Reminder regaring doxxing and link spamming

[Rob.Singer]

OK. Here's a question no one has ever chosen to answer.

My history from playing about 200 sessions shows an average of 85% chance of winning "today's" session. This is also why people have chosen not to take me up on my various challenges. I believe they understand the huge chance I have of winning minimum $2500 betting up to 6 denominations with constant cashouts that are never risked again along with a $57,200 session bankroll. Make sense?

So, if I have such a good chance today, why not tomorrow and the next session and the next session, etc.? The math doesn't change. The opportunity doesn't change. Why do you say I HAVE to lose it all eventually? Why ignore the giant winners that are hit? Why ignore that these winning sessions are almost always larger than the largest losing sessions? I don't lose $57,200 in a session, ever. I think my avg. loss in my losing sessions is four figures. All those smaller winning sessions (smaller being $2500-$10,000) add up.

This IS a short term, single session strategy that has nothing to do with the long term. And even if you want to say 200 sessions IS long term, it has been an overall winner.

People have answered and you don't like or accept the answer and you wont like or accept mine, but here it is: A bunch of short-term, small sample size does not equate to a long term larger sample size. The best example continues to be the example I frequently use for roulette. Is it reasonable that a person can walk into a casino bet black and win 3 out of 4 spins and leave. Absolutely! It is reasonable they can do that every single day for a year? Not a chance in hell! Why not? why can't they repeat that short term anomaly each and every day. That is basically what you are claiming.

Look I appreciate you better tone, although I suspect it wont last, and it is not my intent to insult you here Rob, but what you are claiming is nothing new. I know you think it is this new ground breaking things....no one has ever done what you are doing. That simply isn't true. It is simply a variation of progression wagering system and it has been proven since your granddaddy was a toddler that progression betting systems cannot turn a negative expectation game into a winning game….not longterm.

What progression systems do and have always done is change the groupings of wins and losses, but not the totality. What you always end up with is many small wins (thus your 85%) number and eventually a much, much larger loss that wipes away all those wins and then some. You can't change this. You just can't will it away.

You've just shown how little you understood of what I wrote, yet again. Nobody has ever clearly addressed what I asked. To get it, you first have to clear the blindness within that says -EV always loses and +EV always wins. It doesn't, and the math proves it doesn't.

Over time, there are some winners on -EV games and some losers on +EV games. That is a mathematical fact. Nothing is finite when it comes to GAMES of skill or chance. How can there be winners? Easy. And the same the other way around. I'm not gonna keep explaining how to you unless and until you open your "+=win and -=lose" mind. You simply take that easy way out, every single time you're cornered with sensible points.

And you did it again. This isn't roulette, where you have no input other than a bet. Obviously you're right about what you said there. The biggest blockade I see for you is the continuous escaping the fact that the big jackpots are FAR bigger than the majority of the losing sessions. Instead of using a computer that tells you what formulas equal, use the far more useful computer attached to your neck and come out into the light.

Critics feel good about continually claiming "the one or two big losses will wipe out all the small wins". Yet they for some reason ignore, even though they KNOW the strategy goes into some sky high denominations, that there are some HUGE hits. No critic will accept that, and my guess is by rejecting that, they can comfortably keep saying how the big losses wipe out all the winners and more.

I've played about 200 sessions. There ARE huge hits. You've seen me post pictures even recently of hits that I've gotten WITHOUT playing my strategy, so you know these hits exist at the $10 and up levels. Even 6-figures. So where's the disconnect? You can't keep denying they happen.

Then we have your insinuation that I see huge session losses. There's a few. My largest was about $33k. Next largest was $11k. And down from there---to as low as under $1000. That's 30 sessions of losses and 170 sessions of winners between $2540 and $96,000. (I'm rounding).

Remember the holy grail of casino games: what has already occured has no bearing on past results or results yet to come. IE, if a strategy had an 85% chance of winning yesterday's session, it has an 85% chance of winning all future sessions. Where is it written that I must hit a big enough loser in a session to wipe all the winners out? And where is it written that HUGE jackpot winners just can't happen?

Look, your world isn't gonna end if you admit you either don't understand how the strategy works so you're not yet qualified to form an educated opinion, or you might be getting closer to seeing how the strategy is better than grinding away at 4% +EV opportunities.

Here's another question: the math cannot and does not dictate what will or should happen in a single session. Then how could it possibly predict a devastating loss "somewhere" within the structure of an 85% opportunity of winning? And why doesn't it also predict the huge jackpots?

Answer: because this strategy, unlike AP play, completely and totally stops after every session is over. Remember, again, that no hand of vp has anything to do with hands that have come before or that are yet to come. The same with sessions.