$25k challenge

[redietz]

So... you guys are saying cashing out after reaching a win goal does work?

From Wikipedia:

"A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization. Shills can carry out their operations in the areas of media, journalism, marketing, confidence games or other business areas. A shill may also act to discredit opponents or critics of the organization in which they have a vested interest through character assassination or other means...

Plant and stooge more commonly refer to a person who is secretly in league with another person or outside organization while pretending to be neutral....

Shilling is illegal in many circumstances and in many jurisdictions because of the potential for fraud and damage; however, if a shill does not place uninformed parties at a risk of loss, but merely generates "buzz," the shill's actions may be legal...."

[Mission146]

If you didn't want to cause confusion, then why would you create a more complicated scenario,
rather than provide a simple answer to a straight-forward question?

Are you suggesting that Singer's strategy will produce session losses that are 6x greater than his session win goal?

I meant that the system is a more complicated version of the concept that I introduced.

The simplest answer to Alan’s question is this: No, cashing out after reaching a win goal is not sufficient to make a negative expectation game positive.

I don’t know what his strategy will produce. What I do know is his session bankroll is almost 23 times greater than his stated win goal per session. I also know that you can manipulate just about any game to have a very high probability of a session win if the session win goal is substantially less than the session bankroll or stop loss. The most common example is the Martingale, which this is not, but the concept is basically the same.

[coach belly]

A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person

What has not been disclosed?

[coach belly]

The simplest answer to Alan’s question is this: No, cashing out after reaching a win goal is not sufficient to make a negative expectation game positive.

Do you mean it's not sufficient to make the game's expectation positive,
or that it's not possible to win?

Alan asked "cashing out after reaching a win goal does work?"

Can it work? Has it worked?

[Mission146]

You really need to understand his system better in order to speak intelligently about "the bet" otherwise known as "the bet that will never happen". There is no JoB, deuces or gimmick games involved. The base game is BP. A loss is the whole 57 Gs offset by "soft profits", chance of needing to progress to $100- denom is slim.

I don’t, I only need to understand the underlying concept of systems with a high probability of winning individual sessions to speak intelligently about it.

The base game being BP doesn’t make a huge difference.

What I was illustrating is that if the most fundamental aspect of the bet is that Singer won eight (or more) out of ten sessions, then you don’t even need a system to effectuate that being better than a 50/50 chance. You could have that be roughly an 80% probability with the stated session bankroll and win goals just by playing 9/6 JoB for $500/Hand. That was just meant as an example.

When you start applying a system to it, then I imagine the probability of a session win increases, or if not, that the system at least doesn’t hurt it too badly. The greater the probability of an individual session win, the greater the probability of winning eight (or more) out of ten sessions. Again, a session win probability of about .74142527672 is right about where you get to a 50/50 on winning eight, or more, out of ten sessions.

As long as Singer’s win probability on an individual session is 74.2%, or higher, then he has a bet with a winning expectation...though he doesn’t have a system that is expected to win in the long run.

[Mission146]

The simplest answer to Alan’s question is this: No, cashing out after reaching a win goal is not sufficient to make a negative expectation game positive.

Do you mean it's not sufficient to make the game's expectation positive,
or that it's not possible to win?

Alan asked "cashing out after reaching a win goal does work?"

Can it work? Has it worked?

It’s not sufficient to make a game’s expectation positive.

Of course it’s possible to win. As I’ve already demonstrated, given the same session bankroll and stop win parameters, Singer would have a positive expectation on his bet even if the game were 9/6 JoB, straight up, at the $100 denomination because of the high session win rate.

If you increase the stop win, then the win probability for a given session goes down. If you decrease the stop win, then it goes up.

These aren’t complicated concepts at all, as I’m sure you know.

[coach belly]

As long as Singer’s win probability on an individual session is 74.2%, or higher, then he has a bet with a winning expectation...though he doesn’t have a system that is expected to win in the long run.

Does he have an aggregate winning expectation for 10 sessions?

