Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 71 of 71

Thread: The Complete Sequence

  1. #61
    Now if you want to amend your claim, the SPS claim to say something along the lines that it is not a winning system, but you have managed to win into long-term play, by being the luckiest man alive, that .001% of the bell curve, that defies the odds, I will no longer challenge you.

    But this nonsense you have been pushing for decades, on forums, book's space that Alan allows you, in a column you wrote, that this is a legitimate winning system, is a lie. No other word. It is a lie and I think you know it is a lie. I think you are and have been intentionally lying and misleading players. PERIOD.

  2. #62
    And as for any other claim like the double up bug, despite that this claim meets the "mathematically possible" standard that your other claims fail to, I personally have a very hard time accepting anything that you say without some sort of documentational proof, of which so far you have been unwilling to provide. THAT is what credibility is.

    We will see what Mike Shackleford decides, but despite that Mike's opinion is well respected, I don't think it is going to change many people's mind. There is 15 years of lying at play here and without something to back it up, your word is worthless. YOU did that.

  3. #63
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    I've said time and again that my play strategy does not change anything about EV, ER, or re-write any of the math books. Kew keeps saying that it does, which shows how little he actually knows.
    Rob, I don't know why, but I will try to explain this again. Let's try a roulette analogy (a different one than I used before). Roulette is a negative expectation game for the player (absent some anomaly like a biased wheel). So a player has system where he bets his 5 favorite numbers. So he plays for a couple hours. Sure he can win over that short term, small trial size, if his favorite numbers hit more than expected...this is possible. This is the equivalent to what you are claiming. You can win playing -EV short-term.

    Ok, now the guy is going to come back...lets say 208 times over 4 years and play for 2 hours playing these favorite numbers. This now moves into longer term play, the kind of larger sample size that luck no longer can overcome negative expectation. It is no longer possible for him to be a winner after these 208, 2 hour sessions, let alone a winner to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. IT JUST ISN'T MATHEMATCALLY POSSIBLE.

    And all the special plays, progressive wagering, stop limits and any other "voodoo" you throw in can't change that fact or that math. What you are claiming in regards to your SPS is complete nonsense. Every legitimate gambling and math person has told you that, including mickeycrimm, back when he was speaking the truth.

    Now you can call me every name in your troll book and even think up a few new ones, but it doesn't change these facts.


    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post

    For every 85 winning sessions there are 15 losing sessions.
    This is how progression systems ALL work. They change the number of winning sessions and losing sessions, but that can't change the total results. That means that the losing sessions will be much larger than the winning sessions. And every once in a while you will have that massive losing session that wipes out all those smaller winners. This isn't theory...it is proven mathematics. And stop limits can't and don't change anything.

    There is nothing new here Rob. What you are arguing has been argued for hundreds of years. And it has been definitively proven.

    To continue to argue this proven point is simply the same as arguing the earth is flat, when it has long since been proven that it isn't.
    You can't see it even when it's right there in front of you. The roulette player doesn't have an 85% chance of winning every session, does he.

    Your just too dumb for words, which explains the silly second half of your desperate post.

  4. #64
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    And as for any other claim like the double up bug, despite that this claim meets the "mathematically possible" standard that your other claims fail to, I personally have a very hard time accepting anything that you say without some sort of documentational proof, of which so far you have been unwilling to provide. THAT is what credibility is.

    We will see what Mike Shackleford decides, but despite that Mike's opinion is well respected, I don't think it is going to change many people's mind. There is 15 years of lying at play here and without something to back it up, your word is worthless. YOU did that.
    You're really heartbroken that Mike's gonna do this aren't you. Tough love. And I see you're gearing yourself up for a big disappointment!

    Poor baby.
    waaa....waaa....

  5. #65
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post

    You can't see it even when it's right there in front of you. The roulette player doesn't have an 85% chance of winning every session, does he.

    Your just too dumb for words, which explains the silly second half of your desperate post.
    Actually with a progression wagering system, he easily could. These numbers would be very typical. Maybe as high as 90%. but every once in a while a massive losing session will come along and wipe out all the smaller wins. THAT is what a progression system does. Nothing you say or do can change that.

  6. #66
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    You're really heartbroken that Mike's gonna do this aren't you. Tough love. And I see you're gearing yourself up for a big disappointment!
    Not at all. I actually wrote to Munchkin on your behalf, asking him to put you on GWAE. And if I had a way to contact Mike Shackleford I would have done the same with him. IF your claim was true it would be a big story in the AP community and should be discussed and you deserve the opportunity to prove your claim. BUT because 15 years of lying about everything, you have to have some collaborating proof. So far you have indicated you don't. You want people to take you at your word.

    It would be like the boy who cried wolf saying "no really this time I really mean it. The wolf is here".

    Personally, I think Mike is going to post some kind of finding about the play being possible (which isn't in question) and that it is possible that you played it as claimed prior to Kane/Nestor being caught, but that there is no real proof either way. I would hope that he would make some reference to your less than honest long history, but whatever.

    Unless there is some evidence that you have refused to share with us, I don't see how Mike confirms that you made this play. Nor do I see how he absolutely confirms that you didn't.

    So far it looks like the evidence you have provided is a written version of your claim (on Alan's site). Not sure how that is evidence of anything. But we will see what he says.

  7. #67
    That's just more of your whining. Already preparing for the worst news. And you're sore beause you have nothing to do with any of it but throwing out a plethora of your typical lies. Which everybody ignores, of course. Which, in turn, is the worst that could happen to you. So weak.....

  8. #68
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post

    You can't see it even when it's right there in front of you. The roulette player doesn't have an 85% chance of winning every session, does he.

    Your just too dumb for words, which explains the silly second half of your desperate post.
    Actually with a progression wagering system, he easily could. These numbers would be very typical. Maybe as high as 90%. but every once in a while a massive losing session will come along and wipe out all the smaller wins. THAT is what a progression system does. Nothing you say or do can change that.
    How about showing the math on that claim? Bet 5 numbers on a progression of some sort. Win $2500 minimum. Then go ahead and support how all the smaller wins in roulette matches up to the larger wins in vp. Go ahead--do it. It's not like I'm Dan or Alan requesting to meet up with you to prove your other moronic claims....You have nothing to fear here but yourself.

  9. #69
    I was working on a nice story line to Rob's post but the rapid fire responses has made that mute.

    Normally, I would just stay in the bleachers but there is one question that has been on my mind for two years but never bothered to ask, nor has anyone else. I know that Rob is intelligent about math. He went to a great school in the northeast (congrats on the Beanpot this year), then again, I was fortunate to also attend a similar school.

    This is not a set up question (though others will take any answer and scorn you, either way). Over time, let's say an infinitesimal amount of hands, is there really any system, with a somewhat limited bankroll, that will exceed the professed, 99.73%, 99,54%, 88.17%, etc. payouts? Shackelford and Munchkin abhor systems in blackjack (outside of card counting). Video poker is not that much different. I will never doubt that individuals can win, but as sung by the Chanbers Brothers, "Time Will Come Today" song, does time ultimately win out. I am not here to argue about a small or medium sample. I am asking about the ultimate computer simulation.

    Thanks for the discussion.

  10. #70
    Rob's seemingly accurate description of the glitch is fairly strong evidence. Not proof of course, but really how could he prove his claim if it were true?

  11. #71
    Originally Posted by unowme View Post
    That's because the Royal only comes up every 100,000 + hands and it's a key element in the EV.
    I thought the Royal came up every 40000 hands or so on average, what am I missing ?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 10 users browsing this thread. (4 members and 6 guests)

  1. Deech,
  2. kewlJ,
  3. Rob.Singer,
  4. smurgerburger

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 64
    Last Post: 08-29-2019, 11:37 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
  •