Nearing Completion of Evaluation of RS system (not)

Or, you might just be honest.

The problem I see is Singer claims that winning is the goal of his system. So, it cannot be valid by any reasonable evaluation. If he just claimed it was another way to play that increased session wins then no one would care.

Of course, the fact he's been caught in 100s of lies does not help his case either.

Can I barge in for a minute here. You should be aware Arci that Rob's definition of "win" means having a 100% chance of making exactly what their expectancy is. Yes I know that's impossible.

When he says they will not win, what he means is that they are not guaranteed to win.

Yes I know how divergent that is from what we mean when we use the same words. Just thought you'd like to know. What he means on this point isn't that far from the truth, if you apply a RS translation matrix. All this will be in the eval.

As far as his comments on machine return not mattering, there is a similar miscommunication. Don't worry it's not you.

Singer has told me that given a choice of a full pay machine or a short pay machine he will play the full pay machine. All of the special play examples with the math explained showed full pay examples. And remember the challenge that never happened? Well Singer wanted to play in both LV and Laughlin because the high denomination machine Singer needed for his progression is only in Laughlin.

What Singer has said is that he CAN win on short pay tables. He does not prefer them.

I think it would be better if Singer comments directly to these comments. He is welcome to on my Forum. It is unfortunate he can't respond here so that we can cut thru the rumors and find out exactly what he says. Here it's all hearsay.

Come on guys, get a clue. Singer thrives on lies and half-truths. He constantly makes ambiguous claims. That is why I backed him into a corner many years ago on freevpfree and got him to state explicitly that he believed most people would WIN (the real definition) on negative machines playing his system.

He continues to claim no one can WIN playing optimal strategy on positive machines.

It's all there in black and white. Oh, did I mention that Singer lies all the time. Well guys, you've been lied to right to your faces. Welcome to the club.

Oh, OK. You were talking about something COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. My mistake was thinking you might be talking about something relevant (hence my use of the word hypothesis). My bad. Now, where were we?

I think Frank was saying that scientific studies indicate that the earth's atmosphere contains oxygen, and you were calling him a moron because you can't see any oxygen in the earth's atmosphere. But they you had to rush off to your Flat Earth Society meeting and missed the rest of the conversation.

Well where we were, at least for me, was wondering if you were planing on contributing anything useful to our discussion on evolutionary biology??? Of which the theory of causation for Type I & II errors is a subset.

I'm not exactly sure why you think stuff that happened long ago, would be completely irrelevant to a discussion on any subject containing the word "evolution", so I can only surmise that you never really understood exactly what the topic was. If that's my fault, let me state it now.

In modern society, scientists have discovered a strong tendency amongst humans for making Type I errors. It is believed this has a genetic cause, and they have isolated certain genes as strong contributing factors. The evolutionary biologists believe these genes come to us from a process of natural selection that favors Type I errors as a successful survival strategy in primitive times. In modern times this same legacy, that was once good for survival, is now behind much of the odd beliefs, conspiracy theorists, bizarre religions, gambler's fallacies, etc..., as our brains are now structured to see faces in the clouds--which may be less helpful as a way of thinking than it was to our ancestors, which paid more dearly than we do now for missing patterns.

A Missed fishing trip during the yearly salmon run today, is sad...well if you like fishing. But from a survival point of view, you were probably better off shopping at Wally World for your dinner. (as long as you don't drink an equal amount of beer for each endeavor: Drinking and fishing = good | drinking and driving = bad)

In ancient times, missing the yearly salmon run might have been the difference between survival or removing yourself from the gene pool. A few extra trips down to the creek to check, were better than none at all.

I understand that your post was probably just intended to be insulting. I'm trying to look past that and address why you thought such a comment was necessary. I keep hoping you'll see the connection between Type I errors and modern day gambling problems, where the seeds of yesterday have found all too fertile soil.

(And just meant to be humorous)

Of course, if you don't see the connection you're probably just prone to Type II errors.

Sincerely,

~FK

P.S. I did lose a $5 bet I had with my roommate that your next post was going to object to my Jesus quote and or Jesus himself, since he was a dead reference. I'd tired Mlodinow, and Einstein to no avail. Guess I know who to quote in the future when talking to you. Best part, Jesus said a lot of really good stuff that's usable even if one is not religious.

Thank you for your support, but I'd rather not make this a mud slinging contest, and if that means letting some of his digs stand, I'm good with that. As easy going as I am, when someone takes issue with the things I have said, it is usually because of a misunderstanding.

Call me an optimist, but I believe all misunderstandings can be resolved with enough time and patience.