You see, Arcimedes, no one will dispute what you wrote. The "math" will win when you evaluate Singer "by the math." But Singer only plays by the math 95% of the time.
What Singer does is take long shots which OPENLY VIOLATE THE MATH. This is why you cannot evaluate his system. If he wins, he won because he got lucky. Remember his website, "where luck triumphs skill" or something like that??
Remember my analogy about playing craps? The "math" of craps says you should be the pass/dont pass with odds, place bets on the 6 and 8. Or come bets with odds. Thats what the math says to do in craps. But if Singer were at a craps table he would be betting hardways and horns and the field and when you get "lucky" or you have a shooter who varies from the expected math patterns, he wins big.
At craps, a "math follower" would tell the player who bets the horn that he is violating what the math of the game says to bet. The math follower wouldbe correct except if the shooter throws a lot of horn numbers.
So let me put it this way: Arc, you are evaluating Singer's "oranges" with the standards for "apples." If you keep evaluating Singer's "oranges" as if they were "apples" you will never agree. But Singer just might have the best oranges in a world of apples.
I dont know how else to explain it. As far as the math goes-- Singer is "wrong." Yes, APers might laugh at Singer. Just as some craps playes laugh at the guys who bet the horn and hardways -- until the horns and hardways keep hitting.
Arc, you should be saying this: Singer does not play strictly by the math. Singer hopes that his special plays will work. Use Singer's strategy at your own risk.
And you know what Singer can say: You can play strictly by the math. I hope that the math helps you win. Use the "math" at your own risk.
Apples and Oranges.
