Page 28 of 50 FirstFirst ... 1824252627282930313238 ... LastLast
Results 541 to 560 of 982

Thread: Advantage play / cheating / crime....where is the line?

  1. #541
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post

    Ok Ron, let's do a little simple math here:
    So 1/4th of your time is on BP (61% chance of converting a bankroll of $55,000 to $57,500) and 3/4ths of the time is spent on other negative EV games:

    1) 1/4*.61+3/4x=.85 (85% is your overall "session" success rate)

    2) x=.93 or 93%

    So on the other -EV games you would have to have a 93% chance of converting 55000 to 57500 in order for your overall "session" success rate to be 85% - but there is no such negative EV game that would allow a 93% chance. I don't care what sort of denominational switching you do it's impossible unless some of the 3/4ths component of your play was on positive expectation VP games (which, by your own admission didn't happen - it was all -EV play).
    Again you're misrepresenting because you have an agenda instead of the facts. All you're doing is taking the easy path that says "+EV means you'll likely win and -EV means you'll likely lose". If you want to do this correctly you'd be asking questions rather than loosely postulating theory.
    So find a -EV VP game(s) that let's you win 93% of your "sessions" Ron - you can do whatever denominational switching you like. As illustrated in the example above (in response to unowme's Martingale post), all you do is incur greater risk (of losing your entire bankroll) when you increase bet size in order to increase the probability of achieving your "session" win goal. Layout a VP (theme and paytable) and denomination template to illustrate how this is achieved. That is the question I am asking - what is the template to do this with -EV games ? Please don't create a moving target by adding in mailers or free play. It's the naked -EV games and their appropriate denominations - the magic template that allows this, that I am requesting.
    You don’t have to worry about Rob adding mailers and free play. He’s never done it and never will.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  2. #542
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post

    Again you're misrepresenting because you have an agenda instead of the facts. All you're doing is taking the easy path that says "+EV means you'll likely win and -EV means you'll likely lose". If you want to do this correctly you'd be asking questions rather than loosely postulating theory.
    So find a -EV VP game(s) that let's you win 93% of your "sessions" Ron - you can do whatever denominational switching you like. As illustrated in the example above (in response to unowme's Martingale post), all you do is incur greater risk (of losing your entire bankroll) when you increase bet size in order to increase the probability of achieving your "session" win goal. Layout a VP (theme and paytable) and denomination template to illustrate how this is achieved. That is the question I am asking - what is the template to do this with -EV games ? Please don't create a moving target by adding in mailers or free play. It's the naked -EV games and their appropriate denominations - the magic template that allows this, that I am requesting.
    You don’t have to worry about Rob adding mailers and free play. He’s never done it and never will.
    That's correct. This is why I believe tableplay would be better served if he had a better understanding of the play strategy. I do explain that my winning depends on getting big and lucky hits, and how my special plays do contribute to that.

    Kew, put yourself in my place. I have a decent retirement not because of videopoker success, but because of our planning for it while we were working stiffs. So whether or not people want to believe me about finding and exploiting the DU glitch TO THE TUNE OF NEARLY $3MILLION, exactly how much would you think that means to me after the money was safely secured long ago, today at 70 years old? This was more about explaining my adventure to people who appreciate a good casino take-down story, and not about rubbing what I did in other people's faces. I've saidit before: I really do hope others find some of these machine and take them for as much as they can. Nothing illegal about it. The feds MN are sure of that.

  3. #543
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Let's apply some data to your theory. Are you asserting 150 sessions, where the player plays between 1 minute and 15 hours/session, is long term or short term?
    (is this your final number, I mean you have dropped down from recently saying 200 sessions and then 150-200 sessions. Are you now sticking with the lower end 150" Or just for this argument?) So anyway, is 150 sessions as you just described longterm or short-term? I don't know the answer to that. In blackjack some of the math guys claim you need many millions of rounds of data, 10 million, 100 million, even a billion to derive any meaning from (especially in terms of simulations). That is nonsense. It doesn't take that many trials before the math begins to take over and luck and positive variance begin to take a back seat.

