Nearing Completion of Evaluation of RS system (not)

Snidely is right. This BS has gone on for five years and it's time it ended.

If the quotes existed Arc you would post the to prove your point.

I have no point to prove. I simply allowed Singer to show the world the much talked about but never previously displayed, Special Plays. I have no horse in this race.

My only point was that I wanted Rob to have a fair chance. I gave him a fair chance. I hope Frank also gives him a fair chance.

Arc your links and references are pointless. I'm a reporter so give me something to report.

And Roadtrip: Singer says Arc does not tell the truth. Check Arc's links yourself. You will see that they merely go to an Internet archice which did spot checks of websites. Again if Arc has the proof let him copy and paste it. I CANNOT FIND IT. Can you?

Yes, I could probably "find" the information. Pay me for my time, and I will do the research. I provided you a link to the Internet archive in a previous message. IF you wanted the actual articles and column's written by Singer, many if not most are available there. You just have no interest in finding the facts of what was actually written. You would rather save your time and be inaccurate.

As a reporter, television personality, and legend in your own mind, you have an obligation to be accurate and factual. It appears obvious you have no true interest in doing so. It is much easier for you to be inaccurate, state something as factual, and hope no one calls you out on it. And if they do, to than ignore what they present, to twist and turn information to your own goals.

YOU are the own defending Singer in this feud, claiming to only want equality.

Both Singer, and Arch are in a feud, and the animosity is prevalent. Both may, or may not, state "facts" that are not. But, they are not "reporters".

Look down from your high horse, and pay attention. Do what you are trained to do and report facts. Don't expect either of the agrieved parties to be 100% truthful.

It just seems you have your head in the wrong place.

I see through you. Stop peddling your "influence", or trying to silence those by ignoring what they say, or twisiting their words to your advantage.

If you think someone is wrong, YOU need to prove them wrong to make your point, not twist things around to make them prove themselves correct.

After all, you claim to be the professional reporter. Someone who is trained to be truthful and factual.

Don't think for a moment that I am going to do all of your research for you. NOT without appropriate compensation. I provided you a link. The information you seek is there.

BTW: Since you are "buddy-buddy" with Singer, why not ask him to provide you with his personal archive from his site and Gaming Today articles?

Than you could really know what he's said, without basically questioning the veracity of everybody else who writes something you don't agree with.

I don't see where Arc provided links. I see where he gave you a search query to use on your own site to find the information.

I did post a link to the Internet Archives. It has copies of the RS website, and the articles written. It is up to you to read those articles. Pretending you can not find them, or proclaiming your computer and internet illiteracy to cover for what is apparent laziness just does not cut it with me.

Sometimes you are too articulate to be all that.

BTW: I do not agree with Arc or Singer when it comes to who says what, etc and their personal feud. I see this as something that will never heal and never be proven as to someone being 100% right, or 100% wrong. It's a feud that will live forever in internet lore and possibly Rex's cesspool.

Both have said many things I find reprehensible. Both have also said things I believe are truthful and factual. I read for entertainment and personal enlightenment, and hopefully to learn something.

I approach the "Singer System" with an open mind. I am not saying I agree. Basically, I don't. But I do consider myself fair and impartial, even as a "math guy".

IMHO, and as Frank has pointed out, much of this is related to semantics and definitions.

Roadtrip give it up. The point is simple and you said it: it's a feud. And there is nothing to prove because Singer does not play by any system that can be proven or dis-proven. All along he says he does two things: try for a lucky break and quit when he was ahead. That's all it was and all it ever will be.

What Frank is spendinding 30,000 + words on I can't imagine. But I think it will be more on the psychology of gambling than anything else.

It doesn't take that many words to explain how Rob plays. it doesn't take that many words to say Rob cashed out as a winner more times than he lost and for more money than he lost.

Prove it.

DonDiego has no dog in this fight. To his knowledge he has never met any of the active participants or subject-people mentioned in the posts.

He doesn't recall commenting much on the topic of this thread; what he has commented on is its interminable nature and tedious repetition.

DonDiego understands probability and statistics, . . . part of his job used to be to design tests of weapons systems, tests which were seldom sufficiently carried out to yield significant results, . . . but that was someone else's decision.
And DonDiego understands how and why he can win at blackjack. He also understands sometimes it's just luck, . . . like last month at a West Virginia Casino where teechur and DonDiego sat at a lucky table, doubled their buy-ins in less than an hour, and left.
He doesn't understand how he can win at video poker available nowadays, . . . other than with seldom experienced good luck or an abnormally high progressive and luck-so-far-never-experienced.

All he knows is what he reads, . . . like, f'rinstance, articles by Michael Shackleford at the Wizard of Odds: A Chat With Rob Singer . (note i, below)

Application of the scientific method to the apparent conundrum seems relatively simple. Why it seems to poor old DonDiego that if someone were to claim a method by which the video poker machines presently available in Nevada could be beaten, it would not be a particularly difficult exercise to simply demonstrate it, . . . play some randomly selected machines with known rules and paytables, from which expected returns can be calculated, . . . for a sufficient length of time to achieve statistical confidence in the result.
If the "math guys" methodology approximates the mathematically-expected results, well they are right. If the "winners-way" methodology achieves significantly better results, then he is right.

Tedious argument punctuated by occasional name-calling and insult is unlikely to resolve the issue on this or any forum. Such quarrelsome dialogue can be entertaining and amusing, . . . but not forever !

note i: If Mr. Shacklford's contention that: " . . . [he] absolutely believe[s] that every video poker machine made by a major manufacturer is completely fair and random." is the real issue, well, . . . then somebody oughta prove otherwise. DonDiego opines if somebody could prove that in todays litigious world he would become a mighty wealthy fellow indeed. On the other hand, if it were not true - provable or not, . . . and this contributes to Mr. Singer's success, . . . then that should show up in the results of the test proposed.

Well said Mr. Diego.

DonDiego thanks snidely333 for his inflammatory response.

Thanks for a civil comment. But singer's fear that machines are rigged has become a moot point and a non issue as Singer says he plays as if the machines are honest and random. Remember he plays "by the book" 95 percent of the time.

This is one of the cases where Rob's reputation precedes him.

Everyone hangs on this controversy and avoids the benign reality of his "system"