Nearing Completion of Evaluation of RS system (not)

MrMarcus: how, in your opinion, does this affect the credibility of Frank's evaluation of the RS system? If it has no effect please say so.

First, I did not state that I personally would see the evaluation as being biased.

Let's assume for instance the results are not in RS favor. Frank meets with RS to discuss the results and RS explains how some of the findings are incorrect - and there is an error or errors in the evaluation thus possibly skewing the final results as reported. With the amount of RS haters here, do you really believe these people won't think there was some "behind the scenes" happenings that altered the results? We've seen it time and time again here - any opportunity to blast RS is jumped on with much vigor.

To make things equal, maybe acrimedes should be shown the results before posting and let him do his rebuttal (if any) to the findings.

Then to confirm results, maybe ask another that believes in the RS system. Then just to make sure, ask another strictly advantage play player. Of course, this is nonsense as it would be never-ending - as if this topic will truly ever end.

It was my understanding that Frank was going to gather as much info on the RS system as possible from RS to perform the evaluation and once Frank felt he understood the system well enough, the evaluation would take place.

To post the findings and then talk to RS for later comment would probably hold more merit to others here and may help squelch some of the naysayers.

Heck, I'm not even any kind of serious VP player at all. I have no dog in this fight one way or the other. Twas just an observation that raised an eyebrow when Frank stated he was going to meet with RS to discuss the findings before posting them. If I am truly the only one who thought this or would have thought this, sorry for the interruption.

More information: "Who Keeps Sheep" was a derivation of Albert Einstein's well known logic puzzle "Who Owns the Fish" which also contains no reference to a fish. It can only be solved by process of elimination, inference, and combinational thinking. https://math.ucsd.edu/~wgarner/personal/puzzles/fish_puzzle_sol.htm

Though it is considered difficult and beyond the ability of 99% of the population, I'm not sure anyone has ever contested its construction. Guess it's a pity Einstein is dead or you could point out where he was wrong as well. Both problems would certainly be easier to solve if fish/sheep were mentioned. I think you're missing the point of puzzles. They are supposed to be hard to solve or else they would not be puzzles.

It was not my intention to site an authority that no one would be able to reference. It is a best selling book and even if you didn't want to purchase a copy, one can always use the library. I listed the reference specifically so people could reference it, since I copied the question and it's answer directly out of the book. I expected people to go look it up. Are you telling me the people on this forum don't use the library, and if I wanted to conceal information from them I should hide it in books?

What did not occur to me is that someone would continue to comment on and criticize something that they had not bothered to take the time to properly research.

I know that forum conflict seems to be something people enjoy. It is not something I enjoy in any way. Please go look up the reference and take your argument up with the question's originator after you have all the information.

Can you not understand that by commenting, with such conviction, on something you have just admitted to not having researched comes off badly...and is there any point to me even trying to help you with this?

When I posted a puzzle out of a best selling book by a world famous author, arguing over the answer was the last thing I expected.

I am sorry if my posting of a logic puzzle from a best selling book caused conflict on this forum. That was not my intent. Really that wasn't even on my radar. I will be away for the next week. I have a girl coming out to visit me that I might just decide to marry. It is a very important trip. Good luck I hope you all succeed in resolving this conflict and sorry again for starting it. It is never my intent to add fuel to a fire. I didn't even see the flames.

These are really good points. I will try to address them. Much of what I will be saying is that an evaluation was not possible. This should address some of your concerns. It will also contain a Q&A where I asked a lot of questions and Rob answered. Got to go. Back in a week.

Be careful using copyrighted materials on the web.

Dead people do extremely well as "authorit(ies) that no one is likely to actually consult." You can get them to say most anything.

But if you really want to know, helping build atomic bombs was wrong.

MrMarcus: how, in your opinion, does this affect the credibility of Frank's evaluation of the RS system? If it has no effect please say so.

Frank's evaluation is Frank's evaluation. I think it will be credible to Frank. I am not aware of any sound basis for choosing a hold that is inferior to some other hold, using long term expecation as the only measure.

I do agree with RS to the extent that many, many VP players do get ground down that way. The house does its best to be sure its wins outweigh its losses.

Always remember, your love life is more important than Rob Singer. Unless you're sleeping with Rob. Then it's a tie.