Page 29 of 50 FirstFirst ... 1925262728293031323339 ... LastLast
Results 561 to 580 of 982

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

  1. #561

  2. #562
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post

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

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

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

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

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

    And that leads me to another bone I have to pick with "Singer." My God, man. You're shooting a Mendelson video regarding your super systems that you developed in private with no one's assistance. Let's presume your systems are better than math. Let's presume you won three million playing video poker with a glitch. Didn't Alan make any sartorial recommendations? I mean, I dress like crap. My wardrobe sucks. But my top 30 shirt options for shooting that video would be better than yours. What the hell!?! Didn't you hang onto some of that three million for trips to Macy's? Or Kohl's?
    Yes- application theory. How does ANYONE know what portion of the bell curve or where in the ror formula a machine is? You play a session and through good luck skim by with a few dollars profit. Or by good fortune or just plain sensible play hit a nice winner. What's wrong with cashing out in short term? Are you guaranteed that "variance" has finally turned your way? That "measly" win may have been the apex of ror and now headed even worse. The single play strategy is the only strategy of his that comes close to AP play but on good days shortens the session considerably.

  3. #563
    Rob frequently uses a posting technique that I call "muddying the waters". I think it is obvious what that means and why a person would do it.

    Now in the above post (#559), Rob starts out with a statement about the double-up "bug" play. And then evolves into talk about his "Singer system". The two are very distinct discussions. The double up "bug" claim is without question a very +EV play. And the math easily supports and makes possible Rob's claim and in the amounts he claims (or even far greater). So for a change with Rob's claims the math works on this one. The only question that remains, would be is it true. Is it credible. And again, without some sort of supporting documentation, that is for each person to decide for themselves.

    The second claim is entirely different. That continues to have serious problems mathematically. I often say "impossible". That is probably not correct, especially based on limited trials. But the math certainly doesn't support such a claim and if the explanation is that results are on the positive side of the bell curve or variance, then it really isn't much of a claim.

    Now Rob frequently uses odd phrasing or terms to muddy the water. Or says things that really have no meaning in this context. In the above post a line such as "With a strategy such as mine, where discipline and ability are king and greed is a slave, it can go on with myself and others" is a perfect example. That means nothing. It says nothing. Maybe it sound good to Rob or some, but it explains nothing. Similarly his comments about higher level play, have no bearing. These things are designed to "muddy the water" because Rob has no mathematical supported answers. The comment about higher limits is saying "you can't understand what I do because you don't play my limits". Pure nonsense.

    Other forms of muddying the water not from the above post are when Rob tells his story and says I was a losing player for 6 years and learned from that and spent 4 years developing my strategy. Hey that is a great line. But as an explanation, it says absolutely nothing. It is a "muddying the water" technique.

    And the inclusion of a single short paragraph about the double up bug and then immediately switching to discussion about the Singer "system" was an intentional "muddying" effort, attempting to give a little credit to the Singer System, which remains -EV, with no explanation of how anything changes that, by grouping it with discussion of the "bug" which is +EV. They are completely separate things, separate discussions. Lumping them together is just another "muddying technique".

  4. #564
    I guess "deflection" is another term for what I call muddying the waters. That is what you do when you don't have an answer that is supported by math. And Rob Singer (person or persona) is a master of it.

  5. #565
    That's the problem with people like you who've never worked in the real world kew. Not everything is "supported by math". All you know is the numbers on cards, and your thinking never goes beyond what you see. You keep bringing up the double up glitch but you never apply any numbers to it. You know why? Because the edge is over 1000% in most cases, and aside from it being beyond your comprehension, it shows up in no books or in any forum chatter. It is not something you can deal with. Neither is my play strategy.

  6. #566
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Ron, a "session" consisting of denominational and bet switching (along with one or more VP themes/variants) can be broken down into its constituent components where each component consists of the same bet size, theme, and denomination (and same pay table). Since it has already been established that the constituent components cannot win at the 85% clip that you claim (a success rate of 61% was established for the 8/5 BP component of the switching "session"), then it follows that the aggregate of these constituents which form the denominational switching "session" in total also cannot win at this 85% clip (I'd imagine somewhere in the 60-65% range). The bet that you won't take is one where you don't lose money after playing one million hands using your system. The 61% of your "sessions" that win will make less money in total than the 39% of your sessions that lose resulting in a net loss - again you would never take such a bet.
    You haven't proven anything with your contrived and misrepresented "61%" guess. You have no idea what the correct data is to begin with. "$1 8/5 BP" all day long combined with "progressive betting (up or down or both??) means you "might win more sessions, but for me to feel good about this I have to add that you will have BIGGER losers too".

