Forum Alert: Beware of Bad Info

[Alan Mendelson]

So, how many years have you been waiting for just the right moment to sneak in THAT story?

It's part of my "Church, civic group, school, and retirement home" standard speech.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, I understand you want to know why Singer's system is inconsistent.

I said it from the beginning when all I knew about Singer was his "special plays." He said that he plays conventional strategy 95% of the time, but uses his special plays only 5% of the time. When do you use a special play, I asked? It depends. And because it depends on so many other variables it is, I believe, impossible for us to test his system.

This is when I offered this comment: Singer should have written a book that said "this is how I beat the casinos." He should not have said that he has a plan to beat the casinos that others can use. The fact the special plays are inconsistent -- and that one fact alone -- makes the system untestable. And don't get me started about $35,000 session losses....

But now Rob says that in October he will give us his Holy Grail so I'm waiting. In the meantime, I still like his win goal strategy.

[Alan Mendelson]

I tell people results fall into a bell curve. That bell curve is centered on the personal ER of the player.

I'm not sure that you ever said anything before about a "personal expected return of the player." But that's a good start to accepting that a player's "actual return" can be better or worse than the expected return of the paytable.

So if you are now saying that it is possible to beat the paytable (and it appears you are) there's nothing left for us to argue about.

[arcimede$]

I'm not sure that you ever said anything before about a "personal expected return of the player."

Which proves my point that you don't read my comments. Shame on you.

But that's a good start to accepting that a player's "actual return" can be better or worse than the expected return of the paytable.

In fact, it's almost guaranteed to be "better or worse". Almost no one achieves the exact, optimal ER of a game. The fact is the vast majority of players achieve a much lower actual return.

So if you are now saying that it is possible to beat the paytable (and it appears you are) there's nothing left for us to argue about.

Like I've said over and over again ... anything is "possible", however it is "improbable" that anyone will surpass the optimal ER of a game over time. And, the longer a person plays the more improbable it becomes.

[Vegas Vic]

Like I've said over and over again ... anything is "possible", however it is "improbable" that anyone will surpass the optimal ER of a game over time. And, the longer a person plays the more improbable it becomes.

Every gambler is a "possible" gambler. Otherwise, they would stay home. If gamblers don't recognize the "improbable" part, they're fooling themselves.

[Alan Mendelson]

If gamblers don't recognize the "improbable" part, they're fooling themselves.

It seems to me that the so-called "advantage players" think the "improbable" does not apply to them. They make it sound like they have it all figured out so they can't lose.

[Vegas Vic]

It seems to me that the so-called "advantage players" think the "improbable" does not apply to them. They make it sound like they have it all figured out so they can't lose.

I lean more toward being an AP player than not, but I am acutely aware of the probabilities. I would rather think the "Singerites" refuse to understand and to accept the probabilities that lie ahead as they take one long shot after another.

[Vegas_lover]

I don't think Arci believes the "improbable" does not apply to AP-ers. I think Arci just points out that the "improbable" is even more "improbable" over a period of ten years. After a period of ten years "improbable" evaluates and becomes "hit by lightning unlikely".

[arcimede$]

Alan, if you read about the plays I used in the other thread you will know I always tried to find the largest edge. Now, if I believed APers were immune from doing worse than average why would I care that much?

The reason one looks for a large edge is that it makes the bad spells more bearable. It also puts probabilities on my side. It now becomes "possible" I will lose but "improbable" I will lose over time. Just the opposite of playing negative games. As I said a few months ago I would rather have a 95% chance of winning than a 95% chance of losing.

[Vegas_lover]

Alan wrote: And because it depends on so many other variables it is, I believe, impossible for us to test his system.
And that in it's self should raise some major red flags. Even Frank Kneeland was so "math challenged" he wouldn't be able to test his system if you have to believe Singer's statements about his intelligence and in debt knowledge of math.

