$25k challenge

[Rob.Singer]

Why all the dancing around Dan? I can't even believe you're trying to make so many changes after the bet was proposed.

People doubt my SPS wins and I'm trying to show everyone that it wins. It's just like it always has been--I bring a $57,200 bankroll and I stop playing the strategy when a minimum $2500 profit is attained or I run thru all 6 denominations and stop. And that does NOT mean I've lost. I could be ahead $1950 or $100 at that point....or I could be behind.

You keep claiming a fear that I'll do some hocus pocus or something to get me to a 99 per cent win rate or whatever...I can't even follow it. And even worse, you cling to the needed belief that the winning sessions will all get wiped out and more by the losing session. You're doing the same thing Arco always did--you're ignoring the avg. loss of a losing session (where some are winners, just not the minimum $2500) and you purposely neglect that there are at times very large winners.

So please stop with the deflecting and either accept my original bet and limits or not. I have no idea why you say the challenge is bs. I'll play ten sessions no different than I always have.

[RS__]

However, you would get KILLED in the long run, as your loss of $300 when you do pick the same number (instead of $200, as it should be) would make the game massively -EV for you.

It should be a loss of $190, not $200 -- if it were a fair game (0% edge), that is.

[Rob.Singer]

Just because you are more likely to win (than lose) in a given hand, session, or trip, doesn't mean you're expected to win long term. Just because you are less likely to win (than lose) in a given hand, session, or trip, doesn't mean you're expected to lose long term.

I don't see how winning $2,500+ for 8/10 sessions and also being a net winner over those 10 sessions is any type of proof that Rob's system works (long term). I think everyone would expect him to win most sessions, given he goes up in denomination from $1 to $100.

Rob, would you write out what your strategy is going to be? Obviously not stuff like holds and whatnot...but in how you move in denomination? Let's say you've played 9 sessions, won 7 and lost 2, and you're down a net of $20k -- would you still start the next session at $1 denom and progress as any other session? Would you start at a higher denom? If you hit the $2,500 win goal for that session, and you're down exactly $17,500, would that be considered the end of the session, or could you keep playing, so you have a win of $20k+ win, for a net win over all 10 sessions? Another scenario -- if you've played 8 sessions, won all 8, would you still play 2 more sessions, both in the same way you'd play a normal session? Or could you just play 1 hand, lose $5 in both sessions, and say, "Well I won 8/10 sessions and had a net profit, so I win the bet" ? What would be your loss limit per session, and would you play every session until you're down that amount OR up $2,500 -- or can you stop anywhere in between those 2 points?

I play every session the same way and unrelated to any others, always with the same win goal of $2500 minimum. When I finish playing $100 SDBP for instance and my win goal is not attained--whether or not I'm up a net $1950 or down $7500, the session ends. The reason for this possible profit (the $1950) without reaching $2500 but the session ending anyway is due to all the 40+ credit soft cashouts I have along the way, of different denominations.

If I've played 8 sessions and won all 8, then I still have two full sessions to play.

[kewlJ]

is due to all the 40+ credit soft cashouts I have along the way, of different denominations.

Soft cashouts. Progressive wagering. Stop limits.

VOODOO!

[Dan Druff]

However, you would get KILLED in the long run, as your loss of $300 when you do pick the same number (instead of $200, as it should be) would make the game massively -EV for you.

It should be a loss of $190, not $200 -- if it were a fair game (0% edge), that is.

Whoops, you're right. Doesn't change my point though.

[Rob.Singer]

"$8800 loss but it was my best ev day of the year!"...."I regularly outsmart casino cameras and employees"...."I can count 2 tables simultaneously whilst playing!"

Cookoo!!!!!!

[Dan Druff]

Why all the dancing around Dan? I can't even believe you're trying to make so many changes after the bet was proposed.

People doubt my SPS wins and I'm trying to show everyone that it wins. It's just like it always has been--I bring a $57,200 bankroll and I stop playing the strategy when a minimum $2500 profit is attained or I run thru all 6 denominations and stop. And that does NOT mean I've lost. I could be ahead $1950 or $100 at that point....or I could be behind.

You keep claiming a fear that I'll do some hocus pocus or something to get me to a 99 per cent win rate or whatever...I can't even follow it. And even worse, you cling to the needed belief that the winning sessions will all get wiped out and more by the losing session. You're doing the same thing Arco always did--you're ignoring the avg. loss of a losing session (where some are winners, just not the minimum $2500) and you purposely neglect that there are at times very large winners.

So please stop with the deflecting and either accept my original bet and limits or not. I have no idea why you say the challenge is bs. I'll play ten sessions no different than I always have.

