Well, I see Rob has lost his Christmas spirit and has fallen back
into his old ways (gulping those spirits). Anyone surprised? Pure BS
> I have no problems with setting goals. Certainly a good idea for
> individuals playing negative machines. However, they really do
not
> change the math. You are no more likely to be "lucky" on any
given
> hand since all hands are independent.
I'm not saying what I do changes the math--it gives the player more
of an opportunity to make something positive happen TODAY. It is
the
reason I do not buy into the long-term math theory when playing
goal-
driven individual sessions that progress in denomination & game
volatility along with special plays that deviate from expert
strategy
that are based solely on the knowledge that anything can happen at
any time within any given session. And once a session goal is
attained or surpassed, the play re-starts at the lowest
denomination
whenever the next visit is made. To apply long-term mathematical
expectations to that type of play is like trying to drive at night
in
the desert with the lights off.
Pure BS, Rob. You can't change mathematical fact by wishing it away.
No one cares if you "do not buy into the long-term math theory". It
is not theory, it is proven fact. As long as you continue to make
statements like this one you will be viewed as a complete idiot by
the informed people of the world.
> For individuals like myself playing positive opportunities,
quitting has no meaning. I have the same advantage if I continue to
play after a big hit. I have experienced all combinations of good
hits and bad streaks in my life. I have hit two RFs many times (my
wife has hit 3) in a single day or trip. I have also done poorly
after a big hit. And, I have played even. Reaching a pre-set goal
has
no overall meaning in gambling.
For you, goals would be meaningless. For me they mean everything. I
could no more can conceive of playing through a Royal than I could
going to a casino ATM machine. Thus, they do have meaning when
gambling as I do.
But then you missed the point entirely.
> Mathematics is on no ones side. Most machines are set up to give
the casinos an edge. A very few VP machines give the player an edge
if that player is skilled. If you want to claim math takes sides
then
it takes the side of whomever has that edge. The bigger the edge
the
> better. What you said above ignores the FACTs I just stated and
> contributes to the view that you will say anything (lies) to
promote your system. If you're looking to change that view of Rob
Singer then I would suggest you start accepting the mathematical
facts and go from there.
For someone who purportedly lives and plays mathematically, you
have
a very shallow knowledge of what a casino is all about. They
operate
with a mathematical edge at every moment of their existence or else
they would not survive. You seemed irked at the math truly being
on "the side" of the casino because you pretend to have the edge
whenever you play. I can see where that would bother you. And that
is
exactly why the BS continues to fly from those who want to drive
others into that system--THE most marketed vp system there is.
More BS. A mathematical edge is a computation. It is not something a
casino can alter within their walls. Your statement above is so
ridiculous it borders on insanity. You clearly are the one who
is "irked" by this simple unmitigated fact. From this latest post of
yours it appears you have decided a honest debate is not in your best
interest so it's back to the old Rob.
> OTOH, I have played many sessions in my life. Some of them would
have been helped had I switched to higher denoms after losing
early.
> However, I have had many sessions where I have lost continually.
No
> progression would have helped, I would just have ended up losing
more money. My experience supports exactly what the math predicts.
It's erroneous to say that. If you lost continually on a 50c
machine
then you have zero idea of what would occur on a $2 machine. But
none
of it would matter without stop-win goals anyway, so you'd likely
end
up losing either way.
Why would I have done any better on a $2 machine?? There is no logic
to your arguments.
> At one time in the past I specifically asked you if your system
would allow people to win money over time. You said YES. Your
position above is more acceptable. However, as long as you still
deny
the math CAN give a skilled player an advantage I think you will
continue to be viewed poorly.
I'm a skilled player--probably more so than 99.99% of all players.
So
what does that mean? Nothing, unless I attach goals and proper
bankroll along with risk-assessed plays that give me the the best
opportunity to attain a goal and leave right now. The math does
nothing to help me in any given session, and it gives you nothing.
You will win only if luck arrives. you and everyone who plays knows
that solidly and unarguably. All the nonsense about "playing with
an
edge" makes you feel better but it's absolutely meaningless in a
casino--the place that does have a mathematical edge over you.
You just spent a lot of words to bypass my point. I think that alone
speaks volumes.
Instead you've retreated to your "luck" argument. However, it really
is not luck per se. I know this is beyond your capabilities to
understand, but each and every hand has a built in potential for all
results. Over time this potential will be exposed in winning and
losing hands. Luck really has nothing to do with it. It is just a
term to describe events that we prefer over ones that we don't. The
potential for any and all of them remains unchanged no matter what we
call them.
> Not all APs will win (as I've stated many times).
Let's look at that. Most AP's would never tell another AP if they
are
life-long losers for obvious reasons, and they'd never admit that
they've become addicted to the game in the process. And most AP's
will immediately hide behind the statement "the math gives me an
excellent opportunity to win and I win" when asked if they could
ever
prove they win. They're as shifty as a snake when pushed to do
that.
In the history of "winning AP's" there has never been one who's
offered a fool-proof way of proving he or she has won over any
period
of time, in fact, none have offered ANY way of proving anything but
their sales figures.
Another long winded response with zero content. Rob, all you did was
demonstrate your hatred for APers. You provided zero facts and zero
information about AP. We already know you hate APers because they
have succeeded where you failed. Instead of taking that personally
you should just accept that you ended up at the low-end of the bell
curve. That doesn't make anyone better than you. Someone had to be
there.
> Here's another topic that gets you in trouble. To my knowledge no
one has ever "reversed" anything about VP play. It is still and
always has been about doing the math.
Explain how that "gets me in trouble". You don't have the knowledge
and I do. All you can offer is a theory because you haven't any
knowledge, and theories, my friend, are only for the classroom.
It gets you into trouble because you once again attempt to make an
argument with no supporting evidence. As for who has "the knowledge",
I think that is obvious by our posts.
> No, it is simply doing the math. Moving around to
hit "opportunities"
> is mainly a factor of cashback multipliers for low to mid-denom
> players. It also involves cash promotions for higher end players.
> These are not figments of people's imaginations they are REAL.
Just
> yesterday I collected $400 CB at two casinos. Yes, it is real
money. For the year I have earned more dollars from cashback and
bounceback then I have won on the machines.
You guys need that money and all the other fluff so you can feel
good
at the end of the day for all the time wasted at the machines. I
neither keep track of nor count any of that stuff towards my gaming
record because its real but it has no reason to be counted as
winnings.
Rob, I realize you were drinking when you wrote this post, but do you
realize what you just said? "money and all that other fluff"? I don't
know about you but money is my goal. You should have told us a long
time ago that you were playing for something else.
> What I said above is not a fluke. At one casino I typically play
4
or 5x multiplers with a .2% base. That is a .8 - 1% edge. The game
has a .2% edge. So, I would expect to earn MORE cashback then what
I
> would win from the machines.
Of course, and you'll do that whenever the casino managers rope you
in time after time. People who keep playing as the casinos want
them
to rather than how they want to really have a problem in that their
lives are more and more controlled by casinos. That is another BIG
loss AP's suffer.
Yup, they keep "roping" me into walking away with their cash. It's a
big problem but I'll try to deal with it.
> The problem with your statement above is the word "usually". It's
the few times that the luck doesn't show up that negates all the
times it does.
You mean like the $50,000 Aces w/ kicker on a $25 machine that
stopped my for-profit play in late April? How about the $$100k
royal
I hit a few years ago that ended my play for the year? Then there's
the $25,600 RF I hit in '06 that terminated my play in August for
that year. On and on. I had some losing trips in EVERY year, yet
the
big wins always out-do the big losses. Always. Even if your
calculations on paper says they're not supposed to. Sure, someone
like Bob D. says he hits dozens of $25 RF's each year, and I
believe
he does. But playing through them and playing all that time in
casinos is sick, and it is what results from not being able or
willing to quit at pre-set goals.
Once again you make believe that someone loses without the least bit
of knowledge. It makes any good points you make seem insignificant in
comparison.
> > Incorrect. Of the hundreds and maybe over a thousand AP's I've
met with, NONE say they've won anything over time. NONE. And
neither
> did I.
> NONE??? I have won over time and I know many others. Maybe
you're
> misunderstanding what "over time" means. It simply means that an
> individuals net lifetime win/loss is on the win side.
I have not met you yet.
Sure you have ... although it has been virtually, it has not stopped
us from communicating nor has it stopped you from hearing me state
that I have won. To claim otherwise shows the depths you will go to
to avoid facing the TRUTH.
> The difference between us is I don't rely on this kind of
> unscientific approach. It is too easy to fool yourself into
believing something that is not true simply because you want it to
be
true.
It is what life and living is all about. Enough practice and you do
get very good at doing it with a high probability of being right.
You almost got that right. I think it goes more like ... say it
enough times and you might even convince yourself you are right.
However, the real truth is something else altogether.
Since I
> KNOW I have won every year and you've often stated that you
> can "tell" I'm a loser ... well, you've lost all your credibility
> right up front. I can only assmue you're just as accurate in
> your "gleaning information" about everyone else.
And just how does anyone else "know" you win every year?? You see,
here's where people skills comes into play. You think because of
the
way you play that's driven by theory that others like you believe
you
win.
That is not what I said. Go back and reread my post when you are
sober.
But if you knew how to read these folks you'd see they give you
the lip service they expect back from you. Continued confidence-
building is always a favorite of the optimal-play crowd. Just read
a
daily dose of the ignoramuses that post on vpFREE and without your
blinders on, you'll barf at the close-mindedness inherent in hero-
worshipping gamblers.
The people I was referring to have never posted on VPfree. However,
I'm sure that "most" of the participants of VPfree would fit into the
same category. Yes, there will be a few "close-minded" individuals
and a couple of "ignormauses", however, those are the exceptions.
> > Maybe, maybe not, but as I said earlier, I've never met ONE AP
> who's said they win.
>
> I think you're using the word "met" as little loosely here.
Although, we've never "met" outside of the internet that does not
mean you haven't "heard" APers like myself claim we've won. Don't
you
see that attempts like this to "bend the truth" actually hurt your
position?
Please eliminate the fluff. Reading claims of anyone on the
Internet
is meaningless. Including me. (There's one of your facts that you
missed). That's why I meet with and talk to as many people as
possible, and it is why, after meeting with and playing short
sessions in front of them, that my publishers have been supportive
of
me throughout the years.
No, it is not meaningless. It may be unproveable but that is another
issue. Just like the statistical analysis that APers use all the time
for VP, we can utilize the same approach when seeing responses from a
large number of people. I may not believe any single individual but
the overall "average" set of responses is very meaningful.
> > How exactly do you absolutely KNOW they win--because they play
the optimal game?
>
> Because some people really are honest. Yup, maybe you haven't
been
> able to "glean" that little piece of information because it
doesn't
> fit with your pre-set ideas. Some people have told me they win
and
> some have told me they lost. Sometimes it changes year-year,
> especially for those playing with a small edge. Now, tell me why
you believe all those APers you "met" that claim they lost???
Then you're more gullible than a baby expecting a piece of candy
for
dessert every night. You believe these jamokes because you WANT to
and NEED to believe them and you want to make them believe you win
too. Nothing like a bunch of back-scratching fools with a knofe in
the other hand.
Yup, when they tell me they lose it must be that I'm "gullible" and
they really won ... Did you realize that is part of what you just
stated?
Why do I believe all theose "AP's" who told me they've lost?
Admitting failure is a bit more humbling and believable than lying
about great results, don'tcha think? You probably wouldn't
understand
that though. Pathological lying is a part of most gamblers when
they
meet with their peers.
This pretty much sums up Rob's view of the world. This is the reason
most people find it hard to believe your claimed results. It seems to
define you.
> One thing you should think about is why would any successful APer
> ever want to meet with you?
Well, TomSki was the first to meet with me, and those since are all
over the map. And remember, they've all told me they have lost. I'm
not believing there's more than a handful of extremely lucky
successful AP's in the world, and yes, why would they want to meet
with someone who's found success without the problems that come
with
the attached addiction resulting from spending all that ridiculous
time at the machines?
I figured the point would go right over your head. Successful APers
have no reason to seek out solace with another loser. Think about
that. APer's that failed are looking for a reason that they failed.
In many cases it may simply be that they ended up at the bottem of
the bell curve. It's no different that a family that is hit by a
tornado while a neighbor had no damage at all. It's a tough
situation. There is NO reason why some experience problems that
others don't.
> > Then let's take a real look at the facts instead of trying to
fluff
> > them up with the pillows & sheets: We both have sustaining
personal
> > experiences. Mathematical fact is irrelevant because it holds
for
> > some and not for others, and it relies on a perfect set of
> > circumstances which few if any ever attain.
>
> "Mathematical fact is irrelevant" ??? Don't
you see that statements like this are only going to damage any
arguments you try to make? The math "holds" for everyone.
But you've said it yourself....apparently not for me. Figure that
one
out.
No, I have never said the math doesn't hold for you. In fact, I have
stated many times that your claimed results are possible. I just ran
another simulation of your system. Here are the results:
Results from my simulator for 10000 individuals using your
progressiive strategy for 300 sessions. The games are slightly
negative to slightly positive with an overall expectation of
99.534318%. I used a 5 level progression starting a one dollar:
- 3 folks won over $700K
- 5 folks lost over $700K
- 31% won money, 69% lost money
Overall payback of all hands simulated was 99.54888%.
So, you see, your claimed results fall within the bell-curve.
However, don't expect a big following with a 3 in 10,000 chance of
matching your claims.
> The fact is the math predicts a RANGE of results (called a bell
> curve). It always "holds" because we will all fall into into this
> curve and just because some people will be at the bottom of the
curve does not change the facts. This same bell curve also holds
for
all the folks that try a progressive system based on high variance
games (your system). However, the bell curve will be spread out
flatter with more big winners and big losers and, if based on
playing
> negative games, the curve will be shifted deeper into negative
> territory.
I've told you this before: Bell curves are for dreamers. Admit it--
it
hurts to accept that I've won exactly as I've said, and it throws
your reliance on the math into a real tizzy--so much so that you're
always forced to pad your pain with "if you've won you've fallen
into
the 1%-2% of those lucky SOB's on the other side of the curve".
Yup, I'm in a real "tizzy" alright. When you make statements
like "Bell curves are for dreamers", all you're really doing is
pointing out you have little understanding of math and science.
> I'm going to prepare you a little summary and post it later of
WHY
> people find Rob Singer hard to believe. I touched on some of the
> issues here. This will not be done critically, it will be an
honest
> assessment.
Of course. I've read that suff all the time here and there. And
I've
already written the epilog to it: "Remember, winners like other
winners while losers hate them and find them hard to believe".
OK, I'll skip the assessment. It appears the old Rob is back (was
there ever a doubt he'd return?).
···
on top of the old BS. --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "robsinger1111" <robsinger1111@...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@> wrote: