Page 24 of 50 FirstFirst ... 1420212223242526272834 ... LastLast
Results 461 to 480 of 982

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

  1. #461
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Mickey, you know everything I just stated is true. This explanation of yours that it was the free play that made the difference is just false. The story is changing just as Rob always does and you seem now to be grasping at straws trying to legitimize the preposterous claims of your new friend.
    This one really takes the cake. In his obsession with discrediting Rob's story KJ has thrown all credibility out the door. He has once again twisted my words into something they didn't mean.

    Redietz, would you like to tell me you don't see KJ's lies and misrepresentations in this thread? Are you sure that you want to continue to align yourself with a pathological liar?
    Mickey this has nothing to do with Rob's recent claim involving the Game King double up glitch. I said my piece on that. The math works. That differs from most of his claims. But, I don't find it credible based on his history of deceit and claims. You and Axelwolf do find him credible and that is fine. It is up to each person to decide for them selves who they find credible. So that part of the discussion is over for me unless there is new information or supporting documentation coming.

    But based on Singer's continuing claims about his progressive / stop limit / special plays system, I am continuing to challenge the claims made, which have now been revised to 4 years, 375k won. Up until yesterday, you too made the same arguments that I am making, and now you seem to have done an about face. Are you even aware what you are now arguing? I suggest you pick up a copy of The Undeniable Truth about Video Poker by Rob Singer. That is what this discussion is about. His continuing claims that go against mathematical principals. AND he specifically shot down the idea of playing rated and receiving any kind of free play or offers as part of his system in the book. So I don't know why you or he are attempting to change these claims at this time. The claims are all documented. Documented in the books, documented in numerous times in 7500 posts on this forum, as well as many other forums.

    Again, this has nothing to do with Singers recent double up glitch claim that you are finding credible. The fact that you find him credible on the double up play, should not change the fact that these other claims are mathematical "problematic". One has nothing to do with the other. This is is the Singer progressive wagering claims, that he is still making even today. Just to refresh your memory, here is a paragraph from Wizard, updated in the last couple months.

    Briefly, Singer ridicules the mathematically based strategies that skilled players like me employ. Instead, he follows a progressive betting system, setting a small winning goal each day and ramping up the denomination of his bets until he hits his winning goal. He does not detail a holding strategy but advocates playing more conservatively than skilled strategies in some situations. It should go without saying that my position on video poker is 180 degrees away from Singer's. I had always filed Rob Singer with John Patrick in my folder of people who do not merit serious discussion. --from Micheal Shackleford's Wizard of Odds blog
    Last edited by kewlJ; 05-22-2019 at 12:31 AM.

  2. #462
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    I just want to be clear. Again, all Singer has said is that he used a card with the system. KJ has turned that into "Singer is now running with Mickey's explanation. That it was the freeplay and mailers that made his machine play a winning play." Just another routine pathological lie by KJ.
    Mickeycrimm, please stop with the pathological liar name calling and cussing that you did last night. You always say you don't attack people unless they attack you first. Well I haven't attacked you or called you any names. If I am misinterpreting something you are saying, or coming to a different conclusion that you mean, please explain it better, so that I will understand your position.

    Now I don't know where you get that Singer said that he played with a card? I again refer you back to his book and can pull many, many quotes from this forum where he specifically says that he does not play with a card, when employing the Singer progressive betting system. And in no uncertain terms has he stated that free play is NOT a part of what makes this a winning system. Again, please understand we are not talking about this recent double-up "play", we are talking about what seems to be knows as the Singer VP strategy.

  3. #463
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Mickey, you know everything I just stated is true. This explanation of yours that it was the free play that made the difference is just false. The story is changing just as Rob always does and you seem now to be grasping at straws trying to legitimize the preposterous claims of your new friend.
    This one really takes the cake. In his obsession with discrediting Rob's story KJ has thrown all credibility out the door. He has once again twisted my words into something they didn't mean.

    Redietz, would you like to tell me you don't see KJ's lies and misrepresentations in this thread? Are you sure that you want to continue to align yourself with a pathological liar?
    Mickey this has nothing to do with Rob's recent claim involving the Game King double up glitch. I said my piece on that. The math works. That differs from most of his claims. But, I don't find it credible based on his history of deceit and claims. You and Axelwolf do find him credible and that is fine. It is up to each person to decide for them selves who they find credible. So that part of the discussion is over for me.

    But based on Singer's continuing claims about his progressive / stop limit / special plays system, I am continuing to challenge the claims made, which have now been revised to 4 years, 375k won. Up until yesterday, you too made the same arguments that I was making, and now you seem to have done an about face. Are you even aware what you are now arguing? I suggest you pick up a copy of The Undeniable Truth about Video Poker by Rob Singer. That is what this discussion is about. His continuing claims that go against mathematical principals. AND he specifically shot down the idea of playing rated and receiving any kind of free play or offers as part of his system in the book. So I don't know why you or he are attempting to change these claims at this time. The claims are all documented. Documented in the books, documented in numerous times in 7500 posts on this forum, as well as many other forums.

