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

[Rob.Singer]

--I discovered the flaw by looking for it or something like it, brought on by a motivation and vengeance for losing as an AP previously. I spent four years in doing so.

Rob, I’m getting closer to believing your story, but I’m still on the fence, not that that should matter to you. I mean Mickey has me on ignore so I get what I think doesn’t matter to some.

But this line here caught me attention when I read it. You seem to indicate you believe there are bugs in all programs if one looks hard enough to find them. Why would you think that? There had been no bug in this game prior to 2003, so it’s not like this game had a history of bugs.

And I don’t see how your “motivation and vengeance” played into IGT obviously accidentally having a bug in this vp program after 2003. What if this bug wasn’t there? Then you would have wasted four years of your life looking for something that didn’t exists.

I guess I find it somewhat hard to believe you spent four years looking for something that might not have even existed.

But everything else in your story seems to add up. The more I go through it, the more it kind of makes sense. Still pretty incredible story though, and I’d have thought you would have made some trips outside Nevada to exploit it. I get you want to be cautious and not over do it, but I’d think you’d have been more aggressive than you were, knowing that at any time it could come to an end.

Last part first. Nevada has plenty of casinos to achieve the goal I set for myself with this, and I didn't want to involve any other states. At the time that was the prudent approach in my mind.

I worked in the private sector for 15 years before my search for something like this began. For 15 years while I worked I was doing what everybody does--look for a better way or maybe a more lucrative job etc. So spending time looking for not necessarily a bug, but basically ANYTHING that might enhance my overall efforts as well as scratch that itch I had over losing as a 6-yr. AP while I played vp, seemed like a reasonable way to spend some of that extra time I had on my hands after I reached my win goals playing my strategy.

[kewlJ]

Maybe to calm yourself down a little, you could go take a math class, then get back to us. What you'll find is that the Bell Curve applies to all of us--not just to you. When I say my strategy did in fact provide positive results for its 4-year life, and because it worked just as I expected it would do I've been teaching it or a variation of it ever since, what's "mathematically impossible" here is that someone who claims to understand the math can't comprehend that my strategy simply falls within the totality of that Curve.

Face it kew. If anyone came on here and said they could go play video poker with a br of $57,200 and walk away with at least a $2500 profit, you'd be stupid to bet against such a thing. And this is even WITHOUT any particular type of strategy. Go ask TomSki, Dunbar, Shack or anybody else to run a RoR on that one. You'll see what I mean.

Wait....THAT is the explanation? You just happen to be on the far, far positive side of the bell curve? Translation: Extremely lucky.

Ron, progressive wagering changes the distribution of wins and losses but not the total wins and losses. In this case you will end up with many small wins ($2500), but every so often, every 20 some trials, you will experience a loss of the entire $57k, wiping out all those wins. A progressive betting system can not overcome negative expectation. Proven mathematical fact.

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, which again should occur every 20 some trials.

Far, far to the positive side of the bell curve? If this were true, it's like you are running 7 times the number of royals expected per cycle and claiming that is a legitimate system. The very least you can do is tell us exactly what incantation you need to recite to make the voodoo magic work like this.

[Rob.Singer]

Maybe to calm yourself down a little, you could go take a math class, then get back to us. What you'll find is that the Bell Curve applies to all of us--not just to you. When I say my strategy did in fact provide positive results for its 4-year life, and because it worked just as I expected it would do I've been teaching it or a variation of it ever since, what's "mathematically impossible" here is that someone who claims to understand the math can't comprehend that my strategy simply falls within the totality of that Curve.

Face it kew. If anyone came on here and said they could go play video poker with a br of $57,200 and walk away with at least a $2500 profit, you'd be stupid to bet against such a thing. And this is even WITHOUT any particular type of strategy. Go ask TomSki, Dunbar, Shack or anybody else to run a RoR on that one. You'll see what I mean.

Wait....THAT is the explanation? You just happen to be on the far, far positive side of the bell curve? Translation: Extremely lucky.

Ron, progressive wagering changes the distribution of wins and losses but not the total wins and losses. In this case you will end up with many small wins ($2500), but every so often, every 20 some trials, you will experience a loss of the entire $57k, wiping out all those wins. A progressive betting system can not overcome negative expectation. Proven mathematical fact.

