Nearing Completion of Evaluation of RS system (not)

Robbie claims: "Arci: I've never won 247 out of 250 nor have I ever reported such a thing "

You're right, I was thinking of the 3 times you claimed to have played the $100 level. So, let's get to what you claimed 5 years ago

At the time you claimed you only played at the $100 level 3 times and won twice.

In addition, you claimed your record at the $25 level was 22-8.

In addition, you claimed you only lost at the $10 level 22 times.

This would mean you had a total of 9 losses which is over a 96% win rate. Still doesn't match what you said. Of course, you've never explained how you could play at the $25 level 30 times while only losing at the previous level 22 times. When I caught you making that claim I knew it was all one big lie. You can't play 30 times at any level while only losing 22 times at the previous level.

And it gets worse. If Singer had really good luck he would only get to the $10 level about a third of the time. That would be 83 sessions. That would mean his record was about 61-22. Does anyone see the problem? He claims he wins 65% or more of the time at the $10, $25 and $100 levels. Not the sum of these levels but at each level. However, one level is just like playing 400 credits of single line play. How many of you folks win 65% of the time? Especially limiting yourself to only 400 credits.

Gee Arc, you got me scratching my head over this. Claims from FIVE years ago? Would you mind citing the source or posting a copy?

I have an idea: why don't you do it on my forum where Rob can respond directly and save Lloyd and Snidely and Don Diego all the trouble of reading it and then saying they are sick of reading it?

Let's spare the good people of the posts that they hate to read but read anyway?

Oh, and let's spare Jenaphir the need to comment that I posted here again, too.

I posted what I thought was really important info on page 25 in the post I just titled "DEFINITION OF SYSTEM", and not one single post has commented on it since.

What, do people only post when they disagree? If so, this entire forum format seems to lean towards the negative end of the human communication spectrum. Not sure I like this.

I am confused.

Money is once again trying to convert LVA forum users to his website forum, alledgedly because Singer can answer directly.

Although I consider myself an educated gambler, a "math guy" rather than a plunker, who tries to only make "+EV" bets, I'm willing to wager that Singer has (at the time I'm writing this) already read (or heard of) the last Arci message, and that you have already messaged him (Singer) or posted his (Arci's) message.

Your pretending otherwise, and your blatant attempts to get LVA readers to your forum is an insult to the LVA forum and those who prefer their time spent here where more than a handful of users actually post messages, whether good, bad, or otherwise.

I just checked the stats here, and as I write this message on this "Black Friday" morning, there are 80+ users and guests on the forum. Your forum may be lucky to get that many in a week.

PLEASE stop spamming for your forum. No matter how subtle you are, it's still spam. And I, for one, do not want to give your forum any "hits", or boost it's ranking in any way where you would or could gain financially.

And why take shots at certain forum users?

sheesh.

Hi Frank,

I just did a LVA forum search for the phrase "DEFINITION OF SYSTEM" by author Frankkneeland on LVA and got zero results.

I can not look for "Page 25", as I have my personal options set to display 100 messages per page rather than the forum default. (profile - personal options)

Anyway, I just want you to know that I find your messages to meaningful and insightful.

I just wish you'd expand your vocabulary so I could have to look up even more words for accurate definitions.

DEFINITION OF SYSTEM

You could have left the word "almost" off this statement and ended with "complete disagreement". I'm surprised that you think of what Bob advocates as a "system" or "his system" at all. Normal advantage players, of which Bob is a member, base their play off what math says should be the best way to prosecute a gambling career. How they play does not belong to them nor can it be labeled as theirs, and the only real area one has personal control in advantage play is setting the criteria for what one will and won't play...which again is usually the product of a mathematical equation.

Sure Bob's written modern books on the subject, but he hasn't introduced anything new in the way of math that Cardano, Pascal, Huygens, Bernoulli, Fermat, Bayes, etc...didn't beat him to by several hundred years. Probability math saw almost all of its major developments between the mid 1600's and the late 1700's and has seen only light addition since with things like Game Theory and the Bell Curve in the last hundred years.

How Bob plays is identical to how I and all the pro gamblers I know play, none of whom follow Bob or have read his books, or been to his classes...only his choice of what to play diverges slightly. (I went to a couple of his classes when we did the radio show together and was amazed how similar our systems were given independent creation)

I refuse to play things that are less than a 2% edge, and I like a high equivalence assurance, which I usually achieve by partnering and sharing action.

Bob has not had the benefit of being part of a large team, so he tends to set his play criteria far lower than what I would consider to be a play.

If you think Bob has a "system", you must have missed a few math classes in school. Go back blow the dust off your high-school text books and after studying basic probability math make your own system. It will end up being the same as Bob's. It will also not a be "a system" and you will not have invented it, nor will people credit you with its creation.

Oh and then wait for slightly bigger edges. He does play some scary high fluctuation stuff that I wouldn't touch. Of course his BR warrants it. So for him it is not as risky. What one should and can play given a certain bankroll is also a mathematical calculation.

Bob may blithely walk into a casino and lose thousands because his bankroll warrants play on such games, which also have the potential for equivalent profit. I have never heard him advocate such behavior for those with dissimilar bankrolls. I have heard him implore people not to play over their heads, and to always factor in their bankroll when determining what they should play. How you got "throwing caution to the wind" out of anything he has said is beyond me.

Singer has a "system". Bob does not. Unless you consider using equations to calculate game odds to be one. If so, it is certainly not Bob's. It's the difference between a discovery and an invention in science. No one invented the periodic table...which is why we don't call it the "Dmitri Mendeleev System".

Happy Turkey Day Everyone. Mine had a high degree of Yummyliciousocity!

I think people tend to overuse the word "system" and apply it to any method of play including basic strategy based upon the mathematical optimum approach. I guess, though, Bob does have a system that includes which machines he is willing to play, how much he values non-cash rewards, etc, but not how to play once you press the deal button. There is also some differences in optimum play for some games as some strategy charts opt for simplicity over an additional decimal point of return for precise play.

Despite the advantages of Frank's remunerative system, excuse me, method of playing VP, it is Dewey's meritorious system that I most employ.

Perhaps Frank's unjustly applies a negative bias to the word "system" and refuses to classify his method of play as a system and thus prefers the mathematically advantageous method moniker.

Those of us that understand the math, probability, and 90% of Frank's vocabulary, agree with him and have nothing else to add. We are nodding our heads.

Those that disagree with Frank either cannot formulate a cogent response or are banned from the inglorious LVA.

Four score and seven years ago Singer brought forth on this board, a new notion, conceived insane, and dedicated to the proposition that all video poker machines are not created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that notion, or any notion so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that notion might be disproved. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.