Damn, I was really hoping "Singer" would get that GWAE interview. I was pulling for it big time.

I guess I can make a case for the bell curve comments. If we accept the fact that the systems stuff is all irrelevant, there is no reason to place an artificial line between the "AP Play Years of 1994-2000" and the "Singer Systems Years of 2000-2004." So if we just lump all of those years together, as mathematicians would, you get a result smack in the middle of the bell curve. I guess that's what "Singer" is saying, in his own way of course. We're talking roughly -400K for six years, then +400K for four years, give or take. Pretty much a wash, right? No reason to put some voodoo line in the sand. He had bad luck for six years, then good luck for four. No need to insert all of the Rube Goldberg win goals, martingaling, soft profits gobbledygook.

If you just take the sum total of his play and ignore the labels he puts on it as "AP" or "not AP," then he winds up smack in the middle of the bell curve. Occam's razor and all that. No need to create weird hypotheses. No reason at all. The "Singer Systems" wind up being his version of rabbit's feet. He won when he had them; he lost when he didn't. So from his perspective, it had to be the rabbit's feet.