Rob Singer sightings...

[Bill Yung]

https://www.gamblingforums.com/threa...e-2#post-46391

[redietz]

https://www.gamblingforums.com/threa...e-2#post-46391

The problem with Rob's old Gaming Today columns was that, after about a dozen columns, he simply repeated himself. Nothing wrong with that, but after 10,000 posts and a decade's worth of columns, one would suspect he would get around to some mention of his statistics somewhere for some period of time. But no.

The thing about Argentino -- as with most things, you can usually learn more from what isn't written than what is. Argentino just ignores math altogether.

It's all about luck. That pretty much washes the gambler's hands of the results. Which implies the results weren't pretty.

[mickeycrimm]

So Singer is posting on GF? LOLOLOL! Well, he's been banned from everywhere else. I imagine he's talking loud and trying to draw a crowd. You can bet he's looking for someone to argue with. He can't stand not being able to troll....and that's what he's up to no doubt, trying to suck people back onto that site so he can smear them. He's a POS.

[slingshot]

I actually joined that forums months ago to view some of Rob's posts and we both quit posting months ago-the usual hecklers chimed in from the start. In your dreams.

[slingshot]

https://www.gamblingforums.com/threa...e-2#post-46391

The problem with Rob's old Gaming Today columns was that, after about a dozen columns, he simply repeated himself. Nothing wrong with that, but after 10,000 posts and a decade's worth of columns, one would suspect he would get around to some mention of his statistics somewhere for some period of time. But no.

The thing about Argentino -- as with most things, you can usually learn more from what isn't written than what is. Argentino just ignores math altogether.

It's all about luck. That pretty much washes the gambler's hands of the results. Which implies the results weren't pretty.

You're always full of half truths. All the figures he gave on some of his holds and relationship of math to win goals- or did you just ignore them?

[redietz]

https://www.gamblingforums.com/threa...e-2#post-46391

The problem with Rob's old Gaming Today columns was that, after about a dozen columns, he simply repeated himself. Nothing wrong with that, but after 10,000 posts and a decade's worth of columns, one would suspect he would get around to some mention of his statistics somewhere for some period of time. But no.

The thing about Argentino -- as with most things, you can usually learn more from what isn't written than what is. Argentino just ignores math altogether.

It's all about luck. That pretty much washes the gambler's hands of the results. Which implies the results weren't pretty.

You're always full of half truths. All the figures he gave on some of his holds and relationship of math to win goals- or did you just ignore them?

Yeah, okay, sling. Go find one post in the 5000 here where he stated his numbers of hands per royal or number of hands per four-of-a-kind. He claimed to somehow circumnavigate probability, but never actually gave hard numbers. For him to win, he would have had to magically generate more royals or four of a kinds than probability predicts.

Rob always skirted math, which was a smart move on his part.

[MisterV]

Rob always skirted math, which was a smart move on his part.

Without the math to back him up it should not have been too tough for someone who actually knows gambling math to objectively disprove his claims, i.e. call bullshit, brand him a liar, and kick him into the corner.

What, he was never challenged by a Math Boy?

[kewlJ]

Rob always skirted math, which was a smart move on his part.

Without the math to back him up it should not have been too tough for someone who actually knows gambling math to objectively disprove his claims, i.e. call bullshit, brand him a liar, and kick him into the corner.

What, he was never challenged by a Math Boy?

Absolutely he has...over and over and over again. That is really the whole issue. Singer, a lot like Alan, refuses to accept the math. But unlike Alan, who just acts goofy, Singer's response to the math that disproves his claims is that he gets nasty to the person stating the math.

End result: They both end up residing in a fantasy world, where they see and do what is mathematically impossible.

[slingshot]

The problem with Rob's old Gaming Today columns was that, after about a dozen columns, he simply repeated himself. Nothing wrong with that, but after 10,000 posts and a decade's worth of columns, one would suspect he would get around to some mention of his statistics somewhere for some period of time. But no.

The thing about Argentino -- as with most things, you can usually learn more from what isn't written than what is. Argentino just ignores math altogether.

It's all about luck. That pretty much washes the gambler's hands of the results. Which implies the results weren't pretty.

You're always full of half truths. All the figures he gave on some of his holds and relationship of math to win goals- or did you just ignore them?

Yeah, okay, sling. Go find one post in the 5000 here where he stated his numbers of hands per royal or number of hands per four-of-a-kind. He claimed to somehow circumnavigate probability, but never actually gave hard numbers. For him to win, he would have had to magically generate more royals or four of a kinds than probability predicts.

Rob always skirted math, which was a smart move on his part.

Is that what you call math? That just about explains the mentality of this forum. I wish I had never posted here.

[redietz]

Rob always skirted math, which was a smart move on his part.

Without the math to back him up it should not have been too tough for someone who actually knows gambling math to objectively disprove his claims, i.e. call bullshit, brand him a liar, and kick him into the corner.

What, he was never challenged by a Math Boy?

Arcimede$ was versus Argentino from the beginning. What interested me was how Argentino sidestepped all math discussions with appeals to human will, or what percentage of sessions ended with wins, or win goals creating profit on negative expectation games. He was the Uri Geller of video poker.

He was also an incredibly careful writer. He almost never claimed to actually be able to win going forward. He simply divided his video poker playing life into AP, wherein he said he lost his ass. Then came his productive years using "his systems," wherein he won 900K or something. Then came the present, wherein he was retired and therefore not responsible for still making a profit.

He was the classic paranormal claimant. His personal relationship with the former publisher of Gaming Today gave him a public window and some alleged gravitas. When that window closed, he hitched onto Alan.

[Bill Yung]

When that window closed, he hitched onto Alan.

His latest posts seem so detached and vague.

All that aside, the martingale betting system works just fine, and has quantifiable, though variable, mathematical advantage. The problem is that we would run out of money when we lose the big bet. Even with a significant other edge, we would eventually lose the big bet with the martingale. After all, Kelly betting is sort of an inverted martingale to guard against bankruptcy. Therefore, we would require another manner in which to exploit the fundamental principle of the martingale, along with some other edges, if and where available, to defeat a negative expectation game.

[redietz]

When that window closed, he hitched onto Alan.

His latest posts seem so detached and vague.

All that aside, the martingale betting system works just fine, and has quantifiable, though variable, mathematical advantage. The problem is that we would run out of money when we lose the big bet. Even with a significant other edge, we would eventually lose the big bet with the martingale. After all, Kelly betting is sort of an inverted martingale to guard against bankruptcy. Therefore, we would require another manner in which to exploit the fundamental principle of the martingale, along with some other edges, if and where available, to defeat a negative expectation game.

Yessirreee, Bob, as long as those "some other edges" turn it into a positive game. LOL. You're not really going to argue for the wonders of the martingale, are you?

Sorry, Mr. Yung, I played on the Penn State math department grad hoops team, which is like staying at a Holiday Inn Express. I may not have known what they were talking about half the time, but no amount of verbiage (and a martingale) is going to turn a negative expectation game into a positive expectation game. A martingale may have a "quantifiable, though variable, mathematical advantage" -- whatever that is vis-à-vis what is the key question -- but it provides no advantage at a gaming table unless you've suckered some poor bastard into betting against your "session win rate," which is what Argentino repeatedly tried to do.

[slingshot]

When that window closed, he hitched onto Alan.

His latest posts seem so detached and vague.

All that aside, the martingale betting system works just fine, and has quantifiable, though variable, mathematical advantage. The problem is that we would run out of money when we lose the big bet. Even with a significant other edge, we would eventually lose the big bet with the martingale. After all, Kelly betting is sort of an inverted martingale to guard against bankruptcy. Therefore, we would require another manner in which to exploit the fundamental principle of the martingale, along with some other edges, if and where available, to defeat a negative expectation game.

I guess if it were a true Martingale method, that would definitely be true. And no way a 25-50¢ player could last with such a small bankroll. It is a 4-6 level of betting- so my game would be 5-10-25-50¢ increase- with the possibility of returning to lowest level. The most I could lose is $200 a session. And there is always the stipulation to finish the game on another machine if felt necessary. Many times this never is necessary- but several times I've won this way- which also extended my playing time. So, no- I don't end up with a ridiculous betting amount as the strategy can work at all denominations. I repeat for the 100th time- it is NOT a Martingale strategy- or else I couldn't afford it.