    Again, this has nothing to do with Singers recent double up glitch claim that you are finding credible. This is the Singer progressive wagering claims, that he is still making even today. Just to refresh your memory, here is a paragraph from Wizard.

    Briefly, Singer ridicules the mathematically based strategies that skilled players like me employ. Instead, he follows a progressive betting system, setting a small winning goal each day and ramping up the denomination of his bets until he hits his winning goal. He does not detail a holding strategy but advocates playing more conservatively than skilled strategies in some situations. It should go without saying that my position on video poker is 180 degrees away from Singer's. I had always filed Rob Singer with John Patrick in my folder of people who do not merit serious discussion. --from Micheal Shackleford's Wizard of Odds blog
    Please quote where I said, I find him credible. Please quote where I said I think he played the bug. I have NEVER EVER said I believe he made money with his system or that it has/had any merit to it. I have ALLWAYS said the opposite of that. Unless one can show me the machines are noticeably and predictably NOT random, I will never believe it.

    LET ME EXPLAIN TO YOU AGAIN. (THIS IS ONLY REGARDING THE DOUBLE UP BUG PERIOD and perhaps the 200k hit)
    Rob's explanation and stories about this were very fluent, it didn't even seem like he was trying to convince me he played it. There was no bragging either. It seemed as if he had more knowledge than someone who hadn't played it, at minimum, it seemed he at least he was shown by someone who had. Of course, I could come up with some explanations of how this could be and yet he never played it.
    Rob could have read the story when it first came out. He could have since bought a machine that had the bug. He could have experimented using the information online. He could have gone out and looked for this situation in a casino and even found it on a small scale.

  4. #464
    Axel I don't want to quibble about wording. AS far as the double up bug you and mickey both said something to the effect that you found Singers claim credible because he had information that only someone who played would have. I am sort of lumping the two of you (you and Mickey together), I apologize for that. I think Mickey went a little further and concluded that He believed Singer's claim and that he made the money he said (with the double-up). If Mickey disputes that or thinks that I am mis-characterizing his comments, I will look for the quote that led me to that conclusion.

    I don't think you went quite as far as mickey. I don't think that you said one way or the other whether you believe he played the double up and made the money he claimed. You just said something to the effect that he had knowledge that only someone who made the play would have. And yes, Axel you specifically stated that you still didn't believe Singers claims about his progressive wagering claims, which is why it seemed so odd when you chimed in tonight, "barking at me". Perhaps you didn't realize what the discussion was about and assumed I was still challenging the double up play. I am not. I am done with that. I have my opinion and others have a different opinion. I am now specifically challenging the progressive wagering stuff and the reason is because Singer has specifically doubled down on those claims in the past few days.

  5. #465
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    It seemed as if he had more knowledge than someone who hadn't played it, at minimum, it seemed he at least he was shown by someone who had. Of course, I could come up with some explanations of how this could be and yet he never played it.
    Rob could have read the story when it first came out. He could have since bought a machine that had the bug. He could have experimented using the information online. He could have gone out and looked for this situation in a casino and even found it on a small scale.
    This is interesting, because I said the same thing, and was jumped all over. Two possibilities I came up with were that someone told him the information after the fact and that after the story broke he went out and found a machine and discovered the correct sequence for himself. I even raised that same possibility that he may have played small scale, making some money after doing so.

    Your 3rd scenario, that he purchased a machine after the story broke and discovered the bug that way, actually had not occurred to me. So that is yet another possible way. But I was just suggesting possible ways that he could now know about the play (and correct sequence) without having played it and people jumped all over me.

  6. #466
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    I just want to be clear. Again, all Singer has said is that he used a card with the system. KJ has turned that into "Singer is now running with Mickey's explanation. That it was the freeplay and mailers that made his machine play a winning play." Just another routine pathological lie by KJ.
    Mickeycrimm, please stop with the pathological liar name calling and cussing that you did last night. You always say you don't attack people unless they attack you first. Well I haven't attacked you or called you any names. If I am misinterpreting something you are saying, or coming to a different conclusion that you mean, please explain it better, so that I will understand your position.

    Now I don't know where you get that Singer said that he played with a card? I again refer you back to his book and can pull many, many quotes from this forum where he specifically says that he does not play with a card, when employing the Singer progressive betting system. And in no uncertain terms has he stated that free play is NOT a part of what makes this a winning system. Again, please understand we are not talking about this recent double-up "play", we are talking about what seems to be knows as the Singer VP strategy.
    As far as I'm concerned when you twist my words around to mean something else it is an attack on me. When I said I thought I could make money with Rob's system by generating freeplay you twisted that into I was saying Rob was using freeplay to make a profit. Don't twist my words up and you won't get called a pathological liar.