    What that number is I don't know. I have my own number for blackjack that I am comfortable that my results are going to fall very, very close to expectation and that is about 2 years of play for me maybe 150,000 to 160,000 rounds. I am quite sure few would agree with this number. What that number is in specifics to video poker, I am even less sure.

    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Next, what is the mathematical reason why the math geniuses, complete with Mensa diplomas et al, were unwilling to bet that I could both win at least 8 out of 10 sessions, as well as net at least a $25k profit? I say "mathematical reason" because atheists know no other way.
    This is an easy one. No one will bet that because it is a bad bet. THIS is what a progression system does. It changes the distribution of wins and losses so that you do have many smaller wins, like 8 out of 10 (80%). But it can not change the overall win or loss, just how they are grouped. Eventually there has to be that large loss that wipes away all those smaller wins plus some. It is just mathematical fact.

    I know you will not accept this, but you just cannot extend short term variance into long-term results. The best and simplest example I can continue to give is that it is very possible to walk into a casino bet black on roulette, win 2 out of 3 for that day and leave. But you simply cannot do that for 100 days and expect the same result. Just impossible!

  4. #544
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    This was more about explaining my adventure to people who appreciate a good casino take-down story, and not about rubbing what I did in other people's faces.
    So then you are not springing for the bar tab at the VCT get-together? Bummer.

  5. #545
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    I know you will not accept this, but you just cannot extend short term variance into long-term results. The best and simplest example I can continue to give is that it is very possible to walk into a casino bet black on roulette, win 2 out of 3 for that day and leave. But you simply cannot do that for 100 days and expect the same result. Just impossible!
    You're saying it's impossible to win 200 out of 300 even money bets? It's nowhere near impossible.

  6. #546
    Originally Posted by unowme View Post
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    I know you will not accept this, but you just cannot extend short term variance into long-term results. The best and simplest example I can continue to give is that it is very possible to walk into a casino bet black on roulette, win 2 out of 3 for that day and leave. But you simply cannot do that for 100 days and expect the same result. Just impossible!
    You're saying it's impossible to win 200 out of 300 even money bets? It's nowhere near impossible.
    Just stop.

    First of all Roulette isn't even money. Secondly you know the point I am making. Yeah 100 '3 bet trails" wasn't the greatest example because it is still a small sample size. How about 1000? 10,000?

    You seem to have that exact same coach belly "gottch ya" mentality.

  7. #547
    What do I care? Keep betting your progressive system Rob, if it makes you happy. And believe whatever you like about it. Just be sure not to sail of the side of the earth.

  8. #548
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Let's apply some data to your theory. Are you asserting 150 sessions, where the player plays between 1 minute and 15 hours/session, is long term or short term?
    (is this your final number, I mean you have dropped down from recently saying 200 sessions and then 150-200 sessions. Are you now sticking with the lower end 150" Or just for this argument?) So anyway, is 150 sessions as you just described longterm or short-term? I don't know the answer to that. In blackjack some of the math guys claim you need many millions of rounds of data, 10 million, 100 million, even a billion to derive any meaning from (especially in terms of simulations). That is nonsense. It doesn't take that many trials before the math begins to take over and luck and positive variance begin to take a back seat.

    What that number is I don't know. I have my own number for blackjack that I am comfortable that my results are going to fall very, very close to expectation and that is about 2 years of play for me maybe 150,000 to 160,000 rounds. I am quite sure few would agree with this number. What that number is in specifics to video poker, I am even less sure.

    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Next, what is the mathematical reason why the math geniuses, complete with Mensa diplomas et al, were unwilling to bet that I could both win at least 8 out of 10 sessions, as well as net at least a $25k profit? I say "mathematical reason" because atheists know no other way.
    This is an easy one. No one will bet that because it is a bad bet. THIS is what a progression system does. It changes the distribution of wins and losses so that you do have many smaller wins, like 8 out of 10 (80%). But it can not change the overall win or loss, just how they are grouped. Eventually there has to be that large loss that wipes away all those smaller wins plus some. It is just mathematical fact.

