Page 21 of 50 FirstFirst ... 1117181920212223242531 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 420 of 982

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

  1. #401
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Go to your local university. Call up a math professor. Pay him a consultant's fee, like dinner at Outback. Ask him the odds against a 5% probability event going 0 for 150.

    Or ask tableplay. But buy him TWO dinners at Outback.
    Drich or Mission or RS_ can chime in if they want Redietz, but I believe the chance of this happening is about 0.046% (probability an event with a 5% chance of occurring does not occur in 150 attempts of the event).
    Where did the 5% risk of ruin come from? I'd like to see the math on that one. I'm not sure anyone truly understands the finer points of this betting system including Singer himself so who modeled it and how?

  2. #402
    So Singer changes gears and gets kewlJ and Mickey to start feuding?
    All part of the plan and it seems the plan is working.
    Maybe we can get Spiderman involved with the morality police?

    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    he knew an employee there. The guy brought out the worldwide memo that IGT sent around telling everyone to disable the double ups and not turn them on.
    I remember mistakenly thinking back then in 2009, that the casinos were disabling double-up to make hand-turn over quicker - that is, with double-up enabled,the players would waste time deliberating over whether to double up or not, instead of playing hands.
    You think that was the reason?
    I always thought it was because they realized that double up was a true 50/50 proposition which they don't like to begin with.
    Also, it could be beat in the right circumstances.
    I know when I would lock up the machines with double up it would always confuse the attendants.

    Originally Posted by RS__ View Post
    LOL
    Basically it seems that Singer, kewlJ and MC care.
    It seems that kewlJ cares the most though.
    Which is odd, cause I thought he would be teamed up with ZK by now, trying to prove shuffle machines are cheating everyone with Chinese Playing Cards.
    I think if one could prove that they would make more money per hour compared to counting cards?

    Seriously though... Spiderman/kewlJ (am I missing other aliases?) says he isn't going to post anymore and after that, he posts about 100 times in record fashion!!
    Last edited by monet; 05-21-2019 at 08:06 AM.

  3. #403
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Go to your local university. Call up a math professor. Pay him a consultant's fee, like dinner at Outback. Ask him the odds against a 5% probability event going 0 for 150.

    Or ask tableplay. But buy him TWO dinners at Outback.
    Actually the number Singer first posted was that he had played 150-200 sessions without losing the 57K. I know exactly where that quote is, if there is any question. I guess we have just dropped to the lower end. But still the point is it will be outrageously long odds against.
    Even when these two get together on something, all they can do is lie.

    Where did I ever say I went "150-0"? I didn't, because I had some session losses. Remember $33k being my biggest session loss? And the $57,200 is a session bankroll. I never lost a full session bankroll.

  4. #404
    Originally Posted by unowme View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Go to your local university. Call up a math professor. Pay him a consultant's fee, like dinner at Outback. Ask him the odds against a 5% probability event going 0 for 150.

    Or ask tableplay. But buy him TWO dinners at Outback.
    Drich or Mission or RS_ can chime in if they want Redietz, but I believe the chance of this happening is about 0.046% (probability an event with a 5% chance of occurring does not occur in 150 attempts of the event).
    Where did the 5% risk of ruin come from? I'd like to see the math on that one. I'm not sure anyone truly understands the finer points of this betting system including Singer himself so who modeled it and how?
    That's confusing for everyone. I developed and played/teach the strategy. The RoR is not even close to 5%.

  5. #405
    Originally Posted by unowme View Post
    I'm not sure anyone truly understands the finer points of this betting system including Singer himself so who modeled it and how?
    It is quite simple. Singer is or was using progressive wagering and stop limits as a way to overcome negative expectation and that simply can not be done. It's a proven mathematical fact and every person who plays by math has told him that what he is claiming is/was impossible, including Shackleford, Dan Druff and many members here.

    Mickey too was once on the side of mathematics. But Mickey's new alliance with Singer, apparently means that mickey is going to back ALL of Singer's claims now, whether proven or not, whether mathematically impossible or not. They are buddies. Fuck the math. And Mickey's new alliance with Singer also apparently means that Mickey is going to start cussing at and attacking anyone who challenges Singer's faulty or alternative math, just as Singer has always done. I like Mickeycrimm. I find his story fascinating. I have great respect for his AP ability. I have never attacked, nor disrespected him, and I am not going to get into the name-calling and trolling that Mickey went to last night. I can't explain why mickey is now backing everything Singer says and attacking people who disagree with the faulty math.

    It's quite simple: A progressive betting system simply changes the groupings of wins and losses. It can not change the total outcome, What you end up with is a series of small wins and eventually a much larger loss that wipes out all those smaller wins and then some. There is nothing new about this. Progressive betting cannot overcome negative expectation. Period. Mathematically impossible.

    In Singers latest answer to this he made the rather bizarre statement that his results, which continue to defy the mathematics were able to do so because he was on the extreme end of the bell curve as far as variance and results. Translation he was extremely lucky. His original claim which is what many of us challenged was that he had done this for 10 years for a million dollars. After he came out with his newest claim that he was the one to find and play the double up for nearly six years, he has amended this original claim concerning the Singer System, down to 4 years and $375k. Even 4 years and $375 is not short term variance. This claim just continues to be preposterous.

    And this claim continuing to be preposterous, is part of Singers credibility. Since he is offering no proof for his newer bigger claim that is supposed to rock the AP world, no tax records (he has destroyed them), no paperwork from casinos, we are supposed to take him at his word. And that is where credibility come into play. And that is why this all ties together, along with his publicly available financial history, which includes bankruptcies, evections and legal judgement from an apartment complex at a time in question, when he claims to have been rather "well-off". I am not picking on Singer, but none of it makes any sense. None of it is credible.

  6. #406
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Originally Posted by unowme View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Drich or Mission or RS_ can chime in if they want Redietz, but I believe the chance of this happening is about 0.046% (probability an event with a 5% chance of occurring does not occur in 150 attempts of the event).
    Where did the 5% risk of ruin come from? I'd like to see the math on that one. I'm not sure anyone truly understands the finer points of this betting system including Singer himself so who modeled it and how?
    That's confusing for everyone. I developed and played/teach the strategy. The RoR is not even close to 5%.
    How do you know? Let's see the Math. Show your work.

  7. #407
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by unowme View Post
    I'm not sure anyone truly understands the finer points of this betting system including Singer himself so who modeled it and how?
    It is quite simple. Singer is or was using progressive wagering and stop limits as a way to overcome negative expectation and that simply can not be done. It's a proven mathematical fact and every person who plays by math has told him that what he is claiming is/was impossible, including Shackleford, Dan Druff and many members here.

    Mickey too was once on the side of mathematics. But Mickey's new alliance with Singer, apparently means that mickey is going to back ALL of Singer's claims now, whether proven or not, whether mathematically impossible or not. They are buddies. Fuck the math. And Mickey's new alliance with Singer also apparently means that Mickey is going to start cussing at and attacking anyone who challenges Singer's faulty or alternative math, just as Singer has always done. I like Mickeycrimm. I find his story fascinating. I have great respect for his AP ability. I have never attacked, nor disrespected him, and I am not going to get into the name-calling and trolling that Mickey went to last night. I can't explain why mickey is now backing everything Singer says and attacking people who disagree with the faulty math.

    It's quite simple: A progressive betting system simply changes the groupings of wins and losses. It can not change the total outcome, What you end up with is a series of small wins and eventually a much larger loss that wipes out all those smaller wins and then some. There is nothing new about this. Progressive betting cannot overcome negative expectation. Period. Mathematically impossible.

    In Singers latest answer to this he made the rather bizarre statement that his results, which continue to defy the mathematics were able to do so because he was on the extreme end of the bell curve as far as variance and results. Translation he was extremely lucky. His original claim which is what many of us challenged was that he had done this for 10 years for a million dollars. After he came out with his newest claim that he was the one to find and play the double up for nearly six years, he has amended this original claim concerning the Singer System, down to 4 years and $375k. Even 4 years and $375 is not short term variance. This claim just continues to be preposterous.

    And this claim continuing to be preposterous, is part of Singers credibility. Since he is offering no proof for his newer bigger claim that is supposed to rock the AP world, no tax records (he has destroyed them), no paperwork from casinos, we are supposed to take him at his word. And that is where credibility come into play. And that is why this all ties together, along with his publicly available financial history, which includes bankruptcies, evections and legal judgement from an apartment complex at a time in question, when he claims to have been rather "well-off". I am not picking on Singer, but none of it makes any sense. None of it is credible.
    You claimed there was a 5% risk of ruin with his bankroll and strategy. How did you calculate that? Let's see the Math.

  8. #408
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Where did I ever say I went "150-0"? I didn't, because I had some session losses. Remember $33k being my biggest session loss? And the $57,200 is a session bankroll. I never lost a full session bankroll.
    Again, I did not say that you went 150-0 with no losing sessions. I said exactly what you claimed that you did not have THAT full bankroll losing session, that would wipe out all those smaller wins. That big losing session that is the downfall of EVERY progressive betting system. You apparently avoided that because you were extremely lucky, "or on the far, far side of the bell curve" is what we are now to believe.

  9. #409
    I am not going to waste any more time with this. Singer has shown no proof of his newest claim, that is supposed to rock the AP world. He has no paperwork, he got rid of it all. Why would someone making a claim they KNOW will be challenged by the community do that? I don't know, but he did.

    So with no proof, we go to his credibility and he has none. Almost everything he has ever said turns out to be a lie or mathematically impossible and unsubstantiated. And when you challenge him on the math, you get attacks. And now apparently mickey is going to join in on that troll playbook strategy on behalf of his new buddy.

    It just keeps getting weirder and weirder. No wonder GWAE or any other mainstream discussion format wants any part of this. Two words: Zero credibility!

  10. #410
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by unowme View Post
    I'm not sure anyone truly understands the finer points of this betting system including Singer himself so who modeled it and how?
    It is quite simple. Singer is or was using progressive wagering and stop limits as a way to overcome negative expectation and that simply can not be done. It's a proven mathematical fact and every person who plays by math has told him that what he is claiming is/was impossible, including Shackleford, Dan Druff and many members here.

    Mickey too was once on the side of mathematics. But Mickey's new alliance with Singer, apparently means that mickey is going to back ALL of Singer's claims now, whether proven or not, whether mathematically impossible or not. They are buddies. Fuck the math. And Mickey's new alliance with Singer also apparently means that Mickey is going to start cussing at and attacking anyone who challenges Singer's faulty or alternative math, just as Singer has always done. I like Mickeycrimm. I find his story fascinating. I have great respect for his AP ability. I have never attacked, nor disrespected him, and I am not going to get into the name-calling and trolling that Mickey went to last night. I can't explain why mickey is now backing everything Singer says and attacking people who disagree with the faulty math.

    It's quite simple: A progressive betting system simply changes the groupings of wins and losses. It can not change the total outcome, What you end up with is a series of small wins and eventually a much larger loss that wipes out all those smaller wins and then some. There is nothing new about this. Progressive betting cannot overcome negative expectation. Period. Mathematically impossible.

    In Singers latest answer to this he made the rather bizarre statement that his results, which continue to defy the mathematics were able to do so because he was on the extreme end of the bell curve as far as variance and results. Translation he was extremely lucky. His original claim which is what many of us challenged was that he had done this for 10 years for a million dollars. After he came out with his newest claim that he was the one to find and play the double up for nearly six years, he has amended this original claim concerning the Singer System, down to 4 years and $375k. Even 4 years and $375 is not short term variance. This claim just continues to be preposterous.

    And this claim continuing to be preposterous, is part of Singers credibility. Since he is offering no proof for his newer bigger claim that is supposed to rock the AP world, no tax records (he has destroyed them), no paperwork from casinos, we are supposed to take him at his word. And that is where credibility come into play. And that is why this all ties together, along with his publicly available financial history, which includes bankruptcies, evections and legal judgement from an apartment complex at a time, he claims to have been rather "well-off". I am not picking on Singer, but none of it makes any sense. None of it is credible.
    I guess the best part of all this is picturing in my mind how flustered kew is making himself to be. Quivering, mumbling to himself, and sweating. Wish we had a video!

    Go ahead kew, try and tell redietz' "university math professor" that winning a session that has at least an 80% chance of winning, is because of LUCK

    Face it--you're sour and beside yourself over this. You're unable to make this all about you, you're super worried that your Internet life is taking a hit, so you're flailing.

    May I suggest a visit with your good friend Bob N.? I hear he might let you use one of his safe spaces for a few hours a day. There you'll be allowed to tell all the lies you want, cry, jump up and down screaming uncontrollably like a 3-year old....and you can even count the flowers on the wall on two adjacent walls at once!

  11. #411
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    I am not going to waste any more time with this. Singer has shown no proof of his newest claim, that is supposed to rock the AP world. He has no paperwork, he got rid of it all. Why would someone making a claim they KNOW will be challenged by the community do that? I don't know, but he did.

    So with no proof, we go to his credibility and he has none. Almost everything he has ever said turns out to be a lie or mathematically impossible and unsubstantiated. And when you challenge him on the math, you get attacks. And now apparently mickey is going to join in on that troll playbook strategy on behalf of his new buddy.

    It just keeps getting weirder and weirder. No wonder GWAE or any other mainstream discussion format wants any part of this. Two words: Zero credibility!
    Here's a flash kew. Do you keep your tax returns (assuming you file) for the past 20 years? Yours are probably easy peasy simple, mine haven't been in years. And why would you keep stacks of W2G's along with all that garbage? Are you aware you are allowed to toss your returns etc. after 3 years? Do you know that even the IRS's policy is to destroy filings older than 7-years old? Would you anticipate people asking to see your returns 10-15 years down the road? And the casinos---is it ME who controls how long they keep copies and records?

    Sure you can use all of the Government's regulations and casino rules as your own personal twisted logic to whine about me.

    BUT YOU LOOK STOOPID DOING IT

  12. #412
    And let me tell you one more thing about credibility. When someone chooses a handle, they build up credibility or lack of credibility on that handle. That is why most AP's use the same handle throughout the community. And why people that aren't credible or develop a reputation for trolling and being a game player create sock puppets and alternative handles. So they can hide. To Singer's credit he uses the Rob Singer handle (most of the time).

    Know what I am talking about unowme? I wonder where coach belly is?

    Goodbye. I am off to work. Not going to waste time with this crap today.

  13. #413
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Know what I am talking about unowme? I wonder where coach belly is?
    What are you implying?

    There are currently 18 users browsing this thread. (4 members and 14 guests)
    coach belly, mickeycrimm, Rob.Singer, unowme

    I'm leaving my desk now for a few hours, but I'll stay logged on so that you can see me and unowme are browsing at the same time.

  14. #414
    A person with two (or more) devices, laptops, tablets, phones can be logged on under multiple handles. Just more games from the troll crowd.

    This site grows more ridiculous every day. Dan no longer ever participates in discussions, nor cleans anything up. His interest is the monopoly game and making baseball picks, which he isn't very good at.

  15. #415
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    And let me tell you one more thing about credibility. When someone chooses a handle, they build up credibility or lack of credibility on that handle. That is why most AP's use the same handle throughout the community. And why people that aren't credible or develop a reputation for trolling and being a game player create sock puppets and alternative handles. So they can hide. To Singer's credit he uses the Rob Singer handle (most of the time).

    Know what I am talking about unowme? I wonder where coach belly is?

    Goodbye. I am off to work. Not going to waste time with this crap today.
    I see. I ask a tough question like how did you calculate the 5% risk of ruin and you can't answer it so now I'm a 'sock puppet' and a troll. What's your major malfunction? I've got news for you sonny. I am not an AP. I have never claimed to be one and I am not part of any AP community. Instead, I am a Vegas Fanatic and I happen to have had a career and own a business that's based in Systems and Statistical Analysis.

    I have been following this board since it was in the Vegas section of Alan's Best Buys. I knew Alan and Rob back when both were posting in the Las Vegas Advisor Free For All 10 years ago. Rob was an asshole back then too....and Alan was always helpful pointing out good Vegas deals. I posted on this thread because I've been following this exploit since the Wired article and thought I had some valid contributions for the group here regarding the legality and morality of the play. Disagree with me all you want, but do it through your ideas not by dismissing me as some regular poster posing as someone else. That's weak and wrong and reflects more on what kind of person you are than me. I guess that's how you welcome new users to Vegas Casino Talk.

  16. #416
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Here's a flash kew. Do you keep your tax returns (assuming you file) for the past 20 years? Yours are probably easy peasy simple, mine haven't been in years.
    And here is a news flash for you Ron. This isn't about tax returns, or any of the other little side fights that spring up. This is about credibility. And that is why, on this forum, this topic of your new greatest claim has dominated for the last week or so. And everyone is getting all hot and bothered. Choosing sides. Oddly not the usual sides. And it is why here on this forum, this is breaking news. The biggest thing to hit the AP/gambling community in years or maybe ever. How ever you want to word it.

    But to the rest of the gambling community, the rest of the world, it doesn't even get a mention. Absolutely no interest. To the rest of the real world, including the gambling community, this is just more Singer Bullshit. Just another chapter in the Singer book of tales. You and your claim, all your claims, including this new earth-shattering claim are irrelevant. Likewise, I and my debukes of your claim are irrelevant. But that is mostly about you. You have zero credibility so any claims you make have zero credibility. Nobody cares one way or the other. It truly is the boy who cried wolf scenario.

    Not really the great explosive ending you were hoping and looking for is it?

  17. #417
    Originally Posted by unowme View Post
    I see. I ask a tough question like how did you calculate the 5% risk of ruin and you can't answer it so now I'm a 'sock puppet' and a troll.
    I said "roughly" didn't I? You know why I said that, because I don't know the exact numbers.

    I am not a "math guy". I don't know all the mathematical formulas...for even the things I do to make a living. Don't need to. It is about mathematical principals and those much smarter than I have long ago proved these principals. And Singer is going against these proven mathematical principals. There is a name for that. It is voodoo.

    Furthermore no one can post the exact numbers like risks or odds for Singers claims, because Singer never fully explains anything. He makes very general claims and statements and when someone challenges based on mathematical principals and facts, he gets nasty and starts with attacks, usually having nothing to do with anything. And if he gets challenged enough, his story and numbers will change. Now you tell me any of what I just said isn't true.

    So no one can come up with exact numbers, because he doesn't give exact numbers and the numbers and information he does provide are constantly changing. But you don't need exact numbers. It is mathematical principals, proven beyond any doubt and his claims all go against this.

  18. #418
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by unowme View Post
    I see. I ask a tough question like how did you calculate the 5% risk of ruin and you can't answer it so now I'm a 'sock puppet' and a troll.
    I said "roughly" didn't I? You know why I said that, because I don't know the exact numbers.

    I am not a "math guy". I don't know all the mathematical formulas...for even the things I do to make a living. Don't need to. It is about mathematical principals and those much smarter than I have long ago proved these principals. And Singer is going against these proven mathematical principals. There is a name for that. It is voodoo.

    Furthermore no one can post the exact numbers like risks or odds for Singers claims, because Singer never fully explains anything. He makes very general claims and statements and when someone challenges based on mathematical principals and facts, he gets nasty and starts with attacks, usually having nothing to do with anything. And if he gets challenged enough, his story and numbers will change. Now you tell me any of what I just said isn't true.

    So no one can come up with exact numbers, because he doesn't give exact numbers and the numbers and information he does provide are constantly changing. But you don't need exact numbers. It is mathematical principals, proven beyond any doubt and his claims all go against this.
    Numbers matter in math. How do you know the risk of ruin isn't really .05% or 10%? Where did 5% come from? Did you just make it up?

  19. #419
    Yeah, not much interest. I'm in the odd position of hoping it's actually true because (1) it makes Argentino a liar to hundreds or thousands of readers regarding the provenance of his money, (2) it means he lied through his teeth to a journalist, Alan Mendelson, who was on his side, or Alan was in on it (which I do not believe), and (3) somebody didn't manage their money very well.

    I'm really hoping GWAE does the interview(s). One problem is that Dancer and Anthony Curtis were both in Las Vegas when Argentino went off the rails denigrating a recently deceased advantage video poker player, and it was bad enough (since the guy's family read the stuff) that Gaming Today canned him. So there's a reputational cost that comes from publicly engaging Argentino, and the fact that Argentino has no expertise in any other area of gambling probably doesn't help. Because of that, the interview would be a one-topic, one-shot deal, so is the reward worth the risk? The one-shot interview, after all, involves a play that is likely extinct and legally debatable, so it's not the best one-shot topic in the world.

    I still hope GWAE does the interview. Odds, however, are probably against it if all mickey got was a "thanks."

    Regarding mickey's going over to the dark side, it's been my experience that these things usually happen when there's some quid pro quo in progress.

  20. #420
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Yeah, not much interest. I'm in the odd position of hoping it's actually true because (1) it makes Argentino a liar to hundreds or thousands of readers regarding the provenance of his money, (2) it means he lied through his teeth to a journalist, Alan Mendelson, who was on his side, or Alan was in on it (which I do not believe), and (3) somebody didn't manage their money very well.

    I'm really hoping GWAE does the interview(s). One problem is that Dancer and Anthony Curtis were both in Las Vegas when Argentino went off the rails denigrating a recently deceased advantage video poker player, and it was bad enough (since the guy's family read the stuff) that Gaming Today canned him. So there's a reputational cost that comes from publicly engaging Argentino, and the fact that Argentino has no expertise in any other area of gambling probably doesn't help. Because of that, the interview would be a one-topic, one-shot deal, so is the reward worth the risk? The one-shot interview, after all, involves a play that is likely extinct and legally debatable, so it's not the best one-shot topic in the world.

    I still hope GWAE does the interview. Odds, however, are probably against it if all mickey got was a "thanks."

    Regarding mickey's going over to the dark side, it's been my experience that these things usually happen when there's some quid pro quo in progress.
    Just. Plain. Weird.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 7 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 7 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
  •