    And I know full well that we are talking about his progressive betting system and not the double up play. You say "it's impossible." I say "It's impossible given a large enough sample space." That little qualifier "large enough sample space" is important. If you think his system is totally impossible then make a bet with him for one session and see how you come out. You'll be a big dog on the bet because it's a very small sample space. The smaller the sample space the more likelihood of success, the larger the sample space the more unlikely the chance of success.

    Whether it's flat betting or progressive betting I don't play negative situations of any kind.
    "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

  7. #467
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post

    As far as I'm concerned when you twist my words around to mean something else it is an attack on me. When I said I thought I could make money with Rob's system by generating freeplay you twisted that into I was saying Rob was using freeplay to make a profit. Don't twist my words up and you won't get called a pathological liar.
    I did not realize you were saying that YOU could have made money via free play. Even now, having just gone back and re-read, I still don't see where you were referring to yourself. I thought you were referring to Singer.


    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post


    And I know full well that we are talking about his progressive betting system and not the double up play. You say "it's impossible." I say "It's impossible given a large enough sample space." That little qualifier "large enough sample space" is important. If you think his system is totally impossible then make a bet with him for one session and see how you come out. You'll be a big dog on the bet because it's a very small sample space. The smaller the sample space the more likelihood of success, the larger the sample space the more unlikely the chance of success.
    I don't consider 4 years and 375k a small sample size. That is a large enough sample size that you would expect the math to work and playing a negative EV game with no explanation of how he won, other than "the good side of the bell curve seems unrealistic to me.

  8. #468
    I learned earlier today that I'm not allowed to post Rob's Game King Glitch story on vpFREE. The decision was made by just one person who is the only moderator there. There are over 11,000 members of vpFREE but I'm sure most are currently inactive. Still a big audience to get shut out of. Dancer and vpFREE are closely associated. I don't think hiding the story from the members is the correct decision.
    "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

  9. #469
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    I learned earlier today that I'm not allowed to post Rob's Game King Glitch story on vpFREE. The decision was made by just one person who is the only moderator there. There are over 11,000 members of vpFREE but I'm sure most are currently inactive. Still a big audience to get shut out of. Dancer and vpFREE are closely associated. I don't think hiding the story from the members is the correct decision.
    I actually emailed Richard Munchkin last night Just as I said and despite that I don't find Singer credible, I still encouraged Munchkin to have Singer on to tell the story so people can decide for themselves. I would have emailed Dancer as well but I don't know Dancer to talk to, where as I do know Munchkin. I do think Singer should have the opportunity to tell his story and let people decide for themselves.

    I also continue to be surprised there has been no discussion at WoV. I am sure such a discussion would probably be biased against Rob, because of circumstances, but still there should be discussion, so people could decide for themselves. I am wondering if management shut down any discussion?

    If I had a means to contact Shackleford, I would do so and suggest that he meet up and interview Singer, just as he apparently did when Singer's book came out. He could either video the interview as Mike likes to do, or at very least interview Singer and blog about it. Since Mike recently updated his blog concerning the original Singer system claim, there is apparently at least some interest in Singer, and I think this latest double-up bug would garner a lot of interest.
    Last edited by kewlJ; 05-22-2019 at 01:49 AM.

  10. #470
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Originally Posted by smurgerburger View Post
    You can apply RoR to a -EV game with some predefined limit. Even recreational gamblers have to consider how much money they should take to the casino if they want to last 1 hour on their favorite slot.
    I was answering the question under the assumption that a person planned to play again after they hit their limit (for example playing 150 similar sessions as Redietz mentioned) versus never playing ever again. Unowme, the actual figure is about 61%. That is, if you are playing 8/5 Bonus Poker $1 denomination VP, betting 5 coins a spin,with a bank roll of $55,000 (and perfect discarding strategy - no "special plays"), the probability of achieving a bank roll of $57,500 is 61%. So now there is an event that has a 61% of occurring. Does anyone seriously believe that you can play Russian Roulette long enough to make almost $400000 like Ron says given this probability (39% chance of ruin before achieving the bank roll goal) ? Ok Ron is doing denominational switching, but the pull of gravity does not disappear. It would be onerous to compute this mathematically, it would be best done by simulation. Gravity wins. Anyone who doesn't believe this is delusional. Using a players club card(s) like other posters have suggested is the only way to beat the pull of gravity (on a negative EV game). Ron's financial goals may have been achieved via the Nestor/Kane bug, but certainly not playing straight up 8/5 bonus poker (with generous free play it may be profitable, but this was never stated until recently as other posters have pointed out).
    Name:  
Views: 
Size:
    Thank you for that, sir. Just to clarify, I'm not claiming that you can beat the house to infinity with a martingale like system. I was questioning how that 5% figure was calculated. That's far different than the 39% chance you're estimating. Of course your calculation doesn't account for a progressive betting system which must significantly influence that probability of making a modest goal in a single session.