    I know you will not accept this, but you just cannot extend short term variance into long-term results. The best and simplest example I can continue to give is that it is very possible to walk into a casino bet black on roulette, win 2 out of 3 for that day and leave. But you simply cannot do that for 100 days and expect the same result. Just impossible!
    You're so confused over this. Think about what you just tried to say.

    You wouldn't bet me in a single session, you wouldn't bet me in 8 out of 10....but you think the math will change the outcome for both these two scenarios somewhere down the road. And your reason is.....wait for the DRUMROLL!....because OF that same math!

    Here's where the inexperienced mind can learn something. Your first error is in doing what every other critic has done thru the years. Put your thinking cap on again and it will come to you. When I put the 8 out of 10 challenge to the WoV people, do you think they refused because they cared if it were my 1st 10 sessions, sessions #150-159, or sessions #1235-1244? Of course not, because every subset of mathematically influenced events has exactly the same opportunity as any other similar subset.

    Further, the same fact about winning hands escapes you. Every critic who tries to delegitimize this strategy can never accept that, when you play for a 5% of that size bankroll while progressing and quit when the goal is attained or surpassed--and you give up very little EV for the chance at hitting very large winners--there will inevitably be other LARGE winners that far eclipse any large losses that some sessions see. No one ever wants the large winners to be a part of this---only the large losses.

  9. #549
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    What do I care? Keep betting your progressive system Rob, if it makes you happy. And believe whatever you like about it. Just be sure not to sail of the side of the earth.
    I've already got my piece of the casino pie.

  10. #550
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post

    If that's not GWAE, what is??
    Why do you care about going on GWAE? It seems as if you went out of your way to burn bridges over the years. Why is this important to you at this point? TBH, given your past, I think you will have to come up with solid proof before most people will believe this to be true. It might take a full-time PR team, and only after you managed to save the US from another 911 just to repair your reputation.
    I don't disagree with that last statement. I was overly harsh throughout all of this. I did not cause all of it, but I got caught up in it and on forums I became someone I wasn't. Like I've explained, if I were really like any of that, my 41-year marriage wouldn't have lasted a year.

    I only used "GWAE" as an acronym and I wasn't referring to the Dancer show above. I thought about my request a bit more and recently told mickey I didn't think it'd be a good idea to go on GWAE even if they asked--which I don't believe will ever happen anyway, for just the reason you mentioned.
    MICKEY, CAN YOU CALL ROB I THINK SOMEONE HACKED HIS ACCOUNT!!!
    Last edited by AxelWolf; 05-23-2019 at 10:17 PM.

  11. #551
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    All you are doing is increasing the probability of a winning "session" at the expense of losing more when you do lose. Thus the aggregate loss is the same.There would be no point in pursuing this any further because of this. The only way to come out a winner is to win initially and then to never play again (on a -EV game). The wager to make with you is the aggregate $ amount won over a 1000 "sessions" (with say a million hands played) - not the percentage of "sessions" won or lost.
    Outstanding post tableplay! Well written and explained. These are the facts of a progression betting system...ANY progression betting system and this includes Rob's. Doesn't matter how you dress it up….it's still the same pig (progression betting system). And no progression betting system can overcome negative expectation. PERIOD!

    Well make that no progressive betting system can overcome expectation in the long-run. If your goal is to some small ample size and hope to hell you are on the far side of the bell curve, the extreme positive side of variance, sure it could look like a winner (short-term). But you can do that with ANYTHING! Hell you can flat bet a -EV game and hope you come out on the plus side of variance or the bell curve. And if you do, that still doesn't make it a winning system. That makes it extreme positive variance. Extremely lucky.
    Thanks KewlJ.

