I'll Be Making An Official PUBLIC Challenge To The AP "Community

[Alan Mendelson]

RS your coin flipping has nothing to do with this statement: Rob Singer is a 6/5 favorite to win 8 out of ten sessions.

Spinning a Roulette wheel has nothing to do with that statement.

If Rob is a 6/5 favorite to win 8 out of ten why isn't he a 6/5 favorite to win 800 out of one thousand?

I'll suggest some possible answers which might help you:

1. He's likely to run out of luck the longer he plays.
2. The more he plays the older he gets and all old people make more errors.
3. His RV will break down after 200 sessions.
4. The Singer method doesn't work after ten years and it has expired.
5. 6/5 is a number pulled out of thin air because I didn't want to look like a fool if Rob does win.

[Alan Mendelson]

There's really no need for a wager. Mission really did explain why Rob's system works when he wrote:

"The reason why Singer's, "System," has such a high probability of winning a given trial is because the win target is so small compared to the loss target. If his win goal were to go from $2,500/session to $500/session, the probability of a, "Session Win," would be even higher. If he made the win target $5/session, then it would be even higher still."

This is similar to how I answered one of kewlj's questions. I said that as a high limit player I don't doubt that Rob could win $100k (or thereabouts) every year.

Now a question for Rob. I never interviewed you about how you change denominations when you play. There are $50/coin machines. Why aren't they included?

[tableplay]

Singer must be a masochist. I mean he went through bankruptcy and evictions when he could have just applied his VP system and never went through these processes which would be considered quite traumatizing to a non-masochist.

[blackhole]

Jbjb just posted a link to Dan’s post where it’s obvious he has serious medical issues. He made it clear he will stop gambling, shut down the poker site, and it would be obvious this place also goes, unless some miraculous change happens, which sounds doubtful.

You could always point out the gambling degenerates when the useless, ridiculous, meaningless, same exact gambling arguments that take place here over and over and over again just continue without even a bump in the road to show concern about the person who owns this site when facing a real-life bad situation.

All of you including the alleged bitch ELAINE who just joined (most likely a banned member or WOV reject) really need to realize how fucking pathetic degenerate gambling has lowered your lives. And I always thought lawyers were the rulers of scum, (especially atheist lawyers).

Who is this reject BOZ from the WOV who all of a sudden became the voice of reason of what’s right or wrong with everyone else. Mind your own fucking business, you fucking broke retired gambling degenerate. No one here gives a fuck about you or your ten-foot nose that’s stuck in your fat ass.

Can’t wait till Dan shuts this place down. Most of you will become suicidal from loneliness. What a bunch of fucking morons.

[redietz]

"Who is this reject BOZ from the WOV who all of a sudden became the voice of reason of what's right or wrong with everyone else [?]."

as opposed to:

"Who is this brilliant blackhole (from heaven or the right hand of the Father or thereabouts) who all of a sudden became the voice of reason of what's right or wrong with everyone else?"


English students, would this be an example of (1) the hole calling the BOZ black? (2) Irony (3) Absurdity (4) a lack of self awareness (5) hubris of the highest order or (6) all of the above?

[mickeycrimm]

"Who is this reject BOZ from the WOV who all of a sudden became the voice of reason of what's right or wrong with everyone else [?]."

as opposed to:

"Who is this brilliant blackhole (from heaven or the right hand of the Father or thereabouts) who all of a sudden became the voice of reason of what's right or wrong with everyone else?"


English students, would this be an example of (1) the hole calling the BOZ black? (2) Irony (3) Absurdity (4) a lack of self awareness (5) hubris of the highest order or (6) all of the above?

I vote (6). Cuckhole is a lonely pathetic figure. He's here trying to gain any kind of attention he can while his ol' lady is fucking the milkman.

[monet]

Jbjb just posted a link to Dan’s post where it’s obvious he has serious medical issues. He made it clear he will stop gambling, shut down the poker site, and it would be obvious this place also goes, unless some miraculous change happens, which sounds doubtful.

You could always point out the gambling degenerates when the useless, ridiculous, meaningless, same exact gambling arguments that take place here over and over and over again just continue without even a bump in the road to show concern about the person who owns this site when facing a real-life bad situation.

All of you including the alleged bitch ELAINE who just joined (most likely a banned member or WOV reject) really need to realize how fucking pathetic degenerate gambling has lowered your lives. And I always thought lawyers were the rulers of scum, (especially atheist lawyers).

Who is this reject BOZ from the WOV who all of a sudden became the voice of reason of what’s right or wrong with everyone else. Mind your own fucking business, you fucking broke retired gambling degenerate. No one here gives a fuck about you or your ten-foot nose that’s stuck in your fat ass.

Can’t wait till Dan shuts this place down. Most of you will become suicidal from loneliness. What a bunch of fucking morons.

!!

[monet]

Another hour, how much more have you lost in a casino you could have paid your Kids?

Fuck you Alan. Deadbeat Piece of Shit.

But if you are posting here, you are not at Red Rock losing money.

By the way, fuck you Alan. Karma mother fucker, karma.

!!

[mickeycrimm]

Hi I am a lurker here for a few months and finally decided to join up . I live in Henderson and am a dealer in one of the casinos in the strip. A couple of observations and excuse me if I’m out of line- Didn’t the loser above with all the judgements and the BK just say last week he was going to a beach house in San Diego for a weeks worth of R&R? Said he wouldn’t be reading here for a week, and then proceeds to post 60 times? That alone tells you his word is about as good as a wooden nickle. His creditors think so too And the way Alan the Deadbeat and Coach (of nothing) Belly follow him around with their hands in his pants is just smelly and gross. These 3 are nothing but complete clowns. Thank you and nice to meet all of you and be a member here

Welcome to the forum, Elaine. Don't pay any attention to what the village idiot, er, Alan says.

