Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 168

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 ?

  12. #72
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post

    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.
    Actually your thinking is completely backwards here. Progression systems, all progression systems, including yours, work best with games that are a 50/50 proposition or as close to it as possible. That is why roulette is actually one of the better games for a progression. Doesn't make it a winning play, but as optimal (losing less) as possible. The further you get away from an even money win, 50/50 type game, like with VP that has a series of higher wins, at lower frequencies, the less effective or optimal a progression, any progression including yours will be.

  13. #73
    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.
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    I thought the Royal came up every 40000 hands or so on average, what am I missing ?
    You do not miss much tableplay.
    You are one of the members who not only knows what this underworld is about but isn't afraid to admit it in your posts.
    You can get the Royal odds lower depending on the game and strategy you are using.

    However, the point to all this garbage I have read or skimmed through isn't what everyone is posting about.
    The point is that AP is nothing but the underworld or underbelly of society.
    You have a guy who is praised as the best or most respected AP on these boards who drinks Captain Morgan non-stop.
    Falls down or passes out and even his own people talk behind his back at times.
    It is only a matter of time before drinking in excess in that manner will catch up with him and come crashing down like an avalanche.

    You have another guy who vultures a whole state and makes a good financial living but thinks he is doing "honest" work.
    No matter how much I like the guy or what he does, does not change the fact that it is a living of a scavenger or vulture.

    Another player who leaves a so called honest job making 6 figures a year to pursue Advantage Play.
    Seems odd but ok... Money won is sweeter than money earned.

    A homosexual who believes he is a good man, believing in God and a Republican who counts cards for a living.
    This guy thinks he is a model example for Counting Cards or Advantage Play in general.

    Dark Oz and his riding of Buses to use 100s of Players Cards getting swindled by Wizard of Nothing.
    After that he gets robbed by his own son in law and posts all about it.
    Preaching like he is the victim or prey when it is clear, he is nothing but a ravenous wolf himself.

    Now you got Rob Singer, who claims he has defrauded the Casino out of Millions of Dollars and if true, he is praised for his accomplishment.
    This is no better than Robbing Banks or Murder for Hire.
    The guy is preaching that he went into a Casino, hit some buttons and got paid thousands of dollars for something that he did in a dishonest manner.
    Not only doing this for years over and over but posting how to do it and that it could still work with certain machines so you too can steal money!!

    Whatever! As I have said before the whole Gambling Industry or as you honest folks like to call it... AP, is nothing but lie, cheat and steal.
    Even the owner of the site won't gamble at them straight up.
    He searches out backers before he gets involved.
    Last edited by monet; 09-20-2019 at 02:06 PM.

  14. #74
    Rob, I hesitate to say this because I am really not trying to keep some sort of weird war going with you, but everything you say and think, including all your claims, and all the completely misguided alternative math just screams "degenerative gambler". You have a degenerate gambler's mentality. What does that say?

  15. #75
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Rob, I hesitate to say this because I am really not trying to keep some sort of weird war going with you, but everything you say and think, including all your claims, and all the completely misguided alternative math just screams "degenerative gambler". You have a degenerate gambler's mentality. What does that say?
    Hilarious!
    Degenerative Humans calling each other Degenerates.
    Isn't it time to go out and scout Black Jack games till your count/wager gets too high so you can evade the heat and move to the next??
    Honest Living lol. That isn't degenerative behavior??
    According to Popular PC Belief these days... Homosexuality isn't Degenerative either lol.

  16. #76
    Originally Posted by monet View Post
    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.
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    I thought the Royal came up every 40000 hands or so on average, what am I missing ?
    You do not miss much tableplay.
    You are one of the members who not only knows what this underworld is about but isn't afraid to admit it in your posts.
    You can get the Royal odds lower depending on the game and strategy you are using.