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, which again should occur every 20 some trials.

Far, far to the positive side of the bell curve? If this were true, it's like you are running 7 times the number of royals expected per cycle and claiming that is a legitimate system. The very least you can do is tell us exactly what incantation you need to recite to make the voodoo magic work like this.

Falling within the positive confines of the Bell Curve is not a mathematical impossibility.

Yes, my play strategy was one that utilized having good luck as one of the keys. That's where the special plays that you write off because you don't understand them come into play--at least for some of the wins.

I feel like I'm going back to square one with this. $2500 was my win goal. I'll use the 150 sessions played example because it's pretty close to what I did. Of my winning sessions, the majority were between $2500-$3500. I did have losing sessions, $33,000 being the largest, and that's because of banking those soft profits, 40+ credit cash outs, and going down and up in denominations & game volatility that few people understand. IE, there were never any total wipeouts of $57,200. And, what most people overlook (probably on purpose) is that large session wins do occur, and they are overall larger than the losses. Oh....and royals are not 100% necessary for this strategy to work. Hits up in the higher denoms work just fine.

[kewlJ]

Falling within the positive confines of the Bell Curve is not a mathematical impossibility.

Yes, my play strategy was one that utilized having good luck as one of the keys. That's where the special plays that you write off because you don't understand them come into play--at least for some of the wins.

I feel like I'm going back to square one with this. $2500 was my win goal. I'll use the 150 sessions played example because it's pretty close to what I did. Of my winning sessions, the majority were between $2500-$3500. I did have losing sessions, $33,000 being the largest, and that's because of banking those soft profits, 40+ credit cash outs, and going down and up in denominations & game volatility that few people understand. IE, there were never any total wipeouts of $57,200. And, what most people overlook (probably on purpose) is that large session wins do occur, and they are overall larger than the losses. Oh....and royals are not 100% necessary for this strategy to work. Hits up in the higher denoms work just fine.

Thank you Ron. "good luck is one of the keys".

My next question is back to Mickey. Same question I asked a while ago that you did not respond to. Mickey does you new found friendship with Singer have you vouching for this nonsense too? And would you care to comment on the mathematical nonsense that Singer just posted?

[kewlJ]

Now back to you Ron. Can we go over the time line again. And please correct anything I have incorrect. From either 2003 or 2004 (not sure which, please advise) through 2009 you played this double up glitch play to the tune of 3 million dollars? correct?

Prior to that for 4 years so either 1999 through 2003 or 2000 through 2004, you played the Singer system to the tune of $375k total winnings. Is that correct?

Prior to that for 6 years, so that would be 1994-2000 (or maybe 1993-1999), you attempted to AP, playing video poker but lost somewhere around 500k (going by memory, please correct). But you claim that was no big deal as that 500k was less than a years salary to you. Is this correct?

And finally, when did you stop working the job that paid you over 500k a year?

I will proceed with my point after you respond and correct any errors.

[kewlJ]

Ron? Are you there? You didn't fall asleep on me did ya?

I am trying to help you tell your story, get all the dates and numbers right and maybe in the process, it will all begin to make sense to me and like Bob21, I can come down on the side of the fence that it all seems believable.

[redietz]

Damn, I was really hoping "Singer" would get that GWAE interview. I was pulling for it big time.

I guess I can make a case for the bell curve comments. If we accept the fact that the systems stuff is all irrelevant, there is no reason to place an artificial line between the "AP Play Years of 1994-2000" and the "Singer Systems Years of 2000-2004." So if we just lump all of those years together, as mathematicians would, you get a result smack in the middle of the bell curve. I guess that's what "Singer" is saying, in his own way of course. We're talking roughly -400K for six years, then +400K for four years, give or take. Pretty much a wash, right? No reason to put some voodoo line in the sand. He had bad luck for six years, then good luck for four. No need to insert all of the Rube Goldberg win goals, martingaling, soft profits gobbledygook.

