Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
Frank, obviously you have not paid attention to my statements in the past. I have nothing against Rob's system. While overly complex and clearly meant to confuse people, a progression simply increases variance. It is his CLAIMS that are the problem. Since no betting system can change the return of a game, the system is meaningless to ones expectation. However, Singer CLAIMS his special plays improve his changes of winning. He CLAIMS playing lower ER games is of no consequence. He CLAIMS no one can win using optimal play strategies. etc.

How many times do I have to repeat this?
And indeed Arc, this is the essence of the discussion. As I understand (and I approached this as a journalist, without a horse in the race) Rob's feeling is that no one is a long term player and no one will see the long term results promised by the paytables. Hence, his strategy to maximize the chance (he calls luck) that by diverting from the (let me use the term) "conventional play" that you could get a big win that would put you ahead.

The real question is can this diversion from conventional play pay off and make you a winner?

Regarding the part of his system or strategy (I dont know what term to use now?) that when you have a profit and leave follows that it is better to leave with the money so you can play again another time -- because you will never win if you just keep playing.

And Rob, I hope I have that correct?

And Frank, I started this entire process of trying to find out about Rob's system/strategy because it had been discussed so much on the web, but no where could I find a full explanation about it. Even Rob's own books don't go into detail about, nor did his website. I was hoping to finally lay it out on my website for all to see and come to their own conclusions about it.