  12. #552
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Let's apply some data to your theory. Are you asserting 150 sessions, where the player plays between 1 minute and 15 hours/session, is long term or short term?

    Next, what is the mathematical reason why the math geniuses, complete with Mensa diplomas et al, were unwilling to bet that I could both win at least 8 out of 10 sessions, as well as net at least a $25k profit? I say "mathematical reason" because atheists know no other way.

    Finally, who here would be willing to bet me $10,000 that I could play and win at least $2500 in one session of my play strategy. How about the 2nd session? How about the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th etc.etc.etc.?

    And, who wants to bet that any and all losing sessions will be easily mitigated and overcome by double the number of LARGER winning sessions?
    Ron, a "session" consisting of denominational and bet switching (along with one or more VP themes/variants) can be broken down into its constituent components where each component consists of the same bet size, theme, and denomination (and same pay table). Since it has already been established that the constituent components cannot win at the 85% clip that you claim (a success rate of 61% was established for the 8/5 BP component of the switching "session"), then it follows that the aggregate of these constituents which form the denominational switching "session" in total also cannot win at this 85% clip (I'd imagine somewhere in the 60-65% range). The bet that you won't take is one where you don't lose money after playing one million hands using your system. The 61% of your "sessions" that win will make less money in total than the 39% of your sessions that lose resulting in a net loss - again you would never take such a bet.

  13. #553
    When are some of you going to figure it out -- Rob doesn't give a shit about math, doesn't know wtf he's "doing", and under no circumstances would he ever post any proof (logic, math, or even results [not that any 'results' posted would even be proof, but the point remains]). The main reason is fairly obvious and it's what we already know -- it doesn't work. The other reason is because he stirs this shit up just to troll people into wasting their time. He's like 70+ and has nothing else to do.

    There's a reason why mathematicians agree when someone submits a logical proof -- because they too, are 1. logical and 2. smart enough to follow the proof. You can't prove something logically to someone who denounces logic. Proof is a two way street....it can only be proven to the other person if they're smart enough to follow it. Either Rob isn't smart enough to understand some pretty basic math for an "engineer" (lol) or, the more likely scenario, he's just pulling everyone's legs and playing dumb to put on a show.
    #FreeTyde

  14. #554
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by unowme View Post
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    I know you will not accept this, but you just cannot extend short term variance into long-term results. The best and simplest example I can continue to give is that it is very possible to walk into a casino bet black on roulette, win 2 out of 3 for that day and leave. But you simply cannot do that for 100 days and expect the same result. Just impossible!
    You're saying it's impossible to win 200 out of 300 even money bets? It's nowhere near impossible.
    Just stop.

    First of all Roulette isn't even money. Secondly you know the point I am making. Yeah 100 '3 bet trails" wasn't the greatest example because it is still a small sample size. How about 1000? 10,000?

    You seem to have that exact same coach belly "gottch ya" mentality.
    Whatever. I'm not trying to be mean or nasty. It's just that numbers actually matter and words have meaning. I have 3 observations on this...

    1. You don't know what 'Even Money Bet' means as it applies to roulette.
    2. You don't really understand the math.
    3. You don't know what 'impossible' means.

  15. #555
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Let's apply some data to your theory. Are you asserting 150 sessions, where the player plays between 1 minute and 15 hours/session, is long term or short term?

    Next, what is the mathematical reason why the math geniuses, complete with Mensa diplomas et al, were unwilling to bet that I could both win at least 8 out of 10 sessions, as well as net at least a $25k profit? I say "mathematical reason" because atheists know no other way.

    Finally, who here would be willing to bet me $10,000 that I could play and win at least $2500 in one session of my play strategy. How about the 2nd session? How about the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th etc.etc.etc.?

