vpFREE2 Forums

My "DOGMA" re Singer

#1

This is a crossposting of statements I've posted to vpFREE. They're
placed here since reply there is inappropriate. As has often been
pointed out, since Singer isn't an active participant there,
discussion of his play philosophy is best directed here.

These comments are initially prompted by a brumar_lv vpFREE post

···

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm going to comment because I have some strong sentiments that I
haven't taken pains to articulate until now. These remarks go well
beyond the criticism that you've cited. I hold these to be
sufficiently balanced and merited that I'll go express them in this
forum.

They might be better placed on FREEvpFREE, but because of the heavy
predomance of a specifc "debate" on that group, there's every reason
for most to avoid any active reading there.

IMPORTANT:

*** Because Singer is not a "participant" in this group, and any
response is likely to appropriately warrant room for Singer to
comment, there should be ABSOLUTELY no reply or comment to this post
on this group. I'll cross post it to FREEvpFREE for any desired
feedback or discussion. ***

--------------------------------------------------------------------

You're clearly mistating Singer. He allows there will be the
occasional losing session but that winning sessions will strongly
predominate in number. He's absolutely accurate in that assertion.

Like many of us here, the losing sessions don't receive nearly the
emphasis of winning ones.

He makes no bones that an overall bankroll that would choke a modest
size whale (at least one in the eyes of most of us) is required. I
respect him for that. Of course, that axiom often gets lost in the
other "noise", and he makes nebulous statements that his system (term
applied here with absolutely no cymicism) might possibly be adapted to
suit more modest bankrolls (which I think is sufficiently poorly
defined to be misleading).

He falls subject to criticism that his system is nothing other than a
Martingale version -- and few question that Martingale dooms the far
greater majority of adherents to an unfortunate demise.

I won't touch the Martingale comparison, since I think it's
unnecessary. I'll simply say that there are moderating aspects of
Singer's system that greatly reduce the insane risk of Martingale and
increases the probability that a reasonable, well defined, yet
substantial win quit point might be achieved -- though obviously with
a substantial ROR (perhaps higher that Rob's writing suggest).

The key characteristic of Singer's system is that he gives fair
opportunity for variance to express itself that an appropriate win
goal can be achieved with a significant probability. The offset is
that the downside risk is far greater than most desire to bear.

The most important assertion I have to make is that there's no
question there's a subgroup of rational players for whom Singer's
system is entirely appropriate. Mind you, that subgroup represents a
very small proportion of players in general, and of the members here
that ratio is exceedingly small given inherent play goals -- if for no
other reason due to the bankroll requirements, but for a large number
of other reasons as well.

I won't dwell on specific characteristics of that subgroup other than
to stress that I'm sincere in calling them "rational".

There is another group of players who reject "advantage play" and
gravitate toward Singer's play philosophy, but for whom his system
entirely inappropriate. I don't think Singer acts in any manner that
serves to mislead or delude that group.

It should be clear by now that I hold that there is a basis on which
to respect Singer. I draw ample fire for that position. So be it.

I choose not to stress any misgivings I have since, for those who
would have a listening, there's little need to "preach to the
converted". In any case, it's not my style. But trust that I hold
out very sizable reserves.

Finally, I expect Singer to hold ample exception to aspects of my
statements. However, from past interaction, I fully expect him to
respect my assertion of them and may likely choose to respond in a
reasoned manner (and again, he may not :wink:

- Harry

#2

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
wrote:

You're clearly mistating Singer. He allows there will be the
occasional losing session but that winning sessions will strongly
predominate in number. He's absolutely accurate in that assertion.

Harry, he is NOT accurate. He exaggerates his wins. He claims 227
wins out of 258 sessions, yet with my simulator the very BEST win
rate I could come up with is 201. This was running 1000 player sims
multiple times. This is typical of someone like Rob with NPD. They
lie about everything.

Like many of us here, the losing sessions don't receive nearly the
emphasis of winning ones.

He has claimed he biggest loss is 34K while the simulations point out
he would typically lose around 50K at 6 levels. You may be able to
believe some of Singer's lies, but when EVERY statement he makes is
mathematically remote you've got admit there may be something else
going on ... outright LIES.

He makes no bones that an overall bankroll that would choke a modest
size whale (at least one in the eyes of most of us) is required. I
respect him for that.

He's bragging, Harry. He doesn't give a twit about anyone else.

Of course, that axiom often gets lost in the
other "noise", and he makes nebulous statements that his system

(term

applied here with absolutely no cymicism) might possibly be adapted

to

suit more modest bankrolls (which I think is sufficiently poorly
defined to be misleading).

That's right.

He falls subject to criticism that his system is nothing other than

a

Martingale version -- and few question that Martingale dooms the far
greater majority of adherents to an unfortunate demise.

That's because it is true.

I won't touch the Martingale comparison, since I think it's
unnecessary. I'll simply say that there are moderating aspects of
Singer's system that greatly reduce the insane risk of Martingale

and

increases the probability that a reasonable, well defined, yet
substantial win quit point might be achieved -- though obviously

with

a substantial ROR (perhaps higher that Rob's writing suggest).

A progression increases variances. Overall results become tightly
related to results at the higher levels of the progression. A
progression also increases the % of session wins. However, it cannot
change the payback. You'll never see Rob emphaize this last fact.
Ever wonder why?

The key characteristic of Singer's system is that he gives fair
opportunity for variance to express itself that an appropriate win
goal can be achieved with a significant probability. The offset is
that the downside risk is far greater than most desire to bear.

True, but that is not how Rob protrays it. Rob is only in this game
to get attention. NPD at it's worst.

The most important assertion I have to make is that there's no
question there's a subgroup of rational players for whom Singer's
system is entirely appropriate. Mind you, that subgroup represents

a

very small proportion of players in general, and of the members here
that ratio is exceedingly small given inherent play goals -- if for

no

other reason due to the bankroll requirements, but for a large

number

of other reasons as well.

If Singer promoted his system based on positive plays then I suspect
he would get fewer negative comments. However, he directly states
that payback is of little value. He argues against proven math and he
attacks anyone who disagrees. His only goal is to get attention, once
again, typical for a person with NPD.

I won't dwell on specific characteristics of that subgroup other

than

to stress that I'm sincere in calling them "rational".

You've danced around the question of positive vs. negative. I would
go along with "rational" as long as they don't believe they are more
likely to make money playing negative machines with Singer's system.

There is another group of players who reject "advantage play" and
gravitate toward Singer's play philosophy, but for whom his system
entirely inappropriate. I don't think Singer acts in any manner

that

serves to mislead or delude that group.

This is a joke, right? Singer's own results are most likely a LIE.
You don't think that "misleads" or "deludes"?

It should be clear by now that I hold that there is a basis on which
to respect Singer. I draw ample fire for that position. So be

it.

Harry, you always try to see the best in everyone. In this case you
are misled and deluded.

I choose not to stress any misgivings I have since, for those who
would have a listening, there's little need to "preach to the
converted". In any case, it's not my style. But trust that I hold
out very sizable reserves.

Finally, I expect Singer to hold ample exception to aspects of my
statements. However, from past interaction, I fully expect him to
respect my assertion of them and may likely choose to respond in a
reasoned manner (and again, he may not :wink:

Harry, you are giving Rob EXACTLY what he seeks. Respect and some
form of acceptance. He will most likely answer your post positively.

#3

rgmustain wrote:

If Singer promoted his system based on positive plays then I suspect
he would get fewer negative comments. However, he directly states
that payback is of little value. He argues against proven math and
he attacks anyone who disagrees. His only goal is to get attention,
once again, typical for a person with NPD.

I'll let your other remarks stand without comment. We simply "agree
to simply disagree" on those points where we differ in perspective.

But I'm driven to comment on these statements:

I'm a modestly "winning" player. I play VERY conservatively. I seek
out low variance games and seldom play at a theoretical disadvantage
of more than 0.1% -- and in those cases, only do so where I value the
comp benefits sufficiently that they far outweigh the negative ER.

In general, I view near break-even plays as a road to ruin. Variance
will ultimately get you on those. I prefer to play at no less than
.4% advantage -- AC can be pretty limiting in opportunities though.

That said, I'd divide my play into two subsets: hours and hours of $1
and below denoms and less than a RF cycle of $2-equivalent play
(includes $1 play with $6K+ jackpots).

Tally to date: My net win is a consequence of 4 RF hits on the
$2-equivalent play. I've given up more than half of that on the
results of my $1 and under play (and I'm including cb and other cash
bonuses in those results).

My actual $1 and under play results fall CONSIDERABLY short of the EV
of that play. Considering how much play is involved and that I seldom
venture into variance turf such as DB (almost never anything higher),
one has to consider these results VERY subpar (I expect in the bottom
2% of expectation).

My active play has been limited to about 6 years now (I dabbled before
that). I have roughly 30 RF's under my belt, to give a rough estimate
of total hands likely played. I play casually, yet hard, on weekends
one or two times a month, have played very hard on week long LV
excursions. I play hard principally because I love it, and not out of
some irrational compulsion to rack up points.

My point is that if someone wants to discount how critical every .1%
of ER is to a player, I'm hard pressed to argue based upon my
experience (anomalous as it may have been). Nonetheless, I'm a firm
adherent to "advantage play" dogma.

Obviously I'm not offering a critique on specifics that Rob spouts ...
just saying that there's no way I'm going to make the "black and
white" call that many others do.

- Harry

#4

Harry: Isn't it fun watching little dicky sweat! Now that he's
latched onto a new set of letters in his responses, you can see the
confidence level grow until I spank him over it a few more times--
just like always. And notice how he just can't help himself....as he
complains about the attention given me yet he's always first in line
to stumble thru giving me more!

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@>
wrote:
> You're clearly mistating Singer. He allows there will be the
> occasional losing session but that winning sessions will strongly
> predominate in number. He's absolutely accurate in that

assertion.

Harry, he is NOT accurate. He exaggerates his wins. He claims 227
wins out of 258 sessions, yet with my simulator the very BEST win
rate I could come up with is 201. This was running 1000 player sims
multiple times. This is typical of someone like Rob with NPD. They
lie about everything.

>
> Like many of us here, the losing sessions don't receive nearly the
> emphasis of winning ones.

He has claimed he biggest loss is 34K while the simulations point

out

he would typically lose around 50K at 6 levels. You may be able to
believe some of Singer's lies, but when EVERY statement he makes is
mathematically remote you've got admit there may be something else
going on ... outright LIES.

>
> He makes no bones that an overall bankroll that would choke a

modest

> size whale (at least one in the eyes of most of us) is required.

I

> respect him for that.

He's bragging, Harry. He doesn't give a twit about anyone else.

> Of course, that axiom often gets lost in the
> other "noise", and he makes nebulous statements that his system
(term
> applied here with absolutely no cymicism) might possibly be

adapted

to
> suit more modest bankrolls (which I think is sufficiently poorly
> defined to be misleading).

That's right.

>
> He falls subject to criticism that his system is nothing other

than

a
> Martingale version -- and few question that Martingale dooms the

far

> greater majority of adherents to an unfortunate demise.

That's because it is true.

>
> I won't touch the Martingale comparison, since I think it's
> unnecessary. I'll simply say that there are moderating aspects of
> Singer's system that greatly reduce the insane risk of Martingale
and
> increases the probability that a reasonable, well defined, yet
> substantial win quit point might be achieved -- though obviously
with
> a substantial ROR (perhaps higher that Rob's writing suggest).

A progression increases variances. Overall results become tightly
related to results at the higher levels of the progression. A
progression also increases the % of session wins. However, it

cannot

change the payback. You'll never see Rob emphaize this last fact.
Ever wonder why?

>
> The key characteristic of Singer's system is that he gives fair
> opportunity for variance to express itself that an appropriate win
> goal can be achieved with a significant probability. The offset

is

> that the downside risk is far greater than most desire to bear.

True, but that is not how Rob protrays it. Rob is only in this game
to get attention. NPD at it's worst.

>
> The most important assertion I have to make is that there's no
> question there's a subgroup of rational players for whom Singer's
> system is entirely appropriate. Mind you, that subgroup

represents

a
> very small proportion of players in general, and of the members

here

> that ratio is exceedingly small given inherent play goals -- if

for

no
> other reason due to the bankroll requirements, but for a large
number
> of other reasons as well.

If Singer promoted his system based on positive plays then I

suspect

he would get fewer negative comments. However, he directly states
that payback is of little value. He argues against proven math and

he

attacks anyone who disagrees. His only goal is to get attention,

once

again, typical for a person with NPD.

>
> I won't dwell on specific characteristics of that subgroup other
than
> to stress that I'm sincere in calling them "rational".

You've danced around the question of positive vs. negative. I would
go along with "rational" as long as they don't believe they are

more

likely to make money playing negative machines with Singer's system.

>
> There is another group of players who reject "advantage play" and
> gravitate toward Singer's play philosophy, but for whom his system
> entirely inappropriate. I don't think Singer acts in any manner
that
> serves to mislead or delude that group.

This is a joke, right? Singer's own results are most likely a LIE.
You don't think that "misleads" or "deludes"?

>
> It should be clear by now that I hold that there is a basis on

which

> to respect Singer. I draw ample fire for that position. So be
it.

Harry, you always try to see the best in everyone. In this case you
are misled and deluded.

>
> I choose not to stress any misgivings I have since, for those who
> would have a listening, there's little need to "preach to the
> converted". In any case, it's not my style. But trust that I

hold

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@...> wrote:

> out very sizable reserves.
>
> Finally, I expect Singer to hold ample exception to aspects of my
> statements. However, from past interaction, I fully expect him to
> respect my assertion of them and may likely choose to respond in a
> reasoned manner (and again, he may not :wink:

Harry, you are giving Rob EXACTLY what he seeks. Respect and some
form of acceptance. He will most likely answer your post positively.

#5

Oh, poor little dicky. He never seems to get anything right....And
he's always depending on his silly little 'sims' to get him through
his darkest hours. The number's 259. Poof fellow. Always
portraying 'exactness' but never seeming to really be there..... I
just can't IMAGINE the agony that guy has to deal with! (But it makes
me SMILE).

Oooh....Ooooh....get this! I'm leaving for my April trip today, and I
guarantee that number will climb before I'm home Monday, of course,
to his dismay! That is, in between seeing Sting at Mandalay Bay Sat.
evening (can anyone picture little dicky doing such a normal
thing?!), visiting with my GT publisher to get an idea on what they
want me to focus on during my review of and article on Red Rock
Station, going to a move, a couple of gourmet meals....and doing
something addict AP's just can't do--have FUN!!

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@>
wrote:
> You're clearly mistating Singer. He allows there will be the
> occasional losing session but that winning sessions will strongly
> predominate in number. He's absolutely accurate in that

assertion.

Harry, he is NOT accurate. He exaggerates his wins. He claims 227
wins out of 258 sessions, yet with my simulator the very BEST win
rate I could come up with is 201. This was running 1000 player sims
multiple times. This is typical of someone like Rob with NPD. They
lie about everything.

>
> Like many of us here, the losing sessions don't receive nearly the
> emphasis of winning ones.

He has claimed he biggest loss is 34K while the simulations point

out

he would typically lose around 50K at 6 levels. You may be able to
believe some of Singer's lies, but when EVERY statement he makes is
mathematically remote you've got admit there may be something else
going on ... outright LIES.

