Did I Miss Something? Where's Rob's Full Strategy?

[arcimede$]

sling--let's do a little math. Let's say Arci plays $1 VP 40 hours a week. If we assume 10 hands per minute, that's 600 per hour. But you go p and eat etc. and the math is easier at 500 hands per hour. So let's use 500. If Arci plays full time--40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year, that's 1 million hands per year. 5 coins per hand so he's got cash in of $5,000,000. He has the only positive game known to mankind--so give him a 1% positive return.

Far from the "only positive game known to mankind". If you start off being dishonest what can we expect from the rest of this comment? BTW, I play at about 700 hands/hour on the machines I play since they are quite slow. When I was in Las Vegas I could play over 1000 hands/hour. I believe Frank indicated previously he could play two machines at around 2000 hands/hour.

Arci makes $50,000 per year. Now, we know he isn't playing that many hours or hands---I am being generous. Yet he says he makes 6 figures every year. And besides the Royal, there really are no winners on his game of choice. And he has no cold streaks either--the math just magically comes out exact.

Wong again. I have never said I made 6 figures every year. I made 6 figures over 8 years and one of the reasons it is that low is because I don't play that much. I can only wonder why you choose to make things up.

So how's that math looking to you. When I was a kid and we moved from the city to the suburbs we had to learn something called "the new math". I guess Arci is using some form of new math himself.

See how easy it is to believe something when you create a strawman to attack it. Now, maybe you consider sticking to the facts and see where you end up.

The point I hope I'm making is that not even considering the ebbs and flows--the hot and cold streaks--the whole idea of playing endlessly because the math says so is not realistic. So not to speak for Singer because he is more than able to do so, but his system recognizes that the long term grind is just that, and he uses changes in denomination, some variances in play, and win goals to achieve a better reuslt. That result cannot be proven mathematically, and there lies the issue.

No, it can be proven mathematically that his approach provides no benefit. It's all random and as such your results can be better or worse than average (the bell curve). But, no betting method can help you. Sorry if you don't like the truth (as it appears from your previous statements), but if you look at everything rationally you will realize that no system (Singer's or anyone elses) will make a difference in a games' ER over time.