    And, who wants to bet that any and all losing sessions will be easily mitigated and overcome by double the number of LARGER winning sessions?
    Ron, a "session" consisting of denominational and bet switching (along with one or more VP themes/variants) can be broken down into its constituent components where each component consists of the same bet size, theme, and denomination (and same pay table). Since it has already been established that the constituent components cannot win at the 85% clip that you claim (a success rate of 61% was established for the 8/5 BP component of the switching "session"), then it follows that the aggregate of these constituents which form the denominational switching "session" in total also cannot win at this 85% clip (I'd imagine somewhere in the 60-65% range). The bet that you won't take is one where you don't lose money after playing one million hands using your system. The 61% of your "sessions" that win will make less money in total than the 39% of your sessions that lose resulting in a net loss - again you would never take such a bet.
    You haven't proven anything with your contrived and misrepresented "61%" guess. You have no idea what the correct data is to begin with. "$1 8/5 BP" all day long combined with "progressive betting (up or down or both??) means you "might win more sessions, but for me to feel good about this I have to add that you will have BIGGER losers too".

    Then that dealer-turned-big-time-7 Stars AP, RS__, chimes in with his goofy support. Only critics like you two could talk yourselves into being mathematical analysts by guessing at what the data and parameters really are. You know, it's the good thing you guys chose gambling and aren't working in a business of any real consequence. You'd never get away with inputting faulty data so you can get the results you'd rather see.
    Last edited by Rob.Singer; 05-24-2019 at 08:04 AM.

  16. #556
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Let's apply some data to your theory. Are you asserting 150 sessions, where the player plays between 1 minute and 15 hours/session, is long term or short term?

    Next, what is the mathematical reason why the math geniuses, complete with Mensa diplomas et al, were unwilling to bet that I could both win at least 8 out of 10 sessions, as well as net at least a $25k profit? I say "mathematical reason" because atheists know no other way.

    Finally, who here would be willing to bet me $10,000 that I could play and win at least $2500 in one session of my play strategy. How about the 2nd session? How about the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th etc.etc.etc.?

    And, who wants to bet that any and all losing sessions will be easily mitigated and overcome by double the number of LARGER winning sessions?
    Ron, a "session" consisting of denominational and bet switching (along with one or more VP themes/variants) can be broken down into its constituent components where each component consists of the same bet size, theme, and denomination (and same pay table). Since it has already been established that the constituent components cannot win at the 85% clip that you claim (a success rate of 61% was established for the 8/5 BP component of the switching "session"), then it follows that the aggregate of these constituents which form the denominational switching "session" in total also cannot win at this 85% clip (I'd imagine somewhere in the 60-65% range). The bet that you won't take is one where you don't lose money after playing one million hands using your system. The 61% of your "sessions" that win will make less money in total than the 39% of your sessions that lose resulting in a net loss - again you would never take such a bet.
    You haven't proven anything with your contrived and misrepresented "61%" guess. You have no idea what the correct data is to begin with. "$1 8/5 BP" all day long combined with "progressive betting (up or down or both??) means you "might win more sessions, but for me to feel good about this I have to add that you will have BIGGER losers too".

    Then that dealer-turned-big-time-7 Stars AP, RS__, chimes in with his goofy support. Only critics like you two could talk yourselves into being mathematical analysts by guessing at what the data and parameters really are.
    The Kane/Nestor bug was a major threat to casinos so Casinos disabled double-up on vulnerable machines even though only a small number of people knew about the bug. A small number of people know about your system, and yet -EV VP is still available to play all over the place - the casinos didn't decide to eliminate it. Gee I wonder why ? I already explained that denominational and theme switching is a composition of flat bet same-themed mini-"sessions" (that have no chance of an 85% win rate), which, when combined, form the overall "session" but naturally you ignored that point. You state a -EV betting and theme system can be profitable - the burden of proof is on you, not me.

  17. #557
    Originally Posted by RS__ View Post
    When are some of you going to figure it out -- Rob doesn't give a shit about math, doesn't know wtf he's "doing", and under no circumstances would he ever post any proof (logic, math, or even results [not that any 'results' posted would even be proof, but the point remains]). The main reason is fairly obvious and it's what we already know -- it doesn't work. The other reason is because he stirs this shit up just to troll people into wasting their time. He's like 70+ and has nothing else to do.

    There's a reason why mathematicians agree when someone submits a logical proof -- because they too, are 1. logical and 2. smart enough to follow the proof. You can't prove something logically to someone who denounces logic. Proof is a two way street....it can only be proven to the other person if they're smart enough to follow it. Either Rob isn't smart enough to understand some pretty basic math for an "engineer" (lol) or, the more likely scenario, he's just pulling everyone's legs and playing dumb to put on a show.
    DING DING DING

  18. #558
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post

    Originally Posted by coachbelly View Post
    Now, the real question is "Is this the same probability of losing the $1000 before winning $1.00 if you were flat betting $1.00 a pop".
    How did my name get attached to this quote?

    When I click onto the blue double arrows next to my name,
    it brings me to a quote by unowme...

    Originally Posted by unowme View Post
    Now, the real question is "Is this the same probability of losing the $1000 before winning $1.00 if you were flat betting $1.00 a pop".

  19. #559
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Ron, a "session" consisting of denominational and bet switching (along with one or more VP themes/variants) can be broken down into its constituent components where each component consists of the same bet size, theme, and denomination (and same pay table). Since it has already been established that the constituent components cannot win at the 85% clip that you claim (a success rate of 61% was established for the 8/5 BP component of the switching "session"), then it follows that the aggregate of these constituents which form the denominational switching "session" in total also cannot win at this 85% clip (I'd imagine somewhere in the 60-65% range). The bet that you won't take is one where you don't lose money after playing one million hands using your system. The 61% of your "sessions" that win will make less money in total than the 39% of your sessions that lose resulting in a net loss - again you would never take such a bet.
    You haven't proven anything with your contrived and misrepresented "61%" guess. You have no idea what the correct data is to begin with. "$1 8/5 BP" all day long combined with "progressive betting (up or down or both??) means you "might win more sessions, but for me to feel good about this I have to add that you will have BIGGER losers too".

    Then that dealer-turned-big-time-7 Stars AP, RS__, chimes in with his goofy support. Only critics like you two could talk yourselves into being mathematical analysts by guessing at what the data and parameters really are.
    The Kane/Nestor bug was a major threat to casinos so Casinos disabled double-up on vulnerable machines even though only a small number of people knew about the bug. A small number of people know about your system, and yet -EV VP is still available to play all over the place - the casinos didn't decide to eliminate it. Gee I wonder why ? I already explained that denominational and theme switching is a composition of flat bet same-themed mini-"sessions" (that have no chance of an 85% win rate), which, when combined, form the overall "session" but naturally you ignored that point. You state a -EV betting and theme system can be profitable - the burden of proof is on you, not me.
    The double up glitch was a real threat posed by anybody who came upon it. And in every case other than the two boisterous big mouths who got caught--IE, me--it was an unsustainable threat had it continued.

    With a strategy such as mine, where discipline and ability are king and greed is a slave, it can go on with myself and others. I know of only one other player who plays it at my limits, and he's been successful for far more years than I played it. So no, there is no casino who sees it or would see it as a threat.

    Two other points. First, your entire argument is based on a theory that has no practical application in the real world--even if it were correct, which it isn't. In aerospace applications for instance, math is used solely as GUIDANCE in many many instances but not all of course, while the true end product is provided by those that find a better way through creativity. For example, UHF radio transmission travels by line-of-sight. The math says that the strongest signal travels the shortest distance. However, aircraft have found that some of these signals propegate more efficiently and at an even greater distance if they're bounced off the ocean's waves. Not in every case, but some.

    And that's exactly what my play strategy does, when it's played by someone like myself. If you're planting this bogus 61% into the ground, explain why the WoV math people would not bet me that I could win at least 8 out Of 10 sessions? In your world, wouldn't that be solidly +EV for them? But I expect you know why they walked away from it. They were smart enough to admit they couldn't accept a challenge where they did not know all that much about the data behind the strategy.