>
> He makes no bones that an overall bankroll that would choke a

modest

> size whale (at least one in the eyes of most of us) is required.

I

> respect him for that.

He's bragging, Harry. He doesn't give a twit about anyone else.

> Of course, that axiom often gets lost in the
> other "noise", and he makes nebulous statements that his system
(term
> applied here with absolutely no cymicism) might possibly be

adapted

to
> suit more modest bankrolls (which I think is sufficiently poorly
> defined to be misleading).

That's right.

>
> He falls subject to criticism that his system is nothing other

than

a
> Martingale version -- and few question that Martingale dooms the

far

> greater majority of adherents to an unfortunate demise.

That's because it is true.

>
> I won't touch the Martingale comparison, since I think it's
> unnecessary. I'll simply say that there are moderating aspects of
> Singer's system that greatly reduce the insane risk of Martingale
and
> increases the probability that a reasonable, well defined, yet
> substantial win quit point might be achieved -- though obviously
with
> a substantial ROR (perhaps higher that Rob's writing suggest).

A progression increases variances. Overall results become tightly
related to results at the higher levels of the progression. A
progression also increases the % of session wins. However, it

cannot

change the payback. You'll never see Rob emphaize this last fact.
Ever wonder why?

>
> The key characteristic of Singer's system is that he gives fair
> opportunity for variance to express itself that an appropriate win
> goal can be achieved with a significant probability. The offset

is

> that the downside risk is far greater than most desire to bear.

True, but that is not how Rob protrays it. Rob is only in this game
to get attention. NPD at it's worst.

>
> The most important assertion I have to make is that there's no
> question there's a subgroup of rational players for whom Singer's
> system is entirely appropriate. Mind you, that subgroup

represents

a
> very small proportion of players in general, and of the members

here

> that ratio is exceedingly small given inherent play goals -- if

for

no
> other reason due to the bankroll requirements, but for a large
number
> of other reasons as well.

If Singer promoted his system based on positive plays then I

suspect

he would get fewer negative comments. However, he directly states
that payback is of little value. He argues against proven math and

he

attacks anyone who disagrees. His only goal is to get attention,

once

again, typical for a person with NPD.

>
> I won't dwell on specific characteristics of that subgroup other
than
> to stress that I'm sincere in calling them "rational".

You've danced around the question of positive vs. negative. I would
go along with "rational" as long as they don't believe they are

more

likely to make money playing negative machines with Singer's system.

>
> There is another group of players who reject "advantage play" and
> gravitate toward Singer's play philosophy, but for whom his system
> entirely inappropriate. I don't think Singer acts in any manner
that
> serves to mislead or delude that group.

This is a joke, right? Singer's own results are most likely a LIE.
You don't think that "misleads" or "deludes"?

>
> It should be clear by now that I hold that there is a basis on

which

> to respect Singer. I draw ample fire for that position. So be
it.

Harry, you always try to see the best in everyone. In this case you
are misled and deluded.

>
> I choose not to stress any misgivings I have since, for those who
> would have a listening, there's little need to "preach to the
> converted". In any case, it's not my style. But trust that I

hold

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@...> wrote:

> out very sizable reserves.
>
> Finally, I expect Singer to hold ample exception to aspects of my
> statements. However, from past interaction, I fully expect him to
> respect my assertion of them and may likely choose to respond in a
> reasoned manner (and again, he may not :wink:

Harry, you are giving Rob EXACTLY what he seeks. Respect and some
form of acceptance. He will most likely answer your post positively.

#6

Harry: Isn't it fun watching little dicky sweat! I hope you
prepared for a set of goofball answers over here from this bozo. Now
that he'slatched onto a new set of letters in his responses, you can
see the confidence level grow until I spank him over it a few more
times--just like always. And notice how he just can't help
himself....as hecomplains about the attention given me yet he's
always first in line to stumble thru giving me more!

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@>
wrote:
> You're clearly mistating Singer. He allows there will be the
> occasional losing session but that winning sessions will strongly
> predominate in number. He's absolutely accurate in that

assertion.

Harry, he is NOT accurate. He exaggerates his wins. He claims 227
wins out of 258 sessions, yet with my simulator the very BEST win
rate I could come up with is 201. This was running 1000 player sims
multiple times. This is typical of someone like Rob with NPD. They
lie about everything.

>
> Like many of us here, the losing sessions don't receive nearly the
> emphasis of winning ones.

He has claimed he biggest loss is 34K while the simulations point

out

he would typically lose around 50K at 6 levels. You may be able to
believe some of Singer's lies, but when EVERY statement he makes is
mathematically remote you've got admit there may be something else
going on ... outright LIES.

>
> He makes no bones that an overall bankroll that would choke a

modest

> size whale (at least one in the eyes of most of us) is required.

I

> respect him for that.

He's bragging, Harry. He doesn't give a twit about anyone else.

> Of course, that axiom often gets lost in the
> other "noise", and he makes nebulous statements that his system
(term
> applied here with absolutely no cymicism) might possibly be

adapted

to
> suit more modest bankrolls (which I think is sufficiently poorly
> defined to be misleading).

That's right.

>
> He falls subject to criticism that his system is nothing other

than

a
> Martingale version -- and few question that Martingale dooms the

far

> greater majority of adherents to an unfortunate demise.

That's because it is true.

>
> I won't touch the Martingale comparison, since I think it's
> unnecessary. I'll simply say that there are moderating aspects of
> Singer's system that greatly reduce the insane risk of Martingale
and
> increases the probability that a reasonable, well defined, yet
> substantial win quit point might be achieved -- though obviously
with
> a substantial ROR (perhaps higher that Rob's writing suggest).

A progression increases variances. Overall results become tightly
related to results at the higher levels of the progression. A
progression also increases the % of session wins. However, it

cannot

change the payback. You'll never see Rob emphaize this last fact.
Ever wonder why?

>
> The key characteristic of Singer's system is that he gives fair
> opportunity for variance to express itself that an appropriate win
> goal can be achieved with a significant probability. The offset

is

> that the downside risk is far greater than most desire to bear.

True, but that is not how Rob protrays it. Rob is only in this game
to get attention. NPD at it's worst.

>
> The most important assertion I have to make is that there's no
> question there's a subgroup of rational players for whom Singer's
> system is entirely appropriate. Mind you, that subgroup

represents

a
> very small proportion of players in general, and of the members

here

> that ratio is exceedingly small given inherent play goals -- if

for

no
> other reason due to the bankroll requirements, but for a large
number
> of other reasons as well.

If Singer promoted his system based on positive plays then I

suspect

he would get fewer negative comments. However, he directly states
that payback is of little value. He argues against proven math and

he

attacks anyone who disagrees. His only goal is to get attention,

once

again, typical for a person with NPD.

>
> I won't dwell on specific characteristics of that subgroup other
than
> to stress that I'm sincere in calling them "rational".

You've danced around the question of positive vs. negative. I would
go along with "rational" as long as they don't believe they are

more

likely to make money playing negative machines with Singer's system.

>
> There is another group of players who reject "advantage play" and
> gravitate toward Singer's play philosophy, but for whom his system
> entirely inappropriate. I don't think Singer acts in any manner
that
> serves to mislead or delude that group.

This is a joke, right? Singer's own results are most likely a LIE.
You don't think that "misleads" or "deludes"?

>
> It should be clear by now that I hold that there is a basis on

which

> to respect Singer. I draw ample fire for that position. So be
it.

Harry, you always try to see the best in everyone. In this case you
are misled and deluded.