    However, the point to all this garbage I have read or skimmed through isn't what everyone is posting about.
    The point is that AP is nothing but the underworld or underbelly of society.
    You have a guy who is praised as the best or most respected AP on these boards who drinks Captain Morgan non-stop.
    Falls down or passes out and even his own people talk behind his back at times.
    It is only a matter of time before drinking in excess in that manner will catch up with him and come crashing down like an avalanche.

    You have another guy who vultures a whole state and makes a good financial living but thinks he is doing "honest" work.
    No matter how much I like the guy or what he does, does not change the fact that it is a living of a scavenger or vulture.

    Another player who leaves a so called honest job making 6 figures a year to pursue Advantage Play.
    Seems odd but ok... Money won is sweeter than money earned.

    A homosexual who believes he is a good man, believing in God and a Republican who counts cards for a living.
    This guy thinks he is a model example for Counting Cards or Advantage Play in general.

    Dark Oz and his riding of Buses to use 100s of Players Cards getting swindled by Wizard of Nothing.
    After that he gets robbed by his own son in law and posts all about it.
    Preaching like he is the victim or prey when it is clear, he is nothing but a ravenous wolf himself.

    Now you got Rob Singer, who claims he has defrauded the Casino out of Millions of Dollars and if true, he is praised for his accomplishment.
    This is no better than Robbing Banks or Murder for Hire.
    The guy is preaching that he went into a Casino, hit some buttons and got paid thousands of dollars for something that he did in a dishonest manner.
    Not only doing this for years over and over but posting how to do it and that it could still work with certain machines so you too can steal money!!

    Whatever! As I have said before the whole Gambling Industry or as you honest folks like to call it... AP, is nothing but lie, cheat and steal.
    Even the owner of the site won't gamble at them straight up.
    He searches out backers before he gets involved.
    Oh good another asshole heard from. This site is flies to shit. Last time we heard from Monet he was telling us he thought he was dying, only in his forties, but afraid to go to a doctor. Smart individual. Actually, I am glad to see you are still alive you fat bastard. How is that juicing diet going?

    Monet you are just another really bitter, not even that old dude. A hater...everything negative. Sees the worst in everything/everyone.

    Your comments about mickeycrimm, are inappropriate and unfair. Mickey says he hasn't drank in several years and good for him. Unless you know something the rest of us don't, mickey deserves to be taken at his word as near as I can tell he has always been fairly straight with everyone....well at least until his "turnaround" on this Rob thing. Any drinking problem that mickey had, started long before his AP career and the two have nothing to do with each other.

    With me, same thing. You are just another in a long line of hater, hating me because of something that has nothing to do with AP, my sexuality. Hey I started sucking dick at age 13 or 14, long before I counted any cards. Has nothing to do with anything just a reason to hate someone and prove what an ass you are.

    Not even sure of some of the other references. Is Axel the guy vulturing a whole state? Whoever, so what. What's wrong with that as long as it is not illegal.

    Who is the person that left an honest job making six figures to pursue AP? Rob? Wizard? Doesn't even matter. What the hell is wrong with leaving a job you don't like to pursue something you are passionate about if you can afford to do so.

    I happen to agree with you that if Rob did discover this double up bug and play it for millions, that it is illegal. It is a crime. It is theft. I made that case and point back in the spring when this first came up and no one agreed with me. Almost every AP and non AP on this forum said they would have done it if they had the chance. It is theft. Stealing. Accepting money you are not legally entitled to. The only reason Kane/nestor got off scott free is they were over-charged, or mis-charged. I forget what they were charged with....some sort of internet tampering or conspiracy. They should have been charged with theft or stealing.

    But whatever, always good to hear from you Monet. We need more negativity on this forum.

  17. #77
    Originally Posted by Deech View Post
    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.
    In that scenario, the long term simulation outcome is simple: it would be a loser. It's the same as saying +EV = winning and -EV = losing.

    That's why I developed a sound short term strategy that would profit most of the time....and you never know how large the session win will be above the $2500 minimum.