Alan's wrote: The fact the special plays are inconsistent -- and that one fact alone -- makes the system untestable.
I guess you don't need that much explanation LOL

Alan wrote: In the meantime, I still like his win goal strategy.
His win goal strategy is not unique. Good money management can get you places without any betting system. It's not like Singer invented a win goal strategy. So in my opinion, you have to completely disconnect that from his system. If the basics of your system already predict you're going to lose, a win goal strategy isn't getting you anywhere. The thing that would help you more is a stop-loss limit.

Again, I'm not saying the didn't win a million dollars. I just have a hard time believing it happend the way he describes it.

[arcimede$]

[B]Alan wrote: In the meantime, I still like his win goal strategy.
His win goal strategy is not unique. Good money management can get you places without any betting system. It's not like Singer invented a win goal strategy. So in my opinion, you have to completely disconnect that from his system. If the basics of your system already predict you're going to lose, a win goal strategy isn't getting you anywhere. The thing that would help you more is a stop-loss limit.

Both win goals and loss limits help on negative games. They help simply because they both reduce the overall money gambled and therefore, the amount lost.

As for Alan giving Singer credit for these ideas, I've mentioned many times in the past they existed long before Singer came around. That Singer takes credit for these is itself another example of his dishonesty. I think Alan just wants to give Singer credit for something otherwise the foolishness of giving Singer publicity looks even worse.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, sometimes you are really full of it. Singer never took credit for being the one to create the idea of win goals and loss limits. He just preached how important it is to use them. Just knock it off already.

[Count Room]

I used to read Lyle Stuart's books on craps and baccarat long before I had ever heard of Rob Singer. Yes, this is the same Lyle Stuart that got into trouble with Steve Wynn for writing "Running Scared". Mr. Stuart was a strong advocate of "quitting while ahead" but he didn't expressly use the term "win goal".

20 years ago I remember winning about $40,000 at blackjack over several months' time while treating Mr. Stuart's books as freshly discovered gospel that I read on a daily basis. Too bad I lost my focus and $50,000 over the next several months afterward....

[arcimede$]

Arc, sometimes you are really full of it. Singer never took credit for being the one to create the idea of win goals and loss limits. He just preached how important it is to use them. Just knock it off already.

Alan, when you try to attribute the math based theories to me I explain they are not my theories but ones that have been around for decades. When you attribute win/loss goals to Singer what does he say? NADA. He doesn't explain they are not his ideas but lets the misconception you make stand. Is that an outright lie .... no. But, it is not honest either.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc you really won't give up on your attacks of Singer or anyone who points to any good that Singer might offer, will you? If I said that Grochowski gives good advice or Dancer gives good advice would you come back and say "well, they didn't originate the math, they are only repeating what was determined years earlier"? No you wouldn't criticize me for quoting Dancer or Grochowski at all.

But for saying that Singer utilizes a good idea (whether he created it or not) gets you going with the negativity.

I suggest you put Singer out of your mind. Maybe it means giving up Forums all together. Maybe it means filtering the forums you go on to block any thread regarding Singer. But your consistent negativity really stands out. You have to call him a liar even when he says it's a good idea to hit a win goal and leave the casino? Really, Arc? That is a "lie"?

[arcimede$]

Arc you really won't give up on your attacks of Singer or anyone who points to any good that Singer might offer, will you? If I said that Grochowski gives good advice or Dancer gives good advice would you come back and say "well, they didn't originate the math, they are only repeating what was determined years earlier"? No you wouldn't criticize me for quoting Dancer or Grochowski at all.

I have made comments exactly like that in the past. One more example of Alan not reading my comments.

But for saying that Singer utilizes a good idea (whether he created it or not) gets you going with the negativity.

I suggest you put Singer out of your mind. Maybe it means giving up Forums all together. Maybe it means filtering the forums you go on to block any thread regarding Singer. But your consistent negativity really stands out. You have to call him a liar even when he says it's a good idea to hit a win goal and leave the casino? Really, Arc? That is a "lie"?

First of all, if that was all Singer said I wouldn't have any problems whatsoever. However, even without discussing all the bad things he says (like winning on negative games) he doesn't even discuss the bigger picture on win/loss goals. Sorry, but you are the one attempting to paint Singer's theories in a positive view when they don't deserve it. If anyone should examine their comments on VP forums it is YOU.