Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
Let's not get into a pissing match over the use of the word "theory." We are not discussing math as a theory, Arc. What Rob refers to is the theoretical belief that a player will have the return as stated in the paytable for a game.

Rob's position is that since no player is at the game for the long term that their own individual return will differ.
Alan, that is what the math tells you. It has nothing to do with Singer. What Singer tries to push is that everyone will lose who follows the math. As I've explained over and over again, and as Frank stated many times, results form a bell curve. While some people may do worse than their expectation, other will do much better.

In addition, this math applies no matter what strategy one uses. If 100 people use Singer's approach, guess what, their results will also form a bell curve around their expectation. This is what the math promises. The difference with Singer is he tells people playing games with poor returns is just fine. Hence, the expectation of those players will be worse.

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
Actually, Arc, you don't disagree with that idea either -- and no one does.

So, this is just another war of words over words that we've all heard before.

This is getting boring....
I agree. And yet, after being told the facts numerous times Singer continues to spout this nonsense. It is this kind of dishonesty that needs to be illustrated. I assume you have new people joining this forum regularly. They also need to understand the facts.