    So, my thought is that one might be able to structure the betting progression and limits such that the vast majority of people that play it end up winners but a few lose more in total than the winners. It doesn't overcome the pull of gravity, but might explain how someone could in fact make 400K doing it...they just can't continue do it forever. That's why I questioned the 5% number (I know...it's not your number). That's the key to whether it's even possible. If it's 5% it's highly unlikely. If it's 39% it's impossible. If it's .05%...I'm not so sure. As John Maynard Keynes said "In the long run, we're all dead'.

    I'm beginning to think the 5% claim was originally drawn from thin air though.

    In any event, I just posted here to talk about the original topic which was whether exploiting the Double Up flaw was cheating or a crime or immoral. It's morphed into an attack on Rod Singer's credibility which I find less interesting than who might play him in the future movie biopic. Carry on!

  11. #471
    I didn't mean for this to turn into a reason for anyone to get into arguments with axel or mickey. They were both willing to talk to me and I appreciate that. This was a big decision for me after holding the info in all these years and covering it up with perpetuating my playing SPS along with all my forum antics, and I realized there would be some who wouldn't comprehend the magnitude of what I did (as far as video poker is concerned) and/or who wouldn't want to believe me because they dislike me or never agreed with my play strategy as being successful. That's the way it is in the gambling world when you step outside the mainstream.

    So I'm not going to go back and forth on this anymore. People have a right to their beliefs, even if they go overboard with it and it bothers them because it's ME who has divulged the info on this. Individuals can determine the story's veracity based on how axel and mickey believe I came across as I spoke to them about it, what I've written about the play and the Wired article here, my reasons for waiting this long to release this, and how it all fits in with my professional vp player retirement date along with its relationship to how & why I've conducted myself the way I have on forums since I discovered the play.

    Apparently despite there being a certain bias against me out there, word IS getting around. I talked to a gaming media outlet yesterday who wanted to know what this was all about. It was surprising that no one there knew anything about the glitch, Kane or Nestor....but they knew who I was. Maybe these forums actually IS where the only truly knowledgeable people reside.

    I'm not surprised either about vpfree's being paranoid to have me mentioned. If the same two people still run it, the husband and I have always gotten along, but his wife absolutely DESPISES me maybe more than anyone else ever anywhere--and I've even had a nice dinner with them back when. I think the same might be true at videopoker.com. The odd thing is, many of both forums' members have met with and talked with me over the years, and this story would be hugely interesting to them.

    As I said, so be it. As big as this is and has been for me, it doesn't change anything now for myself or my family, and it's not gonna mend my broken foot. It also shouldn't be causing trouble amongst others.

    As far as when and whether I've used a slot card--its simple. When I played my strategy for 4 years and during all of my play since Kane got caught, I always used/use a card. I've already explained my limited card use and why, during the 5-1/2 year glitch period. And during that period, because I basically was not using a card until purposely losing a small percentage of my win, I went with the story that I didn't use a card very often when supposedly playing my strategy, which I wasn't really doing, during that 5-1/2 year period. I know that confuses kew and is easy to claim "Singer's always hiding stuff and he keeps changing this and that" but it's always been very, very clear.
    Last edited by Rob.Singer; 05-22-2019 at 04:49 AM.

  12. #472
    Originally Posted by unowme View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Originally Posted by smurgerburger View Post
    You can apply RoR to a -EV game with some predefined limit. Even recreational gamblers have to consider how much money they should take to the casino if they want to last 1 hour on their favorite slot.
    I was answering the question under the assumption that a person planned to play again after they hit their limit (for example playing 150 similar sessions as Redietz mentioned) versus never playing ever again. Unowme, the actual figure is about 61%. That is, if you are playing 8/5 Bonus Poker $1 denomination VP, betting 5 coins a spin,with a bank roll of $55,000 (and perfect discarding strategy - no "special plays"), the probability of achieving a bank roll of $57,500 is 61%. So now there is an event that has a 61% of occurring. Does anyone seriously believe that you can play Russian Roulette long enough to make almost $400000 like Ron says given this probability (39% chance of ruin before achieving the bank roll goal) ? Ok Ron is doing denominational switching, but the pull of gravity does not disappear. It would be onerous to compute this mathematically, it would be best done by simulation. Gravity wins. Anyone who doesn't believe this is delusional. Using a players club card(s) like other posters have suggested is the only way to beat the pull of gravity (on a negative EV game). Ron's financial goals may have been achieved via the Nestor/Kane bug, but certainly not playing straight up 8/5 bonus poker (with generous free play it may be profitable, but this was never stated until recently as other posters have pointed out).
    Name:  
Views: 
Size:
    Thank you for that, sir. Just to clarify, I'm not claiming that you can beat the house to infinity with a martingale like system. I was questioning how that 5% figure was calculated. That's far different than the 39% chance you're estimating. Of course your calculation doesn't account for a progressive betting system which must significantly influence that probability of making a modest goal in a single session.

    So, my thought is that one might be able to structure the betting progression and limits such that the vast majority of people that play it end up winners but a few lose more in total than the winners. It doesn't overcome the pull of gravity, but might explain how someone could in fact make 400K doing it...they just can't continue do it forever. That's why I questioned the 5% number (I know...it's not your number). That's the key to whether it's even possible. If it's 5% it's highly unlikely. If it's 39% it's impossible. If it's .05%...I'm not so sure. As John Maynard Keynes said "In the long run, we're all dead'.

    I'm beginning to think the 5% claim was originally drawn from thin air though.

    In any event, I just posted here to talk about the original topic which was whether exploiting the Double Up flaw was cheating or a crime or immoral. It's morphed into an attack on Rod Singer's credibility which I find less interesting than who might play him in the future movie biopic. Carry on!
    More disinformation. The bankroll is $171,600 not $57,200. BP contributed to 1/4 of my play, and the strategy is not as straight-up as this flawed calculation makes it out to be. It's neither a straight progression (it goes up and down) nor a single-volatility exercise. There is only one way to lose the $57200: get zero 40+ credit cash outs while losing 2400 credits. And can you guess how likely THAT is to happen? 39% my ass.

    Understand the data before reporting on it.

  13. #473
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    Yes, there were double up machines that gave points for doubling up. but not many that I know of, and all the ones I knew of were for comps only, so, it wasn't really worth doing just for that reason. I guess, before my time there could have been more around that were giving cash back.

    The Willams Blackjack was over 100% and had let it ride(different than double up since you are playing your wins into the next hand) and they had some places with very generous comps and some with cash back. It was only really worthwhile if you played the $1 version, but they only had those in a few places. The $1 versions were mostly in Reno and Lake Tahoe, some of best comps ever for me, including mall shopping, limos anywhere and the casino paid for it all, I would use the comps to buy gold jewelry from the gift shops (good times).

    There were a few places that were giving points on the old multi-game machines when you feed in coins and banked them in the credit meter without ever having to play.

    The Stardust had a slot machines that whenever you lined up 2 blue sevens (3 blue sevens was the top jackpot for 1k) it allowed you to feed in 3 more coins for a chance to spin the 3rd reel. it counted the coins going in and gave points when you did this. You could decline the 3rd reel spin and just cash out the coins, You could just keep doing that over and over without having to make any more spins. They had a 1% cash card on slots and comps, they also had various multipliers and point contests as well. Ithe hourly on that was very good and it wasn't very fun but I think it was worth about $15 to $20 an hour(perhaps $6 more per hour if you fast fed coins like a maniac, I can't remember now exactly what it was worth) with very little risk. And sometimes when you were finished and made the final spin you would connect with the $1k
    Thanks Axel - it was less common than I remember it being. Do you happen to know if there were double-up limitations put in place at certain shops? That is you could only win a double-up up to three times for example, and then the option to double up would no longer be given. I seem to remember this being the case at certain places, but maybe I am getting this jumbled with online play, where this certainly was true in the early part of the mid-2000s.

    Cheers, TP.
    Yes, some places set limits on the number of double up's, more so nowadays. In the past, I don't think I ran into this very much. TBH I can't recall any from the early 2000s and prior that had limited the double ups set to less than 5, and only a few time I saw 5 max. I do recall some stopped once you got to a hand-pay. But most of the ones I played in the past seemed unlimited, but I obviously I never got an unlimited double up win. I have doubled up $5 wins into over $1200 many times. And doubled up $1200 double up wins as well.

    On the computer, I doubled up stuff to some fantastic amounts to where I was like OH fuck, that's almost some 18 yo's in a row BS right there, I must be due to get hit by a bus and lightning at the same time, but instead I meet some hot chick.

    Online many places are set to one time and you can only double up if your winning amount is over the bet amount.

    Also, in the past, there were card readers that seemed to give you points on coin out(very few had this and not for long). Obviously, a double up win would work for that. I would have to think if that would help you in any way since you won't get points along the way.
    Thanks Axel - great memory recall.

  14. #474
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Mickey, you know everything I just stated is true. This explanation of yours that it was the free play that made the difference is just false. The story is changing just as Rob always does and you seem now to be grasping at straws trying to legitimize the preposterous claims of your new friend.
    This one really takes the cake. In his obsession with discrediting Rob's story KJ has thrown all credibility out the door. He has once again twisted my words into something they didn't mean.

    Redietz, would you like to tell me you don't see KJ's lies and misrepresentations in this thread? Are you sure that you want to continue to align yourself with a pathological liar?
    First off, my dark side reference was a Star Wars reference. Going over to the dark side has nothing to do with knowledge or expertise or skill. It has to do with the uses to which the knowledge or skill or expertise is put.

    Second, kewlJ got the gist correct with his misquote, but I have a thing about putting paraphrases in quotes. It's wrong and should not be done. So I'm okay with his paraphrase, but I am not okay with his putting words mickey did not exactly say in quotes. Repeat -- it is wrong.

    Third, mickey, you know better than me perhaps, how many times "Singer" blew off the comp values and revenues in posts. What he said to you and Axel privately is one thing. What he posted for readers over decades is something else. So what should take precedent? His hundreds of posts over years on various forums or his hour-long private conversations in the last two weeks? The bad thing is, the more closely readers followed his public advice, the worse they would have done. So his most ardent supporters would have had the worst results. I see something wrong with that at its very core.

    I don't think kewlJ is a pathological liar. You're implying that it's a bad thing to align yourself with a pathological liar, and yet "Singer" is self-reporting that he lied thousands of times in thousands of posts stretching decades. I wouldn't call that "pathological" if it was purposefully in service of protecting himself and screwing his readers. I'd call it "sadistic lying," because his readers/followers could have been spared by him simply not saying anything.

  15. #475
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Originally Posted by unowme View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    I was answering the question under the assumption that a person planned to play again after they hit their limit (for example playing 150 similar sessions as Redietz mentioned) versus never playing ever again. Unowme, the actual figure is about 61%. That is, if you are playing 8/5 Bonus Poker $1 denomination VP, betting 5 coins a spin,with a bank roll of $55,000 (and perfect discarding strategy - no "special plays"), the probability of achieving a bank roll of $57,500 is 61%. So now there is an event that has a 61% of occurring. Does anyone seriously believe that you can play Russian Roulette long enough to make almost $400000 like Ron says given this probability (39% chance of ruin before achieving the bank roll goal) ? Ok Ron is doing denominational switching, but the pull of gravity does not disappear. It would be onerous to compute this mathematically, it would be best done by simulation. Gravity wins. Anyone who doesn't believe this is delusional. Using a players club card(s) like other posters have suggested is the only way to beat the pull of gravity (on a negative EV game). Ron's financial goals may have been achieved via the Nestor/Kane bug, but certainly not playing straight up 8/5 bonus poker (with generous free play it may be profitable, but this was never stated until recently as other posters have pointed out).
    Name:  
Views: 
Size:
    Thank you for that, sir. Just to clarify, I'm not claiming that you can beat the house to infinity with a martingale like system. I was questioning how that 5% figure was calculated. That's far different than the 39% chance you're estimating. Of course your calculation doesn't account for a progressive betting system which must significantly influence that probability of making a modest goal in a single session.

    So, my thought is that one might be able to structure the betting progression and limits such that the vast majority of people that play it end up winners but a few lose more in total than the winners. It doesn't overcome the pull of gravity, but might explain how someone could in fact make 400K doing it...they just can't continue do it forever. That's why I questioned the 5% number (I know...it's not your number). That's the key to whether it's even possible. If it's 5% it's highly unlikely. If it's 39% it's impossible. If it's .05%...I'm not so sure. As John Maynard Keynes said "In the long run, we're all dead'.

    I'm beginning to think the 5% claim was originally drawn from thin air though.

    In any event, I just posted here to talk about the original topic which was whether exploiting the Double Up flaw was cheating or a crime or immoral. It's morphed into an attack on Rod Singer's credibility which I find less interesting than who might play him in the future movie biopic. Carry on!
    More disinformation. The bankroll is $171,600 not $57,200. BP contributed to 1/4 of my play, and the strategy is not as straight-up as this flawed calculation makes it out to be. It's neither a straight progression (it goes up and down) nor a single-volatility exercise. There is only one way to lose the $57200: get zero 40+ credit cash outs while losing 2400 credits. And can you guess how likely THAT is to happen? 39% my ass.

