Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
Alan you've got that entirely right. I'm not beating mathematics or even the machines, which naturally are based 100% on mathematics only (assuming they are never biased, which is interesting but I've always identified my winning AND MY PLAY STRATEGY as being based only on randomness from the machines).

My winning is first a matter of having good luck, and because of my increasing denomination & game volatility along with using strategic special plays, good luck has both more opportunity to appear as well as more meaning when it appears. Couple that with a strict, structured strategy that is totally bound by win & loss goals using a large session bankroll to realize a relatively simple 5% win, and the term "quitting when ahead" can easily lead critics down the wrong path of thinking I'm destroying their sacred mathematics.
So many lies, so little time. First of all Singer has often claimed that anyone WILL win if they use his strategy playing negative games. That has nothing to do with luck as not everyone could possibly be lucky. Hence, he IS claiming his system overcomes mathematics.

And then, he also claims that ALL APers lose. Once again this is claiming that mathematics will fail to lead to wins as Dan pointed out.

Yes, Singer lies constantly.