Nearing Completion of Evaluation of RS system (not)

Quote

Originally posted by: MoneyLA
DonDiego simply Google "rob singer special plays video" and you will see Rob's major examples and his reasoning for each.
Ok, . . . so poor old DonDiego googled "Rob Singer Special Plays Video" and this is what was #1: Rob Singer Special Plays Video .

So DonDiego nosed around the internet and finally came across an 11-minute video discussion between Mr. Singer and a Mr. Mendelson, which sounded a lot like what goes on, well, . . . right here on LVA, . . . what with non-random machines even though they'd be against the Law, . . . but how do we know it's against the Law, . . . and even if it is against the Law, the casinos are big-business and can get around the Law, etc., etc., etc., . . . and recognizing patterns, like f'rinstance a cold streak, . . . and increasing one's bet when the cold streak is about to end, . . . etc., etc., etc.
"Not so convincing" says DonDiego.
Ref: Alan Mendelson & Rob Singer

So-o-o-o-o DonDiego searches further and sees another video about why if one is dealt, say, 4c-5d-6h-7s-Ad he should hold the ace to try for, . . . well, . . . something better than a straight, . . . like, say, a Royal Flush, . . . because if one wins one can just go home for the day.
"Not so good" says DonDiego.
Ref: Hand #3

Oh, and by the way, . . . Mr. Singer references his web-site vptruth.com, but DonDiego cannot access it.
Oh, . . . and at the bottom of the videos DonDiego observed there's a periodic presentation of the words: "AlansBestBuys.com", in case anyone's interested; it appears to be just like LVA - only different, . . . and littler.

DonDiego has seen enough. He need ask no more questions.

DonDiego wishes everyone: "Good Luck !"
Quote

Originally posted by: a2a3dseddie
Anyways, to Arcimedes. I agree with you 100%. The math backs you up on everything you have posted. But if we are going only by the math, you have to admit that it is certainly possible for Rob Singer to have made his $1 million playing the way he does. He could have gotten lucky with his “special plays” and he may very well have been on the favourable end of standard deviation. His “system” may have worked for him, but his results are certainly not consistently reproducible because the math of the game and his special plays work against him.


Of course it is possible. As I've stated before I ran a simulation of his system where 3 out of 10,000 simulated gamblers won equal to or greater than Singer claims. Hence, there's a .03% chance Rob could have won as he has stated. Something akin to this exachange:

Lloyd: What do you think the chances are of a guy like you and a girl like me... ending up together?
Mary: Well, Lloyd, that's difficult to say. I mean, we don't really...
Lloyd: Hit me with it! Just give it to me straight! I came a long way just to see you, Mary. The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?
Mary: Not good.
Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?
Mary: I'd say more like one out of a million.
[pause]
Lloyd: So you're telling me there's a chance... *YEAH!*

Quote

Originally posted by: a2a3dseddie
Like all the people selling those weight loss programs to those gullible people wanting to believe there is an “easy way” I think Rob Singer is just taking advantage of human nature. Due to confirmation bias, he may really believe his “system” works. I do feel though that if we are going to lynch Rob Singer, then we might as well go after Jenny Craig, Jared from Subway, Marie Osmond and Tony Little.


The big difference is Singer tries to claim that valid approaches do not work and starts ranting and name calling when anyone points out the truth.
Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego
"Not so convincing" says DonDiego.
"Not so good" says DonDiego.


What didn't you post this 34 pages ago and save us a lot of grief?
Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego
- only different, . . . and littler.


Which can be said about so many things in life ...


Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego


........Oh, and by the way, . . . Mr. Singer references his web-site vptruth.com, but DonDiego cannot access it.


IF Don Diego does wish to read many of the articles from the site that is no longer active, he, and others, may do so by visiting this vptruth.com site archives

The archives date back to 2003 and contain the articles and columns posted. There are also "dead" links to pictures, advertisers, etc. But a major portion of the site content is available. Choosing an "issue" may be somewhat more complex for some reading this that are not as internet savvy as Mr. Diego.





Quote

Originally posted by: a2a3dseddie
I do feel though that if we are going to lynch Rob Singer, then we might as well go after Jenny Craig, Jared from Subway, Marie Osmond and Tony Little.
Well, . . . OK, . . . if he really has to DonDiego will join the necktie party for Mr. Little, . . . but he'll not participate in hanging Marie Osmond or Jared; they're too nice. JennyCraig? Meh. OK.

Quote

Originally posted by: arcimedes
Quote

Originally posted by: a2a3dseddie
Anyways, to Arcimedes. I agree with you 100%. The math backs you up on everything you have posted. But if we are going only by the math, you have to admit that it is certainly possible for Rob Singer to have made his $1 million playing the way he does. He could have gotten lucky with his “special plays” and he may very well have been on the favourable end of standard deviation. His “system” may have worked for him, but his results are certainly not consistently reproducible because the math of the game and his special plays work against him.