>
> I choose not to stress any misgivings I have since, for those who
> would have a listening, there's little need to "preach to the
> converted". In any case, it's not my style. But trust that I

hold

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@...> wrote:

> out very sizable reserves.
>
> Finally, I expect Singer to hold ample exception to aspects of my
> statements. However, from past interaction, I fully expect him to
> respect my assertion of them and may likely choose to respond in a
> reasoned manner (and again, he may not :wink:

Harry, you are giving Rob EXACTLY what he seeks. Respect and some
form of acceptance. He will most likely answer your post positively.

#7

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@>
wrote:
> You're clearly mistating Singer. He allows there will be the
> occasional losing session but that winning sessions will strongly
> predominate in number. He's absolutely accurate in that

assertion.

Harry, he is NOT accurate. He exaggerates his wins. He claims 227
wins out of 258 sessions, yet with my simulator the very BEST win
rate I could come up with is 201. This was running 1000 player sims
multiple times. This is typical of someone like Rob with NPD. They
lie about everything.

I'm just curious exactly HOW you would know that he has not had 227
winning sessions? You were obviously not standing next to him
watching the way he plays or what happened. Yet, you feel so
certain that he must be lying only because of a COMPUTER SIMULATION
of his system which showed some possible results. Interesting,
that you feel so easily able to accuse people of LYING with basically
ZERO PROOF. This is called libel in most places, or slander.

Did you ever consider these possibilities for the differences?

1. You have not accurately coded Singer's playing style. This is
called software bugs - almost every program has some.

2. You are not accurately reflecting the "special plays" he
incorporates. How do you decide when he does special plays? It
would be very difficult to determine that without watching him, since
he states very clearly on his website only "some" of the special
plays that he uses.

3. The RNG algorithm on your computer is not an accurate
representation of how the RNG works on the VP machines.

4. You were not using the same pay tables in the simulations as the
machines Rob Singer was actually on for his sessions.

5. You did not use the exact same number of levels in the
progression as Rob Singer did in each session.

6. You are assuming that there are no "hot-cold" cycles in the VP
machines, or alternatively you have not programmed the simulation to
function in an equivalent manner.

7. You make no allowance for Rob Singer detecting patterns in the
VP machines that may allow him to switch off "cold" machines to a new
machine before running down all of the credits on it. Since you
don't believe this is possible, it is 100% certain you have not
programmed anything to simulate this.

Of course, this is not the first misstatement or assertion that you
have made. You have repeatedly accused me of being a "shill" for
Rob Singer, even though I have more than once CLEARLY STATED that I
do not personally know him, I live in Texas, rarely visit Las Vegas,
have never met him, and only am aware of his ideas from reading the
VPTRUTH website, as well as these VPFREE forums.

Apparently, it is beyond your grasp that someone might objectively
read the arguments of both sides ( yes, I did also read Dan Paymar's
book, some of Jean Scott's writings, and much of the stuff in
VPFree ), and conclude that he preferred Rob Singer's playing style
to that of the 'Advantage Players'.

In another of your past tirades, you accused CardFather (CF) of being
some sort of "closet supporter" of Rob Singer, even though his
participation in the VPFree sites predates all of Rob Singer's
writings. I have yet to see a retraction of either of these false
assertions, so a rational person would have to question whether you
are capable of admitting a wrong.

>
> Like many of us here, the losing sessions don't receive nearly the
> emphasis of winning ones.

He has claimed he biggest loss is 34K while the simulations point

out

he would typically lose around 50K at 6 levels. You may be able to
believe some of Singer's lies, but when EVERY statement he makes is
mathematically remote you've got admit there may be something else
going on ... outright LIES.

Refer to the above discussion for possible reasons for the
differences here. Why do you assume he always plays 6 levels? He
states himself on the website that he "starts with $1 machines, and
rarely plays the $25 or $100 machines". That would basically imply
that the normal sequence is $1-$2-$5-$10 or 4 levels.

>
> He makes no bones that an overall bankroll that would choke a

modest

> size whale (at least one in the eyes of most of us) is required.

I

> respect him for that.

He's bragging, Harry. He doesn't give a twit about anyone else.

He is being honest about the bankroll requirements. What is the
problem with that? He also states in numerous places that somebody
could start the progression with lower units. I mean, how much
imagination is required to figure out that a progression from .05
to .10 to .25 to .50 would require a MUCH smaller bankroll than he
uses?

> Of course, that axiom often gets lost in the
> other "noise", and he makes nebulous statements that his system
(term
> applied here with absolutely no cymicism) might possibly be

adapted

to
> suit more modest bankrolls (which I think is sufficiently poorly
> defined to be misleading).

That's right.

To quote 'The Italian Job' - you lack imagination. How much clearer
does it have to be to figure out that you reduce the denominations of
the units and use the same progression requiring MUCH LESS MONEY?

>
> He falls subject to criticism that his system is nothing other

than

a
> Martingale version -- and few question that Martingale dooms the

far

> greater majority of adherents to an unfortunate demise.

That's because it is true.

A true Martingale system doubles and doubles the unit on every
successive loss until you win or bust. The same thing on VP would
be to switch denominations up after 1 loss hand on a VP machine until
you win or lost on a $500 machine. At best, this could be called
a 'limited Martingale progression' and even that is a long ways from
what Rob Singer is proposing.

Harry, you always try to see the best in everyone. In this case you
are misled and deluded.

What? We should all be cynical pessimists??? Now, there is a
life philosophy to emulate!

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@...> wrote:

#8

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
wrote:

rgmustain wrote:
> If Singer promoted his system based on positive plays then I

suspect

> he would get fewer negative comments. However, he directly states
> that payback is of little value. He argues against proven math

and

> he attacks anyone who disagrees. His only goal is to get

attention,

> once again, typical for a person with NPD.

I'll let your other remarks stand without comment. We simply "agree
to simply disagree" on those points where we differ in perspective.

But I'm driven to comment on these statements:

I'm a modestly "winning" player. I play VERY conservatively. I

seek

out low variance games and seldom play at a theoretical disadvantage
of more than 0.1% -- and in those cases, only do so where I value

the

comp benefits sufficiently that they far outweigh the negative ER.

In general, I view near break-even plays as a road to ruin.

Variance

will ultimately get you on those.

Harry, variance is only a factor at small numbers of hands. In fact,
the closer to even you are playng the more variance gives you a
chance at winning. Of course, this chance is paid for by a larger
risk. I know you understand this concept so I'm curious why you call
variance "road to ruin".

I prefer to play at no less than
.4% advantage -- AC can be pretty limiting in opportunities though.

That said, I'd divide my play into two subsets: hours and hours of

$1

and below denoms and less than a RF cycle of $2-equivalent play
(includes $1 play with $6K+ jackpots).

Tally to date: My net win is a consequence of 4 RF hits on the
$2-equivalent play. I've given up more than half of that on the
results of my $1 and under play (and I'm including cb and other cash
bonuses in those results).

My actual $1 and under play results fall CONSIDERABLY short of the

EV

of that play. Considering how much play is involved and that I

seldom

venture into variance turf such as DB (almost never anything

higher),

one has to consider these results VERY subpar (I expect in the

bottom

2% of expectation).

Since I play many different games I can see how these situations
occur. I had one casino where I lost with around a .4% advantage for
4-5 years. I had another casino, playing the same game, where I won
all I lost at the other casino and then some. What does it all mean?
Nothing. However, I'm sure that those not familiar with the math
would conclude the first casino had cheated. By the way, I have won
at that first casino the last two years.

My active play has been limited to about 6 years now (I dabbled

before

that). I have roughly 30 RF's under my belt, to give a rough

estimate

of total hands likely played. I play casually, yet hard, on

weekends

one or two times a month, have played very hard on week long LV
excursions. I play hard principally because I love it, and not out

of

some irrational compulsion to rack up points.

