Nearing Completion of Evaluation of RS system (not)

Arc two points:

1. Your frequent claims that you know everything about Singer's "system" can't be true because you still haven't asked the "big questions". Maybe you just didn't think of them yet. But every critic would be salivating over the response.

2. It was Snidely who made the comment about Dancer and Singer referred to it. Credit Snidely for saying: "If that is the definition of con then Dancer is far guiltier than Singer. I think Singer is a crackpot but not dishonest from what I've read".

For some reason everyone ignored that? Or did all of your computers crash when that was posted? Or was I left out of Snidely's inside joke?

No, it just appears you have almost no critical thinking skills.

I didn't miss the boat. It was you who wrote the above and defined the surefire signs of a CON.

Singer is a benign con-man if all he charges is players points. But, I've stated this before.

This is from Dancer's webpage. Dancer says his Basic level is more complicated than the recreational level. The experienced level must even more complicated.

Where there is one game being taught, the first class is at the "Recreational Level," which is appropriate for players who play once a month, or maybe a few weekends a year. It is a simplified strategy, but still powerful. The second class is taught at the "Basic Level," which is as advanced as you can go without using penalty cards. This is a stronger strategy, albeit more complicated.

Although it's up to you to decide how strong of a player you are, generally speaking you should be an experienced player or have taken the first class before you venture into the second. (If you aren't sure whether or not you meet the "experienced" criteria, go ahead and attend the class and take what you get. You may well find some parts of the class are a little complicated, but you'll get most of it.) Using the strategy from the second class generally returns an extra tenth of a percent or so over the strategy for the first class, but the class is more difficult. When there are two separate games taught in the same week, both classes will be taught at the Recreational Level.

I did a quick run of a few 1000 player scenarios and about 31% came out ahead. Keep in mind the average ER of the games in the simulation was around 99.5%. The lowest ER was the 8/5 BP played for 100 credits at all levels.

So, I dropped the ER of a couple of the games (10/6 DDB to 9/6 DDB at two levels) and the number of winners dropped to 27%. The return was now about 99.39%, the actual return came in at 99.40% for all players.

Finally, I changed all levels to 9/6 DDB and got 19% winners with an overall return of 99.04% vs. an expected return of 99.05%. Clearly, the return of the games is important. The highest return was 103.8% and the lowest was 95.9%.

Snidely, you're confusing two things ... betting strategy and playing strategy.

In the first case all you see with optimal play is flat bets. With Singer you have the progression and soft wins and resetting levels, etc.

In the second case you have exactly the same level of depth of knowledge available for both situations (remember Singer assumes optimal play 95% of the time), but then you have to add Singer's undefined 1700+ special plays to the complexity of his system.

You're comment on Dancer is because he provides details on the knowledge required for optimal play where Singer doesn't. But, it is the same in both cases.

Did anyone hear the radio shows I did on TTT Team Training Techniques?

And where did you get the idea that what you're doing (researching the Singer "system)" is anything new? This bs has been going on for 5 years and you nore anybody else has "all the details" of his system. Even with what you're doing, you're not getting the answers you need. You're not getting "the missing pieces of the puzzle". You're not getting anything worthwhile really. You're getting more "dancing around". In other words you're getting what everybody got during the last five years. Ask yourself the question "why is that"......It is you who chooses not to challenge Singer about that fact. It is also you that doesn't challenge Singer for posting personal attacks when in debt info is required. It is also you that allows Singer to continue his self love and jealousy routine when he should be giving in debt info about his "system". You challenge the critics far more than you challenge Singer.

Question him like you're a homicide detective and I might give you some credit for what you're doing. The only thing you're doing now is generate web traffic with nu substance. You have found out NOTHING about the Singer "system" that people didn't already hear somewhere during these last five years. Please tell me where you got the idea you were asking Singer the right questions? Please tell me what proof Singer delivered to you?

@ Singer (I know you will be reading this), it must be very disturbing to you that Bagiant is far more famous in the vp world than you. Look at all the sky high views his threads get compaired to those describing the Singer saga . So maybe you should throw some tattoed chicks into your system, it might improve your "ratings".

No.
Got a link?

It was spread out over many shows during the middle run of my time on Gambling With an Edge. They are of course archived on my site. After the Singer thing I'll gather then together in a single audio file and post about it here. It is stuff about how to stop errors and learn and remember strategies better. TTT's work for anything you want to learn and are not strategy specific. They are literally training techniques. My mom was mostly responsible for their creation.

~FK

Lurker please excuse me for interrupting your momentous tirade but you came late to the party. You are not a good reader of web sites and you seem to have missed what was said in the videos. You asked: "Please tell me what proof Singer delivered to you?"

Well, here's your answer: None.

There is no way to prove Singer's method works. In fact all of the math proves that his "special plays" do not work.

Yet, Singer has won nearly a million dollars. So the real question is how did he do that?

Since the math can't give credit to his "special plays" it must be something else? What do you think that something else is?

Now Lurker, if you are going to call Singer a liar about his winnings why don't you just come out and say it?

You should watch the videos again Lurker. Rob said he could not present proof that machines are rigged but that's OK because he plays them hoping they're not rigged.

Rob also admits that ALL of his special plays are at a mathematical disadvantage. Wow, imagine that he atually admits it.

You see the problem I'm having is that million dollars he won. I want to know why? No one seems to be tackling that question.

You also suggested I question Rob like a homicide detective would. Well if Rob had killed someone he would be questioned the way a homicide detective would. But it seems to me that would not fit his "crime" of winning at video poker.