When I look at Mr. Singer's strategies for a minute and think about
it,
I am reminded of an unusual occurrence called Parrondo's
Paradox....according to this paradox, two or more negative games can
be
combined to create a positive outcome. Not sure about this, but it's
intriguing, nonetheless:
(www.google.com) SEARCH TERM: Parrondo's Paradox
~or perhaps~
http://www.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au/Groups/parrondo/
~Psych.
This has been convincingly shown to be NOT a paradox.
I will post a few links on this when I am at another
location. There is always a dependency between the two
games when the purported paradox is stated.
But there is one certainty here: singer is a sleazy,
cowardly shill for the video poker operators of
Nevada, who aggressively seeks to victimize the naive
player.
--- Psychophysical <jimb777@warpdriveonline.com>
wrote:
When I look at Mr. Singer's strategies for a minute
and think about
it,
I am reminded of an unusual occurrence called
Parrondo's
Paradox....according to this paradox, two or more
negative games can
be
combined to create a positive outcome. Not sure
about this, but it's
intriguing, nonetheless:
(www.google.com) SEARCH TERM: Parrondo's
Paradox
~or perhaps~http://www.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au/Groups/parrondo/
~Psych.
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
You mean like when I play a negative expectation game and further
negatize it by making special plays. That's what that paradox is based
on. Cogno/Dick--you guys in super-tilt yet?
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Psychophysical" <jimb777@w...>
wrote:
When I look at Mr. Singer's strategies for a minute and think about
it,
I am reminded of an unusual occurrence called Parrondo's
Paradox....according to this paradox, two or more negative games can
be
combined to create a positive outcome. Not sure about this, but it's
intriguing, nonetheless:
(www.google.com) SEARCH TERM: Parrondo's Paradox
~or perhaps~http://www.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au/Groups/parrondo/
~Psych.
You mean like when I play a negative expectation game and further
negatize it by making special plays. That's what that paradox is
based
on. Cogno/Dick--you guys in super-tilt yet?
So, Rob, now your saying you have full confidence that (-1) + (-1) > 0.
And, beyond that, that your system is based on this FACT.
I sure hope the banking industry doesn't figure this out 
Dick
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@c...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Psychophysical" <jimb777@w...>
wrote:
When I look at Mr. Singer's strategies for a minute and think about
it,
I am reminded of an unusual occurrence called Parrondo's
Paradox....according to this paradox, two or more negative games can
be
combined to create a positive outcome. Not sure about this, but it's
intriguing, nonetheless:
(www.google.com) SEARCH TERM: Parrondo's Paradox
~or perhaps~http://www.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au/Groups/parrondo/
~Psych.
From the web site you referenced.
Can I use Parrondo's paradox to win at the Casino? The answer is most
probably "no." Parrondo's games rely on exploiting convex linear
combinations in a non-linear parameter space. Casino games have a
linear parameter space (as far as we know). If anyone can demonstrate
any convexity in a casino game, then you are on to something! So the
answer is most probably no, because we have not personally exhaustively
tested every casino game for convex spaces. Our interest in is
scientific study of the Parrondo phenomenon, not in casinos. To find
out about convexity and the role it plays in Parrondian phenomena,
click on the publications link. The importance of convexity in the
Parrondo effect was first pointed out by Moraal in 1999 and then
independently by Costa, Fackrell & Taylor in 2000.
Golly gee. We needed you to clear that up.
Can I use Parrondo's paradox to win at the Casino? The answer is most
probably "no." Parrondo's games rely on exploiting convex linear
combinations in a non-linear parameter space. Casino games have a
linear parameter space (as far as we know). If anyone can demonstrate
any convexity in a casino game, then you are on to something! So the
answer is most probably no, because we have not personally
exhaustively
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
tested every casino game for convex spaces. Our interest in is
scientific study of the Parrondo phenomenon, not in casinos. To find
out about convexity and the role it plays in Parrondian phenomena,
click on the publications link. The importance of convexity in the
Parrondo effect was first pointed out by Moraal in 1999 and then
independently by Costa, Fackrell & Taylor in 2000.
Hmmmm.... all you are, thompson, is an Internet travelling fool who
can't get enough of the pain as you worry about how successful I am.
Every post you make warms my heart.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, jim thompson <meldrone@y...> wrote:
But there is one certainty here: singer is a sleazy,
cowardly shill for the video poker operators of
Nevada, who aggressively seeks to victimize the naive
player.
<<Parrondo's Paradox....according to this paradox, two or more negative
games can be combined to create a positive outcome.>>
Like many paradoxes, it is based on equivocation. Game B is an exploitably
positive game.
Cogno
<<You mean like when I play a negative expectation game and further negatize
it by making special plays.>>
You have no care for the lives you could ruin by promoting this snake oil,
do you?
Cogno
1. Parrondo's Paradox is not a paradox.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=581521#PaperDownload
Best, most workable explanation.
2. Parrondo game/strategy has no application space.
http://www.columbia.edu/~rk35/parrondo_2003.pdf
Full headache inducer, if you are motivated.
3. Playing a VP machine is, trivially, not a Parrondo
game.
4. Singer is widely viewed as a quack, on the take
etc. I'll pass that stuff along on schedule.
--- Cogno Scienti <cognoscienti@gmail.com> wrote:
<<You mean like when I play a negative expectation
game and further negatize
it by making special plays.>>You have no care for the lives you could ruin by
promoting this snake oil,
do you?Cogno
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Cogno Scienti" <cognoscienti@g...>
wrote:
You have no care for the lives you could ruin by promoting this snake
oil,do you?
Who's promoting what? What's dangerous is when people like you tell
regular players they can win with long-term strategy because "my math
model says you will, and probability theories support that". The
streets of LV are littered with the scalps of 'advantage players'.
Since YOU indicated your strategy was BASED on this little paradox
and it now is evident that the paradox does not apply to casino
games, then I absolutely agree with you. It is now perfectly clear
that your strategy CANNOT work.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@c...>
wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
Golly gee. We needed you to clear that up.
> Can I use Parrondo's paradox to win at the Casino? The answer is
most
> probably "no." Parrondo's games rely on exploiting convex linear
> combinations in a non-linear parameter space. Casino games have a
> linear parameter space (as far as we know). If anyone can
demonstrate
> any convexity in a casino game, then you are on to something! So
the
> answer is most probably no, because we have not personally
exhaustively
> tested every casino game for convex spaces. Our interest in is
> scientific study of the Parrondo phenomenon, not in casinos. To
find
> out about convexity and the role it plays in Parrondian
phenomena,
> click on the publications link. The importance of convexity in
the
> Parrondo effect was first pointed out by Moraal in 1999 and then
> independently by Costa, Fackrell & Taylor in 2000.
Please provide evidence of this rather absurd statement. I know you'll
throw out couple of made up names no one has ever heard of before. Even
that wouldn't qualify as "littered".
The fact is there are lots of people who have tried numerous approaches
to beating casinos and have lost. While a VERY small number of these
may be unlucky advantage players, or those who tried it with
insuffcient bankrolls, the vast majority will be those who have tried
unproven scams like your progressive system.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@c...> wrote:
The streets of LV are littered with the scalps of 'advantage players'.
Since YOU indicated your strategy was BASED on this little paradox
and it now is evident that the paradox does not apply to casino
games, then I absolutely agree with you. It is now perfectly clear
that your strategy CANNOT work.
For someone who claims to be God's gift to science & math, you sure
make a lot of assumptions that turn out wrong. Too bad you missed out
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
on the humorous part of life. Here's what I said:
"You mean like when I play a negative expectation game and further
negatize it by making special plays. That's what that paradox is based
on. Cogno/Dick--you guys in super-tilt yet?"
Do you get it yet? I've never heard of this thing until yesterday. Duh
The streets of LV are littered with the scalps of 'advantage players'.
Please provide evidence of this rather absurd statement.
Absurd? Because you just don't want it to be, and it would hurt to know
that some home-made geek-nerds found out the math doesn't work, the
hard way? Here's one you should know--Yuri, the humiliated and ex UNLV
math professor....and self-proclaimed video poker genius who claimed he
could easily beat the video poker machines with LONG-TERM STRATEG--
HELLO!! He left town broke with a disgusted/disappointed family, and
has last been spotted shoveling bear crap off the beaten path in
Central Siberia. You ought to know about this fool, because your Queen
solicited donations on vpFREE to feed his family after he fed his last
bill into the video poker machines. There's plenty of others, and two
of them are self-proclaimed famous named 'gurus' who've had to move
away because they couldn't cut the same mustard they ranted about in
their numerous income-producing books. It's people like these that make
The Undeniable Truth undeniable.
The fact is there are lots of people who have tried numerous
approaches to beating casinos and have lost. While a VERY small number
of these may be unlucky advantage players, or those who tried it with
insuffcient bankrolls, the vast majority will be those who have tried
unproven scams like your progressive system.
My strategy is no longer unproven. Results talk, geeks walk. Ask the
famous Yuri how he does with those snowshoes.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
<<Who's promoting what?>>
You're promoting lies and fallacies; that much is clear.
<< What's dangerous is when people like you tell regular players they can
win with long-term strategy because "my math model says you will, and
probability theories support that".>>
Who are you quoting? Yourself? No intelligent gambler has ever said that
since it's not true.
<< The streets of LV are littered with the scalps of 'advantage players'.>>
Name one.
Cogno
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Cogno Scienti"
<cognoscienti@g...> wrote:
You're promoting lies and fallacies; that much is clear.
Explain its clarity. I promote not playing long-term/optimal-play
strategy because it is not only impossible to win with--it promotes
severe addiction. Ever hear the Queen say "but gee, we ONLY play 20-
25 hours a week!"? How about Elliot Shapiro saying "I play every day"
or Bob Dancer and his "you need to play fast, accurate and often to
be successful"? That's what's clear here.
<< What's dangerous is when people like you tell regular players
they canwin with long-term strategy because "my math model says you
will, andprobability theories support that".>>
Who are you quoting? Yourself? No intelligent gambler has ever said
thatsince it's not true.
Do you read books on video poker??
<< The streets of LV are littered with the scalps of 'advantage
players'.>>
Name one. Yuri the superior.
Cogno
<<My strategy is no longer unproven.>>
True. It's actually disproved.
<<Ask the famous Yuri>>
Who?
Cogno
<<I promote not playing long-term/optimal-play strategy because it is not
only impossible to win with>>
Well, I seem to have trapped you here. This is the essence of your message
and it's 100% incorrect. I have had hundreds of winning sessions over the
years and am ahead far more than you lie about, and I know dozens of others
who also win.
<<Bob Dancer and his "you need to play fast, accurate and often to be
successful"?>>
That is correct. He is successful. You are a fraud.
<<Do you read books on video poker??>>
No.
<<Yuri the superior.>>
Who?
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Cogno Scienti"
<cognoscienti@g...> wrote:
Well, I seem to have trapped you here. This is the essence of your
message and it's 100% incorrect. I have had hundreds of winning
sessions over the years and am ahead far more than you lie about, and
I know dozens of others who also win.
A bit hypocritical, don'tcha think? I post on my site my financial
results, I write articles about it in the media, I have an IRS multi-
year audit and disclose figures from it in a public paper....and out
of jealousy you blindly & without fact say "you gots to be lying!"
So now you, someone who hides an identity behind some foolish
wannabee 'expert' handle, claim to have won tons of money at the
game, and by the way you know a mysterious lot of "dozens" who also
win---and you expect to be believed. HaHaHa........I think I'd rather
watch re-runs of the daily news.
<<Bob Dancer and his "you need to play fast, accurate and often to
be successful"?>>
That is correct. He is successful. You are a fraud.
Well, I'd say that in your mind he'd HAVE to be successful, wouldn't
you say???