Rob's complete lack of credibility... it would have added to his credibility...question his credibility about everything...THAT is what credibility is...created this lack of credibility...mind as to your credibility... still comes down to credibility...
Kew,
Merriam-Webster called, your lease on the word credibility is up. Want to renew?
Kj, I take issue with your statement that one handle brings credibility. I have multiple handles, but only one on each site. I feel these multiple handles brings me more credibility, since each one is consistent with each other. Bosox has said many times I’m one of the most consistent posters he’s ever seen. Since he doesn’t like any of my handles, this proves how consistent I am, and adds to my credibility.
For the record, I have never had a sock puppet. When Colin kicked me off BJA for believing in tipping and sometimes defending casinos, I moved on. I never once tried to get back on with a sock puppet.
And I also think Moses is one of the most consistent, most credible, posters out there. He didn’t change when he went from one site to the next. You always know where he and his freinds are coming from. It’s refreshing to see such honesty from someone on these forums. That’s why I always check in on zenzone at least once a day. It’s also because Moses has a very unique, creative, sense of humor. Shout out to Moses!!!
Last edited by Bob21; 05-21-2019 at 01:32 PM.
Pure hogwash. I don't take anyone's side but my own. When errors are made I point them out. You modified what I said in your quotes. Sorry, got to point that out. You said Singer claimed he went 150 and 0. Sorry, you either made that shit up or can't read. Singer has always admitted to losing sessions. But pointing that out means I'm taking his side? So I best not point that out if I want to be on your side? Screw you. The facts are the facts. Quit making shit up as you go and we are honky dory.
Now, all these various and sundry ways you and redietz have come up with that Rob could have gotten the sequence from someone else. So far it's just pure conjecture on your part. Here's the thing. If Rob was able to find someone to tell him that then don't you guys think you could do the same thing? KJ, you attempted to get it out of the author that what he published was correct. That failed. Then you contacted Nestor. That failed. But you guys should keep at it. If you really want to shoot Rob down on this then find the person or persons who supposedly told him. If he was able to find them then most assuredly you talented guys can do the same. It's your best shot at discrediting Rob. Make a community project out of it. Start a thread here and everyone network information obtained. Get to it! Times a wastin.'
Until you can do that my opinion is the preponderance of the evidence is Rob's story is true.
Last edited by mickeycrimm; 05-21-2019 at 03:11 PM.
"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
I'm not understanding this 150 sessions of VP for +375k. Obviously all sessions are not winning. Session win goal is 2500. There would have to be a hell of alot of sessions played to net 375k out, I'd imagine. Since the starting bankroll was 57k or whatever and never got depleted then I guess the claim is there never was never a losing session? What am I missing? Not that it matters.
Yes. It was naive thinking to be sure. As you say, a better reason is because you can safely churn more playthrough with the added 50/50 bet (as for beating it, well that's a hell of a good reason to stop it too.) - just like the odds bet in craps if a player is being rated for their play (that's why a few casinos limit the max odds bets to 2 or 3 to 1). But retrospectively, I now believe the primary reason was the Nestor/Kane bug that Ron discovered independently. The reasons you gave are valid and are most likely secondary and tertiary (with my reason only a very small fractional quaternary component of its elimination) motivations for eliminating it (I'm sure it can be found in small shops around the country on very rare occasions like convenience stores, bar tops in dive bars, rural/smaill indian casinos, etc.).
For those 4 years I played probably a little more that 150 of my SPS sessions having nothing to do with the DU glitch, but not many more. So we use 150.
My session br was $57,200, but my overall gambling bankroll for my quest was 3X that figure. Naturally I had some losing sessions, but because of the strategy's structure where you go up and down in denominations and have multiple 40+ credit cash outs in different denoms along the way--and the fact that if I played thru the $100 level without hitting my $2500 min. win goal I'd quit and go home losing whatever amount--I never had a session where I lost $57,200 ($33k was the largest as I said).
What most people miss is that SOME sessions end with a very large net win, far more than the $2500 goal, because of some lucky Aces or royal hit or whatever at a hi limit. Most sessions do end up winning between $2500 and $3500, but it's the larger ones that mitigate all of the losing ones.
I know this flies in the face of standard math, which says no "system or distribution of wins can overcome negative expectation games" etc. But we're talking about a very small % here, vs. using a comparatively large bankroll to reach a 5% win....each and every session. And in sessions that have at least an 80% or better chance of winning, attaining +$375k in 150+ sessions is not far fetched.
First of all- one has to PLAY the strategy. It can be mentally tiring and can take some time on some days. Quads or whatever don't always come quickly. And before anyone gets started, I don't play the higher denominations-in fact I like the other strategies for my play. So no, I'm not a millionaire.
I agree. I think it was the bug that was the main reason.
I remember talking about it to a few pals when they were taking them out but we just figured what I said earlier because that information wasn't known yet.
The other thing about double up, though, is you don't get rated on that play, so it kinda defeats the purpose if playing flat.
However, to get even money in the Casino is always worth investigating... am I right?
Double Up is still around... it isn't completely taken out of Vegas.
It isn't very wide spread though.
I am not sure if the Fremont took all of the double up features out of their games since they moved all the machines around but it was less than a year ago they had it all over the place.
Although if you know anything about that Casino they have recently got serious about being Slots of Fun.
They still have plenty of stand alone progressives that are positive.
Currently they have one 35k Reel Machine that is positive. It starts at 10k.
It was there two days ago so it may have got hit.
I have to head down there a bit later and look around because another machine is just about over 4k that starts at 1k and that is just free money.
First thing is first though I have to watch the Sharks get sliced up by the Blues!
Last edited by monet; 05-21-2019 at 04:37 PM.
Yes you're right IMHO. I think there were some casinos that did count the double-up towards tier points and player's club points. IIRC, many originally did this and then got wise to it and changed the system to not count it. But for the sake of argument let's say it never counted for tier or rewards points. The casino is still exposed to greater risk since a small bet can be turned into a big profit with a lucky streak. Casino management wants to manage risk and (unlimited) 50/50 bets jeopardize risk management - making it much more difficult. They would love to have high variance on all bets, but of course no one would play if it gets too out of balance so they have to have variance at the "not too tart, not to sweet level". Anyhow, I believe they could limit the double-ups in the settings menu (I am not positive about this) and if they did, I think that I remember seeing 3 double-ups max occuring at a couple shops back then.
That is correct, which is why the 5% figure is nowhere near accurate. Conversely, as the bankroll increases playing -ev games, nothing changes in RoR, which is why you cannot use theory to analyze my play strategy. Similarly, RoR assumes a single game/single denomination setting.
I knew this would get KJ going. He slobbered all over himself about it posting up gibberish about how I've forgotten the math. Even redietz thinks I've "gone over to the dark side." LOL! I'm the only one that hasn't forgotten the math.
Why do you think monet plays with all his in-laws cards? Why do you think axel says he will play with someone else's card if he has their permission. The play is as old as the hills. Even Dancer does it. And even KJ has done it or at least his partner did.
Play a slightly negative game and generate freeplay.
Singer's progressive system is taylor made to produce great amounts of freeplay in the right spots. Let's give the house a half percent advantage. 100K in action has a theoretical loss of $500. If it generates $150 a week in freeplay for 3 months you've outran the theoretical loss by $2500. The freeplay is a 3% add on.
In the past guys have played 4 hours or so on $5 games that are just under 99% and generated $2K, 3K a month in freeplay. In playing the just under 99% games they are creating a real losers profile that the casinos love. But the casino is the sucker because they are just going to run off the freeplay and leave.
So, oh yeah, I've really gone over to the darkside. GTFO!
"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
"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
It was my understanding that the 5% figure was the probability of losing your $56,000 bankroll before hitting your 'session win goal'. That would certainly ruin my day, but if that's not a RoR calculation then maybe we can call it a ROLYBIOS calculation (Risk of Losing Your Bankroll in One Session). Whatever we call it, I just want to understand exactly how that probablility of 5% was calculated...where did it come from?...what's the formula??
I'm the guy who, many years ago and repeatedly since, delineated the advantages of "playing like Rob." Anyone in management eyeballing how he plays, especially when he first sets foot in a place, is going to put him at the head of the line in terms of comps and freeplay -- especially if he's truthful about lugging 55K around with him. I'd do the same, but nobody would believe me. "I'm here to play $1 video poker, and if I lose, I brought along 55K so I can keep firing at higher stakes." Hell, I'd expect a free suite and trip to the steakhouse if I could get anyone to buy that.
The problem is that "Singer" has spent decades and many dozens, if not hundreds, of his 7000 posts here emphasizing that he doesn't routinely play with a player's card, and that anyone relying on freeplay to turn a profit is a sucker and so on. Now if this was all an additional bedtime story to mislead hundreds or thousands of people, well, that's horrendous. The "Singer Systems" do not, as expressly stated in a hundred of posts of his, rely in any manner on freeplay to turn a profit.
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.
What doesn't apply to -EV gambling is the Kelly criterion / optimal bet sizing / bankroll growth. The optimal bet size is always zero. (In scenarios like what Mickey describes you need to factor in the value of mail, so you're back to considering a net +EV situation.)
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)