My point is that if someone wants to discount how critical every .1%
of ER is to a player, I'm hard pressed to argue based upon my
experience (anomalous as it may have been). Nonetheless, I'm a firm
adherent to "advantage play" dogma.

Obviously I'm not offering a critique on specifics that Rob

spouts ...

just saying that there's no way I'm going to make the "black and
white" call that many others do.

- Harry

If I hadn't caught Rob in over 100 or more lies on this forum already
I might be more tolerant. In fact, when I first started debating Rob
a couple of years ago I thought more like you do. I found out that he
is not interested in the truth nor debating gambling reasonably. As
soon as I brought up the simple math involved he descended into name
calling and bragging. NPD at it's worst.

#9

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

Oh, poor little dicky. He never seems to get anything right....And
he's always depending on his silly little 'sims' to get him through
his darkest hours. The number's 259. Poof fellow. Always
portraying 'exactness' but never seeming to really be there..... I
just can't IMAGINE the agony that guy has to deal with! (But it

makes

me SMILE).

Sure it does ... Facts vs rants ... and you wonder why no one
believes your lies.

Oooh....Ooooh....get this! I'm leaving for my April trip today, and

I

guarantee that number will climb before I'm home Monday, of course,
to his dismay! That is, in between seeing Sting at Mandalay Bay

Sat.

evening (can anyone picture little dicky doing such a normal
thing?!), visiting with my GT publisher to get an idea on what they
want me to focus on during my review of and article on Red Rock
Station, going to a move, a couple of gourmet meals....and doing
something addict AP's just can't do--have FUN!!

Let's see, yet another trip to a casino and all those horrible
environmental issues Robbie brings up so often. The smoke, the
degenerates, the LV traffic, ... And, to top it off, he adds in his
lists of justifications. Anyone might think his addiction was back in
full force.

#10

> > You're clearly mistating Singer. He allows there will be the
> > occasional losing session but that winning sessions will

strongly

> > predominate in number. He's absolutely accurate in that
assertion.
>
> Harry, he is NOT accurate. He exaggerates his wins. He claims 227
> wins out of 258 sessions, yet with my simulator the very BEST win
> rate I could come up with is 201. This was running 1000 player

sims

> multiple times. This is typical of someone like Rob with NPD.

They

> lie about everything.
>

I'm just curious exactly HOW you would know that he has not had 227
winning sessions?

Math.

  You were obviously not standing next to him
watching the way he plays or what happened.

If someone told you they had won the lottery 20 times would you
believe them? I hope not. Some things are so mathematically
improbable that it is far more likely that the person is lying. Add
to that the fact that this same person discounts simple mathematics
and you SHOULD get the picture.

Yet, you feel so
certain that he must be lying only because of a COMPUTER SIMULATION
of his system which showed some possible results.

Simulation or probablistic computations. Both show the same results.
One might even consider that this person was really, really lucky if
they didn't just happen to show NPD characteristics every time they
opened their mouth; they avoided anyone watching them play; they have
a vested interest (like a book and column) in these lucky results;
etc., etc.

Interesting,
that you feel so easily able to accuse people of LYING with

basically

ZERO PROOF.

What proof do you need? Do you need someone to hit you over the head
with a hammer? It's patently obvious to anyone with a open mind.

This is called libel in most places, or slander.

No. It's a simple representation of the facts. Not to mention that
little Robbie has been caught in lies over and over again. Why do you
ignore these obvious lies?

Did you ever consider these possibilities for the differences?

1. You have not accurately coded Singer's playing style. This

is

called software bugs - almost every program has some.

I did have a few bugs at first. I fixed them. Not to mention that my
results AGREE with probabalistic computations. That is the real test.

2. You are not accurately reflecting the "special plays" he
incorporates.

You mean his special elixer? His CON escape mechanisms? All cons have
them. When anyone fails with Rob's little system he simply says you
must not have applied the "special plays" correctly. If you're going
to fall for these idiotic claims then there is no helping you. "A
sucker is born every minute."

How do you decide when he does special plays?

What I did was put in a couple of random selections of situations
where his special plays show up (eg. throwing away one pair out of
two). Guess what? They lowered his expected return just in the way a
rational person would expect. You see, the only way special plays
COULD EVER WORK is for non-random VP machines. And then, you need to
understand the nature of this non-randomness. This is typical of a
CON. Claiming some kind of inside information. Are you really this
gullible?

  It
would be very difficult to determine that without watching him,

since

he states very clearly on his website only "some" of the special
plays that he uses.

And, that is part of what makes it such an OBVIOUS con.

3. The RNG algorithm on your computer is not an accurate
representation of how the RNG works on the VP machines.

I used a published Knuth RNG. Interestingly, the article on "Hacking
the Casinos ..." noted that IGT also used an older Knuth algorithm.
In any event, I suspect both are sufficently random to provide
comparable results. If anything, the existence of a person playing VP
makes those results a little more random, which would make ideas,
such as special plays, ludicrous.

4. You were not using the same pay tables in the simulations as

the

machines Rob Singer was actually on for his sessions.

That is probably true. I probably used BETTER pay tables. If you
reviewed the results of my sims, I printed the games I used. In fact,
I used the games Rob gave me or BETTER. I even substituted Aces and
Eights over BP to raise the expected return ... guess what? ... it
didn't change a negative expectation into a positive one.

5. You did not use the exact same number of levels in the
progression as Rob Singer did in each session.

I initially used the 10% number Rob gave me for level 6 and 90% for
level 5. Since it now appears Rob really has only gone to level 6 1%
of the time, my sims OVERSTATE the number of possible sessions wins.
I have also run sims with all sessions at level 6 and all sessions at
level 5. The only difference is a few more session wins in the former.

6. You are assuming that there are no "hot-cold" cycles in the VP
machines, or alternatively you have not programmed the simulation

to

function in an equivalent manner.

What part of random don't you understand? Obviously if the games are
NOT random then simulating a random game has no value. This gets back
into the CON. Isn't it convienent that Rob claims the machines aren't
really random when that is exactly what he needs to perpetrate a con?
However, NGC regs REQUIRE randomness. Who are you going to believe?
And why would you believe Rob is the ONLY person in the entire world
who understands EXACTLY how this non-randomness works? Did I mention
a sucker is born every minute?

7. You make no allowance for Rob Singer detecting patterns in the
VP machines that may allow him to switch off "cold" machines to a

new

machine before running down all of the credits on it. Since you
don't believe this is possible, it is 100% certain you have not
programmed anything to simulate this.

You got that right. His statement is CLEARLY a lie and exists only to
convince the suckers who will believe the most idiotic claims. I've
already proved his claim of many cold cycles and a few hot cycles is
a mathematical impossibility. What does it take to convince you that
he is lying?

Of course, this is not the first misstatement or assertion that you
have made. You have repeatedly accused me of being a "shill" for
Rob Singer, even though I have more than once CLEARLY STATED that I
do not personally know him, I live in Texas, rarely visit Las

Vegas,

have never met him, and only am aware of his ideas from reading the
VPTRUTH website, as well as these VPFREE forums.

Look up the definition of shill. While you're at it, look up the
definition of scam and sucker.

Apparently, it is beyond your grasp that someone might objectively
read the arguments of both sides ( yes, I did also read Dan

Paymar's

book, some of Jean Scott's writings, and much of the stuff in
VPFree ), and conclude that he preferred Rob Singer's playing style
to that of the 'Advantage Players'.

There's a sucker born every minute.

In another of your past tirades, you accused CardFather (CF) of

being

some sort of "closet supporter" of Rob Singer, even though his
participation in the VPFree sites predates all of Rob Singer's
writings. I have yet to see a retraction of either of these false
assertions, so a rational person would have to question whether you
are capable of admitting a wrong.