    Math books and theory are great tools we use for basically everything we come across in life. But application reality sometimes requires much much more.

  20. #560
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post

    You haven't proven anything with your contrived and misrepresented "61%" guess. You have no idea what the correct data is to begin with. "$1 8/5 BP" all day long combined with "progressive betting (up or down or both??) means you "might win more sessions, but for me to feel good about this I have to add that you will have BIGGER losers too".

    Then that dealer-turned-big-time-7 Stars AP, RS__, chimes in with his goofy support. Only critics like you two could talk yourselves into being mathematical analysts by guessing at what the data and parameters really are.
    The Kane/Nestor bug was a major threat to casinos so Casinos disabled double-up on vulnerable machines even though only a small number of people knew about the bug. A small number of people know about your system, and yet -EV VP is still available to play all over the place - the casinos didn't decide to eliminate it. Gee I wonder why ? I already explained that denominational and theme switching is a composition of flat bet same-themed mini-"sessions" (that have no chance of an 85% win rate), which, when combined, form the overall "session" but naturally you ignored that point. You state a -EV betting and theme system can be profitable - the burden of proof is on you, not me.
    The double up glitch was a real threat posed by anybody who came upon it. And in every case other than the two boisterous big mouths who got caught--IE, me--it was an unsustainable threat had it continued.

    With a strategy such as mine, where discipline and ability are king and greed is a slave, it can go on with myself and others. I know of only one other player who plays it at my limits, and he's been successful for far more years than I played it. So no, there is no casino who sees it or would see it as a threat.

    Two other points. First, your entire argument is based on a theory that has no practical application in the real world--even if it were correct, which it isn't. In aerospace applications for instance, math is used solely as GUIDANCE in many many instances but not all of course, while the true end product is provided by those that find a better way through creativity. For example, UHF radio transmission travels by line-of-sight. The math says that the strongest signal travels the shortest distance. However, aircraft have found that some of these signals propegate more efficiently and at an even greater distance if they're bounced off the ocean's waves. Not in every case, but some.

    And that's exactly what my play strategy does, when it's played by someone like myself. If you're planting this bogus 61% into the ground, explain why the WoV math people would not bet me that I could win at least 8 out Of 10 sessions? In your world, wouldn't that be solidly +EV for them? But I expect you know why they walked away from it. They were smart enough to admit they couldn't accept a challenge where they did not know all that much about the data behind the strategy.

    Math books and theory are great tools we use for basically everything we come across in life. But application reality sometimes requires much much more.
    "Application reality?" LOL. "Rob Singer" knows more than math theory, folks. And what he knows transcends math. Because, you know, he's one of a kind. Like Da Vinci or Stephen Hawking. Only with Hawaiian shirts. Bad Hawaiian shirts.

    And that leads me to another bone I have to pick with "Singer." My God, man. You're shooting a Mendelson video regarding your super systems that you developed in private with no one's assistance. Let's presume your systems are better than math. Let's presume you won three million playing video poker with a glitch. Didn't Alan make any sartorial recommendations? I mean, I dress like crap. My wardrobe sucks. But my top 30 shirt options for shooting that video would be better than yours. What the hell!?! Didn't you hang onto some of that three million for trips to Macy's? Or Kohl's?
    Last edited by redietz; 05-24-2019 at 10:43 AM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. What is your advantage play? All the details.
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 07-17-2017, 05:23 PM
  2. My advantage play in AC is finished
    By lucky in forum Eastern US & Non-US Casinos
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: 02-02-2016, 11:20 PM
  3. advantage play on credit lines?
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-11-2014, 07:18 PM
  4. Is this the ULTIMATE casino ADVANTAGE play??
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 02-04-2013, 12:57 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-17-2011, 11:29 AM

Posting Permissions

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