[jbjb]

There's no reason to bring this morons name up. He's nothing but a useless system seller. Slingshot should be a multi-billionaire by now following this fool around.

[redietz]

I'll give partial defense of some in that, back in the 90's when the Gaming Today Singer column ran, people just were not very hip to the math of video poker and probability in general. So when front page column after front page column ran, a lot of people assumed it had to have some credibility.

I'm sure sling is well on his way to a Winnebago, a Hellcat, and being well hung. Not sure about the video poker winnings, however.

[mickeycrimm]

https://www.gamblingforums.com/threa...e-2#post-46391

The problem with Rob's old Gaming Today columns was that, after about a dozen columns, he simply repeated himself. Nothing wrong with that, but after 10,000 posts and a decade's worth of columns, one would suspect he would get around to some mention of his statistics somewhere for some period of time. But no.

The thing about Argentino -- as with most things, you can usually learn more from what isn't written than what is. Argentino just ignores math altogether.

It's all about luck. That pretty much washes the gambler's hands of the results. Which implies the results weren't pretty.

You're always full of half truths. All the figures he gave on some of his holds and relationship of math to win goals- or did you just ignore them?

Sling, shouldn't you be rich by now using Singer's marty?

[mickeycrimm]

When that window closed, he hitched onto Alan.

His latest posts seem so detached and vague.

All that aside, the martingale betting system works just fine, and has quantifiable, though variable, mathematical advantage. The problem is that we would run out of money when we lose the big bet. Even with a significant other edge, we would eventually lose the big bet with the martingale. After all, Kelly betting is sort of an inverted martingale to guard against bankruptcy. Therefore, we would require another manner in which to exploit the fundamental principle of the martingale, along with some other edges, if and where available, to defeat a negative expectation game.

I guess if it were a true Martingale method, that would definitely be true. And no way a 25-50¢ player could last with such a small bankroll. It is a 4-6 level of betting- so my game would be 5-10-25-50¢ increase- with the possibility of returning to lowest level. The most I could lose is $200 a session. And there is always the stipulation to finish the game on another machine if felt necessary. Many times this never is necessary- but several times I've won this way- which also extended my playing time. So, no- I don't end up with a ridiculous betting amount as the strategy can work at all denominations. I repeat for the 100th time- it is NOT a Martingale strategy- or else I couldn't afford it.

You are betting more when you are losing. It's a martingale.

[mickeycrimm]

Is that what you call math? That just about explains the mentality of this forum. I wish I had never posted here.

Then get lost. Go post at GF where your hero is.

[mickeycrimm]

The problem with Rob's old Gaming Today columns was that, after about a dozen columns, he simply repeated himself. Nothing wrong with that, but after 10,000 posts and a decade's worth of columns, one would suspect he would get around to some mention of his statistics somewhere for some period of time. But no.

The thing about Argentino -- as with most things, you can usually learn more from what isn't written than what is. Argentino just ignores math altogether.

It's all about luck. That pretty much washes the gambler's hands of the results. Which implies the results weren't pretty.

You're always full of half truths. All the figures he gave on some of his holds and relationship of math to win goals- or did you just ignore them?

Yeah, okay, sling. Go find one post in the 5000 here where he stated his numbers of hands per royal or number of hands per four-of-a-kind. He claimed to somehow circumnavigate probability, but never actually gave hard numbers. For him to win, he would have had to magically generate more royals or four of a kinds than probability predicts.

Rob always skirted math, which was a smart move on his part.

Singer's posts on a half dozen forums number in the six figures. He has never ever put up any math on his plays or anyone's else's. Math doesn't exist to him.

[slingshot]

Is that what you call math? That just about explains the mentality of this forum. I wish I had never posted here.

Then get lost. Go post at GF where your hero is.

Gone! And I would appreciate being taken from the forum list. Thanks.