What assertions? Give me just ONE example where I accused CF of
anything. I simply stated FACTs. Those little things you appear to
ignore.

> >
> > Like many of us here, the losing sessions don't receive nearly

the

> > emphasis of winning ones.
>
> He has claimed he biggest loss is 34K while the simulations point
out
> he would typically lose around 50K at 6 levels. You may be able

to

> believe some of Singer's lies, but when EVERY statement he makes

is

> mathematically remote you've got admit there may be something

else

> going on ... outright LIES.
>

Refer to the above discussion for possible reasons for the
differences here. Why do you assume he always plays 6 levels?

Because that is what he indicated to me when I ASKED him while
putting together the sim. Go back and read our posts in late Nov and
early Dec.

He
states himself on the website that he "starts with $1 machines, and
rarely plays the $25 or $100 machines". That would basically

imply

that the normal sequence is $1-$2-$5-$10 or 4 levels.

The fewer the levels the LESS often he will actually hit his win
goal. This means my simulations OVERSTATE his chances of success. All
you did here is provide more evidence that SUPPORTS exactly what I've
been saying.

> >
> > He makes no bones that an overall bankroll that would choke a
modest
> > size whale (at least one in the eyes of most of us) is

required.

I
> > respect him for that.
>
> He's bragging, Harry. He doesn't give a twit about anyone else.
>

He is being honest about the bankroll requirements. What is the
problem with that? He also states in numerous places that

somebody

could start the progression with lower units. I mean, how much
imagination is required to figure out that a progression from .05
to .10 to .25 to .50 would require a MUCH smaller bankroll than he
uses?

Did you have a point? I've stated many times that using a progression
is NOT a problem in and of itself. The problem comes around when Rob
starts claiming AP doesn't work and playing negative machines with a
progression is BETTER.

> > Of course, that axiom often gets lost in the
> > other "noise", and he makes nebulous statements that his system
> (term
> > applied here with absolutely no cymicism) might possibly be
adapted
> to
> > suit more modest bankrolls (which I think is sufficiently poorly
> > defined to be misleading).
>
> That's right.
>

To quote 'The Italian Job' - you lack imagination.

No, imagination is fine ... thinking an obvious con is somehow
imaginative is naive.

How much clearer
does it have to be to figure out that you reduce the denominations

of

the units and use the same progression requiring MUCH LESS MONEY?

None. Do you have a point?

> >
> > He falls subject to criticism that his system is nothing other
than
> a
> > Martingale version -- and few question that Martingale dooms

the

far
> > greater majority of adherents to an unfortunate demise.
>
> That's because it is true.
>

A true Martingale system doubles and doubles the unit on every
successive loss until you win or bust. The same thing on VP

would

be to switch denominations up after 1 loss hand on a VP machine

until

you win or lost on a $500 machine. At best, this could be called
a 'limited Martingale progression' and even that is a long ways

from

what Rob Singer is proposing.

Martingale is used to describe a CLASS of systems. Rob's progression
is in this class. It has been proven NUMEROUS times that a finite
progression does not change the underlying probabilities. To believe
otherwise is naive at best. This is why a progression isn't the
PROBLEM. It is Rob's lies about the simple mathematics of VP ... play
better EV games and improve your chances for success over time. Now,
ask yourself, why does Rob deny this simple TRUTH and replace it with
an enormous set of unverifiable claims? If the word CON comes to mind
then there might be hope for you yet.

> Harry, you always try to see the best in everyone. In this case

you

> are misled and deluded.

What? We should all be cynical pessimists??? Now, there is a
life philosophy to emulate!

We should all be alert to the many, many con men in this world that
prey on the naive. I have no problem with anyone reading Rob's ideas
with an open mind. However, when the evidence that he is lying is
overwhelming and that person still WANTS to believe ... they are
beyond hope.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "optdouble" <mworcester@...> wrote:

#11

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:
>
> Oh, poor little dicky. He never seems to get anything

right....And

> he's always depending on his silly little 'sims' to get him

through

> his darkest hours. The number's 259. Poof fellow. Always
> portraying 'exactness' but never seeming to really be there.....

I

> just can't IMAGINE the agony that guy has to deal with! (But it
makes
> me SMILE).

Sure it does ... Facts vs rants ... and you wonder why no one
believes your lies.

Now there's a good 'assertion' for you! The thing about nerds is they
can be shown the truth, be told the truth, and have it proven before
their very eyes. Yet if it hurts them they'll reject it until their
last breathing hour--regardless how many times they are ridiculed or
spanked publicly. But along the way they're seen as fools, wimps, and
whiners--all traits you so proudly depict every day in every post.
And people wonder why I get so much satisfaction watching you squirm??

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@...> wrote:

#12

I guess the only way to characterize little dicky's obvious enormous
amount of time (insert laugh!) he spends on replying to posts that
both rip his claims apart as well as clearly explain why all he does
is live in a make-believe world of theory and dreams, is how neurotic
nerds can get as they try in vain to 'set the record straight' just
to get it back to "withing normal geek-operating parameters" in his
own mind as fast as possible. Yes he's been seriously wounded by
optdouble, but then again he gets his weiner whacked off every day in
front of everyone and still comes back for more! That's what I love
about nerds. They take a beating and keep on ticking. Just like in
high school where we humiliated the fools in public, then slapped
them around and gave them bloody noses, watched them freeze in place
and cry in the girls gym with their pants down instead of running
away---yet they came back for even MORE of a butt-kicking! And all
because of something stupid they said that had to do
with 'probability' or 'theory'! Sound familiar?

> > > You're clearly mistating Singer. He allows there will be the
> > > occasional losing session but that winning sessions will
strongly
> > > predominate in number. He's absolutely accurate in that
> assertion.
> >
> > Harry, he is NOT accurate. He exaggerates his wins. He claims

227

> > wins out of 258 sessions, yet with my simulator the very BEST

win

> > rate I could come up with is 201. This was running 1000 player
sims
> > multiple times. This is typical of someone like Rob with NPD.
They
> > lie about everything.
> >
>
> I'm just curious exactly HOW you would know that he has not had

227

> winning sessions?

Math.

> You were obviously not standing next to him
> watching the way he plays or what happened.

If someone told you they had won the lottery 20 times would you
believe them? I hope not. Some things are so mathematically
improbable that it is far more likely that the person is lying. Add
to that the fact that this same person discounts simple mathematics
and you SHOULD get the picture.

> Yet, you feel so
> certain that he must be lying only because of a COMPUTER

SIMULATION

> of his system which showed some possible results.

Simulation or probablistic computations. Both show the same

results.

One might even consider that this person was really, really lucky

if

they didn't just happen to show NPD characteristics every time they
opened their mouth; they avoided anyone watching them play; they

have

a vested interest (like a book and column) in these lucky results;
etc., etc.

> Interesting,
> that you feel so easily able to accuse people of LYING with
basically
> ZERO PROOF.

What proof do you need? Do you need someone to hit you over the

head

with a hammer? It's patently obvious to anyone with a open mind.

> This is called libel in most places, or slander.

No. It's a simple representation of the facts. Not to mention that
little Robbie has been caught in lies over and over again. Why do

you

ignore these obvious lies?

>
> Did you ever consider these possibilities for the differences?
>
> 1. You have not accurately coded Singer's playing style. This
is
> called software bugs - almost every program has some.

I did have a few bugs at first. I fixed them. Not to mention that

my

results AGREE with probabalistic computations. That is the real

test.

>
> 2. You are not accurately reflecting the "special plays" he
> incorporates.

You mean his special elixer? His CON escape mechanisms? All cons

have

them. When anyone fails with Rob's little system he simply says you
must not have applied the "special plays" correctly. If you're

going

to fall for these idiotic claims then there is no helping you. "A
sucker is born every minute."