If you just take the sum total of his play and ignore the labels he puts on it as "AP" or "not AP," then he winds up smack in the middle of the bell curve. Occam's razor and all that. No need to create weird hypotheses. No reason at all. The "Singer Systems" wind up being his version of rabbit's feet. He won when he had them; he lost when he didn't. So from his perspective, it had to be the rabbit's feet.

[Rob.Singer]

Falling within the positive confines of the Bell Curve is not a mathematical impossibility.

Yes, my play strategy was one that utilized having good luck as one of the keys. That's where the special plays that you write off because you don't understand them come into play--at least for some of the wins.

I feel like I'm going back to square one with this. $2500 was my win goal. I'll use the 150 sessions played example because it's pretty close to what I did. Of my winning sessions, the majority were between $2500-$3500. I did have losing sessions, $33,000 being the largest, and that's because of banking those soft profits, 40+ credit cash outs, and going down and up in denominations & game volatility that few people understand. IE, there were never any total wipeouts of $57,200. And, what most people overlook (probably on purpose) is that large session wins do occur, and they are overall larger than the losses. Oh....and royals are not 100% necessary for this strategy to work. Hits up in the higher denoms work just fine.

Thank you Ron. "good luck is one of the keys".

My next question is back to Mickey. Same question I asked a while ago that you did not respond to. Mickey does you new found friendship with Singer have you vouching for this nonsense too? And would you care to comment on the mathematical nonsense that Singer just posted?

If you've been paying attention, neither mickey or axel believe my strategy works as I said it does.

[kewlJ]

If you've been paying attention, neither mickey or axel believe my strategy works as I said it does.

ok, well thank you for that Ron. I think that is important to have on the record, Are you going to help me so maybe I can understand better?

BTW, is Redietz correct? is the GWAE interview definitely a no go? I debated whether I should contact Richard saying I would like to hear an interview with you. But I can't recommend that if I don't believe your story. That is why I wanted help getting there.

So have I posted any incorrect dates or numbers in the above timeline so far?

[Rob.Singer]

Now back to you Ron. Can we go over the time line again. And please correct anything I have incorrect. From either 2003 or 2004 (not sure which, please advise) through 2009 you played this double up glitch play to the tune of 3 million dollars? correct?

Prior to that for 4 years so either 1999 through 2003 or 2000 through 2004, you played the Singer system to the tune of $375k total winnings. Is that correct?

Prior to that for 6 years, so that would be 1994-2000 (or maybe 1993-1999), you attempted to AP, playing video poker but lost somewhere around 500k (going by memory, please correct). But you claim that was no big deal as that 500k was less than a years salary to you. Is this correct?

And finally, when did you stop working the job that paid you over 500k a year?

I will proceed with my point after you respond and correct any errors.

You didn't get anything right....again. You're asking these questions because you're frustrated at not being able to simply dismiss what I've done. If I could only watch you bite your fingernails.....

The DU "glitch" was played from Feb. 2004 to mid 2009. About 5-1/2 years. My profit was about $2.8million.

From Jan. 2000 through Jan. 2004 (4 yrs.) I played only my strategy, winning $375k.

From sometime in 1990 until sometime in 1996, I was a vp ap, losing about $45k/year on avg.

From 1996 to Jan. 2000, I did trials in my developing strategy while I worked. This took so long because I was out of the country 75% of the time.

I did not earn greater than $500k/yr. What I said was I set my win goal with the DU play at $10k/week on avg. because it was greater than I earned in my best earning year of work.

[Rob.Singer]

Damn, I was really hoping "Singer" would get that GWAE interview. I was pulling for it big time.

I guess I can make a case for the bell curve comments. If we accept the fact that the systems stuff is all irrelevant, there is no reason to place an artificial line between the "AP Play Years of 1994-2000" and the "Singer Systems Years of 2000-2004." So if we just lump all of those years together, as mathematicians would, you get a result smack in the middle of the bell curve. I guess that's what "Singer" is saying, in his own way of course. We're talking roughly -400K for six years, then +400K for four years, give or take. Pretty much a wash, right? No reason to put some voodoo line in the sand. He had bad luck for six years, then good luck for four. No need to insert all of the Rube Goldberg win goals, martingaling, soft profits gobbledygook.

If you just take the sum total of his play and ignore the labels he puts on it as "AP" or "not AP," then he winds up smack in the middle of the bell curve. Occam's razor and all that. No need to create weird hypotheses. No reason at all. The "Singer Systems" wind up being his version of rabbit's feet. He won when he had them; he lost when he didn't. So from his perspective, it had to be the rabbit's feet.

Just. Plain. Weird.

[Rob.Singer]

If you've been paying attention, neither mickey or axel believe my strategy works as I said it does.

ok, well thank you for that Ron. I think that is important to have on the record, Are you going to help me so maybe I can understand better?

BTW, is Redietz correct? is the GWAE interview definitely a no go? I debated whether I should contact Richard saying I would like to hear an interview with you. But I can't recommend that if I don't believe your story. That is why I wanted help getting there.

So have I posted any incorrect dates or numbers in the above timeline so far?

I don't know anything about the GWAE interview. Mickey posted that he told Dancer, who had little to say so far. My guess is Dancer wouldn't want to believe me even if I told him his real name. Just like you!

[kewlJ]

Now back to you Ron. Can we go over the time line again. And please correct anything I have incorrect. From either 2003 or 2004 (not sure which, please advise) through 2009 you played this double up glitch play to the tune of 3 million dollars? correct?

Prior to that for 4 years so either 1999 through 2003 or 2000 through 2004, you played the Singer system to the tune of $375k total winnings. Is that correct?

Prior to that for 6 years, so that would be 1994-2000 (or maybe 1993-1999), you attempted to AP, playing video poker but lost somewhere around 500k (going by memory, please correct). But you claim that was no big deal as that 500k was less than a years salary to you. Is this correct?

And finally, when did you stop working the job that paid you over 500k a year?

I will proceed with my point after you respond and correct any errors.

You didn't get anything right....again. You're asking these questions because you're frustrated at not being able to simply dismiss what I've done. If I could only watch you bite your fingernails.....

The DU "glitch" was played from Feb. 2004 to mid 2009. About 5-1/2 years. My profit was about $2.8million.

From Jan. 2000 through Jan. 2004 (4 yrs.) I played only my strategy, winning $375k.

From sometime in 1990 until sometime in 1996, I was a vp ap, losing about $45k/year on avg.

From 1996 to Jan. 2000, I did trials in my developing strategy while I worked. This took so long because I was out of the country 75% of the time.

I did not earn greater than $500k/yr. What I said was I set my win goal with the DU play at $10k/week because it was greater than I earned in my best earning year of work.

I didn't get anything right? Looks to me like I got the years of this latest claim correct. I mean you originally said 6 years and now are backing down to 5 1/2. And you originally said you won more than 3 million dollars, numerous times. I won't embarrass you by posting those quotes. We'll just let that go for now, but this is exactly the kind of thing that plays into credibility. Your numbers ALWAYS change.

Also looks like I had the years of the Singer system and amount $375k correct. So what are you saying I got nothing correct?

Ok, so I did not know the losing VP, AP years were not immediately preceding the Singer System years. Thank you for that correction. I am very curious to know exactly what you were doing for 6 years as a VP AP that resulted in 45k a year loss, but I don't want to get to side tracked right now.

So you have no winnings until 2000? In the decade of the 1990's you were a losing player, for 6 years 45k/year and worked for 4 years.

Where I was going with this was your financial history that is now known. And that is probably unfair that it is. That was someone else that uncovered that, but I did look into it as well. To quote you "it is what it is". So anyway I was trying to figure out why such a successful player and person (employment) filed for bankruptcy in the 1990's and had evictions and judgements against them, because that just doesn't seem to jive with such a successful player and person that you have painted. And you have sort of answered that. That was your losing gambler period.

[kewlJ]

So here is my recap. High end executive leaves his high paying job in 1990, at age 41 to pursue video poker Advantage play. For 6 years he loses on average 45k a year. There then is a 4 year period which I am still foggy about that he is back working a high paying job which requires extensive travel and "working on his system".

Next is a 4 year period in which playing his system which goes against all mathematical possibilities (which continues to this day), and yet by good variance or being on the extremely positive side of the bell curve, he makes $375k over 4 years.

Followed by he stumbles on to a computer glitch that allows him to earn now 2.8 million dollars over the next 5.5 years, at which time he announces his retirement from what are you calling it video poker play? advantage play? He then waits 10 years for the statute of limitations to expire and shares this experience with the world.

Hey, all seems to make perfect sense to me. Credible as hell!

That was sarcastic by the way, but I am going to send Munchkin and email right now encouraging him to have you on GWAE to tell your story and answer questions. If there is any possibility that this is true, he has a responsibility to have you on and at least allow people to decide for themselves whether you are credible or not.

[Rob.Singer]

Now back to you Ron. Can we go over the time line again. And please correct anything I have incorrect. From either 2003 or 2004 (not sure which, please advise) through 2009 you played this double up glitch play to the tune of 3 million dollars? correct?

Prior to that for 4 years so either 1999 through 2003 or 2000 through 2004, you played the Singer system to the tune of $375k total winnings. Is that correct?

Prior to that for 6 years, so that would be 1994-2000 (or maybe 1993-1999), you attempted to AP, playing video poker but lost somewhere around 500k (going by memory, please correct). But you claim that was no big deal as that 500k was less than a years salary to you. Is this correct?

And finally, when did you stop working the job that paid you over 500k a year?

I will proceed with my point after you respond and correct any errors.

You didn't get anything right....again. You're asking these questions because you're frustrated at not being able to simply dismiss what I've done. If I could only watch you bite your fingernails.....

The DU "glitch" was played from Feb. 2004 to mid 2009. About 5-1/2 years. My profit was about $2.8million.

From Jan. 2000 through Jan. 2004 (4 yrs.) I played only my strategy, winning $375k.

From sometime in 1990 until sometime in 1996, I was a vp ap, losing about $45k/year on avg.

From 1996 to Jan. 2000, I did trials in my developing strategy while I worked. This took so long because I was out of the country 75% of the time.

I did not earn greater than $500k/yr. What I said was I set my win goal with the DU play at $10k/week because it was greater than I earned in my best earning year of work.

I didn't get anything right? Looks to me like I got the years of this latest claim correct. I mean you originally said 6 years and now are backing down to 5 1/2. And you originally said you won more than 3 million dollars, numerous times. I won't embarrass you by posting those quotes. We'll just let that go for now, but this is exactly the kind of thing that plays into credibility. Your numbers ALWAYS change.

Also looks like I had the years of the Singer system and amount $375k correct. So what are you saying I got nothing correct?

Ok, so I did not know the losing VP, AP years were not immediately preceding the Singer System years. Thank you for that correction. I am very curious to know exactly what you were doing for 6 years as a VP AP that resulted in 45k a year loss, but I don't want to get to side tracked right now.

So you have no winnings until 2000? In the decade of the 1990's you were a losing player, for 6 years 45k/year and worked for 4 years.

Where I was going with this was your financial history that is now known. And that is probably unfair that it is. That was someone else that uncovered that, but I did look into it as well. To quote you "it is what it is". So anyway I was trying to figure out why such a successful player and person (employment) filed for bankruptcy in the 1990's and had evictions and judgements against them, because that just doesn't seem to jive with such a successful player and person that you have painted. And you have sort of answered that. That was your losing gambler period.

You act like such a baby. You can't come to grips with this so you make 90% of everything up. I never said more than $3million. I worked all my life until 2000. There were no evictions or welfare, and the '96 bankruptcy that you're so infatuated with was a positive financial tool. I could buy you and your family out then and I could buy you and your family out now....and you know that. What I know is you cannot rest peacefully at night--anybody can see how rattled you are over this.

Stick around. Smart people keep busy. I'll figure out time travel next.

[mickeycrimm]

The quotes are not mine.

Maybe one of these days the whole story will come out. If and/or when it happens it will be one of the biggest stories to ever hit the professional video poker world. And that is simply because it was ROB SINGER that found it. Rob's trolling of the professional video poker world, and his ability to get under their skin, have caused many to loathe him. That's the irony of this story. When professional video poker players everywhere find out what Rob was really doing, and the money he made, they are going to be SHOCKED!!.

"Biggest story ever to hit the video poker world" vs "bombshell". really Mickey? you are quibbling about the wording?

Damn right I'm quibbling about the wording. Don't try to play me. I didn't say "the biggest story ever to hit the video poker world." That is you misquoting me. I said "one of the biggest simply because of who it was." I never used "bombshell." I understand you're not wanting to believe Rob but your speculations are far fetched to say the least and you are misquoting me.

[Rob.Singer]

So here is my recap. High end executive leaves his high paying job in 1990, at age 41 to pursue video poker Advantage play. For 6 years he loses on average 45k a year. There then is a 4 year period which I am still foggy about that he is back working a high paying job which requires extensive travel and "working on his system".

Next is a 4 year period in which playing his system which goes against all mathematical possibilities (which continues to this day), and yet by good variance or being on the extremely positive side of the bell curve, he makes $375k over 4 years.

Followed by he stumbles on to a computer glitch that allows him to earn now 2.8 million dollars over the next 5.5 years, at which time he announces his retirement from what are you calling it video poker play? advantage play? He then waits 10 years for the statute of limitations to expire and shares this experience with the world.

Hey, all seems to make perfect sense to me. Credible as hell!

That was sarcastic by the way, but I am going to send Munchkin and email right now encouraging him to have you on GWAE to tell your story and answer questions. If there is any possibility that this is true, he has a responsibility to have you on and at least allow people to decide for themselves whether you are credible or not.

This is even funnier! You got nothing right in your last set of lies.....and you got even less right this time. Even after I made a half dozen corrections for you! Now I know--Im dealing with a stupid person!!

[mickeycrimm]

Sometimes I don't get the things that you decide to go off on me about Boz, or is it Bon? Anyway, this discussion is just that. It is a discussion about what Mickey says is a "bombshell" story in the AP community. The biggest thing to come down the pike in years. It's worth of discussion, is it not? Especially since the claim was made by a person who's credibility is what's the phrase I want to use....almost non existent. So I have voiced my opinion. So what's with this bug up your ass, Bon?

Again, not my quote.

Fine! Mickey didn't use the word "bombshell" His exact quote is "the biggest story EVER to hit the video poker world". WTF?

Wrong again.

[mickeycrimm]

Kew, let me help you out on this.

This IS the biggest story ever in the video poker (not gambling) world. Now admit it: because it involves me, it's knocked your socks off. Right?

Completely incorrect Ron. The fact that it is you is completely irrelevant with the exception of one thing. You have zero credibility with me, in part because you continue to claim you saw a purple being from another planet (the original Singer System that remains mathematically impossible). The two are NOT separate. They go to credibility.

You have repeated this several times now Ron, so you want this to be true. You seem to want to be the bad guy, who is proving everyone that doesn't like him wrong. We have sort of moved past that. At this point, this claim which is unsubstantiated, is about one thing for me, credibility. And you have none. Whether it was all a game you were playing as you now claim, makes no difference, You have zero credibility. You chose that. And you continuing to double down on your Singer System claim, just adds to that.

Mickey, how about a comment on that? How about a comment on the Singer System claims that Rob continues to double down on? (which continue to be mathematically impossible as stated). Let's not have this Singer System claim get lost in all this, because that continues to play into Ron's credibility, especially as he has chosen to continue to double down on the claim.

Sure, I'll comment on his system. You've been using the word "impossible" a lot. I don't think you are using it in the right context. For instance, what are Rob's chances of producing a win with his system in a single session? I don't know the exact percentage but I do know he is a huge favorite to do it. It might be as high as 80%. If you were to bet against it you would be a big dog. So winning with his system is not impossible at least in the short term.

How long can a system like that keep producing positive results? I don't know.

[Rob.Singer]

Again, not my quote.

Fine! Mickey didn't use the word "bombshell" His exact quote is "the biggest story EVER to hit the video poker world". WTF?

Wrong again.

It looks like kew is prone to spinning and re-arranging words in an effort to make others LOOK bad to the readers, and so he FEELS better about things himself. Or maybe he just gets out of his mind when I'm involved.

If he would settle down and make sense, he'd see all my earlier interactions, insults and bad mouthing I did with him were not actually real. But he is waaay too sensitive. He may just need a safe space for a while.