[monet]

I understand you know gambling math and I don't. But I speak English so when I'm told someone is a 6/5 favorite to win eight of ten, I want to know why he's not a favorite to win 80 out of 100 or 800 out of 1000.

That would normally be fine, except I'm running out of both patience and, quite frankly, different ways to explain it to you. The concept has never changed. At a certain point, you either choose not to understand or are incapable of understanding.

In very general terms, here is my last ditch effort:

1.) Win small money much easier than lose big money.

2.) Lose small money much easier than win big money.

3.) On good bet, win big money easier than lose big money.

4.) On bad bet, lose big money easier than win big money.

This sounds like the way my Asian side of the family talks English!
Read this post with an Asian Accent... works perfectly!

[monet]

I understand you know gambling math and I don't. But I speak English so when I'm told someone is a 6/5 favorite to win eight of ten, I want to know why he's not a favorite to win 80 out of 100 or 800 out of 1000.

That would normally be fine, except I'm running out of both patience and, quite frankly, different ways to explain it to you. The concept has never changed. At a certain point, you either choose not to understand or are incapable of understanding.

In very general terms, here is my last ditch effort:

1.) Win small money much easier than lose big money.

2.) Lose small money much easier than win big money.

3.) On good bet, win big money easier than lose big money.

4.) On bad bet, lose big money easier than win big money.

Sounds like Tonto trying to explain the ways of the world to a very dim-witted Lone Ranger. Tonto have great patience.

Oh I see you beat me to it lol

[Elaine M]

"Who is this reject BOZ from the WOV who all of a sudden became the voice of reason of what's right or wrong with everyone else [?]."

as opposed to:

"Who is this brilliant blackhole (from heaven or the right hand of the Father or thereabouts) who all of a sudden became the voice of reason of what's right or wrong with everyone else?"


English students, would this be an example of (1) the hole calling the BOZ black? (2) Irony (3) Absurdity (4) a lack of self awareness (5) hubris of the highest order or (6) all of the above?

I vote (6). Cuckhole is a lonely pathetic figure. He's here trying to gain any kind of attention he can while his ol' lady is fucking the milkman.

Mrs Blackhole has banged so many mailmen that they gave her her own blue uniform

[Half Smoke]

If Rob is a 6/5 favorite to win 8 out of ten why isn't he a 6/5 favorite to win 800 out of one thousand?

Sir, you are right he would be a favorite to win 800 out of one thousand if he is a 6/5 favorite to win 8 out of 10.
Nobody is disputing that,
What they are saying is that on average on the 200 times he loses he would lose more money than in the other 800 times he won.
That is the nature of the martingale in a negative expectancy game. The martingale player is betting more as he continues to lose so when he reaches his stopping point he has lost more (on average) than in all his other wins.

[Mission146]

Cue Alan Mendelson reminding us that this is not a Martingale, even though it's still a system that has, at least in part, a situational negative progression element.

[quahaug]

Cue Alan Mendelson reminding us that this is not a Martingale, even though it's still a system that has, at least in part, a situational negative progression element.

The "system" changes denom in a progression he doesn't jump around in denomination. It's not a matter of playing $500- bet and hitting a flush.

[mickeycrimm]

I'm sorry but you lost me as soon as I read roulette. Roulette is not video poker and Rob doesn't pick cards randomly.

Look up the word "analogy" in the dictionary. You might learn something. Giving these kinds of responses means you are an ostrich with your head in the ground.

[Mission146]

The "system" changes denom in a progression he doesn't jump around in denomination. It's not a matter of playing $500- bet and hitting a flush.

I figured as much, but I'm guessing he doesn't (or rarely) go down in denomination as he gets behind. I think he said something to the effect of rarely getting to the $100/denomination, which kind of implies (at least to me) that he must be down some amount for that to happen.

[Mission146]

Look up the word "analogy" in the dictionary. You might learn something. Giving these kinds of responses means you are an ostrich with your head in the ground.

An ostrich may well be no worse at Bonus Poker.

[Half Smoke]

The D'Alembert system is just another offshoot of the Martingale. There are many offshoots. In the D'Alembert the player goes up a level when he loses and down a level when he wins.

Interestingly Jean le Rond d'Alembert was a brilliant 18th century mathematician who is well known for his mistaken argument about this system. The fact that it fooled a brilliant mathematician might help to explain why it is so seductive to so many people.

This is a brief note about him from Wikipedia:


"While he made great strides in mathematics and physics, d'Alembert is also famously known for incorrectly arguing in Croix ou Pile that the probability of a coin landing heads increased for every time that it came up tails. In gambling, the strategy of decreasing one's bet the more one wins and increasing one's bet the more one loses is therefore called the D'Alembert system, a type of martingale."




Interestingly, (to me) many sports bettors, even good ones, love parlays. A parlay is nothing more than a reverse martingale stopping out with the number of teams bet. In fairness to them, they may not believe that the parlay gives them any increased edge but it's just that they prefer large payouts to small ones as a great many gamblers do.

[Alan Mendelson]

If Rob is a 6/5 favorite to win 8 out of ten why isn't he a 6/5 favorite to win 800 out of one thousand?

Sir, you are right he would be a favorite to win 800 out of one thousand if he is a 6/5 favorite to win 8 out of 10.

Thank you. That's all I asked. You're the only one to give me a straight answer.

As to what happens with the losing sessions was not in my question. Frankly I don't understand Rob's soft wins or soft cash outs or whatever he calls them and I don't know if he could quit a session early if losing. None of that was in my question.