[slingshot]

So... you guys are saying cashing out after reaching a win goal does work?

From Wikipedia:

"A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization. Shills can carry out their operations in the areas of media, journalism, marketing, confidence games or other business areas. A shill may also act to discredit opponents or critics of the organization in which they have a vested interest through character assassination or other means...

Plant and stooge more commonly refer to a person who is secretly in league with another person or outside organization while pretending to be neutral....

Shilling is illegal in many circumstances and in many jurisdictions because of the potential for fraud and damage; however, if a shill does not place uninformed parties at a risk of loss, but merely generates "buzz," the shill's actions may be legal...."

troll a troll is defined byWikipedia as a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the internet to distract and sow discord...

[RS__]

So... you guys are saying cashing out after reaching a win goal does work?

No. You just can't read.

[RS__]

As long as Singer’s win probability on an individual session is 74.2%, or higher, then he has a bet with a winning expectation...though he doesn’t have a system that is expected to win in the long run.

Does he have an aggregate winning expectation for 10 sessions?

For the sessions themselves, no. If you include the $25k wager, yes.



Let's break this down to more simpler terms, because apparently people can't use simple logic. Let's say instead of using a VP system, Rob is going to play craps. Instead of 10 sessions, it's just 1 session. He says he can win. He puts up $25k (again, this is an example, I know this would never happen in real life), and so does Dan Druff. If Rob wins, Dan pays Rob $25k. If Rob loses, then Rob pays Dan $25k.

Rob lays $20 against the 4. 2/3 or 66% of the time, Rob will win $9. 1/3 or 33% of the time, Rob will lose $20. On average, he expects to lose $0.66. Now, if you include the $25k bet, then 2/3 or 66% of the time Rob will win $25,009. 1/3 or 33% of the time he'll lose $25,020. On average, Rob will profit $8,332.66.

You can follow the logic, and if Rob were smart, he'd bet again after a loss. He'd bet, let's just say $100 if he lost the $20 bet. To lose two bets, that'll happen 1 in 9 or 11.11% of the time.


Get an MRI scan done on your brain because you got some problems up there.

[coach belly]

Let's break this down to more simpler terms, because apparently people can't use simple logic. Let's say instead of using a VP system, Rob is going to play craps. Instead of 10 sessions, it's just 1 session.

Your craps scenario is a retarded representation of what the VP bet entails,
just like your life is a retarded representation of normal adult behavior,
so go check your own head there Poindexter.

As long as Singer’s win probability on an individual session is 74.2%, or higher, then he has a bet with a winning expectation...though he doesn’t have a system that is expected to win in the long run.

Does he have an aggregate winning expectation for 10 sessions?

For the sessions themselves, no. If you include the $25k wager, yes.

It's been explained that Singer would have an advantage if his only requirement
was that he must win at least $2500 in 8 of 10 sessions.

If the terms of the bet were modified, such that in addition to winning $2500
in 8 of 10 sessions, he must also win overall for the 10 sessions,
then that bet would favor the challenger?

[Mission146]

Does he have an aggregate winning expectation for 10 sessions?

He doesn't have an aggregate winning expectation for one hand absent external factors, much less a session, much less ten sessions...unless the game of choice returns over 100%. Expectation and probability of a profitable result are two totally different things, that's the point.

[Mission146]

It's been explained that Singer would have an advantage if his only requirement
was that he must win at least $2500 in 8 of 10 sessions.

If the terms of the bet were modified, such that in addition to winning $2500
in 8 of 10 sessions, he must also win overall for the 10 sessions,
then that bet would favor the challenger?

That's a very good question, and the answer is, "Maybe." That's why I brought up the concept of a minimum session stop loss and it would also have to assume that all ten sessions need to be played, even if he has already won eight or nine sessions.

