Win goal question for Rob.

[Alan Mendelson]

What is the lowest denomination you have ever played to reach your $2500 win goal?

Thanks.

[Rob.Singer]

What is the lowest denomination you have ever played to reach your $2500 win goal?

Thanks.

Dollars. Always and only. I've never played it at anything other than dollars thru $100 except in instances where I played incomplete sessions without true goals starting at 5c or quarters while training someone.

[Alan Mendelson]

Dollars. Always and only. I've never played it at anything other than dollars thru $100 except in instances where I played incomplete sessions without true goals starting at 5c or quarters while training someone.

So am I correct in thinking that the purpose of starting at any denomination lower than $1 is for a win goal lower than $2500?

If so, what are the starting denominations for each win goal?

[Rob.Singer]

You mean what would the win goals be for lower starting denominations, assuming 6 identically stepped denominations as I use (for instance, 10c/20c/50c/$1/$2.50/$10; or more realistically, 1c/2c/5c/10c/25c/$1). Just multiply the lowest demons. by 2500 for the session win goal, and for the proper bankroll, multiply each denomination by 400, add them up, then multiply that by 3.

[Alan Mendelson]

Another question: why a win goal of $2500, and why not $500 or $1000... or even $10,000. I'm sure that $2500 is not an arbitrary number. Why $2500?

[slingshot]

You mean what would the win goals be for lower starting denominations, assuming 6 identically stepped denominations as I use (for instance, 10c/20c/50c/$1/$2.50/$10; or more realistically, 1c/2c/5c/10c/25c/$1). Just multiply the lowest demons. by 2500 for the session win goal, and for the proper bankroll, multiply each denomination by 400, add them up, then multiply that by 3.

Thanks. Simple-don't know why I didn't think of that.

[Rob.Singer]

Another question: why a win goal of $2500, and why not $500 or $1000... or even $10,000. I'm sure that $2500 is not an arbitrary number. Why $2500?

$2500 is approx. 5% of a session bankroll, and combined with the # of credits risked, the denominations being played, and the ratio of BP credits to the more volatile game(s) credits, I calculated an overall 5% win goal as optimal at the low end for this type of play.

I've seen where you think that's way too low a goal compared to the $57k session bankroll. I can see why on the surface that would be the perception, but the math says otherwise.

[arcimede$]

Totally hilarious. Singer claims it is "optimal" while providing nothing to back it up.

Yes Alan, it is all arbitrary as I've told you many times. Ask Singer to explain WHY it is optimal. Show the math. Then watch him scramble.

[jatki]

Totally hilarious. Singer claims it is "optimal" while providing nothing to back it up.

Yes Alan, it is all arbitrary as I've told you many times. Ask Singer to explain WHY it is optimal. Show the math. Then watch him scramble.

Arc, why are you still needing to act stupid? Why don't you let Singer explain this and leave your biases and disdain at the door? Just where does it say he has to provide anything to back-up every statement? I don't see him charging for anything. You make even more claims than him, and I've seen you support nothing anywhere, even on LV A and videopoker.com. Like how you've won 10 of 11 years or whatever the claim is. Have you ever backed that up, and that's only a start. Honestly, you're like the bully who keeps getting his face pushed into the wall and can't leave well enough alone.

[Rob.Singer]

deleted by moderator. Serves no purpose but to make a personal attack

[Vegas Vic]

Another thread that has been polluted.

[Alan Mendelson]

Totally hilarious. Singer claims it is "optimal" while providing nothing to back it up.

Yes Alan, it is all arbitrary as I've told you many times. Ask Singer to explain WHY it is optimal. Show the math. Then watch him scramble.

Actually, Arc, I would accept an arbitrary win goal of 5%. In live poker different players have win goals ranging from doubling their buy in to ten times their buy in. There is no math saying who or what is right. It's up to the player.

Rob's 5% win goal is $2500 and I can't argue with leaving when you are $2500 ahead. Tonight I played poker, bought in for $300 (three buy ins at a $100 table) and left with $500. That was a very successful evening for me because it represented a profit of 66.66% of my buy in.

To each his own. Whether or not Rob really has the "math" to back up his win goal really doesn't matter to me. He might have it, or he might not. Even "arbitrary" is good enough.

[arcimede$]

Actually, Arc, I would accept an arbitrary win goal of 5%. In live poker different players have win goals ranging from doubling their buy in to ten times their buy in. There is no math saying who or what is right. It's up to the player.

Rob's 5% win goal is $2500 and I can't argue with leaving when you are $2500 ahead. Tonight I played poker, bought in for $300 (three buy ins at a $100 table) and left with $500. That was a very successful evening for me because it represented a profit of 66.66% of my buy in.

To each his own. Whether or not Rob really has the "math" to back up his win goal really doesn't matter to me. He might have it, or he might not. Even "arbitrary" is good enough.

The point is he claimed he had some math to back it up. He doesn't. What does that say about him? It tells you he will lie about things that really don't matter. In a court case this would be considered very relevant. It tells you a lot about the person and what to expect from them in general.

Notice how Singer's response was nothing but scrambling as I told you would happen. Also notice that all jatki could do was come back with more silly assertions. If you truly want to have a relevant forum in the future you need to prevent that kind of garbage.

[Rob.Singer]

COMMENTS REMOVED...there are people who are interested in SPS,... COMMENTS REMOVED Just let others get what they want out of it, and... COMMENTS REMOVED.

[Rob.Singer]

Actually, Arc, I would accept an arbitrary win goal of 5%. In live poker different players have win goals ranging from doubling their buy in to ten times their buy in. There is no math saying who or what is right. It's up to the player.

Rob's 5% win goal is $2500 and I can't argue with leaving when you are $2500 ahead. Tonight I played poker, bought in for $300 (three buy ins at a $100 table) and left with $500. That was a very successful evening for me because it represented a profit of 66.66% of my buy in.

To each his own. Whether or not Rob really has the "math" to back up his win goal really doesn't matter to me. He might have it, or he might not. Even "arbitrary" is good enough.

Alan, I'm glad your understand what I've said so far. There is a lot of math that went into the strategy--math which I've offered in the past to share with arci, Frank, and Mike Shackleford along with his genius board of directors from the Wizard's forum, but as you know arci no-showed twice, the Wizard & his people started to set it up then suddenly wanted to charge me thousands to do it, and you know what Frank did. Arci thus has no way out of this quandry but to say it never existed, but he well knows there is neither room for nor is a forum an appropriate place to load up with equations, calculations, and combinational math that no one but me would understand until I sat down to explain it to similarly math-trained minds.

As such, you'll probably still have to COMMENT REMOVE throughout the process that will eventually see me detailing my strategies here. COMMENT REMOVED

[arcimede$]

Arci, what kind of sour life must you have that puts you at a computer keyboard every single day, without breaks, without vacationing, just arguing the facts without any ammunition but an angry, hatred-filled mind?

All I did was make a correct call COMMENT REMOVED. You respond with nothing to support your claims but instead all you do is make up silly nonsense about me. This is what turns discussion into snipes. You can't discuss anything without making ridiculous assertions about me. It does prove my point, though.

You've seen how people like Vic are awful tired of your dumb comments, and how Alan's trying to clean all this up.

How can he clean it up when the first thing out of your mouth is more lies about me? As long as you continue this behavior nothing will change. Now, if you could backup your claims with evidence then you could complain. But you don't. You have nothing but obviously attempts to avoid responding to my honest analysis.

Too bad, so sad for you if you can't stand the fact that there are people who are interested in SPS, and because it drives you up a wall then it seems you'll just have to put up with it. Just let others get what they want out of it, and that does not include your constant displays of pain that originate from your own self-doing.

I realize that you don't like it when I provide the facts about SPS. Too bad,COMMENT REMOVED.

[Rob.Singer]

deleted, not relevant to the discussion

[Alan Mendelson]

The point is he claimed he had some math to back it up. He doesn't. What does that say about him?

How much "math" do you need?

This question often comes up in discussions about family financial planning and family budgets. The financial planners say all families need to have a budget. In reality, very few families do have a formal budget, yet we all have "budgets" that we can live by even if they are not written down. Each week we can estimate how much money needs to be set aside for rent and the electric bill and lunch money and gas, and how much we can spend going to the movies, to dinner.

Because the budget is not written down, does not mean its not a budget.

The same can be said for Rob's "system." He might not have the numbers written down but from his years of playing he might instinctively know what is appropriate.

Now, if the financial planning community can accept the concept that families can have a "working budget" that is not written down, why must you demand that Singer's financial plan must be written down? Yes, the fact that it is not written down makes it impossible to test... and this is why, unfortunately for Rob, he will never be able to prove his system works. But it doesn't mean his system doesn't work.

[slingshot]

I'm so thankful I was one of the skeptics whenever VPTruth first came out. I totally scrutinized it and was able to verify it's accuracy through actual casino fail/win conditions. I don't have to do anything but wade through all the heckling and look for all the interesting tidbits I can find. I find it mentally exhilirating working the strategies-which helps alleviate the boredom. Thanks, Alan, for your patience.

[Rob.Singer]

I have everything written down Alan, everything. Even though a good portion of it was not used and was replaced by what those whom I paid to review it inputted, it's there. The only reason I can figure these math geniuses like Frank and the Wizard always made accusations followed by claims it does not have mathematical support....followed by a sudden walking away from the opportunity to look at it, is because these type people cannot afford to have their worlds rocked. They're so far into themselves and their purported/self-proclaimed superior intellect that if something full of never-before-thought-of-ingenuity is to be presented to the community, then it had better be presented by them.

I do like and agree with your budget analogy though. That may be an excellent portrayal of the meaning behind the final and subsequent tweaking the strategy went thru.