I believe it has just been a terribly unlucky streak that falls on the lower end of your bell curve. But I wonder if Singer has had an opposite extremely lucky run that makes him believe his system is the reason as opposed to blind luck.
I do play close to 100% proper strategy with a few intentional exceptions on rare occassions and, of course, due to speed and/or distractions, sometimes (but very rarely) overlook a small pair.
The Horseshoe in Hammond supposedly has many high 99+% games.
http://www.vpfree2.com/casinos/by-region/mid-west.html
Not as many as that would make one believe. Unfortunately, it is a smoking casino whereas those in chicago are smoke free so my visits there are very minimal.
I should add that I once won a significant appeal to the gaming board against them for an error that they made in a craps game and would not otherwise rectify. As such, I am not welcomed with open arms there and I prefer to avoid them.
Last edited by regnis; 10-04-2012 at 02:39 PM.
Wow, I am totally confused now by you Arc. First you go through months of attacking Rob Singer for lies, fabrications, and for statements that violate the math of the game of video poker. So I point out that some of the things that Rob Singer says are true. And then you come back with this:
Excuse me, Arc, but what the heck are you talking about?
But let me give you one specific thing to discuss. Let's discuss Rob's "special play" when dealt AAA3 in triple double bonus, which happens to be one of the few of his special plays that I like and follow.
Rob drops the kicker to give him a better chance to draw the fourth ace. The "math" and conventional play says to hold the kicker. Rob's reasoning is that drawing the fourth ace is a good enough win for him to reach his win goal, etc. And if I were playing at the $5 level, that fourth ace would be worth $4,000. Conventional strategy (the math) says to hold the kicker for a 1/47 shot at $20,000.
Is it true or false that when Rob drops the kicker he has a better chance to draw the fourth ace? And like him, I'd like to improve my chances for a $4,000 win which would make me happy, too.
Where have I ever said anything about that particular special play? Where have I said you won't hit more quads? As I suspected you can't name a single instance where I have said anything "untrue" ... not one. And, it appears you didn't really try to find any. Where you came up with this nonsense is beyond me. You claimed I have never admitted anything Singer has said is true. Now, either back that up with something specific or apologize.
No arc, I am not going to apologize. You have spent dozens of posts here calling Singer a liar and how his system can't work, and how "improbable" it is to win using his system, and now you tell me what he says in his system is true? I just give up. The only thing I can say now is that I have no idea what you are saying and what you mean. Just carry on your discussions with everyone else. I really do give up.
And I have provided evidence that supports those claims each time. Isn't it interesting that you can't come up with a single example where I lied about Singer?
I've provided a mathematical proof that his system cannot change the return of VP games. What more do you want?
No, I haven't said a word about his system and probability. I've stated that the probability of winning on negative return games is low and gets lower as the return goes down. It is Singer that has claimed people can have a high probability of winning money overall playing his system on negative games. By definition that is a lie. If one played his progression on good, positive return games then they have a good probability of success. The bottom line is the system doesn't matter as no betting system can change the return of a VP game.
Once more you've given evidence that you do not read the comments on your own forum. If you did you wouldn't be making these patently false claims. You're failure to try and understand my comments has led you to make these crazy claims. Maybe you should try and understand what someone has said before making claims about them.
Arc all I know is this. You say Singer lies about his winnings, lies about his house, lies about using players cards, lies about success using his system, lies about everything, and now you tell me there are truths in his system? I told you... I give up.
I didn't want to do this, but I have to comment.
Arc wrote: And I have provided evidence that supports those claims each time. Isn't it interesting that you can't come up with a single example where I lied about Singer? Arc, the question was whether or not you lied, but if there were any truths in Singer's system?
Arc, you also wrote: I've provided a mathematical proof that his system cannot change the return of VP games. What more do you want? Even Singer will agree that his system does not change the "return" of VP games. The math is the math. You can't change the "return" of VP games. But you can beat the games. So what do I want? I want you to recognize that there is a difference between theoretical return and actual return. You are only dealing with the theoretical. While every other player, it seems (Singer included) deals in the actual.
Case in point: I sit down at a 8/5 Bonus machine with a negative paytable and I hit a royal. I leave. I just beat the game. And everyone else who ever sat down at a game with a negative paytable and left with a profit will also say that they beat the game. That's everyone but you. And perhaps redietz.
Once again you misquote me. I've stated there's a high probability that he has lied about his winnings since he has been caught in numerous other lies. Like I've said before, there's a .03% probability that he won what he claimed.
I've shown there is no record of him living anywhere in the Phoenix area except for a small apartment. Since he refused to provided where the supposedly big house exists I think most people will accept my statement as being true.
Even Singer has admitted using his player's card during education sessions. Given all the other things he's lied about why would anyone believe it only happened once?
Finally, I've always stated that his system cannot change the return of a VP game. It is Singer that claims his system will win on negative games. Thus, he is lying about that aspect. I've also shown his claims that most of his special plays increase the chances of winning are false. A few do but the majority do not.
I'm not sure where you get the claim that I'm saying there are "truths" in his system. What I said is the system does nothing to change the return. What I've said is his special plays don't do what he claims and, in fact, reduce the return of the game. You'll have to tell me what "truths" you are referring to.
You did not "beat the game" unless you are ahead for all your play and you plan on never playing again. All you did was win a session. No one disputes a person can win a session. We've been over this a zillion times. Quit repeating this ridiculous nonsense. It makes you look bad. The issue, and the only thing you should be concerned with, is whether a person can beat a game in the future. That is what "beat a game" means, please quit trying to redefine it.
Arc I can sum up your position about "winning" with any of several familiar phrases including:
1. No one escapes this world alive.
2. Life is a bitch and then you die.
3. In the end we're all dead men.
4. You can't take it with you.
5. Life is a zero sum game because at the end we all have zero.
Two questions, Alan:
1) Have you tried that "quit when ahead" stuff on a simulator vp trainer and how did it turn out?
2) How has "quit when ahead" done for you the last dozen or more times you've played in a real casino? I assume since you're advocating it, you're using it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)