I have my way of doing things and Rob Singer has his way of doing
things. But I have always admired his tenacity. The man does have
staying power.
Singer and Gaming Today
Keep in mind that Singer is unemployed so he does have a bit of spare
time. Also, GT does not pay their contributing writers. I suspect
that's the big reason no one else would take the job.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mickeycrimm" <mickeycrimm@...> wrote:
I have my way of doing things and Rob Singer has his way of doing
things. But I have always admired his tenacity. The man does have
staying power.
mickeycrimm wrote:
I have my way of doing things and Rob Singer has his way of doing
things ... The man does have staying power.
I don't wish to intrude on anything too personal but, you know this
first hand??
- H.
The answer is "spew". The question, what I did while
eating lunch at my desk as I read what Harry
wrote. Uncharacteristic for Harry, but very funny.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:
mickeycrimm wrote:
> I have my way of doing things and Rob Singer has his way of doing
> things ... The man does have staying power.I don't wish to intrude on anything too personal but, you know this
first hand??- H.
Maynard G. Krebs shouting "Work!! Work!!" is reverberating through my
brain. What's wrong with being unemployed? I've been unemployed for
15 years and intend to stay unemployed for the rest of my life. It's a
disgrace to the profession for a casino hustler to have a job.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mroejacks" <rgmustain@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mickeycrimm" <mickeycrimm@> wrote:
>
>
>
> I have my way of doing things and Rob Singer has his way of doing
> things. But I have always admired his tenacity. The man does have
> staying power.
>Keep in mind that Singer is unemployed so he does have a bit of spare
time. Also, GT does not pay their contributing writers. I suspect
that's the big reason no one else would take the job.
Hi, Harry. I was talking about Singer staying in the public eye via
Gaming today. He's been hammered by everyone in the AP community but
takes his licking and keeps on ticking.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:
mickeycrimm wrote:
> I have my way of doing things and Rob Singer has his way of doing
> things ... The man does have staying power.I don't wish to intrude on anything too personal but, you know this
first hand??- H.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > I have my way of doing things and Rob Singer has his way of
doing
> > things. But I have always admired his tenacity. The man does
have
> > staying power.
> >
>
> Keep in mind that Singer is unemployed so he does have a bit of
spare
> time. Also, GT does not pay their contributing writers. I suspect
> that's the big reason no one else would take the job.
>Maynard G. Krebs shouting "Work!! Work!!" is reverberating through
my
brain. What's wrong with being unemployed? I've been unemployed
for
15 years and intend to stay unemployed for the rest of my life.
It's a
disgrace to the profession for a casino hustler to have a job.
Right you are. It's been almost 10 years for me, but remember, by his
own words, Singer gambles infrequently. He's clearly not in the same
class as casinos hustlers like yourself.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mickeycrimm" <mickeycrimm@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mroejacks" <rgmustain@> wrote:
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mickeycrimm" <mickeycrimm@> wrote:
He has survived because there any many out there who play for the short run or session and the concept of "money management" may have more impact for the fewer horus these people play. The fact that th emath is very clear that there is no way to turn a negative expectation in to a positive one still holds. he has been luckier than most. If he continues to play negative expectation games long enough he will end up in the red. Hopefully he will admit this when it happens. Even if he stops short due reaching his "limit" eventually it is as if he played continuously and the math will show. He may be lucky enough to outlive the probablilities, good luck to him in his endeavors but I still prefer to play where the mathematical expectation is positive as in reality your chances are better this way. Of course, positive means different things to different people. Before the Orleans got their new 100% + games I was happy there recently playing 99% plus games with the slot club,
comped meals, and rooms, and being from out of town that is positive expectation for me while for a local who lives in walking distance and would rather eat at home, it would be a negative expectation.
···
Harry Porter <harry.porter@verizon.net> wrote: mickeycrimm wrote:
I have my way of doing things and Rob Singer has his way of doing
things ... The man does have staying power.
I don't wish to intrude on anything too personal but, you know this
first hand??
- H.
---------------------------------
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
pesach kremen wrote:
He has survived because there any many out there who play for the
short run or session and the concept of "money management" may have
more impact for the fewer horus these people play. The fact that the
math is very clear that there is no way to turn a negative
expectation in to a positive one still holds. he has been luckier
than most. If he continues to play negative expectation games long
enough he will end up in the red. Hopefully he will admit this when
it happens. Even if he stops short due reaching his "limit"
eventually it is as if he played continuously and the math will show.
He may be lucky enough to outlive the probablilities, good luck to
him in his endeavors but I still prefer to play where the
mathematical expectation is positive as in reality your chances are
better this way.
I embrace much in these comments, particularly the last. Still, I'm
prompted to serve up my own perspective on Singer.
It should be noted, of course, that discussion of Singer and his play
methodology quickly becomes mired in negative and unproductive content
because, setting aside specifics of what he advocates for play, his
style engenders a fair degree of negative emotion in and of itself.
When it comes to advantage play, some of his remarks border on caustic
-- something not likely to engender regard from players in this group.
For this reason, discussion re Singer is officially "discouraged"
within the group FAQ's (and suggested as more appropriate for FREEvpFREE).
That said, let me offer up a few comments that are intended in an
entirely neutral spirit as food for consideration. They're not
presented to provoke any critical feedback (negative or positive). If
any should be given in response, then FvpF is likely the better forum.
···
------
It inevitably must be recognized that not all players will embrace the
goals and play regimen of advantage play. For some it necessarily
puts constraints on play that aren't satisfying, for others it targets
goals that aren't shared. To rally against such players is narrow
minded -- I prefer "to each their own".
We all know others who, at times, engage in "negative play" -- and
many, including myself, indulge in it at least occasionally. Such
play is irrational in the advantage play mindset; presumably it
satisfies other goals when undertaken. (A thirst for variance, the
"spice" of play, can be an understandable one.)
One manner in which "negative" games can be approached rationally is
to give variance/volatility a greater role. It unquestionably gives
rise to a greater probability of coming out ahead in play over ANY
length of time. For someone who might be confronted with a choice of
contending for play time on a small handful of "positive" games in a
desirable casino, or playing modestly/moderately negative machines
with freer availability, enhancing profit prospects on negative games
by increasing volatility via advancement through greater variance
plays and bumping up denominations is, again, a "rational" approach.
Now, embracing volatility in one's play necessarily escalates bankroll
requirement. Singer's writing makes no bones about that (although
that aspect doesn't make a regular appearance in his writings).
However, it's not sugar coated.
These comments, frankly, present a narrow window into the scope of his
writings. But they do encompass the heart of his play approach. It's
not anything I find desirable for my play, but I can recognize the
"rationality" (sorry for repeating myself, but the word fits best)
within it for others.
There's considerable content within some of his writings that I take
great exception to, yet choose to set aside. I take a little heat
from some others, who otherwise respect me, for that -- and perhaps my
perspective would change quickly were I to become the focus of the
remarks involved. For discussion on this group, that content must be
set aside and left for other forums.
Lastly I'll note that on more than a couple of occasions I've
encountered players for whom Singer is "safe harbor in a storm". They
share very little of the play rationalization noted above, but simply
reject advantage play goals and have an affinity for any concept that
does too. I'm not concerned that Singer may be a "Pied Piper" for
such players -- they're dancing to their own tune ... and that's just
fine by me as well.
------
It's a no-brainer that any advantage player would find Singer's
approach irrational from their perspective -- as I do (when it comes
to my play goals).
However, I suggest there's ample reason to find that his approach is
sensible for some. And, bottom line, there's no need to argue against
it. Setting aside anything else, I certainly don't think there's
anyone who's being "deceived".
- Harry
Harry, I don't disagree with much of what you said. I was the one who
simulated Singer's system and demonstrated exactly how much the
variance increases your "chances" of coming out ahead in single
sessions. However, I do believe there are many individuals who may
innocently be influenced by his questionable claims and they
ARE "deceived". For that reason alone I could NEVER condone what he
says or GT for publishing it.
Dick
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:
It's a no-brainer that any advantage player would find Singer's
approach irrational from their perspective -- as I do (when it comes
to my play goals).However, I suggest there's ample reason to find that his approach is
sensible for some. And, bottom line, there's no need to argue against
it. Setting aside anything else, I certainly don't think there's
anyone who's being "deceived".- Harry
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
wrote:
pesach kremen wrote:
> He has survived because there any many out there who play for the
> short run or session and the concept of "money management" may
have
> more impact for the fewer horus these people play. The fact that
the
> math is very clear that there is no way to turn a negative
> expectation in to a positive one still holds. he has been luckier
> than most. If he continues to play negative expectation games
long
> enough he will end up in the red. Hopefully he will admit this
when
> it happens. Even if he stops short due reaching his "limit"
> eventually it is as if he played continuously and the math will
show.
> He may be lucky enough to outlive the probablilities, good luck
to
> him in his endeavors but I still prefer to play where the
> mathematical expectation is positive as in reality your chances
are
> better this way.
I embrace much in these comments, particularly the last. Still, I'm
prompted to serve up my own perspective on Singer.It should be noted, of course, that discussion of Singer and his
play
methodology quickly becomes mired in negative and unproductive
content
because, setting aside specifics of what he advocates for play, his
style engenders a fair degree of negative emotion in and of
itself.
When it comes to advantage play, some of his remarks border on
caustic
-- something not likely to engender regard from players in this
group.
