Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567
Results 121 to 133 of 133

Thread: Cheung Yin Sun - Greatest Woman Gambler Ever

  1. #121
    Instead of 2 newspapers he should have you do an infomercial.

  2. #122
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Kewlj please clarify this for me. If Rob Singer said he only played 10/6 Double Double Bonus (available at Red Rock) you'd have NO dispute with any claims that he won money playing video poker?
    I think I have explained this many times Alan.

    If someone makes a claim involving long-term winnings, that is to say not just a claim of hitting one or a couple one-time large jackpots, there are two hurdles to evaluating that claim. 1.) is it mathematically possible. And 2.) based on everything else the person has said and you know about the person, do you find such a claim credible. #2 has some subjectivity to it, #1 does not.


    Now in Rob's case, despite that you don't understand t, the claim of winning 1 million dollars + (or is it 1.5 million now) over 10+ years is a claim of long-term winning.

    So going back to the two step process. First hurdle....is this claim possible. If Rob was playing a better than 100% return, yes the claim would be possible. Quite simple, if you were playing a game with a 101% return, you simply need to play 100 million dollars through to have a theoretical win of 1 million. So that first hurdle would be cleared and you move on to the second hurdle of credibility.

    Rob Singer's claim or claims has simply never cleared this first hurdle of "is it mathematically possible". He has never provided anything that mathematically allows for a return of over 100% from the less than 100% games he has played. Progressive betting and stop limits do not change a game from less than 100% to more than 100%. That is a mathematical fact. So Singer simply has not cleared that first hurdle.

    You can think what you like about my claims, or similarly mickeycrimm's claims, or any other AP that has made claims. There is a mathematical basis for winning what we claim. We have cleared that first hurdle. You can choose to find us credible or not, based on everything else we say and know. That is subjective and your right. Remember that saying of mine "It just isn't that hard to figure out who knows what they are talking about and who is just talking". That is where this comes in.

    But Singer's claims just have not even made it to that point. His claims have failed to clear that hurdle. Until he provides some mathematical reason of how he achieves longterm winning results playing a negative expectation game, there is no reason to even move to step #2.


    Now if you are asking me a hypothetical situation, of had Singer's claims cleared that first hurdle of 'mathematical possibility', would I find him credible enough to believe his claims? Would I have found him credible enough that I think he "knows what he is talking?". The answer would be NO. I find him to be one of those guys "that is just talking".

    Rob has some knowledge of VP, no doubt. So he can do a lot of talking. And muddy the water with things that might sound good and some funny phrases like "soft profits", but that is all these things are is just talk. Based on other areas, of many things Rob Singer (if that is what we are calling him) has said that simply are factually wrong, things about blackjack, things about casino personnel. all sorts of things that are just flat out not true, I would have to conclude that I didn't find his claims credible even if he had cleared hurdle #1 of 'mathematically possible'.

    But no need for me to make that judgement call as he has not come close to clearing hurdle #1. His claims are not mathematically possible.


    So there you have it Alan, Now manipulate and twist my words. Do your tap dance. Alan YOU are the dancing queen with all your tap dancing on this forum. Only thing is you are not young and sweet and only seventeen as the lyrics go. Maybe seven-TY.

  3. #123
    I'm not going to manipulate or twist your words kewlj because I don't know what Rob has won. All I've ever said is that it's possible someone playing high denomination video poker can win $100k a year. I still believe that.

  4. #124
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    All I've ever said is that it's possible someone playing high denomination video poker can win $100k a year. I still believe that.
    Not on a consistent basis. Eventually you WILL go broke!

  5. #125
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    I'm not going to manipulate or twist your words kewlj because I don't know what Rob has won. All I've ever said is that it's possible someone playing high denomination video poker can win $100k a year. I still believe that.
    You are manipulating Rob's claim. First, he doesn't claim to be playing "high denomination video poker". That higher denomination is the top end of his progression, not his normal wagering amount.

    But sure, if a player was playing $25 denomination as there regular denomination, it would be possible to hit a higher number of royals for number of rounds played, or a higher number of royals than "royal cycles". That would be called positive variance, also know as "good luck" and that can occur in the short term so possibly the player can do this resulting in a $100k year at that level.

    But they can not do so year after year after year, for 10 consecutive years. That is getting into 18 y.o.s in a row territory.


    I also want to be clear about something else. I don't spend all my time challenging other players claims. There have been exactly two claims of earnings or results that I have found mathematically impossible. Rob's is the second. The first was a blackjack player claiming his super duper count allowed him to have winnings of 500% of the regular card counter. Most card counters play to about a 1% advantage. 500% increase would have this guy playing to a 5% advantage. That is just not possible from card counting. Even with perfect assistance from a computer you can not gain a 5% advantage from card counting.

    So those were the two mathematically impossible claims I have challenged. I guess the third would be a guy claiming to have seen 18 y.o. s in a row. That wasn't a claim about winnings, just a mathematically impossible claim.

    Now there have been many claims that cleared that first hurdle of mathematically possible, that I personally don't find credible. I never volunteer that opinion, unless someone asks me, as you did today. That is subjective and my opinion.

  6. #126
    Kewlj I thought you were smart enough to read between the lines? Do you really think Rob Singer reached a win goal of $2500 playing $1 and $2 video poker? No. He won his money at $5 and $25 video poker. Why do you think he posts jackpot photos of $25/coin VP and not $1 and $2 jackpots? It's simply because he's making his money with quads when he's pushing the button for $125 per play.

  7. #127
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Kewlj please clarify this for me. If Rob Singer said he only played 10/6 Double Double Bonus (available at Red Rock) you'd have NO dispute with any claims that he won money playing video poker?
    I think I have explained this many times Alan.

    If someone makes a claim involving long-term winnings, that is to say not just a claim of hitting one or a couple one-time large jackpots, there are two hurdles to evaluating that claim. 1.) is it mathematically possible. And 2.) based on everything else the person has said and you know about the person, do you find such a claim credible. #2 has some subjectivity to it, #1 does not.


    Now in Rob's case, despite that you don't understand t, the claim of winning 1 million dollars + (or is it 1.5 million now) over 10+ years is a claim of long-term winning.

    So going back to the two step process. First hurdle....is this claim possible. If Rob was playing a better than 100% return, yes the claim would be possible. Quite simple, if you were playing a game with a 101% return, you simply need to play 100 million dollars through to have a theoretical win of 1 million. So that first hurdle would be cleared and you move on to the second hurdle of credibility.

    Rob Singer's claim or claims has simply never cleared this first hurdle of "is it mathematically possible". He has never provided anything that mathematically allows for a return of over 100% from the less than 100% games he has played. Progressive betting and stop limits do not change a game from less than 100% to more than 100%. That is a mathematical fact. So Singer simply has not cleared that first hurdle.

    You can think what you like about my claims, or similarly mickeycrimm's claims, or any other AP that has made claims. There is a mathematical basis for winning what we claim. We have cleared that first hurdle. You can choose to find us credible or not, based on everything else we say and know. That is subjective and your right. Remember that saying of mine "It just isn't that hard to figure out who knows what they are talking about and who is just talking". That is where this comes in.

    But Singer's claims just have not even made it to that point. His claims have failed to clear that hurdle. Until he provides some mathematical reason of how he achieves longterm winning results playing a negative expectation game, there is no reason to even move to step #2.


    Now if you are asking me a hypothetical situation, of had Singer's claims cleared that first hurdle of 'mathematical possibility', would I find him credible enough to believe his claims? Would I have found him credible enough that I think he "knows what he is talking?". The answer would be NO. I find him to be one of those guys "that is just talking".

    Rob has some knowledge of VP, no doubt. So he can do a lot of talking. And muddy the water with things that might sound good and some funny phrases like "soft profits", but that is all these things are is just talk. Based on other areas, of many things Rob Singer (if that is what we are calling him) has said that simply are factually wrong, things about blackjack, things about casino personnel. all sorts of things that are just flat out not true, I would have to conclude that I didn't find his claims credible even if he had cleared hurdle #1 of 'mathematically possible'.

