I have a system called, "Playing 9/6 JoB straight up," and I accept your bet of $100 against me winning eight (or more) out of ten sessions, if you offer it. My stipulations are that the denomination to be played is nickels ($0.05/denom, $0.25/bet) and that each session ends when I am ahead $1.25 (or more) and declare the session over or when I am down, by any amount that I deem appropriate, and declare the session over. I also have to profit overall for the ten sessions to win, but not by any set amount, even $0.25 in profits would make me the winner.
Are you in Vegas? I should be there later this year. No escrow will be needed, we can each physically display our $100 bill when the time comes. The challenge should not require more than a couple of hours.
What's your starting bankroll $25? Your bankroll must be your stop limit. I'll take that bet!
Take off that stupid mask you big baby.
Session stop limit or total stop loss? I'm willing to set a session stop loss of $25 (100 units). I'm not willing to set an overall stop loss that low.
Quite honestly, I think the only way I would let it hit that is if I had already lost a session (which I would have quit before that).
It's not about my beliefs Alan, it is about proven mathematics.
I don't give a rats ass about Rob's system, or session wins or any of that. My contention for a year now, since I have been on this site is that Rob Singer did not win a million+ dollars playing a negative EV game. Rob claims to have averaged 100k for more than 10 years. That is what I want to bet. To do that we are going to need at least 6 months sample size. According to Rob's numbers he should win 50 thousand dollars in 6 months time. That is my bet because THAT is what I have been arguing since I came to this forum.
Now, I don't know what this obsession that Singer, Alan, and now regnis have with sessions and 8 out of 10 session wins? I personally have never said anything about that. A progression betting system if done correctly probably will have 80% winning sessions, maybe 90%, depending on how the progression is set up. BUT it will still lose money overall! Those few losses will be much larger than the wins and wipe out all those small wins....and then some.
So who gives a rats ass if he has 80% session wins if at the end of that time he is down ten's of thousands of dollars? To use Rob's own analogy, is he going to go to the grocery store and say, well I don't have any money because I lost 30 thousand dollars playing my progression system, but I did win 80% of my sessions?
You guys twisting this wager around to some number of session wins is true to form, dishonest and manipulative. I would say it is a "shyster" move but apparently monet has assigned some kind of anti-Semitic definition to "shyster" that I fail to see in any dictionary. So I will just say it is a lie, because no one cares about number of session wins. What I and others challenge is that Rob Singer did not win 100k for 10+ years and that is what any bet should be, not some made up number of session wins.
Sessions wins is like a football team that has just lost a game, saying "yeah but we had more first downs that the other team". That simply is not what matters, and neither is session wins. You can't pay your rent with session wins....not that this would be an issue for Rob Singer, as history shows he isn't big on paying rent and prefers to just get evicted.
"More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ
"More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ
Kewlj yes over the long term you can't beat a negative expectation game whether it's 8/5 Bonus or craps or roulette. But there are people who win. These winners didn't beat the game but they won money at the game.
Rob has not beaten -EV video poker but he has won money at -EV video poker.
You need to understand the difference. This is really about the difference in wording.
You're right, Rob would lose it all back if not for his win goals.
"More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ
Sure at $25 level a $100,000 win for the year is possible. That would be a +1 royal cycle, IF the negative EV of what ever spins necessary to get to +1 royal cycle hadn't eaten too much into that 100k profit. So yeah, we are in agreement...."possible". But when you start talking 10 years in a row of this above expectation, above the mathematic likelihood, then you are getting into "impossible territory". Then you are getting into 18 y.o.'s in a row impossible territory.
Now the above is IF a player was playing all $25 VP amounts, which Singer isn't. Most of his play is a lower amounts. Much lower amounts. And all of that play would have been losing play or he wouldn't have moved up in level in the first place. Alan, you are doing exactly what Singer does....accounting only for the winning part of his play and pretending there is no losing portion.
You brought up "realistic". It is very unrealistic to think that you play at x level and lose, then play at xx level and lose, then play at xxx level and lose, then play at xxxx level and magically win there time after time after time. So if you want t talk realistic, Alan.....yeah get realistic for once in your 18 y.o.'s in a row life!
But it is worse that this. It is worse than this 'actions speaks louder than words analogy'.
Last week I asked Alan, point black, 3 or 4 times if he believed Singer made a million dollars playing -EV video poker. I NEVER even got a yes or no answer from Alan. Time after time I got typical Alan Mendelson double talk. The kind of talk you typically hear from a snake oil salesman (not a shyster....that's a bad word now, according to the new definition).
So Alan can't even bring himself to say "yes I believe Rob Singer's claims of winning a million dollars playing -EV video poker". But yet, he will support Singer with all this "it's possible bullshit". Alan Mendelson is is a flat out VERY dishonest man.
Kewlj why don't you call Mission dishonest for saying Rob is likely to win his challenge?
Yes I believe a $25/coin video poker player could win $100,000 a year. I've also said here that Rob has never proved it nor has he sent me tax returns when Arc sent me his.
Get off my back you troll.
Because it is NOT the same F***ing challenge Alan! Singer re-wrote the challenge to include session wins....what is it 8 out of 10, which has nothing to do with anything. That is what he and mission are going back and forth about. I don't give a shit about session wins. My challenge was about winning money.
A progression system should win 8 out of every 10 sessions and STILL LOSE MONEY. So Singer re-wrote the challenge into a wager that he would win. I never challenged that he could win 8 out of 10 sessions. I challenged that he could win money.... longterm. I challenged that he could win a million dollars over 10 years, playing -EV. I didn't challenge that he could win 8 of 10 sessions. I challenged MONEY!
I suggest you read my -EV video poker thread Alan. Not that it matters as you will either not understand it or pretend to not understand it. And YOU have the F***ing ballz to call ME a troll?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)