Rob Singer accepts the challenge.

I am one of the believers that figures this little wager is NEVER going to happen.

This is just how RS works...he was trying to get Fed to clam up, by taking him up, on his offer, and when Fed didn't back down...he now has to either...

1- Clam up and crawl back under his rock

2- Go ahead and do the bet, risking everyone here being witness to his miserable system failing, and putting lots of money into Fed's pockets in the process.

3- Come up with shady, ridiculous ideas instead, to supposedly cover himeslf, which he knows nobody in their right mind would agree to, because they don't make sense, and then turn it back on Fed, to make it look like he is the one who backed out of this.


Gee I wonder which one he decided to go with.

This bet will never happen.

Good luck though, in keeping this argument going for the next 5-6 months.

Everyone pretty much knows what kind of person we're dealing with here.

--Rizzo

Unfortunately, even IF the challenge takes place, I'm afraid NO ONE will be convinced. Someone is going to say the "sample was too small" or someone will say "he was lucky" or "he was unlucky."

Gosh, Arc, wasn't it you who said that it is impossible to play "the long term"? Or, didnt you say something like that?

So is 30-thou hands fair to Singer or fair to Dan? Would 300-thousand hands be fair? Would one million hands be fair?

What is there to be convinced of?

Why don't they just make it with a "limit" on the top end. That way if RS hits a royal at the $10 or $25 level, he would be satisfied with having a royal and collecting the money and it wouldn't bust Fed. I don't think the entrants are looking to "bust" the other guy, but just trying to prove a point. So why can't they just put a "cap" on the total amount the player could win or lose? I think this is the easiest way to get this contest going so there is no longer a delay.

I'd just like to say in RS's defense, that before this challenge ever started, he told me of a family trip to Hawaii.

The issue only seems to be the "escrow." why must the "side bet money" be put in escrow?

"Why don't they just make it with a "limit" on the top end."

"The issue only seems to be the "escrow." why must the "side bet money" be put in escrow? "

Because otherwise Singer would be forced to publicly play his system. That will never happen.

No. However, the more hands the higher the probability the results will be close to the expectation. Keep in mind that the progression increases variance which means more hands are needed than with a non-progressive system.

"the more hands the higher the probability the results will be close to the expectation" -- Arcimedes

Yes, but getting back to Singer... he says he doesnt play for the long term. He says he plays long enough to win $2500 and then he quits playing for that trip. This is how he justifies moving up the denominations until he hits something to cover his previous losses and put the $2500 in his pocket.

There is some reason to his madness. If he wanted to play for many hours -- or if anyone wanted to play for many hours -- you'd play the "proper strategy" to get the most for your money over the long term. But he is not interested in the long term.

Makes no difference whether he is interested or not. We all play to an increasing probability of matching the ER of the games we play OVER TIME. Unless a person quits permanently the next hand just continues a life long session. Again, it doesn't matter when that next hand is played.

Anyone who claims it makes a difference is selling a con. Anyone who buys the nonsense is a fool.

Arc, we can go around and around on this forever. My feeling is that there is no guarantee youre going to win if you play by the correct strategy. You SHOULD play the correct strategy, but it doesnt guarantee you will win. And I know you agree with that.

I dont know all about Singer. The way I understand Singer is that he also follows the math, but he is willing to take a chance to score a big enough win that he meets his win goal and stops playing. He doesnt do it ALL the time. He makes his "special plays" sometimes.

I think there is no way to predict video poker over the long term. you seem to rely on the "math" which says over xxxx number of hands, this should happen.

I dont see that. Hell, Ive played over 81,000 hands of VP just this year without a royal. The "math" says I should have had at least one.

You said youve been dealt 4 to the royal more than 200 times without getting the royal card on the draw. the "math" says you should draw the royal card one out of 47 times.

the "variance" of the math means you could get lucky and hit back to back royals, or draw the royal card 47/47 times.

but thats the gamble. and that's why I can't bank on the math coming through for me in the long term or the short term. And so I play VP hoping for the best and accepting that it is a gamble.

And with that said, let me add -- AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT -- we should follow the best plays which are based on the math, but following the math does not guarantee a win.

Singer isnt selling a con. He's accepting that video poker is a gamble and he is taking a chance within that gamble. what is a "con" is trying to tell someone that they can beat the casino.

Singer doesnt try to beat the casino. He sets a win goal and leaves.