Originally Posted by
unowme
I'm not sure anyone truly understands the finer points of this betting system including Singer himself so who modeled it and how?
It is quite simple. Singer is or was using progressive wagering and stop limits as a way to overcome negative expectation and that simply can not be done. It's a proven mathematical fact and every person who plays by math has told him that what he is claiming is/was impossible, including Shackleford, Dan Druff and many members here.
Mickey too was once on the side of mathematics. But Mickey's new alliance with Singer, apparently means that mickey is going to back ALL of Singer's claims now, whether proven or not, whether mathematically impossible or not. They are buddies. Fuck the math. And Mickey's new alliance with Singer also apparently means that Mickey is going to start cussing at and attacking anyone who challenges Singer's faulty or alternative math, just as Singer has always done. I like Mickeycrimm. I find his story fascinating. I have great respect for his AP ability. I have never attacked, nor disrespected him, and I am not going to get into the name-calling and trolling that Mickey went to last night. I can't explain why mickey is now backing everything Singer says and attacking people who disagree with the faulty math.
It's quite simple: A progressive betting system simply changes the groupings of wins and losses. It can not change the total outcome, What you end up with is a series of small wins and eventually a much larger loss that wipes out all those smaller wins and then some. There is nothing new about this. Progressive betting cannot overcome negative expectation. Period. Mathematically impossible.
In Singers latest answer to this he made the rather bizarre statement that his results, which continue to defy the mathematics were able to do so because he was on the extreme end of the bell curve as far as variance and results. Translation he was extremely lucky. His original claim which is what many of us challenged was that he had done this for 10 years for a million dollars. After he came out with his newest claim that he was the one to find and play the double up for nearly six years, he has amended this original claim concerning the Singer System, down to 4 years and $375k. Even 4 years and $375 is not short term variance. This claim just continues to be preposterous.
And this claim continuing to be preposterous, is part of Singers credibility. Since he is offering no proof for his newer bigger claim that is supposed to rock the AP world, no tax records (he has destroyed them), no paperwork from casinos, we are supposed to take him at his word. And that is where credibility come into play. And that is why this all ties together, along with his publicly available financial history, which includes bankruptcies, evections and legal judgement from an apartment complex at a time in question, when he claims to have been rather "well-off". I am not picking on Singer, but none of it makes any sense. None of it is credible.
Reply With Quote