The Alan's Motives Thread

[redietz]

I love Alan Mendelson. But I also think he's a bright guy. so I pose the question: if he is a bright guy, why doesn't he simply consult some mathematicians regarding the whole "Singer system" stuff? Does he really believe, as Rob has stated, that Rob's a genius who has out-thunk the math guys who are teaching in this great country's universities? Or is there some other, deeper motive for Alan's avoidance of getting expert critiques? Is he pulling our collective legs? Is he driving traffic? Is he bored?

Is this all part of some massive psychological experiment? Are we all rats in a pseudo-intellectual maze?

I have just read the "Isn't it all one...?" thread, and I don't understand how anyone doesn't get the gist of what arci's saying. The problem isn't with what Rob has done -- the problem is with what Rob predicts he (or anyone) can do.

So what is Alan trying to accomplish by mangling logic?

[Rob.Singer]

You've put up this theme several times. Here's what you should look at.

These "mathematicians" you refer to: do you know what you really mean? When the "pure" ones get a hold of all this (aka, SPS) and how I know others can indeed be successful playing it (in your lingo, beating negative games over time) is because the math is the basis for everything I've developed into the strategy. And who exactly am I? Well, much of my background is in math, I've worked with it all my life, and I hold an EE and business MBA, which means not only do I have a strong statistical background--I have more practical overall experience than most of my critics, and probably have had more direct education than most or even all of them.

When you see arci, the Wizard, Dancer a former actuary like Fezzik, or even yourself confront me over winning on negative games, it's only because none of you are trained to ever look beyond the math, or see how in a gambling game such as video poker, which is grounded in math, human input & choices can make a world of difference in results, time after time. In short, all your claims that the game is ONLY math precludes any of you from ever seeing....ever studying the game from outside that tiny little box you all have so tidily wrapped it up into. And that's where ingenuity gets stopped cold in its tracks. The math indeed can be overcome, but only if you're looking at & analyzing the game from the PLAYER'S point of view and not from the casino's--which is a VERY common mistake,among the math guys--and only if you look at the game on an individual visit basis. When you apply long term math rules to short term play, you will always get skewed results. Thus the very misleading conclusion that if you play positive games you will win...andto play negative games means you lose.

People need to use and realize how magnificent that computer attached to their neck is, they need to realize that no vp computer will never come close to "out-computing" it, and they have to be motivated enough to be able to put all this knowledge together in order to understand the ability of the gifts we were blessed with as well as accept that the math is simply a tool we use to help create innovations. In video poker, I am there. As yet, no one else is.

[slingshot]

You've put up this theme several times. Here's what you should look at.

These "mathematicians" you refer to: do you know what you really mean? When the "pure" ones get a hold of all this (aka, SPS) and how I know others can indeed be successful playing it (in your lingo, beating negative games over time) is because the math is the basis for everything I've developed into the strategy. And who exactly am I? Well, much of my background is in math, I've worked with it all my life, and I hold an EE and business MBA, which means not only do I have a strong statistical background--I have more practical overall experience than most of my critics, and probably have had more direct education than most or even all of them.

When you see arci, the Wizard, Dancer a former actuary like Fezzik, or even yourself confront me over winning on negative games, it's only because none of you are trained to ever look beyond the math, or see how in a gambling game such as video poker, which is grounded in math, human input & choices can make a world of difference in results, time after time. In short, all your claims that the game is ONLY math precludes any of you from ever seeing....ever studying the game from outside that tiny little box you all have so tidily wrapped it up into. And that's where ingenuity gets stopped cold in its tracks. The math indeed can be overcome, but only if you're looking at & analyzing the game from the PLAYER'S point of view and not from the casino's--which is a VERY common mistake,among the math guys--and only if you look at the game on an individual visit basis. When you apply long term math rules to short term play, you will always get skewed results. Thus the very misleading conclusion that if you play positive games you will win...andto play negative games means you lose.

People need to use and realize how magnificent that computer attached to their neck is, they need to realize that no vp computer will never come close to "out-computing" it, and they have to be motivated enough to be able to put all this knowledge together in order to understand the ability of the gifts we were blessed with as well as accept that the math is simply a tool we use to help create innovations. In video poker, I am there. As yet, no one else is.

That's why I like the article "Are we playing in virtual reality or just the machines", Jatki

[slingshot]

Hey- you guys kick it out from here on. I'm just gonna check in every once in a while and see if anything pops up. Proud of you, Alan. It's really hard to do-stop at a certain point-I'm still learning.

[Rob.Singer]

Hey- you guys kick it out from here on. I'm just gonna check in every once in a while and see if anything pops up. Proud of you, Alan. It's really hard to do-stop at a certain point-I'm still learning.

I'll start.

So where do you all think arci is during this?

1. He snuck out the back door to get his weekly vp fix @ the Indian casino.
2. Golfing with a bunch of other old farts.
3. Bowling with Left Foot Louie.
4. ANYTHING that gets him outta the house & away DELETED.
5. Pulling himself together after taking it on the chin from jatki.

[arcimede$]

So what is Alan trying to accomplish by mangling logic?

I don't think Alan is as smart as you think he is. As I've stated many times there's nothing overly complex going on. If a person is interested in the truth they can find it. Obviously, Alan isn't interested in the truth.

And, did I call another one perfectly. Chuckle, chuckle ... I stated Singer wouldn't be able to keep his attacks to one thread and here he is bringing up my wife yet again. He really is easy to predict.

[arcimede$]

You've put up this theme several times. Here's what you should look at.

These "mathematicians" you refer to: do you know what you really mean? When the "pure" ones get a hold of all this (aka, SPS) and how I know others can indeed be successful playing it (in your lingo, beating negative games over time) is because the math is the basis for everything I've developed into the strategy. And who exactly am I? Well, much of my background is in math, I've worked with it all my life, and I hold an EE and business MBA, which means not only do I have a strong statistical background--I have more practical overall experience than most of my critics, and probably have had more direct education than most or even all of them.

Which must be why you continually get everything wrong. You don't even understand the terminology. You are nothing but a complete fraud.

When you see arci, the Wizard, Dancer a former actuary like Fezzik, or even yourself confront me over winning on negative games, it's only because none of you are trained to ever look beyond the math, or see how in a gambling game such as video poker, which is grounded in math, human input & choices can make a world of difference in results, time after time. In short, all your claims that the game is ONLY math precludes any of you from ever seeing....ever studying the game from outside that tiny little box you all have so tidily wrapped it up into. And that's where ingenuity gets stopped cold in its tracks. The math indeed can be overcome, but only if you're looking at & analyzing the game from the PLAYER'S point of view and not from the casino's--which is a VERY common mistake,among the math guys--and only if you look at the game on an individual visit basis. When you apply long term math rules to short term play, you will always get skewed results. Thus the very misleading conclusion that if you play positive games you will win...andto play negative games means you lose.

Silly nonsense that proves beyond any doubt that Singer is a fraud. VP has always been very simple. It's just one hand at a time. Only a complete moron would buy this idiotic nonsense when they've seen the facts presented..

People need to use and realize how magnificent that computer attached to their neck is, they need to realize that no vp computer will never come close to "out-computing" it, and they have to be motivated enough to be able to put all this knowledge together in order to understand the ability of the gifts we were blessed with as well as accept that the math is simply a tool we use to help create innovations. In video poker, I am there. As yet, no one else is.

Bwah haha haha haha .... this is typical con man BS. Hoping that his flock doesn't understand squat about math Singer goes with a completely fact-less comment. I can see jatki now ... oh yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah, I love you Robbie, as he ... (I won't go there).

[arcimede$]

Oh, I see Robbie is once again interested in my achievements. Let's see, I did play golf the last couple of days (and yes, it was with some old farts a little younger than Rob's age). My best shot was a 275 yard drive on #18. I finished with a 75 for the 18 holes.

I also bowled yesterday and finished the 5 games with a 290 game. Still just practice though ... league doesn't start for a couple of weeks.

I also managed a trip to the casino where I won close to two grand.

Are you happy now?

[Alan Mendelson]

I wish you would give me a concrete math problem that can be addressed. So far, I am seeing comments about Singer's system violates 2+2=4 or that according to Singer's system 2+2=5.

Give me please a specific question or example of where Singer's system violates math.

[arcimede$]

Singer's system has nothing to do with math. It is his continual assertions that you can beat a negative game that go against the math.

[Rob.Singer]

Oh, I see Robbie is once again interested in my achievements. Let's see, I did play golf the last couple of days (and yes, it was with some old farts a little younger than Rob's age). My best shot was a 275 yard drive on #18. I finished with a 75 for the 18 holes.

I also bowled yesterday and finished the 5 games with a 290 game. Still just practice though ... league doesn't start for a couple of weeks.

I also managed a trip to the casino where I won close to two grand.

Are you happy now?

Hmmm....You forgot to mention....how it all got you out of the house --you're #1 objective, of course!

[Rob.Singer]

I wish you would give me a concrete math problem that can be addressed. So far, I am seeing comments about Singer's system violates 2+2=4 or that according to Singer's system 2+2=5.

Give me please a specific question or example of where Singer's system violates math.

Alan, in order for such a self-proclaimed "tested genius/expert" to be able to give you that, he'd have to UNDERSTAND it first, and he can't do that. Reasonably, he really can't take another public hit today a day after being taken to the cleaners by jatki, so he has no choice but to play it safe and say something dumb.

[Alan Mendelson]

Singer's system has nothing to do with math. It is his continual assertions that you can beat a negative game that go against the math.

Thank you, Arc. Now that you put it that way, there is no reason for me to talk to a math expert. I think you and I are in agreement on the issue. And the issue is, "can you beat a negative expectation game?"

I would suggest this as an answer: Your personal results may vary.

Carry on.

[arcimede$]

Thank you, Arc. Now that you put it that way, there is no reason for me to talk to a math expert. I think you and I are in agreement on the issue. And the issue is, "can you beat a negative expectation game?"

I would suggest this as an answer: Your personal results may vary.

Carry on.

Yes, they vary in a way that forms a bell curve over the sampling space (results). However, most important, there is nothing a player can do that will impact their place within that bell curve. For example, win/loss goals or a progressive strategy will only change the amount of play. They will not affect the actual return of any player.

[Rob.Singer]

Noticing that arci's opinion on this naturally brings up SPS, where his thoughs go off track is in misrepresenting how certain player actions do indeed change expected results. It's interesting he uses "return" in the long term sense, and ignores the math involved in calculating probability for short term "return". Oh wait!....he doesn't KNOW how to calculate that! Wow, what a surprise. I didn't see it on the Internet either.

[arcimede$]

Hmmm....You forgot to mention....how it all got you out of the house

Yes, doing things that don't take place in one's house do get them out of the house. One can only wonder why you think that is something special to "mention". But then again, I don't live in your situation. Maybe it is special for you.

[arcimede$]

Noticing that arci's opinion on this naturally brings up SPS, where his thoughs go off track is in misrepresenting how certain player actions do indeed change expected results. It's interesting he uses "return" in the long term sense, and ignores the math involved in calculating probability for short term "return". Oh wait!....he doesn't KNOW how to calculate that! Wow, what a surprise. I didn't see it on the Internet either.

So, you are claiming you know 'the math involved in calculating probability for short term "return"'. OK, let's see your math.

BTW, the actual answer is the short term math and the long term math are exactly the same. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabi...nsity_function

[Rob.Singer]

Yes, doing things that don't take place in one's house do get them out of the house. One can only wonder why you think that is something special to "mention". But then again, I don't live in your situation. Maybe it is special for you.

Something SPECIAL? HA! try.....DESPICABLE!!

[Rob.Singer]

So, you are claiming you know 'the math involved in calculating probability for short term "return"'. OK, let's see your math.

BTW, the actual answer is the short term math and the long term math are exactly the same. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabi...nsity_function

I'll bet you already have a sour grapes reply awaiting for when I make you look stupid. Oh wait again! You already DO, with yet another Internet search you don't comprehend!

[Count Room]

How about this idea?

a) Have Rob front Alan $171,600 for the full 3-session bankroll on a 6 level SPS $1/$2/$5/$10/$25/$100
b) Alan & Rob can have a marathon TV show with live casino video poker play broken up into many segments garnering nice ratings while reaching for the minimum $2,500 win goal
c) Rob instructs Alan each and every second of the way...how to play each hand, what games to play, what casinos to romp around in for the day, etc.
d) Alan gives all winnings to Rob and/or Rob takes the potential loss. All Alan would do is press buttons mechanically under Rob's strict direction.
e) It would be just like Rob having his own professional sessions with the added benefit of more media fame & fortune for Rob & Alan
f) ??????
g) PROFIT!