Nearing Completion of Evaluation of RS system (not)

Not long term? I guess playing for 20-30 years (and still playing in tropical Pahrump) is short term in your book? Hilarious.

BTW, with a progression "most of his play" must be at the $1 level. So, the question is ... did Singer lie to you again, or did the "reporter" not understand?

Hmmmm, both are just so likely it's tough to guess which one is accurate.

Are you sure Singer really believes this? What does he consider long term?

Hmm, . . . DonDiego is beginning to get the picture.

So, there is a system.
. . . that it would take too long to test.
. . . and even if it wouldn’t take too long, the test would be invalid, because winning is dependent on not playing so long that “the odds catch up with one”.
. . . and the system includes too many “variables” to even formulate a test.
. . . and the execution of “special plays” is an undefined variable.

So, even if it’d take too long for a real hands-on the machine test, that “too many variables” and “undefined variables” stuff precludes even running a computer simulation, as has often been done to successfully “test”, f’rinstance, blackjack systems.

Putting aside the fact that some of what DonDiego just typed above is incomprehensible to poor old DonDiego himself, . . . DonDiego is edging towards commencing to begin to formulate an opinion, . . . an opinion which would likely require somewhat fewer than 30,000 words for DonDiego to elucidate.

However, DonDiego does have two questions first:
Does the frozen yogurt come with sprinkles?
How could this debate possibly be on-going for 5 years?

DonDiego summed it up pretty darn well.

A question has arrived over the use of the phrase "long term" and this is a valid question. Singer says that the rest of us and that's me included who keep playing without a predetermined win goal are long term grind players. Playing to reach a defined win goal even over years of play is different from what is the "long term grind player"

I guess this means that a new term should be used to discuss Singer and long term play. Suffice it to say the win goal is vital to Singer's system.

Rob phoned me last night and we discussed my comment that most of his play is at the $10 level. Rob corrected me to say that in terms of "dollar value" most of his play is at the $10 level. And yes he usually reaches his $2500 goal at the $10 level which makes a lot of sense.

I hope that helps the discussion.

That's a good question and one I'm attempting to answer right now. I have two more questions to go and then editing and the posting.

Here's the original posed question:

How Many Shorts Make a Long
At least for me, the one aspect of your system that is the most difficult to understand is your admonition that you play only for the short-term, because in the long-term the casino always has the edge. It's my strong guess that the reason for this lack of communication is once again the result of divergent word use, so before continuing I'd like to just get some simple word definitions out of the way to help me and those in the cheep seats understand you better.

Edge =
Odds =
Short Term =
Long Term =
___________________________________________

The answers have been taking about 2-4 rounds of communication and are averaging around 2500 words each.

So what is a "grind"? Is is a factor of time, or just playing as long as it takes to either lose your bankroll or win a preset amount? Am I grinding away if I play for 30 minutes while drinking a beer with no goals in mind other than to enjoy the beer, as opposed to the person who plays for hours and has to win another $100 before they can go home?

KayPea I cannot answer your question. Nor can I find fault with a system that has a goal of getting the most beers or cocktails or cigarettes with the lowest coin in. You can add hotel rooms and show and sports tickets to that list.

I had a phone chat with Rob last night about the "logic" of win goals and ending a session. On my forum I raised the point that among craps players it is very logical and smart and a damn good idea to leave the table with a profit and after a hot roll. And I raised the objection that so caaled VP APs have.

It's OK for craps but not for VP??

You'd think you would catch on as a reporter. When someone starts changing their story it should be a big red flag.

Like I said before, a progression that starts at $1 ($5 "dollar value") must play the most hands at that level. This is easy to understand. If Singer plays at $1 and loses and then hits a small quad at the $2 level he would not win enough to reach the win goal but could easily reset back to to the $1 level and start again. He would do this any time a hit put him ahead for the session but had not reached the win goal. Could happen over and over.

Makes one wonder if Singer ever played his own system.

I did a computer simulation of Singer's system (w/o special plays). It showed exactly what would be expected. The return of the system was unchanged from playing regular VP. I assumed perfect play as well. So, unless one believes that ER lowering special plays can turn a losing system into a winning system we are stuck with the fact that the ER controls the results independent of the betting system employed.

Of course, Singer complained that the magic elixir er, I mean special plays made all the difference. Absolutely hilarious. One of the real possibilities has always been that Singer has made up everything. He's never played the system himself.

One thing I've always found strange is the reported maximum that he ever loss was $32K. I don't see how one could lose that specific amount with his system. You'd have to quit in the middle of a session.