    But no need for me to make that judgement call as he has not come close to clearing hurdle #1. His claims are not mathematically possible.


    So there you have it Alan, Now manipulate and twist my words. Do your tap dance. Alan YOU are the dancing queen with all your tap dancing on this forum. Only thing is you are not young and sweet and only seventeen as the lyrics go. Maybe seven-TY.

    I tried to stay away-but I can't fathom this. Progressive betting up AND down CAN change the results of a game IF stop limits (win goals) are used and it DOES NOT intefere with the math. If a casino complies with regulations, programming MUST be so that such and such percentage is paid out and such and such allowed as profit. It's called psudo rng that complies with randomness. I may be a dumb @$$ and fickle brain to you people, but I can experience and understand this concept in playing alone. And if you wonder why I don't bother with proving my meager profits, it's because you don't believe ANY claims on this forum. OK. Gonna discipline myself to stay away and shut up.

  8. #128
    No sling. VP machines do not operate like slot machines. The payback on VP is determined by the paytable which is linked to random draws.

    In slots the payback is determined by the "stops on virtual reels."

  9. #129
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    No sling. VP machines do not operate like slot machines. The payback on VP is determined by the paytable which is linked to random draws.

    In slots the payback is determined by the "stops on virtual reels."
    Not to my way of thinking. I totally disagree. Looks like I am a total maverick here.

  10. #130
    Kew is good at 2 things: providing indisputable proof that he lies about his gambling prowess, and displaying his lack of any knowledge about the game of video poker. He is the classic cop-out artist for the simpleton's answer to everything gambling related: Play +EV and you win/Play -EV and you lose.

    At the same time, he continues to make his ridiculous, unproven and unsupportable claims about his own BJ play, if he really does play, that is. He claims to have the advantage because he counts, yet he continually contradicts that by peeling down the onion even further when challenged, by announcing how "partial counts" and "inaccurate counts" make the game "positive EV" to the astonishment of anyone with a brain...or partial brain.

    This is evidence that he is nothing more than a complete phony, who obviously spends the majority of his days combing thru various forums, searching for posts which competently argue against his nonsense, thereby turning him into the uneasy neurotic you see on display every day. WoV is extremely tolerant towards self-proclaimed "AP's" yet kew managed to get thrown out because he couldn't control his bs-spewing. So he thought he'd come here and run it by others with a more practical approach. He got caught, and he is now in desperation mode.

  11. #131
    Originally Posted by jbjb View Post
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    All I've ever said is that it's possible someone playing high denomination video poker can win $100k a year. I still believe that.
    Not on a consistent basis. Eventually you WILL go broke!
    Explain that. You're good at the unsupportable one-liners. So tell us, exactly how many of my sessions would it take for me to be a total loser after being ahead after playing 450 of them? Even better---give us the math on how long it would take me to turn into a total overall loser starting with session #1.

    You can obviously do both of those, given your apparent rock solid handle on my play strategy. Or....I'll submit this task to anyone who thinks he or she knows the clear answer to it.

    Let's have it kew! Let's see the math on your claim. Or are you copping out again to the armchair gambler's super secret special formula: +ev=win/-ev =lose?

  12. #132
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    No sling. VP machines do not operate like slot machines. The payback on VP is determined by the paytable which is linked to random draws.

    In slots the payback is determined by the "stops on virtual reels."
    Not to my way of thinking. I totally disagree. Looks like I am a total maverick here.
    You're just wrong. Ask the Nevada Gaming Commission technology division as I did.

  13. #133
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Play +EV and you win/Play -EV and you lose.
    Glad you finally admitted it.
    Hate crime hoaxes? The left's demand for biggots greatly exceeds the supply.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-15-2017, 12:27 AM
  2. The New $10 Bill will include a Woman's Portrait
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Whatever's On Your Mind
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-22-2015, 05:42 PM
  3. Retiring as a professional gambler
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 12-11-2015, 02:19 PM
  4. Professional gambler deductions
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 12-11-2015, 01:42 PM
  5. The Sisyphean Gambler
    By Vegas Vic in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 438
    Last Post: 05-19-2012, 01:49 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •