? I don't think you ever contributed a substantial comment or information ever on this site.

[quahaug]

RS__ I have never played in a casino where the HE at craps changes with the frequency of certain numbers rolling. If that were true the payoffs on the bets would not be fixed. Players might have their own actual return but there is only one expected return for every game whether it be craps or video poker. And despite Rob's comments that machines may not be random he still plays the same machines the rest of us play.

The only reason you can't simulate his strategy is you can't know when he's won enough or lost enough. There are no other reasons.

Yes, Rob's system is wrong and can't work according to the math. But he makes it work each time he stops playing with a profit. Simulate that.

Wrong. Robs win/loss goals for SPS are fixed absolute values and never deviated from. He says all the time the key to his system is sticking exactly with the plan. 57k bankroll 2.5 k minimum win 57k minus soft profit stop loss.

[Bill Yung]

Is "ploppy" some new word you picked up reading articles online? I don't think you ever contributed a substantial comment or information ever on this site.

The wannabe choir boys at the Wizard's still haven't learned the fundamental tenet of life: the Devil has the upper hand, or dibs. (Even in and over the math and physics.)

Meanwhile, the Wuz speaks eagerly of a mythically silly 100-mile bicycle ride on his 51st birthday. More chicken-eating contests, and casino games which he just can't wait to give a try. "Look at me! Please." What a dud.

[Alan Mendelson]

Wrong. Robs win/loss goals for SPS are fixed absolute values and never deviated from. He says all the time the key to his system is sticking exactly with the plan. 57k bankroll 2.5 k minimum win 57k minus soft profit stop loss.

A minimum win goal is not fixed. A minimum win of $2500 could be $2500 or it could be $97,000.

[slingshot]

A minimum win goal is not fixed. A minimum win of $2500 could be $2500 or it could be $97,000.

Aren"t wins and win goals different, Alan?

[quahaug]

The minimum is fixed. You can't go home until you have at least 2.5k or more.

[Alan Mendelson]

The minimum is fixed. You can't go home until you have at least 2.5k or more.

I think we are interpreting the English language differently. But I'm not going to argue about it. In the scheme of things it means nothing. How much Rob wins is not my concern. How much I win is.

But I think your statement is fundamentally incorrect. Rob has gone home without winning. He has had losing sessions. By your statement he could not leave unless he won his $2,500.

I wonder how many times Rob did win exactly $2,500? I'm going to guess he probably never did. I'm going to guess he met his win goals with wins that ranged from $2,501 up to $97,000 when he won the $25 royal at Bellagio.

[quahaug]

I think we are interpreting the English language differently. But I'm not going to argue about it. In the scheme of things it means nothing. How much Rob wins is not my concern. How much I win is.

But I think your statement is fundamentally incorrect. Rob has gone home without winning. He has had losing sessions. By your statement he could not leave unless he won his $2,500.

I wonder how many times Rob did win exactly $2,500? I'm going to guess he probably never did. I'm going to guess he met his win goals with wins that ranged from $2,501 up to $97,000 when he won the $25 royal at Bellagio.

Of course he had losing sessions and obviously would not be winning exactly 2.5k. That's the MINIMUM win.

[Alan Mendelson]

I still don't understand your point? He said his minimum win goal is $2500. That doesn't mean it's a minimum win. He very well could decide to leave the casino after winning only $50.

Win goals are not "do or die" and I'm afraid you are making it out to be as a do or die thing.

A goal is an objective. it is not fixed.

What is fixed is a loss limit.

When you are on a freeway and the sign says 55 MPH speed LIMIT it means that's as fast as you can go according to the rules of the road.

So getting back to Rob's win GOAL it is a guideline and it is not fixed. On the other hand a win "limit" would be fixed. But I don't know anyone who has a win limit.

[RS__]

I think we are interpreting the English language differently. But I'm not going to argue about it. In the scheme of things it means nothing. How much Rob wins is not my concern. How much I win is.

But I think your statement is fundamentally incorrect. Rob has gone home without winning. He has had losing sessions. By your statement he could not leave unless he won his $2,500.

I wonder how many times Rob did win exactly $2,500? I'm going to guess he probably never did. I'm going to guess he met his win goals with wins that ranged from $2,501 up to $97,000 when he won the $25 royal at Bellagio.

He was down $3k and playing the $25 machines? If he's at -$3k, shouldn't he be playing the $5 or $10 machines?

[Alan Mendelson]

He was down $3k and playing the $25 machines? If he's at -$3k, shouldn't he be playing the $5 or $10 machines?

I don't know... ask him. I don't play his way.

[quahaug]

Alan, you don't understand Robs system. The most important aspect of winning according to him is to stick to his plan religiously and that includes win/loss goals/ limits. I originally was responding to RS saying he changes win/loss goals and your claim than it can't be simulated because of that. The only reason it can't be simulated is because of Robs claim that the machines aren't random.

[quahaug]

Arci claims he wrote a sim but based on random hands and it lost money.

[quahaug]

Also Alan, if he quit with a fifty dollar "soft" profit then he would be ending his session down $57,150. (it would be nearly impossible to do so however). That's how the system works. But as you said, you don't understand it anyhow.

[Alan Mendelson]

I think you are making too much about Rob's comment that the machines aren't truly random. He might have said that, yet, he claims to have profited a million dollars over ten years playing those non-random machines.

Frankly, I think quoting Rob that the machines are not random is a weak excuse. I think the real reason you can't simulate his play is because you don't know when he decides to quit.

But again, I don't care when he quits. I also don't care about his play -- I don't follow it.

What I do follow and believe is that win goals and loss limits can help you pocket money.

Win goals allow you to say "I'm going home with this much money."
Loss limits make you quit when you have lost the amount you were willing to risk on that particular visit or trip.

The rest of Rob's strategy I don't follow or understand.

[Bill Yung]

R[ob]S[inger], one thing you said is very true regarding family and how gambling can hurt others in the family. I read the dedication on Barry Greensteins book(Ace on the River), and he apologizes to his family for how he treated them while he was gambling. It was heartbreaking, and brought tears tomy eyes as I read it in a bookstore. He apologized for ignoring them as he watched his sports that he bet on.So I can see the trap gamblers fall in, and applaud you wanting to avoid that trap...So that part rings true and has a basis for believability .

However it doesnt explain why you continued to live such a long distance from your job. By moving closer you would have been able to spend more time with your family. You would have less driving time.

What also doesnt ring true is that people would see your success, and learn your methods, but yet change your methods to suit their needs. WTF? Why would they change anything? They see your results, they come to you for advice, then they go off and change your advice.

Is that why there isnt a slew of testimonials? Because they learned your advice and then for no real reason deviated from it?

THAT.....i dont buy.

LarryS, from http://www.gamblingforums.com/thread...e-2#post-13356