I like name of this topic xD About line
Yes- application theory. How does ANYONE know what portion of the bell curve or where in the ror formula a machine is? You play a session and through good luck skim by with a few dollars profit. Or by good fortune or just plain sensible play hit a nice winner. What's wrong with cashing out in short term? Are you guaranteed that "variance" has finally turned your way? That "measly" win may have been the apex of ror and now headed even worse. The single play strategy is the only strategy of his that comes close to AP play but on good days shortens the session considerably.
Rob frequently uses a posting technique that I call "muddying the waters". I think it is obvious what that means and why a person would do it.
Now in the above post (#559), Rob starts out with a statement about the double-up "bug" play. And then evolves into talk about his "Singer system". The two are very distinct discussions. The double up "bug" claim is without question a very +EV play. And the math easily supports and makes possible Rob's claim and in the amounts he claims (or even far greater). So for a change with Rob's claims the math works on this one. The only question that remains, would be is it true. Is it credible. And again, without some sort of supporting documentation, that is for each person to decide for themselves.
The second claim is entirely different. That continues to have serious problems mathematically. I often say "impossible". That is probably not correct, especially based on limited trials. But the math certainly doesn't support such a claim and if the explanation is that results are on the positive side of the bell curve or variance, then it really isn't much of a claim.
Now Rob frequently uses odd phrasing or terms to muddy the water. Or says things that really have no meaning in this context. In the above post a line such as "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" is a perfect example. That means nothing. It says nothing. Maybe it sound good to Rob or some, but it explains nothing. Similarly his comments about higher level play, have no bearing. These things are designed to "muddy the water" because Rob has no mathematical supported answers. The comment about higher limits is saying "you can't understand what I do because you don't play my limits". Pure nonsense.
Other forms of muddying the water not from the above post are when Rob tells his story and says I was a losing player for 6 years and learned from that and spent 4 years developing my strategy. Hey that is a great line. But as an explanation, it says absolutely nothing. It is a "muddying the water" technique.
And the inclusion of a single short paragraph about the double up bug and then immediately switching to discussion about the Singer "system" was an intentional "muddying" effort, attempting to give a little credit to the Singer System, which remains -EV, with no explanation of how anything changes that, by grouping it with discussion of the "bug" which is +EV. They are completely separate things, separate discussions. Lumping them together is just another "muddying technique".
I guess "deflection" is another term for what I call muddying the waters. That is what you do when you don't have an answer that is supported by math. And Rob Singer (person or persona) is a master of it.
That's the problem with people like you who've never worked in the real world kew. Not everything is "supported by math". All you know is the numbers on cards, and your thinking never goes beyond what you see. You keep bringing up the double up glitch but you never apply any numbers to it. You know why? Because the edge is over 1000% in most cases, and aside from it being beyond your comprehension, it shows up in no books or in any forum chatter. It is not something you can deal with. Neither is my play strategy.
Again, for KJ's benefit, I will state that I do not believe Rob has a legit VP system that is a long term loser with both short term and long term -EV. If Rob is ahead then it seems obvious Rob has not played it enough yet he thinks he has therefor he remains confident it works given his personal sample size(is that called confirmation bias?.) I think that he really doesn't keep track very well and only notices when he wins big and forgets all the small losses.
Tableplay, I find it never I have to disagree with something you say. I would think the casinos are going to do whatever is most beneficial to them. There would be no logical reason not to fix a bug that IGT is responsible for if the cost if of doing so and the time it takes makes sense. In this case, it seems as if it did make sense. Also, they might be in violation of the law knowingly allowing machines like this not to be fixed.
Actually, I bet everything is supported by some type of math. I bet they can even tie art and other crazy things to math, even if its a type of math we don't understand or know how to apply it yet. There's probably some mathematical formula we don't know how to apply yet that can even figure out your brain and thoughts. But never mind all that all. This gambling stuff you are talking about is nothing but math. You might argue that finding it and or coming up with some system isn't based on math and more about some outside the box thinking or luck, however, after that point, it's all about the math.
Since this was explained to you by several people and you ignored the answers, it would be futile to answer you. For new forum members alone I answer this Ron. You could simply use a larger bankroll to achieve your $2500 "session" goal thereby "winning" 85% of your sessions. The sum total of the wins derived from 85% of the "sessions" would be less than the amount lost in the remaining 15% of the "sessions" however. This is why you would never accept a bet based on an absolute dollar amount.
I'm not saying gambling isn't grounded in math, just like everything else is. I'm saying just as I found the double up glitch by using an other-than-the-math skill, wherein I then basically applied math in order to formulate an overall strategic plan based on how the machines operate, there are not exceptions....but additional aspects that warrant serious considerations in many mathematical situations.
This may sound foreign to many people at least here. But it's been learned from the world I've worked in before becoming involved in professional gambling. I know a lot of people who aren't involved with gambling who would understand what I'm referring to in a heartbeat. I know I'm not getting through to people here, and I understand why. Yes I know I'm considered odd in what I do and say and how I do and say it. It was also very odd that I did what I did for 5-1/2 years. Everybody's different.
We're not speaking a different language--just a different dialect. There will be no conclusion.
May I suggest everyone try to get this stuff out of their heads and enjoy the Memorial Day Weekend? I have a Wounded Warrior son here until Tues. I imagine that's different about me here also.
And fly the flag.
redietz....you know who I am from LV Advice. Tell these yahoos I'm not this Coach Belly character. Sheesh. What a welcoming bunch.
First off, I've posted at lvadvice about once a week for 11 years, and most of them have to do with following Boyd offers and downgrades, since that's my primary LV stay. So I'm not exactly an expert on LVAdvice posters. Here's what I can tell you.
There's a "uknowme" at lvadvice.com, obviously different spelling, with roughly 1600 posts. I would not have surmised that "unowme" here is the "uknowme" at LVAdvice. My guess is that a writing analysis program would tag the "unowme" here as "coach belly." So that appears to be the issue. If a content/style analysis program did come to that conclusion, I'm not going to argue with it. I would have come to the same conclusion.
Frankly, if that's wrong, I wouldn't apologize, simply because I think the proper way to communicate as adults is with your real name. I'm R.E.Dietz (Robert Earl), therefore "redietz." My email address is available on other sites, and I make it available to quite a few people here. So if you want to avoid being mistaken for some anonymous other-dude, don't be anonymous in the first place. Be an adult. Use your real name if people confusing your identity bothers you. Simple solution. If that's too scary for you, too personal, all I can say is, "My God, man, what did you do before anonymous forums?"
Just to be clear...you also think that unowme is a sock puppet that I created this month?
After all this time, why would I need to create a sock now?
tableplay's fundamentally dishonest editing of quotes is something that Dan should be concerned about.
Consider the possibilities if this is permitted...
"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
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)