The biggest thing is the minimum sessions stop loss, though. If there weren't one, then Singer could adjust how aggressive he is or is not about winning a given individual session dependent upon how many sessions he has won so far and how far he is ahead. For example, let's say he has won 7/7 sessions, so that would put him ahead overall by a minimum of $17,500. ($2,500/session) We already know that he is extremely likely to win at least one session out of three, so say he goes down by as little as $1,000 in the eighth session, he can say, "Nope, that's it. Next session. That session is over." Thus, he goes into the next session $16,500 ahead overall.

On the other hand, if his minimum session stop loss were greater than $10,000, then he couldn't necessarily just hit his minimum stop win and call that good enough. If he did, then a couple of losses could really hurt him.

Anyway, if you introduce that element, whether or not it becomes a good bet for the challenger depends on the other specifics, so it's not a yes/no question.

[mickeycrimm]

Rob's bankroll for the play broken down by denom....or something similar to this:

$1 = 400 credits equals $400
$2 = 400 credits equals $800
$5 = 400 credits equals $2000
$10 = 400 credits equals $4000
$25 = 400 credits equals $10000
$100 = 400 credits equals $40000

Totals to $57200

This is all the information I had to go on for years. I figured that if he lost the $400 then he jumps to $2 denom. Lose $800 at that level he jumps to $5 denom. Lose $2000 at that level he jumps to $10 denom, etc. But recently Rob has thrown "soft profits" and going back down in denom into the mix. Soft profits are when he hits a full house, cashes out the ticket, sticks it in his pocket (this money doesn't get played again), then inserts more money into the machine. Who knows what triggers him into dropping back down in denomination.

He says he inserts the entire $57,200 into the machine if necessary but never loses that much because of the soft profits. He says his biggest loss was actually 33k, 2nd biggest loss 14k.

He says his average session to get to the $2500 win goal is 4 hours. And he says he put this play down once a week for 10 years with a success rate of getting to the $2500 win of 85%.

[Mission146]

I don't really know. In order to even have a hope at determining the exact probability of a session winning at least $2,500, I would obviously have to know everything that the system does and under what conditions the system does it, assuming what the system does given a certain specific condition is always the same.

Even then, it would be tough to come up with an exact probability.

The only thing I would like to think is that his system makes hitting the win goal more likely as opposed to less likely in a given session, but I don't really know that for sure. I assume that's what the goal of it is.

[Alan Mendelson]

As long as Singer’s win probability on an individual session is 74.2%, or higher, then he has a bet with a winning expectation...though he doesn’t have a system that is expected to win in the long run.

So Singer has a 74% chance to win the first session. What changes in the second session, and in the third, and in the fourth....?

[Mission146]

So Singer has a 74% chance to win the first session. What changes in the second session, and in the third, and in the fourth....?

Nothing. I'm saying as long as each individual session has that probability, then he is more than 50% likely to win eight (or more) out of ten sessions.

That was also 74.2%, to be clear. At 74% exactly he would be less than 50% likely to win eight (or more) of ten sessions.

[coach belly]

The biggest thing is the minimum sessions stop loss, though.

No minimum stop loss was required in his original terms, so there wouldn't be one.

The only requirement is that he must win at least $2500 in 8 out of 10 sessions.

You have explained that he has a very high probability of achieving that session win rate.

If we add in the requirement that he must also be ahead overall for the 10 sessions,
does he have a high probability of of that as well?

[RS__]

Your craps scenario is a retarded representation of what the VP bet entails,
just like your life is a retarded representation of normal adult behavior,
so go check your own head there Poindexter.

[Alan Mendelson]

The simplest answer to Alan’s question is this: No, cashing out after reaching a win goal is not sufficient to make a negative expectation game positive.

Do you mean it's not sufficient to make the game's expectation positive,
or that it's not possible to win?

Alan asked "cashing out after reaching a win goal does work?"

Can it work? Has it worked?

Mission who said anything about making the game positive? The question again is about winning money, not making the game positive.

People win money all the time playing negative expectation games.

Rob's right about this: you APs hold this belief that you can only win on a +EV game.