Exposing that there are times where I have far too much time on my
hands, I'll toss in my 2 cents ...
Two prime areas of contention on the wager are verification and game
selection. I'd suggest a modest compromise that I don't think weakens
the position of either party relative to their stand on the validity
of the Singer "system":
- 50 Verified Sessions: Rob, I haven't followed this thread in
detail, but I hope you don't expect anyone to enter into this wager
without some form of verification. Further, short of sessions that
are mutually scheduled well in advance, it's unreasonable under most
any circumstance to expect that a "referree" would be available on
short notice to confirm results.
Validation of your system isn't contingent upon sessions being
contiguous; the sessions outcomes described in your system are
independent of one another. As such, I'd hope you'd find an agreement
in which there's a stipulation for inclusion of only those sessions
that a referree is able to attend should more than satisfactory.
-- Game Selection: Richard/Cogno, while Rob has made it clear that
his system is not dependent upon the paytables that are played each
session, he has also expressed on occasion that he does select more
favorable paytables when available (e.g. 8/5 BP vs. 7/5).
HIs system doesn't contend hat one should intentionally select the
worst paytables in the casino. Instead, he states that playing
"positive" games are not crucial being a winner and subpar paytable
play is sufficient. That's the claim that should be tested here.
Doubtless, there would be much greater satisfaction if Singer's system
were put to the test in a manner that subjected it to the greatest
stress. His claims give us every reason to expect, if he's correct,
that were 99.2%+ games were excluded from the trials his play should
still be profitable.
But this isn't the manner in which he normally plays. Consequently,
so long as his play during the trials is consistent with his system
guidelines, there should be no general exclusion of games (except,
"positive" plays, perhaps). I'd be satisfied that his play would
necessarily include a reasonable amount of <99.2% play given that
games such as DDB play a heavy role.
···
------
In your shoes, I'd be unwilling to consider the wager short of these
respective compromises.
Of course, I'm not such a fool to think that even if these bet
provisions were agreed to that both of you wouldn't find other
contentions on which to defer this wager.
- H.