    The disconnect here is how critics can see no other way around adding all those individual sessions together so you end up in the long term, which inreality is the polar opposite of what you are really doing. All I can say is, with an 85% session win probability, along with a good many medium to very large jackpots (aka, large winning sessions) and very few five figure losing sessions as a result of the strategy's regular soft profit cashouts along with constantly going up and down in denominations, it has been nearly impossible to be in negative territory in any calendar year after the first several sessions.

  18. #78
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post

    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.
    Actually your thinking is completely backwards here. Progression systems, all progression systems, including yours, work best with games that are a 50/50 proposition or as close to it as possible. That is why roulette is actually one of the better games for a progression. Doesn't make it a winning play, but as optimal (losing less) as possible. The further you get away from an even money win, 50/50 type game, like with VP that has a series of higher wins, at lower frequencies, the less effective or optimal a progression, any progression including yours will be.
    That is all gobbledegook and I'm sure you know it. You're incapable of putting up the math to support your claim so you try to use doubletalk to get around it...confirming that you're just not that smart, kew.

  19. #79
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    That is all gobbledegook and I'm sure you know it. You're incapable of putting up the math to support your claim so you try to use doubletalk to get around it...confirming that you're just not that smart, kew.
    Is that it Rob....you are so insecure you have the need to try to prove you are smarter than others? Fine you are probably smarter than me. Most people on these forums are. I am not a "math guy". I don't know much about equations or formulas. But I am smart enough to know the principals behind certain things that I need to know to do what I do successfully.

    While some AP's are smart math guys like Shack and mickeycrimm and I always say wish I had half there mathematical ability, that is not necessarily what makes a successful AP. There are many successful AP's that use the math as I do, not write it. And conversely there are many really smart math guys, like an Eliot who fail miserably at AP. I am smart enough to know that A and B are fact, even if I can't write the math to prove it and I am smart enough to know when someone is spewing "alternative math" from an alternative reality and when every single math expert and anybody that has any success with gambling insists he is wrong.

    And the fact remains that progressive wager can not turn a losing game(-EV) into a winning game (+EV). Nor can "special plays" nor can stop limits. And that goes whether you are hearing voices from the machine telepathing information to you or not. These are fantasy voodoo concepts, either put forth by someone completely detached from reality or someone that is just a conman. I have always suspected the second which is why you aren't receptive to what everyone and I mean everyone tells you is wrong.
    Last edited by kewlJ; 09-20-2019 at 06:41 PM.

  20. #80
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    That is all gobbledegook and I'm sure you know it. You're incapable of putting up the math to support your claim so you try to use doubletalk to get around it...confirming that you're just not that smart, kew.
    Is that it Rob....you are so insecure you have the need to try to prove you are smarter than others? Fine you are probably smarter than me. Most people on these forums are. I am not a "math guy". I don't know much about equations or formulas. But I am smart enough to know the principals behind certain things that I need to know to do what I do successfully.

    While some AP's are smart math guys like Shack and mickeycrimm and I always say wish I had half there mathematical ability, that is not necessarily what makes a successful AP. There are many successful AP's that use the math as I do, not write it. And conversely there are many really smart math guys, like an Eliot who fail miserably at AP. I am smart enough to know that A and B are fact, even if I can't write the math to prove it and I am smart enough to know when someone is spewing "alternative math" from an alternative reality and when every single math expert and anybody that has any success with gambling insists he is wrong.

    And the fact remains that progressive wager can not turn a losing game(-EV) into a winning game (+EV). Nor can "special plays" nor can stop limits. And that goes whether you are hearing voices from the machine telepathing information to you or not. These are fantasy voodoo concepts, either put forth by someone completely detached from reality or someone that is just a conman. I have always suspected the second which is why you aren't receptive to what everyone and I mean everyone tells you is wrong.
    ROTFLMFAO!!!

    So you're "not a math guy" yet you feel you can pontificate about how "the math" doesn't support this and "the math" doesn't support that. And when asked to prove your lie....you lie about that too!

    Do you realize what a fool you look like after that?

    G-A-M-E O-V-E-R

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 90
    Last Post: 04-03-2020, 10:45 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •