Players interested in really winning (advantage players and such) look for a way to play at a longterm advantage. Period!

Sure variance may work against them in the short-term, especially players that aren't playing frequently. But you STILL start off with something that makes the game and your play a long-term winner rather than a long-term loser. Step 2 is to play enough trials to make it matter.

Starting off with a -EV play and looking for positive variance to make it a winner is nonsensical. I keep coming back to what I think is the perfect analogy. Roulette. You can easily walk up to a table, play black, hit 2 out of 3 and win for the day. But try doing that every day for a year?

And Rob writing about his short-term negative EV play which depends on positive variance (far positive end of the bell curve) as if it is a long-term winning strategy is just wrong. It is fraudulent. And that is what he has apparently done for 20 year...on forums....writing books....writing a column in a gambling publication. AND he is continuing to do so, still posting about his Singer progression system here and within the last few days sending Alan an article.

I mean if Rob's new claim is this double-up bug thing and we are all supposed to forget all his past untruthfulness and give him the benefit of doubt on, why is he back to this Singer progression claim that continues to be very problematic mathematically. I won't stop challenging these claims because they go against the math. They are false and intentionally misleading and I don't like it.

It is nothing personal with Rob even after several years of bad behavior and name calling. I appreciate that he Is behaving better and we can have more civilized discussions but that doesn't change the fact that what he continues to claim concerning the Singer VP progression system is bullcrap. This is simply not a winning system. No more so that the better known Martindale. For the umpteenth time: Wagering systems simply cannot turn negative EV play into a long-term winner.