> How do you decide when he does special plays?

What I did was put in a couple of random selections of situations
where his special plays show up (eg. throwing away one pair out of
two). Guess what? They lowered his expected return just in the way

a

rational person would expect. You see, the only way special plays
COULD EVER WORK is for non-random VP machines. And then, you need

to

understand the nature of this non-randomness. This is typical of a
CON. Claiming some kind of inside information. Are you really this
gullible?

> It
> would be very difficult to determine that without watching him,
since
> he states very clearly on his website only "some" of the special
> plays that he uses.

And, that is part of what makes it such an OBVIOUS con.

>
> 3. The RNG algorithm on your computer is not an accurate
> representation of how the RNG works on the VP machines.

I used a published Knuth RNG. Interestingly, the article

on "Hacking

the Casinos ..." noted that IGT also used an older Knuth algorithm.
In any event, I suspect both are sufficently random to provide
comparable results. If anything, the existence of a person playing

VP

makes those results a little more random, which would make ideas,
such as special plays, ludicrous.

>
> 4. You were not using the same pay tables in the simulations as
the
> machines Rob Singer was actually on for his sessions.

That is probably true. I probably used BETTER pay tables. If you
reviewed the results of my sims, I printed the games I used. In

fact,

I used the games Rob gave me or BETTER. I even substituted Aces and
Eights over BP to raise the expected return ... guess what? ... it
didn't change a negative expectation into a positive one.

>
> 5. You did not use the exact same number of levels in the
> progression as Rob Singer did in each session.

I initially used the 10% number Rob gave me for level 6 and 90% for
level 5. Since it now appears Rob really has only gone to level 6

1%

of the time, my sims OVERSTATE the number of possible sessions

wins.

I have also run sims with all sessions at level 6 and all sessions

at

level 5. The only difference is a few more session wins in the

former.

>
> 6. You are assuming that there are no "hot-cold" cycles in the

VP

> machines, or alternatively you have not programmed the simulation
to
> function in an equivalent manner.

What part of random don't you understand? Obviously if the games

are

NOT random then simulating a random game has no value. This gets

back

into the CON. Isn't it convienent that Rob claims the machines

aren't

really random when that is exactly what he needs to perpetrate a

con?

However, NGC regs REQUIRE randomness. Who are you going to believe?
And why would you believe Rob is the ONLY person in the entire

world

who understands EXACTLY how this non-randomness works? Did I

mention

a sucker is born every minute?

>
> 7. You make no allowance for Rob Singer detecting patterns in

the

> VP machines that may allow him to switch off "cold" machines to a
new
> machine before running down all of the credits on it. Since you
> don't believe this is possible, it is 100% certain you have not
> programmed anything to simulate this.

You got that right. His statement is CLEARLY a lie and exists only

to

convince the suckers who will believe the most idiotic claims. I've
already proved his claim of many cold cycles and a few hot cycles

is

a mathematical impossibility. What does it take to convince you

that

he is lying?

>
>
> Of course, this is not the first misstatement or assertion that

you

> have made. You have repeatedly accused me of being a "shill"

for

> Rob Singer, even though I have more than once CLEARLY STATED that

I

> do not personally know him, I live in Texas, rarely visit Las
Vegas,
> have never met him, and only am aware of his ideas from reading

the

> VPTRUTH website, as well as these VPFREE forums.

Look up the definition of shill. While you're at it, look up the
definition of scam and sucker.

>
> Apparently, it is beyond your grasp that someone might

objectively

> read the arguments of both sides ( yes, I did also read Dan
Paymar's
> book, some of Jean Scott's writings, and much of the stuff in
> VPFree ), and conclude that he preferred Rob Singer's playing

style

> to that of the 'Advantage Players'.

There's a sucker born every minute.

>
> In another of your past tirades, you accused CardFather (CF) of
being
> some sort of "closet supporter" of Rob Singer, even though his
> participation in the VPFree sites predates all of Rob Singer's
> writings. I have yet to see a retraction of either of these

false

> assertions, so a rational person would have to question whether

you

> are capable of admitting a wrong.

What assertions? Give me just ONE example where I accused CF of
anything. I simply stated FACTs. Those little things you appear to
ignore.

>
>
>
> > >
> > > Like many of us here, the losing sessions don't receive

nearly

the
> > > emphasis of winning ones.
> >
> > He has claimed he biggest loss is 34K while the simulations

point

> out
> > he would typically lose around 50K at 6 levels. You may be able
to
> > believe some of Singer's lies, but when EVERY statement he

makes

is
> > mathematically remote you've got admit there may be something
else
> > going on ... outright LIES.
> >
>
> Refer to the above discussion for possible reasons for the
> differences here. Why do you assume he always plays 6 levels?

Because that is what he indicated to me when I ASKED him while
putting together the sim. Go back and read our posts in late Nov

and

early Dec.

> He
> states himself on the website that he "starts with $1 machines,

and

> rarely plays the $25 or $100 machines". That would basically
imply
> that the normal sequence is $1-$2-$5-$10 or 4 levels.

The fewer the levels the LESS often he will actually hit his win
goal. This means my simulations OVERSTATE his chances of success.

All

you did here is provide more evidence that SUPPORTS exactly what

I've

been saying.

>
>
> > >
> > > He makes no bones that an overall bankroll that would choke a
> modest
> > > size whale (at least one in the eyes of most of us) is
required.
> I
> > > respect him for that.
> >
> > He's bragging, Harry. He doesn't give a twit about anyone else.
> >
>
>
> He is being honest about the bankroll requirements. What is

the

> problem with that? He also states in numerous places that
somebody
> could start the progression with lower units. I mean, how much
> imagination is required to figure out that a progression from .05
> to .10 to .25 to .50 would require a MUCH smaller bankroll than

he

> uses?

Did you have a point? I've stated many times that using a

progression

is NOT a problem in and of itself. The problem comes around when

Rob

starts claiming AP doesn't work and playing negative machines with

a

progression is BETTER.

>
>
> > > Of course, that axiom often gets lost in the
> > > other "noise", and he makes nebulous statements that his

system

> > (term
> > > applied here with absolutely no cymicism) might possibly be
> adapted
> > to
> > > suit more modest bankrolls (which I think is sufficiently

poorly

> > > defined to be misleading).
> >
> > That's right.
> >
>
>
> To quote 'The Italian Job' - you lack imagination.

No, imagination is fine ... thinking an obvious con is somehow
imaginative is naive.

> How much clearer
> does it have to be to figure out that you reduce the

denominations

of
> the units and use the same progression requiring MUCH LESS MONEY?

None. Do you have a point?

>
> > >
> > > He falls subject to criticism that his system is nothing

other

> than
> > a
> > > Martingale version -- and few question that Martingale dooms
the
> far
> > > greater majority of adherents to an unfortunate demise.
> >
> > That's because it is true.
> >
>
> A true Martingale system doubles and doubles the unit on every
> successive loss until you win or bust. The same thing on VP
would
> be to switch denominations up after 1 loss hand on a VP machine
until
> you win or lost on a $500 machine. At best, this could be

called

> a 'limited Martingale progression' and even that is a long ways
from
> what Rob Singer is proposing.

Martingale is used to describe a CLASS of systems. Rob's

progression

is in this class. It has been proven NUMEROUS times that a finite
progression does not change the underlying probabilities. To

believe

otherwise is naive at best. This is why a progression isn't the
PROBLEM. It is Rob's lies about the simple mathematics of VP ...

play

better EV games and improve your chances for success over time.

Now,

ask yourself, why does Rob deny this simple TRUTH and replace it

with

an enormous set of unverifiable claims? If the word CON comes to

mind

then there might be hope for you yet.