If you can't follow what I wrote, get someone else to explain it to you.

I laid it out very clearly.

You want people to bet against a Martingale system producing ANY profit (even a tiny one).

That would be a ridiculous bet to make, as a Martingale system is highly likely to produce a small win, but has a small chance of a huge loss. So a one-time flat bet on "Will I win or not?" is totally unfair to the side betting against a win.

I'm sure you realize this, which is why you're trying to bait people into this sucker bet.

You can pretend not to understand our explanations, but it doesn't change the fact that you're offering a sucker bet which doesn't prove anything about the profitability of your strategy.

In fact, even the bet I proposed wouldn't PROVE anything, because either side could get lucky or unlucky. But I don't care about that. I just want to make money.

Rob, I just agreed that you CAN switch denominations from $0.25 to $10 (a swing of a factor of 40, if you want it). Shouldn't that be enough? And you can play as many or as few hands as you want, provided we have some reasonable minimum.

A cross-book is most fair. If you win, we double it. If you lose, you pay us the amount you lost.

Just think -- if you hit a royal at $10, you will get $80k! $40k from the casino, and $40k from us!

Why aren't you jumping at this?

[Rob.Singer]

Based on the plethora of dopey responses (although RS's questions were reasonable) I'm doing this: we're headed to San Diego in a moment for a week of R and R at a beach house in Encinitas. I'm not reading anything more here until I return next Sat night. Read the challenge "15 times" if you don't get it.

Make good use of the time.

[Rob.Singer]

Why all the dancing around Dan? I can't even believe you're trying to make so many changes after the bet was proposed.

People doubt my SPS wins and I'm trying to show everyone that it wins. It's just like it always has been--I bring a $57,200 bankroll and I stop playing the strategy when a minimum $2500 profit is attained or I run thru all 6 denominations and stop. And that does NOT mean I've lost. I could be ahead $1950 or $100 at that point....or I could be behind.

You keep claiming a fear that I'll do some hocus pocus or something to get me to a 99 per cent win rate or whatever...I can't even follow it. And even worse, you cling to the needed belief that the winning sessions will all get wiped out and more by the losing session. You're doing the same thing Arco always did--you're ignoring the avg. loss of a losing session (where some are winners, just not the minimum $2500) and you purposely neglect that there are at times very large winners.

So please stop with the deflecting and either accept my original bet and limits or not. I have no idea why you say the challenge is bs. I'll play ten sessions no different than I always have.

If you can't follow what I wrote, get someone else to explain it to you.

I laid it out very clearly.

You want people to bet against a Martingale system producing ANY profit (even a tiny one).

That would be a ridiculous bet to make, as a Martingale system is highly likely to produce a small win, but has a small chance of a huge loss. So a one-time flat bet on "Will I win or not?" is totally unfair to the side betting against a win.

I'm sure you realize this, which is why you're trying to bait people into this sucker bet.

You can pretend not to understand our explanations, but it doesn't change the fact that you're offering a sucker bet which doesn't prove anything about the profitability of your strategy.

In fact, even the bet I proposed wouldn't PROVE anything, because either side could get lucky or unlucky. But I don't care about that. I just want to make money.

Rob, I just agreed that you CAN switch denominations from $0.25 to $10 (a swing of a factor of 40, if you want it). Shouldn't that be enough? And you can play as many or as few hands as you want, provided we have some reasonable minimum.

A cross-book is most fair. If you win, we double it. If you lose, you pay us the amount you lost.

Just think -- if you hit a royal at $10, you will get $80k! $40k from the casino, and $40k from us!

Why aren't you jumping at this?

Again Dan, READ. I don't want a bet against me making some tiny profit. It's $2500 minimum period.

And, the strategy is the strategy. $1 thru $100. Is that clear?

[kewlJ]

"$8800 loss but it was my best ev day of the year!"...."I regularly outsmart casino cameras and employees"...."I can count 2 tables simultaneously whilst playing!"

Cookoo!!!!!!

First, I never said I regularly outsmart casino cameras and employees. You putting that in quotes is just dishonest. Another Singer lie.

As for the other 2, tracking EV is how most professional blackjack players, including all the major teams track results. And quite a number of professional players have talked about how they track multiple tables in some form. So these things aren't just me. I guess everyone else is lying.

But your nonsense is just you. Not a single other person, makes these claims. They go against mathematics and are just pure fantasy and nonsense.

[Alan Mendelson]

But okay, if you want to be able to change denominations, that's fine. We can allow that.