Of course it is possible. As I've stated before I ran a simulation of his system where 3 out of 10,000 simulated gamblers won equal to or greater than Singer claims. Hence, there's a .03% chance Rob could have won as he has stated. Something akin to this exachange:

Lloyd: What do you think the chances are of a guy like you and a girl like me... ending up together?
Mary: Well, Lloyd, that's difficult to say. I mean, we don't really...
Lloyd: Hit me with it! Just give it to me straight! I came a long way just to see you, Mary. The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?
Mary: Not good.
Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?
Mary: I'd say more like one out of a million.
[pause]
Lloyd: So you're telling me there's a chance... *YEAH!*

Quote

Originally posted by: a2a3dseddie
Like all the people selling those weight loss programs to those gullible people wanting to believe there is an “easy way” I think Rob Singer is just taking advantage of human nature. Due to confirmation bias, he may really believe his “system” works. I do feel though that if we are going to lynch Rob Singer, then we might as well go after Jenny Craig, Jared from Subway, Marie Osmond and Tony Little.


The big difference is Singer tries to claim that valid approaches do not work and starts ranting and name calling when anyone points out the truth.


1 out of 3333, better than i thought, but dont think thats a kin to 1 in 1mil
Well, new "contributor" here. I've been reading this Singer Saga from beginning to end here and on MoneyLA's site. I know some of you aren't really Arci fans but I will give him credit for the following: his mathimatical approach has been correct and his prediction about Singer's response to Kneeland's reasearch has been correct as well. I know most of you don't really feel like visiting MoneyLa's site but you should really check out his following thread:https://forum.alanbestbuys.com/showthread.php?511-Evaluating-Rob-Singer-s-System

Now, Arci's prediction was that Singer would start bad mouthing Kneeland as soon as he would get the feeling the outcome would not be in his favour. Exactly that is happening at this moment. At the beginning when he announced that Kneeland was going to review his "system" he was all arrogant about how "finally" somebody professional enough was going to have a look at his "system". Somebody who knows what he is talking about, not some nimrod like Arci. Well, he ain't too happy bout Kneeland anymore now is he?

MoneyLa just showed in his contributions on that same thread there is no objectivity in his way of "reporting". He is now taking a piss at a number of LVA regulars because he got flak for asking the same stupid questions over and over and over again. Y'all are very right MoneyLa should stay away and continue to "review" the latest new dishwashers, and when he could find the time in his busy schedule, interview his 5th President.....

Arci, you're approach may not always have been the most smart one (communication wise) but you have been hitting the ball out of the stadion most of the time. I take my hat of for you Sir.
Quote

Originally posted by: arcimedes
Quote

Originally posted by: a2a3dseddie
Anyways, to Arcimedes. I agree with you 100%. The math backs you up on everything you have posted. But if we are going only by the math, you have to admit that it is certainly possible for Rob Singer to have made his $1 million playing the way he does. He could have gotten lucky with his “special plays” and he may very well have been on the favourable end of standard deviation. His “system” may have worked for him, but his results are certainly not consistently reproducible because the math of the game and his special plays work against him.


Of course it is possible. As I've stated before I ran a simulation of his system where 3 out of 10,000 simulated gamblers won equal to or greater than Singer claims. Hence, there's a .03% chance Rob could have won as he has stated. Something akin to this exachange:

Lloyd: What do you think the chances are of a guy like you and a girl like me... ending up together?
Mary: Well, Lloyd, that's difficult to say. I mean, we don't really...
Lloyd: Hit me with it! Just give it to me straight! I came a long way just to see you, Mary. The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?
Mary: Not good.
Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?
Mary: I'd say more like one out of a million.
[pause]
Lloyd: So you're telling me there's a chance... *YEAH!*

Quote

Originally posted by: a2a3dseddie
Like all the people selling those weight loss programs to those gullible people wanting to believe there is an “easy way” I think Rob Singer is just taking advantage of human nature. Due to confirmation bias, he may really believe his “system” works. I do feel though that if we are going to lynch Rob Singer, then we might as well go after Jenny Craig, Jared from Subway, Marie Osmond and Tony Little.


The big difference is Singer tries to claim that valid approaches do not work and starts ranting and name calling when anyone points out the truth.


Arcimedes, out of curiousity in your simulation of Singers' system, what % of gamblers actually ended up with a profit? What did the distribution curve look like?




Arc might have the final answer here. But first, what did you simulate?

I hope everyone does have a chance to read that thread that LurkerPoster (welcome!) made mention of. Here is the link:

https://forum.alanbestbuys.com/showthread.php?511-Evaluating-Rob-Singer-s-System

Thank you for bringing attention to it LurkerPoster.
Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now