Nearing Completion of Evaluation of RS system (not)

Frank do you still need 30,000+ words to say you can't do an analysis of a METHOD that for the most part relies on CONVENTIONAL by-the-book strategy along with a few lucky draws when they present themselves along with a strct money management system that put nearly a million dollars of profit in the bank?

Would you need 30,000+ words to do an analysis of my neighbor who hit the California lottery twice, once for about 4 mill and once for about 2 mill back in the 1970s?

Close. One year it was 208 and the next year it was 199. Of course, I've also hit on back-back 4RF attempts. This year I've hit once in 78 tries but last year I hit 4 out of 88.

We get dealt 4RF once every 2777 hands on average so Money should have had around 60 tries. Clearly, not a big deal to miss that many. Not even two cycles yet.

BTW, it would not be impossible to analyze Singer's system ... er method ... er how about the most descriptive ... CON. However, it would not be worth the effort since it's already obvious that it can have no effect on the results. It has be PROVEN mathematically that no betting strategy can change the return of games like VP. No one needs to spend a thousand hours to find out, gee I guess that proof was right. I've referenced the proof many times before.

https://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/progress/unfair.htm

It turns out that it is unlikely Singer himself follows the rules of the CON that he has laid out. Of course, no one really knows if he's ever played his CON. All we have the claims of a proven liar.

So few words, so much information ... Classic, Snidely.

Arc this is your big day. First you correct Frank that the "long term" is not one million hands. And then you accurately state that Singer's method cannot change the return on VP. But then Singer never said he could alter the return of VP games but only how to quit when ahead after getting lucky on certain plays that present themselves. Otherwise (brace yourself Arc) he plays just like you do!

In order to put this issue of exactly what long term means to bed we have to pick something, anything as parameters. I strongly suggest using the "N0" calculation.

No it isn't the only definition, but it is a firm definition and without one we'll never get anywhere.

It can be found here: https://members.cox.net/vpfree/Bank_NO.htm

Though I would happily accept the N0 definition, what I will not accept is no definition.

I think we can all agree that "Long Term" should mean the point at which you can expect most of the time to be in the positive playing a positive game. This is doable using math and the NO equations are simple. No we may never agree on what "most of the time" should be or how positive. But this is better than N0thing.

So how about it folks??? Just Say N0?

~FK

Using the NO calculation, most of the time would be 84% of the time. This is as good of a place to plant a flag as any.

Does your neighbor have a system?

Ahh, . . . how does one know when a lucky draw presents itself?

The lucky draws are his special plays. Undefined when to use them.

N0 worries mate...N0 worries!