Except the bet wouldn't be if you show a profit.

The bet would be a cross-book.

We would be the casino, and you would be the player. And whatever you lose, you pay us. And whatever you win, we pay you.

And the money would be escrowed beforehand on BOTH sides.

The bet would be for a set number of hands, or until the money on either side ran out.

Ok?

With this proposal Rob would have limited liability of whatever he decides to play with. Let's say it's $50k. But Dan and "the casino" face unlimited liability.

Dan are you sure you want thus bet?

[Dan Druff]

But okay, if you want to be able to change denominations, that's fine. We can allow that.

Except the bet wouldn't be if you show a profit.

The bet would be a cross-book.

We would be the casino, and you would be the player. And whatever you lose, you pay us. And whatever you win, we pay you.

And the money would be escrowed beforehand on BOTH sides.

The bet would be for a set number of hands, or until the money on either side ran out.

Ok?

With this proposal Rob would have limited liability of whatever he decides to play with. Let's say it's $50k. But Dan and "the casino" face unlimited liability.

Dan are you sure you want thus bet?

No, we wouldn't have unlimited liability. Once Rob busts the agreed-upon bankroll on or side, the bet would be over.

But it's not going to happen, because Rob is demanding to be able to play $1 through $100 denominations, meaning we're at risk to lose $400,000 if he hits a royal at the $100 denomination.

While that is unlikely, Rob knows that we aren't going to take that potential "downside" if he gets super lucky. Nobody here has deep pockets like the casinos do.

That's why he's offering this bet.

However, I'm sure if we came up with someone willing to take that risk (or if we pooled enough people together to put up such a bankroll), he would add some other unreasonable term.

Rob, you say you want "minimum $2500".

Okay, we could agree to requiring that you don't quit until one side is at least $2500 up. But again, limits $0.25 to $10 per credit.

[Alan Mendelson]

Dan if you're putting a cap on the game limits Rob should be able to adjust his win goal. That's only fair.

If Rob agrees to a $10/coin VP cap, what lower win goal on Rob's part will you accept?

I ask that because Rob said his $2500 win goal allows for play even at the $100 level.

As an example, would you accept a win goal of $1750?

[Dankyone]

It is in fact very likely that a singer like system will indeed win 8-9 out of 10 “sessions” as defined by him.

That does not make it a winning system, as explained correctly and in detail by Dan.

Robbie is an asshole, but he is not stupid. The bet, as he structured it, favors him big time.

[The Boz]

Doesn’t anyone, anyone? have money to make instead of giving a Robbo credibility here?

[Dankyone]

No. Robbie has no intention of ever making a bet, certainly not paying one off...and of course he has no credibility.

Wise up.

[Rob.Singer]

Please stop disrupting my ride out of town.

For the very last time....the ap-criticism is that my play strategy cannot possibly work. Of course, none of them understand it and that's even more abundantly clear by reading these posts. But, they claim consistent and overall winning is "mathematically impossible and nothing but voodoo" so I proposed a bet that I would play my strategy for ten sessions, and before their very eyes I would prove that it is the real deal. For a $25k bet plus the amount I win I'll win at least 8 of 10, played at Aquarius and Bellagio (if needed), and again, I WILL PLAY ONLY MY STRATEGY.

There is no playing 25c to $10 in the strategy, and the ratios between the denominations play an integral part of it. There will be no qualifying, alternate type of play.

This is no sucker bet. It's exactly in the ap faces for their blind, unknowledgeable claims that I'm lying.

Wise up.

[Rob.Singer]

It is in fact very likely that a singer like system will indeed win 8-9 out of 10 “sessions” as defined by him.

That does not make it a winning system, as explained correctly and in detail by Dan.

Robbie is an asshole, but he is not stupid. The bet, as he structured it, favors him big time.

Now there's brains talking.

Of course the bet heavily favors me. The strategy has won over 85 per cent of the time over the years. And I'm sure the WoV geniuses understand that. But they just can't help themselves from being hypocrites by agreeing to this, then making the totally stupid statement that it somehow will lose money over time.

Anybody want to explain this? How about any of you libtard writers?

[MisterV]

Forget this bet.

The issue is how to determine whether you are lying about winning a lot of money over a decade's time; that bet will neither prove nor disprove the claim, it will resolve nothing.

No, there is only one type of definitive proof.

that would be for you to show Dan your last ten years of tax returns, wherein I am certain (*ahem*) that you reported your gambling income as claimed.

Oh wait a minute, it would be child's play for someone to falsify copies of their tax returns.

Never mind.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc did arrange for the IRS to send me his returns directly.