Of Math and Men

[arcimede$]

Arc: you wrote: "What Singer states is his betting system can lead to an actual return > optimal return. Sorry, that is not possible as the math clearly shows."

I really don't understand how you can say this? So I am going to give you an example that you will love. It involves a coin toss. And the coin is weighted so that heads shows up more than tails. The "math" will tell you that any fair coin will have flip results that are 50/50 heads and tails. But remember that Singer says there are patterns? He says that machines are not random and you can use this "non randomness" to help you, and he has seen that aces appear when he holds just one? Believe it or not, this is the foundation of his special plays, and it all comes from his experience. Again, it goes beyond the math of the game.

Alan, if a game is not random then the math does not apply. The math is based on random events. One either accepts the games are random or not.

Now, some of you are saying "well that's just crazy, Alan." So, let me give you another example in the casino which many, many people will agree with. You are at a craps table and the "math" tells you to bet the pass line or don's pass with odds. That's what the math says. But "Practice Johnny" is the shooter and suddenly all of the players are betting the horn -- 2, 3, 11 and 12 which are hard to hit, and high paying one-roll bets. If you follow the math you never bet the horn numbers. But "Practice Johnny" is able to influence the dice and he can hit the horn numbers more often than the math says he will.

Look at Singer's system the same way as betting on "Practice Johnny" in craps.

If a person could influence the dice then the game would not be random and once again the math would not apply. This is well understood. Why are you going off into la-la land?

Now, getting back to your statement, Arc. What Singer states is his betting system can lead to an actual return > optimal return. Sorry, that is not possible as the math clearly shows. OK. The math says what the math says. And if you're at the craps game the math says you will lose betting on "Practice Johnny." But when all is said and done, those betting on "Practice Johnny" will have an actual return > optimal return even though the math says that is not possible.

No, the math does not say it is impossible. The math no longer applies.

Again Arc, you have to realize that "expected return" is just an "expected return." Actual is actual.

To put it another way: yeah, the math says this should happen, but when you change conditions something different actually happens.

And getting back to Singer: this is why while I don't believe in non random VP games existing, and why I have full faith in the integrity of the game, I am open to anyone showing me proof that the RNGs are not truly random. This is why I would welcome an independent third party investigation of the VP industry.

It's good to hear you believe the games are random, but don't you see your problem? You tried to claim that Singer could possibly win assuming the games are not random and then you state you believe the games are random. You need to decide what you want to believe, random or not, and base your positions on that belief.

Just as I say show me the research to support your bell curve, I've also asked that Singer show me the proof that the games are not random which actually has a basis for some of his strategy.

And let me also say that special plays are not all of his strategy. He openly says his money management system gets the lion share of his success. And I think all of us can understand this: it's not really how much you win, but how much you don't lose back.

Money management cannot change the return. You can't improve on the optimal expected return with a betting system. These are mathematical facts if VP is random. You need to quit living in a fantasy world and get back to reality.