Las Vegas Advisor Menu
« LVA Forums « Vegas Free-for-All

Nearing Completion of Evaluation of RS system (not)

arcimedes
arcimedes
Nov 30, 2011
8:42am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: a2a3dseddie
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?


Don't remember now. I'd have to pull up the old program and run it again. Maybe if I have some time I'll look into it. Keep in mind I used games where the ER is probably better than what Singer uses and it assumed perfect play. There are no special plays, just the progression, soft wins and win goal.

MoneyLA
MoneyLA
Nov 30, 2011
8:45am
Block User
Arc, if it was just a simulation of his progressive stategy I have to ask this: didnt you say earlier that a progressive strategy can win? And that there was no big deal about winning with a progressive strategy?
FrankKneeland
FrankKneeland
Nov 30, 2011
8:51am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: LurkerPoster
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.


Rob and I are still getting along just fine. I have not discovered anything that expressly disproves his system with 100% confidence. Of course that's not how probability math works, is it, there are no absolutes. On the flip side of the coin, I have not been able to dismiss mere chance as the primary explanation for Rob's results either. I don't think Rob ever expected complete agreement from me, it was I that was hopeful I could give him some solid proof that would be accepted by those that think differently from him in so far as what they consider to be proof.

All this will be in the full evaluation and though I'm taking my time, it is nearing completion.

~FK
RoadTrip
RoadTrip
Nov 30, 2011
9:02am
Block User
Although I vaguely recall seeing some "proof", a few copies of documents posted online somewhere, I still can not help but wonder about the veracity of the claims that they have won such large sums.

Is it possible that there is some misdirection or exageration?




a2a3dseddie
a2a3dseddie
Nov 30, 2011
9:32am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: FrankKneeland
I was torn when reading a2a3dseddie post to stay silent or add anything. It's so well thought out I'll settle for merely acknowledging that I have read it and allow my silence to say the rest.

In games of chance the unexpected is commonplace, only the expected should ever really surprise you. ~Frank's Law


Thanks Frank! I too am eagerly looking forward to your evaluation. Is there any way you could post just your main conclusions here?
FrankKneeland
FrankKneeland
Nov 30, 2011
10:12am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: a2a3dseddie
Quote
Originally posted by: FrankKneeland
I was torn when reading a2a3dseddie post to stay silent or add anything. It's so well thought out I'll settle for merely acknowledging that I have read it and allow my silence to say the rest.

In games of chance the unexpected is commonplace, only the expected should ever really surprise you. ~Frank's Law


Thanks Frank! I too am eagerly looking forward to your evaluation. Is there any way you could post just your main conclusions here?


I'd really rather not. Some of the things I have discovered about Rob are very positive, some are less so. Anything taken out of context and without proper back-story would be unfair to him. To list conclusions without what went into them would be more of a disservice than helpful.

~FK

P.S. I've had an inundation of dates in the last two weeks, and I'm afraid some amazing females are proving more than a little distraction for me right now. I'll get this done soon, but no promises. I've got my priorities and they aren't VP related at the moment.
montecarloss
montecarloss
Nov 30, 2011
10:12am
Block User
The more important question is....Who is LurkerPoster really?
arcimedes
arcimedes
Nov 30, 2011
10:37am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: MoneyLA
Arc, if it was just a simulation of his progressive stategy I have to ask this: didnt you say earlier that a progressive strategy can win? And that there was no big deal about winning with a progressive strategy?


What I've stated many times is that no betting strategy changes the return of a game. A progressive system is a betting strategy. Hence, the ER is unchanged and if you play a progression on positive machines you will be favored to win over time.

Loyd Vegas
Loyd Vegas
Nov 30, 2011
12:58pm
Block User
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.


Hey Arci, Mary and myself have not been to together in a long time. She found out that I was cheating on her at the Silverton. I was cheating on her with the lady playing two machines down.

Damn I knew that those dating tips that Bag's gave me wouldnt work!

LurkerPoster
LurkerPoster
Nov 30, 2011
2:06pm
Block User
@Montecarloss: I'm Singer

I'm very suprised that MoneyLa still doesn't fully understand why Singer has so many critics. Personally I don't think it has all that much to do with his "system". It has everything to do with his personallity. I don't know the guy from adam but reading all the nasty stuff he writes makes me want to punch him in the face without even knowing the guy. He has some serious issues in my mind. And he thinks topics about him are so well read because of his system and the jealousy that goes around because of the fortune he made......I have a slightly different opinion...People just love looking at train wrecks....Every discussion Singer is part of turns into a train wreck at some point.

@Frank Kneeland: I can very well understand you and Singer can still get along very well. I'm also convinced it has everything to do with your personality and patience, not his......

MoneyLa constantly seems to critize the people that argue his questions/statements and everything Singer says. But he does put up with 90% of the name calling and personal bs Singer writes on his site. Why? I would guess he just wants the high number of website views for his website that Singer so often promisses to deliver. So in short.........MoneyLa has other motives.....
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