$25k challenge

[Alan Mendelson]

So Singer has a 74% chance to win the first session. What changes in the second session, and in the third, and in the fourth....?

Nothing. I'm saying as long as each individual session has that probability, then he is more than 50% likely to win eight (or more) out of ten sessions.

That was also 74.2%, to be clear. At 74% exactly he would be less than 50% likely to win eight (or more) of ten sessions.

If nothing changes and he's 74.2% to win the first session, then he's 74.2% to win the second session and the third and the fourth. So... doesn't that mean he's 74.2% to win it all?

Let's use coin flips. LOL

If Rob has the skill to flip 74 out of 100 coins as heads shouldn't that skill be the same in each session?

Let me use an AP example:

If an AP says he's playing a game that gives him a 100.7% return on the first hand plsyed, doesn't he have the same EV on the second hand and the third and the fourth....?

[kewlJ]

If Rob has the skill to flip 74 out of 100 coins as heads shouldn't that skill be the same in each session?

Amazingly, you seem to be misinformed about almost everything that you talk about. How can that be?


Do you have any idea how progressive betting systems work and the results of progressive betting systems?

Progressive betting systems change the distribution of wins and losses. It doesn't....can not change the total won or lost, only the distribution. So the end result of EVERY progression betting system, is many smalls wins, offset, make that more than offset by a few much larger losses. This is nothing new, progressive betting systems have been around forever...centuries. They don't change the longterm outcome. They can't allow you to win, playing a -EV game. PERIOD!

This whole discussion is completely useless. The only way to prove Singer's "system" results would be to have a large enough sample size. I don't know what a reasonable number of trials might be. At least 4-5 Royal cycles worth, IMO. That would be a couple hundred thousand trails. Even then the results could be skewed with 1 or 2 royals hit at the upper end of the progression, which would make it look like a winner, but given an even larger sample size, it would not be.

Singer no doubt knows a very large sample size is the only way to prove beyond a doubt either way, and is banking that can't be done in terms of a wager. You would have to have someone follow him around recording his play for months. So Singer has agreed to a wager that he knows can't be done.

[Dankyone]

I used to think it was impossible that Alan could be as dumb as he presents himself to be. But I’m starting to wonder.

[Alan Mendelson]

Kewlj your argument is that Rob uses a progressive betting system. I'm sorry but he doesn't. His system calls for changing denominations both up and down.

Why do you keep calling that a progressive betting system?

Dankyone do you have the same problem as kewlj? Do you also consider Rob to have a progressive betting system when his denominations played go down as well as up?

By the way, do you know when he moves to a lower denomination?

[kewlJ]

Kewlj your argument is that Rob uses a progressive betting system. I'm sorry but he doesn't. His system calls for changing denominations both up and down.

Why do you keep calling that a progressive betting system?

Alan, despite the name, progressive betting systems can go either up or down, or start in the middle and go both directions. Don't be confused because the most common of progressive betting systems, the martingale only goes up.

And the result is always, always for decades and centuries....the same. They can change the distribution of wins and losses but not the totality of winning or losing. This is not opinion....IT IS PROVEN MATHMATICAL FACT!

Do you know the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different results!

This is insanity. There is nothing new about Singer's so called "system", except that he talks in circles with funny words meant to muddy the waters.

As a matter of fact, results of Singer's system will be very typical of a progressive system. Many small wins....what is the number he uses 85%? The only problem is that he refuses to acknowledge the negative that is present in EVERY progressive system, the infrequent, but sure to come, much larger losses that wipe out all the small wins.

Singer can refuse to acknowledge the negative part, but it doesn't mean it isn't there. He has done nothing to change the results that always occur....that mathematically MUST occur.

It's just wishful thinking. He is playing games. He is filling a bottle with water and telling you it is a magic potion.

[Deech]

As kewlJ stated, progressive betting systems can go up or down. The experts (not me) state that progressive betting systems do nothing to improve your overall chances of winning. You can make money in the right sequence of spins but you just as easily can lose money. To quote one website, "Common advice is that progressive betting systems should be completely ignored".

This particular caveat has some added issues that makes things interesting.

I personally will not comment on an individuals style of play and make a judgment. That is for the rest of the forum.

Anyone can make a -EV game into a positive with one spin, ten spins, or with an exceptional hit. As always, half the forum wants short term success to prove claims can happen and the majority of the forum wants data to pan out over time.

Both sides can claim victory on their sample size.

[mickeycrimm]

The simplest answer to Alan’s question is this: No, cashing out after reaching a win goal is not sufficient to make a negative expectation game positive.

Do you mean it's not sufficient to make the game's expectation positive,
or that it's not possible to win?

Alan asked "cashing out after reaching a win goal does work?"

Can it work? Has it worked?

Mission who said anything about making the game positive? The question again is about winning money, not making the game positive.

People win money all the time playing negative expectation games.

Rob's right about this: you APs hold this belief that you can only win on a +EV game.