    Understand the data before reporting on it.
    There are going to be situations where you're never ahead during the human-perceived artifact known as a "session" (I guess a session is designated as complete when you touch the sidewalk or gravel/dirt parking lot outside the casino). It will happen whether there is denominational switching or not, and regardless of what variant of vp you play (ddb,bp,dw,bdw,tdb,joker poker, one eyed jacks, all american poker and on and on and on). You will find that you can do the same sort of analysis I did for the 61% metric (using commercial grade VP software) for the duration of when you flat bet a particular vp variant and denomination (and then performing the same analysis when the next denominational switch and vp variant switch, if any is made). If your win goal is a couple pennies, then of course your probability to win that "session" will be high. Are you then going to quit forever after that ? If the answer is no then you will surely lose if the game is -EV. Your argument that you only play bonus poker 1/4 of the time so that the analysis has no traction is absurd (unless you switch to a +EV game like FPDW,FPOEJ,FPDDB or some other full pay variation that is over 100%). The same argument applies to any -EV game. So the other 3/4ths of the time that you spend on other -EV games will have the same result for the "session" (whatever the fuck that is). I think in your system you state that you eventually quit the "session" if things don't work out. But in aggregate your losses will exceed your wins no matter how you chunk out your lifelong play into "sessions". So if you start with a bankroll of $171,600 then of course the probability of winning $2500 for that "session" is more likely Ron, but for lifelong play it erodes to zero if you continue to play -EV games. By the way, I posted the caveat that my analysis was for flat betting a particular denomination and game even though you tried to misrepresent (what's new) things by ignoring that I stated this caveat.

  16. #476
    Originally Posted by Bob21 View Post
    Mission, thanks for the additional articles. They helped and cleared up the situation at the Meadows. But it still doesn’t explain why the IRS is chasing Nestor for $239,000. If Nestor won additional money in Vegas or other casinos, then he should have the money to pay the IRS. This part still isn’t adding up.
    Anything that I would say here is speculation. It could be misinformation because there may be people he doesn't want to know he has money. It could be that PA authorities seized more than the amount that was needed to pay back The Meadows and he was unable to recover those monies. We do know that some amounts were spent on bails/bonds at various places.

    I would say that one piece of information that we have that may point to the veracity of saying he owes the IRS is that he was represented by a federal public defender in federal court.

    Nestor says he flew to Vegas and helped Kane come up with the bottoms to press to activate this play. I would think Kane would have figured this out already. Nestor makes it sound like Kane got lucky one time with this bug and then called him. If that’s the case then why does Nestor only take credit for figuring out the double up feature? From the article you can tell Nestor is trying to justify his actions of not paying Kane what he agreed he’d do.
    That is how he makes it sound, but that's also the impression I tend to get. If Kane had figured out how to recreate this himself, then what would be the purpose of bringing Nestor in in the first place? I think there are many details to this that we don't know, but I don't think there's enough hinted at one way or another for me to draw conclusions that Nestor's version is untrue in that regard.

    The other thing that didn’t make sense is why Nestor flew home the first time. This was still a viable play at the Fremont. Kane made $100,000 in about a month at the Fremont and this was supposedly before he understood the double up feature. $100,000 in a month isn’t shabby money.
    Your guess is as good as mine. Maybe Kane convinced him not to burn the Fremont out since it was the only place it seemed to work. After all, all sources agree Kane made the initial discovery.

    I expect Kane isn’t talking because his lawyers told him not to. Kane still has his money and anything he says could backfire on him. I wonder if the stature of limitations is the same for criminal cases as with civil cases. I’m unclear if Kane is out the woods on this.
    I don't know what the specific statute of limitations is on this. I do know that it is two years for a civil in some jurisdictions, but that can actually be extended if there is new information (not known before) that would lead to a cause of action.

    Also, I still think the Golden King slot machine Kane bought for his house played a role. It’s not just the machine but he also had access to the technicians that serviced it. It didn’t pay jackpots but it probably gave him some idea how it worked.
    I don't know, maybe. I'd be surprised if he even had the double-up feature on at his house, to be honest.

  17. #477
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Mickey, you know everything I just stated is true. This explanation of yours that it was the free play that made the difference is just false. The story is changing just as Rob always does and you seem now to be grasping at straws trying to legitimize the preposterous claims of your new friend.
    This one really takes the cake. In his obsession with discrediting Rob's story KJ has thrown all credibility out the door. He has once again twisted my words into something they didn't mean.

    Redietz, would you like to tell me you don't see KJ's lies and misrepresentations in this thread? Are you sure that you want to continue to align yourself with a pathological liar?
    First off, my dark side reference was a Star Wars reference. Going over to the dark side has nothing to do with knowledge or expertise or skill. It has to do with the uses to which the knowledge or skill or expertise is put.

    Second, kewlJ got the gist correct with his misquote, but I have a thing about putting paraphrases in quotes. It's wrong and should not be done. So I'm okay with his paraphrase, but I am not okay with his putting words mickey did not exactly say in quotes. Repeat -- it is wrong.

    Third, mickey, you know better than me perhaps, how many times "Singer" blew off the comp values and revenues in posts. What he said to you and Axel privately is one thing. What he posted for readers over decades is something else. So what should take precedent? His hundreds of posts over years on various forums or his hour-long private conversations in the last two weeks? The bad thing is, the more closely readers followed his public advice, the worse they would have done. So his most ardent supporters would have had the worst results. I see something wrong with that at its very core.

    I don't think kewlJ is a pathological liar. You're implying that it's a bad thing to align yourself with a pathological liar, and yet "Singer" is self-reporting that he lied thousands of times in thousands of posts stretching decades. I wouldn't call that "pathological" if it was purposefully in service of protecting himself and screwing his readers. I'd call it "sadistic lying," because his readers/followers could have been spared by him simply not saying anything.
    If the misquotes were a one-off it would be no big deal. But KJ is twisting to much stuff around. Rob claims to have played about 150 sessions with SPS and KJ changes that to Rob claiming he went 150-0 with SPS. I claim I think I could make money with Rob's SPS by generating freeplay and KJ changes that to Rob now claiming freeplay is what made SPS a winner. This stuff just keeps piling up. I'm going to continue to point it out when I see it.
    "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

  18. #478
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    I learned earlier today that I'm not allowed to post Rob's Game King Glitch story on vpFREE. The decision was made by just one person who is the only moderator there. There are over 11,000 members of vpFREE but I'm sure most are currently inactive. Still a big audience to get shut out of. Dancer and vpFREE are closely associated. I don't think hiding the story from the members is the correct decision.
    I'm moderated on vpFREE. Rob was to when he was there. What this means is when you make a post it doesn't immediately go up on the site. The moderator will put the post up if he approves of it. So when I sent the Singer/IGT GAME KING glitch story to vpFREE the moderator emailed me back not approving the story but telling me it was interesting. He doesn't want any Rob Singer controversy on the site. To bad because the members are being shut out of a good story.

    There is just one moderator on vpFREE, the administrator. When I would send late night posts sometimes they were put up on the site by mid morning of the next day, sometimes they weren't put up until mid afternoon. I'm sure the moderator has other things to do than sit moderating the site all day.

    The great bulk of members there are not moderated. That means their posts bypass the moderator and immediately go up on the site. Anyone who is not moderated can put the Singer story up. When the moderator catches up with it he will most likely send it to FREEvpFREE, the free speech arm of vpFREE. But at least some of the members will pick up on the story before he does that.
    "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

  19. #479
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post

    If the misquotes were a one-off it would be no big deal. But KJ is twisting to much stuff around. Rob claims to have played about 150 sessions with SPS and KJ changes that to Rob claiming he went 150-0 with SPS.
    Mickey, you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing, twisting things I said. Here is the quote:

    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Now you with these new adjusted numbers of total win of $375 you are trying to tell us that you have experiences 150 winning goals of $2500 (that would be 375k), while not experiencing any loses of the entire 57k bankroll,
    I clearly said any losses of the entire 57k bankroll!

    Now the first part, I was a bit wrong. Rob said he played 150 so I divided his total win claim of 375 by 150 sessions and came up with exactly $2500 which was his win goal. If he was stopping at $2500 he would have needed to have hit the $2500 win goal every single one of those sessions to reach his $375k claim. Rob has since explained that sometimes he won more than the win goal and sometimes he stopped playing with a loss, so he would not of necessarily had to win every session.

    But that is separate from the fact that he claims he never lost the entire 57k in 150 sessions and THAT is what I clearly said. We all sometimes misinterpret what people say. I do it. You do it. (you just did). It doesn't mean that most of us are intentionally setting out to lie. I take exception to that pathological liar comment. There are members here (and former) members that are pathological liar and constantly twist and manipulate. It just so happens you are now coming to the defense of one of them. No label's for him?

  20. #480
    And as for the not losing the entire 57k bankroll in 150 sessions. This is what progressive wagering systems do. Shackleford compared Rob's progression to martingale. Said "it was a cousin to Martingale", and it is, except instead of raising after individual losses or wins, you are raising after a series of losses. But still works the exact same way. If you are playing a negative expectation game, all that is going to do is change the distribution of wins and losses, it can't change the total loss. So a player will end up with many small wins but eventually a large loss that wipes out all those small wins.

    Miraculously Rob didn't encounter that huge loss. And his explantion for that s that he was on the far positive side of the bell curve.

    If a blackjack player, not counting cards or playing with an advantage, but playing -EV blackjack were to claim he was ahead after 150 sessions because he was on the far positive edge of the bell curve, do we accept that as a legitimate system?

    If a roulette player, were to claim that he is a head 375k after 150 sessions, and can give no explanation as to why except he is on the far positive side of the bell curve, do we accept THAT as a legitimate system?
    Last edited by kewlJ; 05-22-2019 at 09:45 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
  •