>
>
> > Harry, you always try to see the best in everyone. In this case
you
> > are misled and deluded.
>
> What? We should all be cynical pessimists??? Now, there is a
> life philosophy to emulate!

We should all be alert to the many, many con men in this world that
prey on the naive. I have no problem with anyone reading Rob's

ideas

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@...> wrote:

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "optdouble" <mworcester@> wrote:
with an open mind. However, when the evidence that he is lying is
overwhelming and that person still WANTS to believe ... they are
beyond hope.

#13

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

> > Oh, poor little dicky. He never seems to get anything
right....And
> > he's always depending on his silly little 'sims' to get him
through
> > his darkest hours. The number's 259. Poof fellow. Always
> > portraying 'exactness' but never seeming to really be

there.....

I
> > just can't IMAGINE the agony that guy has to deal with! (But it
> makes
> > me SMILE).
>
> Sure it does ... Facts vs rants ... and you wonder why no one
> believes your lies.

Now there's a good 'assertion' for you! The thing about nerds is

they

can be shown the truth, be told the truth, and have it proven

before

their very eyes.

When is that going to happen?

Yet if it hurts them they'll reject it until their
last breathing hour--regardless how many times they are ridiculed

or

spanked publicly. But along the way they're seen as fools, wimps,

and

whiners--all traits you so proudly depict every day in every post.
And people wonder why I get so much satisfaction watching you

squirm??

NPD(5): "Feels entitled. Demands automatic and full compliance with
his or her unreasonable expectations for special and favourable
priority treatment;"

NPD(6): "Devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with,
acknowledge, or accept the feelings, needs, preferences, priorities,
and choices of others; "

#14

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

I guess the only way to characterize little dicky's obvious

enormous

amount of time (insert laugh!) he spends on replying to posts that
both rip his claims apart as well as clearly explain why all he

does

is live in a make-believe world of theory and dreams, is how

neurotic

nerds can get as they try in vain to 'set the record straight' just
to get it back to "withing normal geek-operating parameters" in his
own mind as fast as possible.

Words = frustration. I see you couldn't counter any of my logical
arguments and absolute facts. How sweet it is ...

Yes he's been seriously wounded by
optdouble, but then again he gets his weiner whacked off every day

in

front of everyone and still comes back for more! That's what I love
about nerds. They take a beating and keep on ticking. Just like in
high school where we humiliated the fools in public, then slapped
them around and gave them bloody noses, watched them freeze in

place

and cry in the girls gym with their pants down instead of running
away---yet they came back for even MORE of a butt-kicking! And all
because of something stupid they said that had to do
with 'probability' or 'theory'! Sound familiar?

LMAO. Yes, we've heard you babble these same impotent words dozens of
times. Each and every time it shows how frustrated you've become. Not
only that, you do it over and over again even when I've pointed it
out. You do realize that is a sign of insanity ...

#15

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:
> > > Oh, poor little dicky. He never seems to get anything
> right....And
> > > he's always depending on his silly little 'sims' to get him
> through
> > > his darkest hours. The number's 259. Poof fellow. Always
> > > portraying 'exactness' but never seeming to really be
there.....
> I
> > > just can't IMAGINE the agony that guy has to deal with! (But

it

> > makes
> > > me SMILE).
> >
> > Sure it does ... Facts vs rants ... and you wonder why no one
> > believes your lies.

And all that piece of frazzled mumbling does is confirm it for me.....

>
> Now there's a good 'assertion' for you! The thing about nerds is
they
> can be shown the truth, be told the truth, and have it proven
before
> their very eyes.

When is that going to happen?

> Yet if it hurts them they'll reject it until their last breathing

hour--regardless how many times they are ridiculed or spanked
publicly. But along the way they're seen as fools, wimps, and whiners-
-all traits you so proudly depict every day in every post. And people
wonder why I get so much satisfaction watching you squirm??

NPD(5): "Feels entitled. Demands automatic and full compliance with
his or her unreasonable expectations for special and favourable
priority treatment;"

NPD(6): "Devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify

with, acknowledge, or accept the feelings, needs, preferences,
priorities, and choices of others; "

In other words---You've been HURT!

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@...> wrote:

#16

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:
>
> I guess the only way to characterize little dicky's obvious
enormous
> amount of time (insert laugh!) he spends on replying to posts

that

> both rip his claims apart as well as clearly explain why all he
does
> is live in a make-believe world of theory and dreams, is how
neurotic
> nerds can get as they try in vain to 'set the record straight'

just

> to get it back to "withing normal geek-operating parameters" in

his

> own mind as fast as possible.

Words = frustration. I see you couldn't counter any of my logical
arguments and absolute facts. How sweet it is ...

That seems to prove my point.

> Yes he's been seriously wounded by
> optdouble, but then again he gets his weiner whacked off every

day

in
> front of everyone and still comes back for more! That's what I

love

> about nerds. They take a beating and keep on ticking. Just like

in

> high school where we humiliated the fools in public, then slapped
> them around and gave them bloody noses, watched them freeze in
place
> and cry in the girls gym with their pants down instead of running
> away---yet they came back for even MORE of a butt-kicking! And

all

> because of something stupid they said that had to do
> with 'probability' or 'theory'! Sound familiar?

LMAO. Yes, we've heard you babble these same impotent words dozens

of

times. Each and every time it shows how frustrated you've become.

Not

only that, you do it over and over again even when I've pointed it
out. You do realize that is a sign of insanity ...

Yeah, geeks like to give some sort of battle-scarred reply when
ripped a new one like this. It shows my easy-to-say words are in fact
having just the effect expected of them....and on just the bozo
intended.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@...> wrote:

#17

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:
> > I guess the only way to characterize little dicky's obvious

> enormous
> > amount of time (insert laugh!) he spends on replying to posts
that
> > both rip his claims apart as well as clearly explain why all he
> does
> > is live in a make-believe world of theory and dreams, is how
> neurotic
> > nerds can get as they try in vain to 'set the record straight'
just
> > to get it back to "withing normal geek-operating parameters" in
his
> > own mind as fast as possible.
>
> Words = frustration. I see you couldn't counter any of my logical
> arguments and absolute facts. How sweet it is ...

That seems to prove my point.

You mean you were trying to point out that you "couldn't counter any
of my logical arguments and absolute facts". Nice going.

>
> > Yes he's been seriously wounded by
> > optdouble, but then again he gets his weiner whacked off every
day
> in
> > front of everyone and still comes back for more! That's what I
love
> > about nerds. They take a beating and keep on ticking. Just like
in
> > high school where we humiliated the fools in public, then

slapped

> > them around and gave them bloody noses, watched them freeze in
> place
> > and cry in the girls gym with their pants down instead of

running

> > away---yet they came back for even MORE of a butt-kicking! And
all
> > because of something stupid they said that had to do
> > with 'probability' or 'theory'! Sound familiar?
>
> LMAO. Yes, we've heard you babble these same impotent words

dozens

of
> times. Each and every time it shows how frustrated you've become.
Not
> only that, you do it over and over again even when I've pointed

it

> out. You do realize that is a sign of insanity ...

Yeah, geeks like to give some sort of battle-scarred reply when
ripped a new one like this. It shows my easy-to-say words are in

fact

having just the effect expected of them....and on just the bozo
intended.

ROTFLMAO. Did I mention that little Robbie lost his a** in LV?

#18

I think I've seen this a few times, which makes it an important nagging
issue with the dicker. He must've been stung by the +$14,900 win I
posted BEFORE he deleted it! So, in accordance with optdouble's
request, please show support for your claim here.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@...> wrote:

ROTFLMAO. Did I mention that little Robbie lost his a** in LV?