Once again you misrepresent things. Alan would you please name those of us here who have told you a player can't have a winning session playing a negative expectation game? I'll save everyone the time. No you can't. I don't know the exact numbers but I can ballpark it.

If 100 players sit down and play 1000 hands each of 8/5 Bonus Poker I would say maybe 30% at most will have a winning session.

The larger the sample size the less chance the player has of coming out ahead.

If 100 players play a total of 1,000,000 hands each virtually none of them have a chance of coming out ahead. Especially you, as bad as you play the game. Your strategy is very shortsighted.

[Mission146]

If we add in the requirement that he must also be ahead overall for the 10 sessions,
does he have a high probability of of that as well?

Let me throw out a disclaimer:

I don't know the exact tenets of his system, so again, this is based just on flat betting $500 on 9/6 Jacks at the $100 denomination.

With that, I still have him at (closer to) but over 50% to succeed, even with that stipulation.

[mickeycrimm]

If we add in the requirement that he must also be ahead overall for the 10 sessions,
does he have a high probability of of that as well?

Let me throw out a disclaimer:

I don't know the exact tenets of his system, so again, this is based just on flat betting $500 on 9/6 Jacks at the $100 denomination.

With that, I still have him at (closer to) but over 50% to succeed, even with that stipulation.

Rob doesn't even know the exact tenets of his system.

[Mission146]

Rob's right about this: you APs hold this belief that you can only win on a +EV game.

If you've ever read anything I've written, then you would know that's not true. It's not only possible to win on a -EV game, but if you have a large enough sampling of people who are playing that game, then it becomes increasingly likely that at least one of them will win. What decreases the likelihood is the number of samples on a given game that each person must play, but you generally have to get into millions upon millions of hands before you can say that a given person has no chance of being profitable.

[Mission146]

So Singer has a 74% chance to win the first session. What changes in the second session, and in the third, and in the fourth....?

Nothing. I'm saying as long as each individual session has that probability, then he is more than 50% likely to win eight (or more) out of ten sessions.

That was also 74.2%, to be clear. At 74% exactly he would be less than 50% likely to win eight (or more) of ten sessions.

If nothing changes and he's 74.2% to win the first session, then he's 74.2% to win the second session and the third and the fourth. So... doesn't that mean he's 74.2% to win it all?

Let's use coin flips. LOL

If Rob has the skill to flip 74 out of 100 coins as heads shouldn't that skill be the same in each session?

Let me use an AP example:

If an AP says he's playing a game that gives him a 100.7% return on the first hand plsyed, doesn't he have the same EV on the second hand and the third and the fourth....?

No, it doesn't mean he's 74.2% to win it all. The reason why is Variance, so you can use a Binomial Distribution to determine the probability of hitting a target x out of y win goal.

You're forgetting that the bet is to win eight (or more) out of ten sessions, so the mean number of sessions (out of ten) won on a .742 probability is 7.42 sessions, which is obviously not a possible amount of sessions. Anyway, he can win anywhere from 0-10 sessions and each number of sessions has its own probability. The most likely individual result in that scenario is eight out of ten followed closely by seven out of ten.

It has nothing to do with coin flips.

Anyway, if he has a 74.2% chance to win each session, then out of ten sessions, there is a certain probability he will win 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10. Here are the probabilities for 8, 9 and 10:

8: 0.275222013593
9: 0.175895550462
10: 0.0505870149

0.275222013593+0.175895550462+0.0505870149= 0.50170457895

That's more over 50% than I would like, but that's because you rounded my more specific number up to 74.2%.

Anyway, that's all the time I have to instruct you on rudimentary math for today. These are very simple concepts that any gambler should have some sort of grasp on. If you wish to compensate me for individual mathematical instruction, then that might be able to be arranged.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to just assume that you're trolling from here on out as relates this subject. I refuse to believe that anyone could be stupid enough to suggest what's quoted above, especially not someone who is educated.

[Dan Druff]

What's so stupid about this whole thing is that Rob is focusing upon "session wins", rather than a simple cross-book.

So if one side takes the casino and the other side takes Rob, that is the purest and most honest test of who is willing to challenge Rob's "system" with real money.

At that point, the only restriction should be a minimum number of hands (so Rob doesn't sit down, hit a fluke big hand, and quit), and of course some kind of limit restriction so those betting against Rob don't get clobbered by hundreds of thousands of dollars if he gets lucky and hits a few big royals.

A straight crossbook of limits for $0.25 to $10 per credit, with an agreed upon hand minimum, and agreed upon stop losses on both sides, would accomplish everything.

I would even be willing to crossbook Rob on as many sessions as he wanted (provided we settled after each one), just in case he wants to prove he can win long term.

We all know this will never happen, and of course Rob wants limits up to $100 and this "session win" nonsense (plus a $25k bonus for achieving it). I don't believe Rob is even trying to hustle anyone. I think he is proposing these terms because he knows that everyone here is too smart to take those awful terms, and thus it will appear they are "afraid" of challenging his system. This way, he can claim he is putting his money where his mouth is, and no one else will.

At least it spawned an interesting discussion, and I've enjoyed some of the analyses posted here, especially the one by Mission146.

[Alan Mendelson]

For those of you who maintain that Rob has a progressive betting system consider this: if Rob should reach his $2500 win goal at $1 Bonus Poker (the first game he plays in each session) he will leave the casino. How is that a progression?

I guess that when I go to Red Rock and put $100 in a 25-cent game, hit some winners and decide to switch to $1 then that makes me a progression player also. And I guess that means if you're playing $25 blackjack and the count is good and you change to $100 bets you're a progression player too.

Okay then. We're all progression players.

[Alan Mendelson]

Dan wrote " the only restriction should be a minimum number of hands (so Rob doesn't sit down, hit a fluke big hand, and quit)"

Dan it's Rob's belief that the big mistake APs make is that they do keep playing... and give back the big wins the same day.

Now this will trigger the AP argument that it's all one big session even if you play the next day or the next week or after lunch.

Well Rob and the AP community will argue that till doomsday but he'd rather end the session and possibly the trip with that big win.

There were many times I hit a royal and lost it the same day (not a $100k royal). At least with Rob's system I would have enjoyed that money for a week or a month.

[Alan Mendelson]

Mickeycrimm wrote "Once again you misrepresent things. Alan would you please name those of us here who have told you a player can't have a winning session playing a negative expectation game?"

I never did say that. But because Rob plays a negative expectation game none of you can believe that he may have won what he said he won.

[jbjb]

8 out of 10 sessions is fucking meaningless, win or lose. The real question...Does it work 24/7/365? By this, I mean, hit the win goal and start over. Rinse and repeat. The answer to this is a big fat NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

[Rob.Singer]

Not wasting any more time on this. You cowards have shown your true colors. Dan the strategy I play ONLY uses $1 thru $100. PERIOD. I have no idea how to even play 25c thru $10. I offered to cap your liability at an agreed-to low 6-figure number if your combined pockets weren't as deep as mine. And what the hell is a "cross-book"? It was a very simple challenge: I play my strategy--you know, the one all you geniuses criticize and disbelieve? I win before your very eyes, just as I said I would. No foolish alternates. Why would you even suggest changes to my playing SPS? It's so dumb.

Just face it--you guys wilted once again as you sit in your armchair-gambling easy chairs from the safety of behind your computers. You're uninformed, you misrepresent, and everyone's fear of betting against my strategy is extremely obvious. You all know this isn't coin flips or roulette bets. And whether I played ten or hundreds or thousands of sessions (my results are based on playing around 350) you people all know I'll win at at least an 85 per cent rate and win big money overall, because the few large losers are easily outnumbered by the large winners, to go along with those "many small winners". If you were aware of the "tenets" then no one would claim such nonsense.

Yes you idiots had your chance. Nothing but excuses, changes and yellow-bellied cowardice. And it's not hard to know about the many WoV folks who are reading this and are very disappointed in your performance--dancing around and escaping the challenge.

What's wrong eddie--too angry and upset to comment?

I have to add this in. Kew, the reason I know you're not even close to being the real deal, is with your plethora of stupid, uneducated comments, you regularly show that you do not know how to think beyond the basics, and you can only operate effectively within Your own little comfy safe space. You're the type of guy who'd have been hired after your slick interview, but whom I'd have enjoyed firing two weeks later as I watched you whimper and whine while you walked your sorry ass out that door.

[Rob.Singer]

8 out of 10 sessions is fucking meaningless, win or lose. The real question...Does it work 24/7/365? By this, I mean, hit the win goal and start over. Rinse and repeat. The answer to this is a big fat NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Dumb and dumber from the #1 armchair gambler here. The 85 percent comes from ten years and about 350 sessions. If you really believed that you'd have accepted the challenge, while identifying the number of sessions you want me to play.

Can't do it can you. No money/no balls.

[jbjb]

8 out of 10 sessions is fucking meaningless, win or lose. The real question...Does it work 24/7/365? By this, I mean, hit the win goal and start over. Rinse and repeat. The answer to this is a big fat NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Come on folks. Rob say it takes an average of 4 hours to get that $2500. That's $15,000 a day! That's $5,475,000 a year!!!!! Go get those "Phantom Bucks"

[monet]

8 out of 10 sessions is fucking meaningless, win or lose. The real question...Does it work 24/7/365? By this, I mean, hit the win goal and start over. Rinse and repeat. The answer to this is a big fat NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Dumb and dumber from the #1 armchair gambler here. The 85 percent comes from ten years and about 350 sessions. If you really believed that you'd have accepted the challenge, while identifying the number of sessions you want me to play.

Can't do it can you. No money/no balls.

10 Years and about 350 Sessions Total!?
What do you do in your Spare Time?
Must be nice. I am Jealous of the thought of those numbers!
I put in almost 350 Sessions Per Year!
Depending on what you consider a Session, it could be up to 10 times that amount, or more... Per Year!!
Everyone on this Forum makes the "Easy Money" while I have to work "Hard" to Steal mine.