Discussing Rob Singers Systems

[Rob.Singer]

Arc, I didnt send it to you because I was waiting to get Rob's forms in the mail. If the forms aren't coming, there is no sense putting you or me through the time and trouble, and in your case the expense of requesting old tax forms.

Frankly, and I am being objective and honest here, I don't want to see anyone's tax returns. And I think issues can be discussed without making them personal and personal to the point where you have to present your own tax returns to justify an opinion.

Rob, I hope you can cancel the request and get your money back. I never wanted to see your tax returns in the first place. Arc, I don't want to see your returns either.

However, I will say this again: what would be interesting and of value is to see some opinion from the IRS about Rob's deductions including his grocery deductions. Now, that would have some value!

I can show you an audit report as I said earlier, but there's no mention of the few grocery deductions I took other than allowing them. In fact, all of my deductions (expenses) were allowed because I had 100% receipts. My audits all focused on filing as a pro gambler from Az. and the high amounts of W2G's I had vs. a comparatively low income amount. They had trouble comprehending that.

[arcimede$]

So many lies....where do we start!?

You could start by admitting you have been lying all these years while stuck in that little apartment in Carefree.

Arci, why run to one of your typical escape routes? You think no one sees? I twice said I had already requested 2001-2007. You thought you could stall and deflect what the actual point was with your own challenge by saying other years are required. All your babble over which years to request because of this or that was moot at that point, which is why I said to go ahead and get whatever years you want since this was 95% about me. Remember that, Mr. "Facts"? And that NDA....your comfy blanket. The true sign of a weasel.

So in the meantime, not a peep. You got caught my friend....nailed by your own fear right in front of everyone. I STRONGLY suggest you think at least twice before making yourself look like a big fool again.

I specified what I needed up front. I haven't changed a thing. You jumped out and claimed you ordered 2001-2007 without ever asking what years would satisfy us. Remember you are the one that is trying to respond to the claims you have been lying about your winning. If you really wanted to put those claims to rest you would gladly provide any year requested. What would you have to hide? Why would you even care if I provided any years? This would be your big chance to be a hero. Instead, everyone can see you are trying to "weasel" out of this process. I do like that projection, BTW.

At least you have proven beyond any doubt that you have been lying about your VP results. You will never provide any tax forms because you know they will show the truth. I'm still ready to provide my forms as soon as I have the NDA. I have nothing to hide.

Alan, there you have it. There is now no doubt that Singer has been lying about winning. QED.

[redietz]

I think this is the point wherein Rob offers to make a wager, and we are back to where we started.

[slingshot]

I think this is the point wherein Rob offers to make a wager, and we are back to where we started.

I think it's called "cyclical romance".

[redietz]

Okay, now that we're back at ground zero for all this, I can say I've learned a couple of things. Somebody help me out here.

1) On the Wizard's oft-quoted forum, people have claimed inserting a few lines of hidden code can de-randomize a machine. They said Rob could have done this. Is this possible?
2) Is there any evidence that, say, 99.5% JoB machines, with optimum play, as a population, actually return 99.5%? Is there any way to know this? Could they actually be returning 99.4% with optimal play, and if so, how would anyone know? I don't think there's a way to know this.

I'm not necessarily a conspiracy theorist. I'm a skeptic. I think the assumptions of randomness have issues. And if a few lines of code can indeed de-randomize a machine, then there are real issues. My default position is that anyone who thinks there aren't, at this moment, a dozen purposefully rigged vp machines in Nevada is naive. Now a dozen out tens of thousands isn't many -- unless you happen to be playing one.

As to the argument that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," well, given human nature, human history, and the fact that we know some rigged machines and some rigged drawings and some rigged promotions existed in LV, and that the Gaming Commission checks each machine every two years or so, the proposition that each and every vp machine is random falls under the aegis of "extraordinary claims."

[Alan Mendelson]

I would like to comment on this point:

2) Is there any evidence that, say, 99.5% JoB machines, with optimum play, as a population, actually return 99.5%? Is there any way to know this? Could they actually be returning 99.4% with optimal play, and if so, how would anyone know? I don't think there's a way to know this.

It is probably very unlikely that any JOB machine over its lifetime returned what its paytable says it should return. It doesn't matter if the JOB game is 9/6 or 8/5 or 6/5 because the math of the paytable is only theoretical and even perfect play does not mean that the RNG will cooperate with that perfect play.

This is why you can never sit down at a game and expect to get the "theoretical return." When you sit at a game paying 99.2 it doesnt mean you will finish your session with 99.2% of your starting bankroll. And it doesn't mean that when you sit at a 100.17% game you will walk away with 100.17% of your starting bankroll.

I am afraid that the math guys and the APs are too wrapped up in this "theoretical return" number.

I personally am aware of the theoretical return of the games I play because I consider the pay tables to be guides about which games are better to play. I would rather play 8/5 Bonus than 8/5 Double Double Bonus.

[arcimede$]

Okay, now that we're back at ground zero for all this, I can say I've learned a couple of things. Somebody help me out here.

1) On the Wizard's oft-quoted forum, people have claimed inserting a few lines of hidden code can de-randomize a machine. They said Rob could have done this. Is this possible?

If one can get a hold of the code, figure it out and find a way to load it back into a machine then anything is possible. It does require a certain set of skills that Singer does not possess.

Of course, if you could do this with a casinos machines you wouldn't bother with the RNG, you would just program in certain sequences that would produce winning results as was the case with the NGC employee Harris. Believe it or not the manufacturers have things like check-sums and seals to make this much more difficult. They are just as cynical as you are

2) Is there any evidence that, say, 99.5% JoB machines, with optimum play, as a population, actually return 99.5%? Is there any way to know this? Could they actually be returning 99.4% with optimal play, and if so, how would anyone know? I don't think there's a way to know this.

Yes, there are tests for randomness. And, the machines are tested by the various gaming commissions.

[arcimede$]

It is probably very unlikely that any JOB machine over its lifetime returned what its paytable says it should return. It doesn't matter if the JOB game is 9/6 or 8/5 or 6/5 because the math of the paytable is only theoretical and even perfect play does not mean that the RNG will cooperate with that perfect play.

Since most players do not use "perfect play" the lifetime results of machines will assuredly be worse than the perfect play ER. Do we really have to go back and discuss the bell curve .... again.

This is why you can never sit down at a game and expect to get the "theoretical return." When you sit at a game paying 99.2 it doesnt mean you will finish your session with 99.2% of your starting bankroll. And it doesn't mean that when you sit at a 100.17% game you will walk away with 100.17% of your starting bankroll.

I am afraid that the math guys and the APs are too wrapped up in this "theoretical return" number.

All the math guys are aware of this issue. That is why the concept of bankroll is so important to "math guys". One can only wonder where you get these silly ideas.

I personally am aware of the theoretical return of the games I play because I consider the pay tables to be guides about which games are better to play. I would rather play 8/5 Bonus than 8/5 Double Double Bonus.

Pretty much the same logic used by those really stupid "math guys".

[Alan Mendelson]

Let's take this one slowly:

Yes, there are tests for randomness. And, the machines are tested by the various gaming commissions.

That wasnt the question Arc. The question was not about randomness, the question specifically was:

2) Is there any evidence that, say, 99.5% JoB machines, with optimum play, as a population, actually return 99.5%? Is there any way to know this? Could they actually be returning 99.4% with optimal play, and if so, how would anyone know? I don't think there's a way to know this.

Redietz is correct. There is no way to know if a 99.5% JOB machine returns 99.5% unless you were the one, and the only one, who ever played it and you could keep track.

Randomness is not the issue. The issue is does the RNG return the random numbers to fit the theoretical return? How would you ever know? You can't know.

[arcimede$]

That wasnt the question Arc. The question was not about randomness, the question specifically was:

Actually, it was. You just don't understand what random means.

Redietz is correct. There is no way to know if a 99.5% JOB machine returns 99.5% unless you were the one, and the only one, who ever played it and you could keep track.

Randomness is not the issue. The issue is does the RNG return the random numbers to fit the theoretical return? How would you ever know? You can't know.

That's why they test for randomness.

[mr jjj]

"Alan, the primary denominations I use these days for RTT & ARTT are five-level 25c/50c/$1/$2/$5. You would do very well on either of these, and they are a lot more interesting to play than just pounding away. And while SPS was played by me at very hi denominations, it can be adjusted downward to make it compatible with anyone. But it is much more complex than either of the strategies I mentioned above. I can make a consistent winner out of anyone who has an excellent aptitude for the game" >>> Hey Rob, thanks for taking the time to post your method. Much appreciated sir.

Ken

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc this is where you get argumentative. this is not about randomness. This is a specific question: does a 99.5% JOB machine really return 99.5% and the answer is YOU WILL NEVER KNOW.

[arcimede$]

Arc this is where you get argumentative. this is not about randomness. This is a specific question: does a 99.5% JOB machine really return 99.5% and the answer is YOU WILL NEVER KNOW.

Actually, you do know with a certain degree of confidence which is quite high. If a machine passes all the randomness tests then the average departure from the ER due to variance is probably much greater than the departure from ER of any slight lack of algorithmic randomness. This assumes the randomness tests are correct. This gets back to the bell curve. The actual number of people expected to precisely match the ER is quite small.

However, keep in mind that continuous shuffle reduces any lack of randomness in the algorithm. By only selecting one hand out of 1000s that are possible we would actually be enhancing the randomness.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, please. In a random game anything is random. With a RNG any return is random. The paytable is only a guide. The actual return of the machine is always random.

[arcimede$]

Arc, please. In a random game anything is random. With a RNG any return is random. The paytable is only a guide. The actual return of the machine is always random.

No, it is not random, it is defined by a bell curve based on the ER and the variance.

[Alan Mendelson]

No, it is not random, it is defined by a bell curve based on the ER and the variance.

You don't mean this, Arc, I know you don't. RNGs are random. Maybe all of the machines fit a bell curve, and maybe they don't. The bell curve is also theoretical. I think the original question refers not to theory but to actual results.

I think it's time for the originator of the question to comment.

[redietz]

I am not sure what Arci means by "testing for randomness." The articles I've read do not go into detail as to what the Gaming Commission people actually do with the chips -- they just explained their schedules and that the machines are checked to ensure the chips are working. I do not know what that means, which is why I asked.

The question is -- does ensuring the chips "are working" mean the same thing as ensuring the chips "are random." I think if they actually checked "for randomness," that would have been precisely what was reported that they do. I could be wrong.

I do not think there is any way for civilians to know if any given machine returns what it's supposed to, given perfect play on a given game. I do not think there is any way for civilians to know if the population of machines returns what it's supposed to, given perfect play for a given game. That information doesn't exist. The only information that is shared with the public is the overall return of the machines categorized by denomination. We aren't even privy to the return of the machines (or a machine) for given games.

So are individual machines actually tested for "randomness?" And what would that mean? What if a machine's hold is way, way beyond what was expected, but the machine is cleared as "random?" Is the hold considered evidence of variance or as evidence that the machine was rigged, then unrigged, sometime before the "inspection?"