Las Vegas Advisor Menu
« LVA Forums « Vegas Free-for-All

Hello LVA

Don
Don
Jul 3, 2011
5:03am
Block User
DonDiego has low expectations that the next thread will be more Mr. Kneeland's "cup of tea".

Nonetheless, he wishes him well.
MoneyLA
MoneyLA
Jul 3, 2011
5:07am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: mrmarcus12LVA
Quote
Originally posted by: MoneyLA Remember my analogy about playing craps?
A vast majority of people who play craps lose money playing craps.

Quote
Originally posted by: MoneyLA 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.
Of that vast majority of craps players who lose, the ones who make these bets most lose most.

We finally have a post from MoneyLA that shows some integrity. Playing "Singer's" "system" is like losing at craps.


MrMarcus, you must be a political consultant, or in public relations, or marketing, because you just pulled the great media switcheroo... when you lose a point, you change the discussion.

OK, you want to talk about craps now. So let's talk about craps:

YES, craps is a negative expectation game and the longer you play it the more you will lose. There is nothing in the game of craps that will help you win by using math. Only luck (and call that whatever you want to) or the ability to influence the dice will help you win.

That sums up the discussion about craps.

Now MrMarcus, the craps analogy was only used to describe some of Singer's special plays-- his long shots. You know that, but you just wanted to change the discussion because you had nothing more substantial or worthwhile to contribute. Why didn't you just say nothing?

If you want to discredit Singer's system youre going to have to do two things:

1. you are going to have to find out the entire system. I still don't know what the entire system involves because I still need info about his bankroll management and when he decides it's time to move up to higher denominations.

2. you will have to use his system and show that it doesn't work. And remember, his system is very specific about one thing: he has a win goal (at his denominations) of $2,500 --and then he leaves. It is different than what others do, which is to "grind on" as Singer tells it.
snidely333
snidely333
Jul 3, 2011
5:09am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: DonDiego
DonDiego has low expectations that the next thread will be more Mr. Kneeland's "cup of tea".

Nonetheless, he wishes him well.


Ditto.
MoneyLA
MoneyLA
Jul 3, 2011
5:13am
Block User
I also look forward to the return of Frank. He has found that Rob Singer is the "third rail" of gambling.

arcimedes
arcimedes
Jul 3, 2011
5:45am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: MoneyLA
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??

Hilarious Money. Of course we can evaluate his system. Why would you claim otherwise? Every time Singer makes a special play it reduces his ER. One can determine from statistics how often he will deviate and compute the lower ER. Not that anyone would waste their time. All one needs to know is it is LOWER.

Quote
Originally posted by: MoneyLA
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.

Yup, both games have loser plays. Yes, people will get lucky but not often enough to cover for the added losses. What's so hard to understand about that?

Quote
Originally posted by: MoneyLA
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.

Sorry Money, once again you are trying to claim that math cannot be used to evaluate VP. That is a load of nonsense. I realize you are still trying to cover your butt from getting suckered into placing Singer's BS on your website. Not going to work. You see VP is analyzed a hand at a time. It's not complicated and it's not difficult mathematics. Special plays don't change squat. Get over it.

Quote
Originally posted by: MoneyLA
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.


BS. The math is a means to evaluate the play. It doesn't care how you play. It will tell you what you're likely to see as results over time NO MATTER WHAT STRATEGY IS USED. What it tells you is the odds are much greater that non-optimal plays will result in larger losses. This is not difficult.

Of course, people can get lucky. They can get lucky using any old method. I've seen people playing deuces hold an ace + deuce and draw 3 aces. They got 5oak that no one would have gotten playing optimal strategy. Does that make it a good way to play. Well, I guess you must think so. Singer's method is not much different.

alanleroy
alanleroy
Jul 3, 2011
5:53am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: FrankKneeland
In week or so I'll start a new thread and check in for questions and comments directed at me.

It has become, "not my cup of tea".

I'm not leaving the forum, just this thread and taking a break.

Sometimes these threads take on a tea flavor of their own. Sometimes, it doesn't even taste like tea at all...

MoneyLA
MoneyLA
Jul 3, 2011
5:54am
Block User
Arc, you win. I'm finished.
snidely333
snidely333
Jul 3, 2011
6:24am
Block User
obsession [?b?s???n]
n
1. (Psychiatry) Psychiatry a persistent idea or impulse that continually forces its way into consciousness, often associated with anxiety and mental illness
Loyd Vegas
Loyd Vegas
Jul 3, 2011
6:54am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: MoneyLA
Arc, you win. I'm finished.


Does that mean you are gone for good like you promised earlier?
arcimedes
arcimedes
Jul 3, 2011
7:00am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: MoneyLA
Arc, you win. I'm finished.

There is no winning and losing. There are only facts. You have continually avoided accepting a factual representation of VP. That has nothing to do with me.

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now