Nearing Completion of Evaluation of RS system (not)

How deep is that hole you're digging getting?

Haven't been keeping up with the recent posts, too busy packing. So I apologize if any of this seems out of context. I have just enough time to post and run. Last time I checked the Two Girls question was under debate. Somewhere between packing my tooth brush and aftershave I thought, should we be so fast to dismiss Marcus's refute of the Two girls question. I really try not to be biased, and I could scarcely claim to be giving Rob a fair evaluation, if I didn't, at least for a second, consider Marcus might be right as well.

I have passed the question on to The Math Nerds Website run by Texas State university, where they answer math questions. When I get their answer back I will post it. You may all want to reserve judgment until the math nerds have had their say.

TTFN

No, once again you demonstrate a complete lack of comprehension. No math person expects any game to return exactly the expected return. What we expect is we will get closer to that number over time. What we should see is that we are closer to that value based on the number of hands played.

So, if I expect to be within +- 1% after a million hands that means I should be between 102% and 104% minus a small amount for errors. I will probably not be exactly 103%. At 2 millions hands it might be +- .5%.

Money, you will never understand "what the debate comes down to". You don't want to know. I've explained this very aspect of ER to you in the past, yet here you are once again showing you didn't pay attention.

I realize you are hoping that Frank will show that I have been wrong in my statements about the math. You are in for a big disappointment.

Maybe you should think about your answer on the infinite rope. That one is seriously wrong.

Arc for the umpteeth time Singer does not dispute the math. His plays are nothing more than taking a shot at getting something better than what the math calls for.

This is why this whole debate about Singer is nonsense.

There is nothing to debate. There is nothing to discuss. As I said before he is like the craps bettor who bets the horn. He says he got lucky betting his way.

He also says he quits playing when he reaches a win goal.

He also says he follows the math 95 percent of the time.

You know what's amazing? People have been making a big stink over NOTHING.

Tell me Arc would you make a similar stink over a craps player who bets the horn and gets lucky?

Singer wins because he is a good money manager AND he knows when to leave. The special plys that you make a fuss over are really insignificant in the overall picture.

This is what we call a non-sequitur. No one can win because he's a good money manager. No one can win because he knows when to leave. He may be all three, however.

Singer is Money's Shar.

OMG, that is funny as hell!!!!!