Nearing Completion of Evaluation of RS system (not)

Quote

---

Originally posted by: MoneyLA
As I look back on the last year of play, I can swear on a stack of bibles that you are absolutely right, Kaypea.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: MoneyLA

Arc please don't be a boob. I erred in my original response and made thr correction. I was not challenging the math you quoted but simply asked if it applied to VP. I did mean to challenge your assestment of Rob's system because I know you do not have all the facts about it. And in talking to Rob last night I know that even I don't have all the facts about it.

---

I think I mentioned before that you don't understand the system. Maybe you should listen to me more often. And, you claim "I don't know all the facts". So, let me get this straight, you admit you don't understand the system but, from your admitted lack of depth of knowledge, you have deduced I don't understand it either. Have I got that right? Do you not see a problem here?

Quote

---

Originally posted by: MoneyLA
This brings me back to an earlier statement: there are too many variables to test or even to assess. Nothing will be accomplihed except that Frank will be getting a lot of info about the psychology of gambling.

---

What is "too many variables". Did Singer amass an infinite number of variables? Because that's the only number that cannot be analyzed.

Let me help you out of your hole. Quit digging. You don't have any clue what you are talking about. You are only making yourself look like a complete idiot.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: MoneyLA
Singer's system/method/play really combines conventional play with a lucky draw from time to time. His biggest difference is that he knows when to stop playing. There is no magic. He is just smart about leaving when he is ahead at a session.

---

No one wins at VP without hitting big jackpots from time to time. Your so called "lucky draw" is inherent in optimal play as much as any other system. Your only problem is you fell for the CON. Luck is just a word to describe those situations where low probability results occur (I hit 4 aces with a kicker last night and won 75 credits. Was I lucky?). Low probability results occur for everyone. There is no system that makes them occur at a higher rate than mathematical probabilities compute. Over time the actual return converges on the expected return for the strategy employed. Mathematical proof already provided.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: MoneyLA
His special plays got TOO MUCH attention because for the most part he plays conventional strategy. If he is atfault it is foremphasizing the special plays over the conventional strategy.

---

Well, give the man a cupie doll. But, what you don't see is, this is precisely the problem. He claims the special plays lead to more wins. They don't. It is a lie. He claims his strategy is a short term strategy. That is another lie. All play converges over time to expected results. There is no such thing as short term or long term. There is only a continuum.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: MoneyLA
Singer is the guy you love to hate. But Singer thinks outside the box. In the box is what the casino wants.

---

No, Singer has conned you into thinking he provides something different. You only think it's outside the box because you have no idea what is inside the box.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: MoneyLA
You will never be able to justify anything about Rob's play based on any of your accepted math. Rob will not disagree. Nor will I. We have now established in this thread that there is no long term promised land so keep banging your fingers on the keys and your heads against the walls.

Instead you should all be asking this question: if this guy really has a profit of nearly a million dollars how can I do it too?

The answer to that question is what I would like to see.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: arcimedes
You only think it's outside the box because you have no idea what is inside the box.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: MoneyLA
Thank you Kaypea. I used to think that also. I was the one who came up with the analogy of the horn and hardway bets at craps. I was wrong. As I talked to Rob more I realized two things:

1. For the most part he plays a conventional strategy

2. It is easy to hit a $2500 win goal at $10 video poker.

---

If 1. is true then why does he call APers names, celebrate when they get sick (and die) and claim that none of them win? You're saying he plays the same as Bob Dancer/Jean Scott/etal most of the time. Why does he attack them constantly? Try to use a little logic once in awhile.

As for 2., you've already been told the system we're discussing is not $10 VP. It is a progression of the following denominations (1,2,5,10,25,100) where he plays 4-6 levels depending on the phase of the moon (or some other secret recipe). Why do you continue to ignore these facts? His system only plays about 150 hands at any level where he either loses at that level, wins enough to go back to a previous level, or reaches the win goal. The chances of hitting a big quad are just a little over 1 in 3. When he truly is playing the $10 denomination ($50/hand) he's risking $4000 for a 1 in 3 chance of either returning to a previous level or winning $2500. Would you take those odds on any other bet?

You really need to read up on the simple Martingale system so you have an idea what is being discussed.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: MoneyLA
The "special plays" are not played when Rob is winning using conventional strategy. Get over it. That's only "sizzle" and the "steak" is that $2500 win goal playing conventional VP.

Now do the "special plays" work? When he gets lucky they do.

That's it. End of story.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: arcimedes
he's risking $4000 for a 1 in 3 chance of either returning to a previous level or winning $2500.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: KayPea

Quote

---

Originally posted by: arcimedes
he's risking $4000 for a 1 in 3 chance of either returning to a previous level or winning $2500.

---

Don't forget, by the time he's at the $10 level he has already lost $2400 at lower levels, so he is risking $4000 for a 1 in 3 chance to win $100.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: arcimedes
Anyone think money is bothering to read any of this?

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: arcimedes
Anyone think money is bothering to read any of this?

---