    Then that dealer-turned-big-time-7 Stars AP, RS__, chimes in with his goofy support. Only critics like you two could talk yourselves into being mathematical analysts by guessing at what the data and parameters really are.
    The Kane/Nestor bug was a major threat to casinos so Casinos disabled double-up on vulnerable machines even though only a small number of people knew about the bug. A small number of people know about your system, and yet -EV VP is still available to play all over the place - the casinos didn't decide to eliminate it. Gee I wonder why ? I already explained that denominational and theme switching is a composition of flat bet same-themed mini-"sessions" (that have no chance of an 85% win rate), which, when combined, form the overall "session" but naturally you ignored that point. You state a -EV betting and theme system can be profitable - the burden of proof is on you, not me.
    Again, for KJ's benefit, I will state that I do not believe Rob has a legit VP system that is a long term loser with both short term and long term -EV. If Rob is ahead then it seems obvious Rob has not played it enough yet he thinks he has therefor he remains confident it works given his personal sample size(is that called confirmation bias?.) I think that he really doesn't keep track very well and only notices when he wins big and forgets all the small losses.

    Tableplay, I find it never I have to disagree with something you say. I would think the casinos are going to do whatever is most beneficial to them. There would be no logical reason not to fix a bug that IGT is responsible for if the cost if of doing so and the time it takes makes sense. In this case, it seems as if it did make sense. Also, they might be in violation of the law knowingly allowing machines like this not to be fixed.

  7. #567
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    That's the problem with people like you who've never worked in the real world kew. Not everything is "supported by math". All you know is the numbers on cards, and your thinking never goes beyond what you see. You keep bringing up the double up glitch but you never apply any numbers to it. You know why? Because the edge is over 1000% in most cases, and aside from it being beyond your comprehension, it shows up in no books or in any forum chatter. It is not something you can deal with. Neither is my play strategy.
    Actually, I bet everything is supported by some type of math. I bet they can even tie art and other crazy things to math, even if its a type of math we don't understand or know how to apply it yet. There's probably some mathematical formula we don't know how to apply yet that can even figure out your brain and thoughts. But never mind all that all. This gambling stuff you are talking about is nothing but math. You might argue that finding it and or coming up with some system isn't based on math and more about some outside the box thinking or luck, however, after that point, it's all about the math.

  8. #568
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post

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

    Then that dealer-turned-big-time-7 Stars AP, RS__, chimes in with his goofy support. Only critics like you two could talk yourselves into being mathematical analysts by guessing at what the data and parameters really are.
    The Kane/Nestor bug was a major threat to casinos so Casinos disabled double-up on vulnerable machines even though only a small number of people knew about the bug. A small number of people know about your system, and yet -EV VP is still available to play all over the place - the casinos didn't decide to eliminate it. Gee I wonder why ? I already explained that denominational and theme switching is a composition of flat bet same-themed mini-"sessions" (that have no chance of an 85% win rate), which, when combined, form the overall "session" but naturally you ignored that point. You state a -EV betting and theme system can be profitable - the burden of proof is on you, not me.
    Again, for KJ's benefit, I will state that I do not believe Rob has a legit VP system that is a long term loser with both short term and long term -EV. If Rob is ahead then it seems obvious Rob has not played it enough yet he thinks he has therefor he remains confident it works given his personal sample size(is that called confirmation bias?.) I think that he really doesn't keep track very well and only notices when he wins big and forgets all the small losses.

    Tableplay, I find it never I have to disagree with something you say. I would think the casinos are going to do whatever is most beneficial to them. There would be no logical reason not to fix a bug that IGT is responsible for if the cost if of doing so and the time it takes makes sense. In this case, it seems as if it did make sense. Also, they might be in violation of the law knowingly allowing machines like this not to be fixed.
    Cheers M8.

  9. #569
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post

    How did my name get attached to this quote?

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

    Originally Posted by unowme View Post
    Now, the real question is "Is this the same probability of losing the $1000 before winning $1.00 if you were flat betting $1.00 a pop".
    I believe you are stating that you and unowme are not the same person. I took the position that you were both the same person.

  10. #570
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    And that's exactly what my play strategy does, when it's played by someone like myself. If you're planting this bogus 61% into the ground, explain why the WoV math people would not bet me that I could win at least 8 out Of 10 sessions? In your world, wouldn't that be solidly +EV for them?
    Since this was explained to you by several people and you ignored the answers, it would be futile to answer you. For new forum members alone I answer this Ron. You could simply use a larger bankroll to achieve your $2500 "session" goal thereby "winning" 85% of your sessions. The sum total of the wins derived from 85% of the "sessions" would be less than the amount lost in the remaining 15% of the "sessions" however. This is why you would never accept a bet based on an absolute dollar amount.

  11. #571
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post

    How did my name get attached to this quote?

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

    Originally Posted by unowme View Post
    Now, the real question is "Is this the same probability of losing the $1000 before winning $1.00 if you were flat betting $1.00 a pop".
    I believe you are stating that you and unowme are not the same person. I took the position that you were both the same person.
    Wait...what??? You deliberately edited a quote by unowme by deleting his name and typing in my name in its place, so that it appears that the quote he made was made by me?

  12. #572
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    That's the problem with people like you who've never worked in the real world kew. Not everything is "supported by math". All you know is the numbers on cards, and your thinking never goes beyond what you see. You keep bringing up the double up glitch but you never apply any numbers to it. You know why? Because the edge is over 1000% in most cases, and aside from it being beyond your comprehension, it shows up in no books or in any forum chatter. It is not something you can deal with. Neither is my play strategy.
    Actually, I bet everything is supported by some type of math. I bet they can even tie art and other crazy things to math, even if its a type of math we don't understand or know how to apply it yet. There's probably some mathematical formula we don't know how to apply yet that can even figure out your brain and thoughts. But never mind all that all. This gambling stuff you are talking about is nothing but math. You might argue that finding it and or coming up with some system isn't based on math and more about some outside the box thinking or luck, however, after that point, it's all about the math.
    I'm not saying gambling isn't grounded in math, just like everything else is. I'm saying just as I found the double up glitch by using an other-than-the-math skill, wherein I then basically applied math in order to formulate an overall strategic plan based on how the machines operate, there are not exceptions....but additional aspects that warrant serious considerations in many mathematical situations.

    This may sound foreign to many people at least here. But it's been learned from the world I've worked in before becoming involved in professional gambling. I know a lot of people who aren't involved with gambling who would understand what I'm referring to in a heartbeat. I know I'm not getting through to people here, and I understand why. Yes I know I'm considered odd in what I do and say and how I do and say it. It was also very odd that I did what I did for 5-1/2 years. Everybody's different.

  13. #573
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    And that's exactly what my play strategy does, when it's played by someone like myself. If you're planting this bogus 61% into the ground, explain why the WoV math people would not bet me that I could win at least 8 out Of 10 sessions? In your world, wouldn't that be solidly +EV for them?
    Since this was explained to you by several people and you ignored the answers, it would be futile to answer you. For new forum members alone I answer this Ron. You could simply use a larger bankroll to achieve your $2500 "session" goal thereby "winning" 85% of your sessions. The sum total of the wins derived from 85% of the "sessions" would be less than the amount lost in the remaining 15% of the "sessions" however. This is why you would never accept a bet based on an absolute dollar amount.
    We're not speaking a different language--just a different dialect. There will be no conclusion.

    May I suggest everyone try to get this stuff out of their heads and enjoy the Memorial Day Weekend? I have a Wounded Warrior son here until Tues. I imagine that's different about me here also.

    And fly the flag.

  14. #574
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post

    How did my name get attached to this quote?

    When I click onto the blue double arrows next to my name,
    it brings me to a quote by unowme...
    I believe you are stating that you and unowme are not the same person. I took the position that you were both the same person.
    Wait...what??? You deliberately edited a quote by unowme by deleting his name and typing in my name in its place, so that it appears that the quote he made was made by me?
    You honestly believe everyone would be fooled and think you made the statement under your Coach Belly alias right ?

  15. #575
    redietz....you know who I am from LV Advice. Tell these yahoos I'm not this Coach Belly character. Sheesh. What a welcoming bunch.

  16. #576
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    And that's exactly what my play strategy does, when it's played by someone like myself. If you're planting this bogus 61% into the ground, explain why the WoV math people would not bet me that I could win at least 8 out Of 10 sessions? In your world, wouldn't that be solidly +EV for them?
    Since this was explained to you by several people and you ignored the answers, it would be futile to answer you. For new forum members alone I answer this Ron. You could simply use a larger bankroll to achieve your $2500 "session" goal thereby "winning" 85% of your sessions. The sum total of the wins derived from 85% of the "sessions" would be less than the amount lost in the remaining 15% of the "sessions" however. This is why you would never accept a bet based on an absolute dollar amount.
    We're not speaking a different language--just a different dialect. There will be no conclusion.

    May I suggest everyone try to get this stuff out of their heads and enjoy the Memorial Day Weekend? I have a Wounded Warrior son here until Tues. I imagine that's different about me here also.

    And fly the flag.
    Thank him for his service for us.

  17. #577
    Originally Posted by unowme View Post
    redietz....you know who I am from LV Advice. Tell these yahoos I'm not this Coach Belly character. Sheesh. What a welcoming bunch.
    First off, I've posted at lvadvice about once a week for 11 years, and most of them have to do with following Boyd offers and downgrades, since that's my primary LV stay. So I'm not exactly an expert on LVAdvice posters. Here's what I can tell you.

    There's a "uknowme" at lvadvice.com, obviously different spelling, with roughly 1600 posts. I would not have surmised that "unowme" here is the "uknowme" at LVAdvice. My guess is that a writing analysis program would tag the "unowme" here as "coach belly." So that appears to be the issue. If a content/style analysis program did come to that conclusion, I'm not going to argue with it. I would have come to the same conclusion.

    Frankly, if that's wrong, I wouldn't apologize, simply because I think the proper way to communicate as adults is with your real name. I'm R.E.Dietz (Robert Earl), therefore "redietz." My email address is available on other sites, and I make it available to quite a few people here. So if you want to avoid being mistaken for some anonymous other-dude, don't be anonymous in the first place. Be an adult. Use your real name if people confusing your identity bothers you. Simple solution. If that's too scary for you, too personal, all I can say is, "My God, man, what did you do before anonymous forums?"

  18. #578
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by unowme View Post
    redietz....you know who I am from LV Advice. Tell these yahoos I'm not this Coach Belly character. Sheesh. What a welcoming bunch.
    First off, I've posted at lvadvice about once a week for 11 years, and most of them have to do with following Boyd offers and downgrades, since that's my primary LV stay. So I'm not exactly an expert on LVAdvice posters. Here's what I can tell you.

    There's a "uknowme" at lvadvice.com, obviously different spelling, with roughly 1600 posts. I would not have surmised that "unowme" here is the "uknowme" at LVAdvice. My guess is that a writing analysis program would tag the "unowme" here as "coach belly." So that appears to be the issue. If a content/style analysis program did come to that conclusion, I'm not going to argue with it. I would have come to the same conclusion.

    Frankly, if that's wrong, I wouldn't apologize, simply because I think the proper way to communicate as adults is with your real name. I'm R.E.Dietz (Robert Earl), therefore "redietz." My email address is available on other sites, and I make it available to quite a few people here. So if you want to avoid being mistaken for some anonymous other-dude, don't be anonymous in the first place. Be an adult. Use your real name if people confusing your identity bothers you. Simple solution. If that's too scary for you, too personal, all I can say is, "My God, man, what did you do before anonymous forums?"
    Oh well. So much for my character witness. How about I just PM you over there. Whatever. Not that it matters to anyone. Since we both posted there for many years, I thought you'd remember me. I thought UKnewMe.
    Last edited by unowme; 05-25-2019 at 06:38 AM.

  19. #579
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    I would have come to the same conclusion.
    Just to be clear...you also think that unowme is a sock puppet that I created this month?

    After all this time, why would I need to create a sock now?

    tableplay's fundamentally dishonest editing of quotes is something that Dan should be concerned about.

    Consider the possibilities if this is permitted...

    Originally Posted by redietz View Post

    This is a pure example of what a dishonest sleeze bag you are tableplay.

    So fuck you tableplay! You continue to show what a sleezy low life, dishonest person you are every single day.

  20. #580
    Originally Posted by unowme View Post
    redietz....you know who I am from LV Advice. Tell these yahoos I'm not this Coach Belly character. Sheesh. What a welcoming bunch.
    Unowme. If. That’s. Your. Real. Name. Welcome to VCT. We’re all bozos on this bus.
    "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

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 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
  •