For this reason, discussion re Singer is officially "discouraged"
within the group FAQ's (and suggested as more appropriate for
FREEvpFREE).
That said, let me offer up a few comments that are intended in an
entirely neutral spirit as food for consideration. They're not
presented to provoke any critical feedback (negative or positive).
If
any should be given in response, then FvpF is likely the better
forum.
------
It inevitably must be recognized that not all players will embrace
the
goals and play regimen of advantage play. For some it necessarily
puts constraints on play that aren't satisfying, for others it
targets
goals that aren't shared. To rally against such players is narrow
minded -- I prefer "to each their own".
Harry: Again, your wisdom comes to the fore.
We could all learn something from your open minded thinking
You know all the advantage play rules, but continue to say,
"Different strokes for different folks" to which I concur.
Denny
We all know others who, at times, engage in "negative play" -- and
many, including myself, indulge in it at least occasionally. Such
play is irrational in the advantage play mindset; presumably it
satisfies other goals when undertaken. (A thirst for variance, the
"spice" of play, can be an understandable one.)One manner in which "negative" games can be approached rationally is
to give variance/volatility a greater role. It unquestionably gives
rise to a greater probability of coming out ahead in play over ANY
length of time. For someone who might be confronted with a choice
of
contending for play time on a small handful of "positive" games in a
desirable casino, or playing modestly/moderately negative machines
with freer availability, enhancing profit prospects on negative
games
by increasing volatility via advancement through greater variance
plays and bumping up denominations is, again, a "rational" approach.Now, embracing volatility in one's play necessarily escalates
bankroll
requirement. Singer's writing makes no bones about that (although
that aspect doesn't make a regular appearance in his writings).
However, it's not sugar coated.These comments, frankly, present a narrow window into the scope of
his
writings. But they do encompass the heart of his play approach.
It's
not anything I find desirable for my play, but I can recognize the
"rationality" (sorry for repeating myself, but the word fits best)
within it for others.There's considerable content within some of his writings that I take
great exception to, yet choose to set aside. I take a little heat
from some others, who otherwise respect me, for that -- and perhaps
my
perspective would change quickly were I to become the focus of the
remarks involved. For discussion on this group, that content must
be
set aside and left for other forums.
Lastly I'll note that on more than a couple of occasions I've
encountered players for whom Singer is "safe harbor in a storm".
They
share very little of the play rationalization noted above, but
simply
reject advantage play goals and have an affinity for any concept
that
does too. I'm not concerned that Singer may be a "Pied Piper" for
such players -- they're dancing to their own tune ... and that's
just
fine by me as well.
------
It's a no-brainer that any advantage player would find Singer's
approach irrational from their perspective -- as I do (when it comes
to my play goals).However, I suggest there's ample reason to find that his approach is
sensible for some. And, bottom line, there's no need to argue
against
···
it. Setting aside anything else, I certainly don't think there's
anyone who's being "deceived".- Harry
mroejacks wrote:
However, I do believe there are many individuals who may
innocently be influenced by his questionable claims and they
ARE "deceived". For that reason alone I could NEVER condone what he
says or GT for publishing it.
I've never encountered a Singer "adherent" that I deem as having been
deceived (including those among these online groups). If they're
under any misapprehension, it's of their own making.
You'd have some be mere dupes. Were that the case, they're bound to
be unwittingly misled in one manner or another irregardless and the
whole issue becomes moot anyway.
- H.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:
You'd have some be mere dupes. Were that the case, they're bound to
be unwittingly misled in one manner or another ...
I see, that makes it OK? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ....
It inevitably must be recognized that not all players will embrace the
goals and play regimen of advantage play. For some it necessarily
puts constraints on play that aren't satisfying, for others it targets
goals that aren't shared. To rally against such players is narrow
minded -- I prefer "to each their own".We all know others who, at times, engage in "negative play" -- and
many, including myself, indulge in it at least occasionally. Such
play is irrational in the advantage play mindset; presumably it
satisfies other goals when undertaken. (A thirst for variance, the
"spice" of play, can be an understandable one.)
Uncertainty and suspense can be very attractive and is, I assume, the
primary attraction to gambling. It doesn't appeal to me financially,
and so gambling doesn't appeal to me, but, for example, among other
areas of life, my favorite thing about my favorite movies is not
knowing what will happen next. I assume gamblers aren't making a
"mistake" by playing negative games any more than a professional
gambler is making a "mistake" by buying a luxury car with his/her
winnings, and that they're getting their money's worth.
<snip>
I certainly don't think there's anyone who's being "deceived".
- Harry
I agree with Dick in saying that Singer is deliberately lying about
"advantage play" and there are bound to be people who have been
deceived.