Hey everyone. . . give Rob Singer a break. While you may not agree
with his philosophy, he is at least trying to get something done in
the VP department. The most the rest of us do is gripe about bad VP
or Rob Singer. Lighten up and be kinder.
To paraphrase an old saying: Those who can do. . .those who can't
gripe.
Jana
Rob Singer is a sleazy shill. It's not a "philosophy".
It's a pack of lies.
--- ja32l <ja32l@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hey everyone. . . give Rob Singer a break. While
you may not agree
with his philosophy, he is at least trying to get
something done in
the VP department. The most the rest of us do is
gripe about bad VP
or Rob Singer. Lighten up and be kinder.To paraphrase an old saying: Those who can do. .
.those who can't
gripe.Jana
______________________________________________________
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
Funny, I thought that there was something about personal attacks not
being allowed.
I don't know the guy personally, but from what I can tell he gets
things moving in the right direction.
JBQ
On 9/9/05, jim thompson <meldrone@yahoo.com> wrote:
Rob Singer is a sleazy shill. It's not a "philosophy".
It's a pack of lies.
I believe that the expression goes, "those that can, do. Those that
can't teach.
Rob Singer has NEVER proved that he is a winner. He will NOT allow
anyone to watch him, etc, and if he is really telling the truth, he
would be flying in on his private jet.
He thinks that a session of x minutes followed by another session of x
minutes (a day, a week or a year later) are really 2 sessions and not
a continuation of one session.
I have tried to duplicate his results. Impossible to do.
The fact that he is talking to the managers at Wynn Casino is great,
but that does not change the fact that his claims are without merit.
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 23:58:37 -0000, you wrote:
Hey everyone. . . give Rob Singer a break. While you may not agree
with his philosophy, he is at least trying to get something done in
the VP department. The most the rest of us do is gripe about bad VP
or Rob Singer. Lighten up and be kinder.To paraphrase an old saying: Those who can do. . .those who can't
gripe.Jana
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
Right on!
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Elliott L. Shapiro <elliotts2345@e...>
wrote:
I believe that the expression goes, "those that can, do. Those that
can't teach.
Rob Singer has NEVER proved that he is a winner. He will NOT allow
anyone to watch him, etc, and if he is really telling the truth, he
would be flying in on his private jet.
He thinks that a session of x minutes followed by another session
of x
minutes (a day, a week or a year later) are really 2 sessions and
not
a continuation of one session.
I have tried to duplicate his results. Impossible to do.The fact that he is talking to the managers at Wynn Casino is great,
but that does not change the fact that his claims are without merit.>Hey everyone. . . give Rob Singer a break. While you may not
agree
>with his philosophy, he is at least trying to get something done in
>the VP department. The most the rest of us do is gripe about bad
VP
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 23:58:37 -0000, you wrote:
>or Rob Singer. Lighten up and be kinder.
>
>To paraphrase an old saying: Those who can do. . .those who can't
>gripe.
>
>Jana
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
"IMO the Singer strategy is a recipe for disaster, and I'm very skeptical of the accuracy of his reported results".
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jean-Baptiste Queru" <jbqueru@gmail.com>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Wynn Update from Rob Singer
Funny, I thought that there was something about personal attacks not
being allowed.I don't know the guy personally, but from what I can tell he gets
things moving in the right direction.JBQ
Can anyone suggest a good host at Harrahs in Joliet and Las Vegas? Thanks
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> The fact that he is talking to the managers at Wynn Casino is
great,
> but that does not change the fact that his claims are without
merit.
Dont think for a secound that Mr Wynn would listen to Singer on
anything & yes Mr Wynn does micro manage his casinos to the point of
having his quaterly report reprinted at a cost of 8K because somebody
used a comma instead of correctly using a semi colon.
His managers have to get the ok to install any machine & you can be
sure he knew the payout of 1$ fpdw when it was offered as well as the
% of APDW & the 9/6/90 job
As to why , we have already had a livley debate on that.
>
> >Hey everyone. . . give Rob Singer a break.
. Lighten up and be kinder.
we ARE being kinder. he deserves MUCH worse. check the arcives if
they go back that far
> >To paraphrase an old saying: Those who can do. . .those who
can't gripe.Jana
In the case of Singer Those who cant lie like hell that they can.
M J
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 23:58:37 -0000, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
you are entitled to ypur opinion…but until such time
as u do something for the group u ought to keep the
nasty comments to yourself…maybe you do not agee
with his ideas, but this doent give u the right to
call him or aybodt else names
where is the administator???i hpught we were to
reframe from name calling???
--- jim thompson <meldrone@yahoo.com> wrote:
Rob Singer is a sleazy shill. It's not a
"philosophy".
It's a pack of lies.--- ja32l <ja32l@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hey everyone. . . give Rob Singer a break. While
> you may not agree
> with his philosophy, he is at least trying to get
> something done in
> the VP department. The most the rest of us do is
> gripe about bad VP
> or Rob Singer. Lighten up and be kinder.
>
> To paraphrase an old saying: Those who can do. .
> .those who can't
> gripe.
>
> Jana
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
______________________________________________________
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief
effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
______________________________________________________
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
you are entitled to ypur opinion…but until such time
as u do something for the group u ought to keep the
nasty comments to yourself…maybe you do not agee
with his ideas, but this doent give u the right to
call him or anybody else names
where is the administator???i thought we were to
reframe from name calling???
--- jim thompson <meldrone@yahoo.com> wrote:
Rob Singer is a sleazy shill. It's not a
"philosophy".
It's a pack of lies.--- ja32l <ja32l@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hey everyone. . . give Rob Singer a break. While
> you may not agree
> with his philosophy, he is at least trying to get
> something done in
> the VP department. The most the rest of us do is
> gripe about bad VP
> or Rob Singer. Lighten up and be kinder.
>
> To paraphrase an old saying: Those who can do. .
> .those who can't
> gripe.
>
> Jana
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
______________________________________________________
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief
effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
______________________________________________________
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
i have tried his system on a lower denomination
level($.25 and .50) and it does work....
--- "Elliott L. Shapiro" <elliotts2345@earthlink.net>
wrote:
I believe that the expression goes, "those that can,
do. Those that
can't teach.
Rob Singer has NEVER proved that he is a winner. He
will NOT allow
anyone to watch him, etc, and if he is really
telling the truth, he
would be flying in on his private jet.
He thinks that a session of x minutes followed by
another session of x
minutes (a day, a week or a year later) are really 2
sessions and not
a continuation of one session.
I have tried to duplicate his results. Impossible
to do.The fact that he is talking to the managers at Wynn
Casino is great,
but that does not change the fact that his claims
are without merit.On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 23:58:37 -0000, you wrote:
>Hey everyone. . . give Rob Singer a break. While
you may not agree
>with his philosophy, he is at least trying to get
something done in
>the VP department. The most the rest of us do is
gripe about bad VP
>or Rob Singer. Lighten up and be kinder.
>
>To paraphrase an old saying: Those who can do. .
.those who can't
>gripe.
>
>Jana
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>vpFREE Links:
http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
______________________________________________________
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
martin stern wrote:
i have tried his system on a lower denomination
level($.25 and .50) and it does work....
This couldn't have been Singer's "single play vp strategy".
The strategy is published at VPTruth at:
http://www.vptruth.com/stratsingleplay.cfm
That strategy suggests, among other things, that when beginning play
at $.25, a starting bankroll of $4300 is warranted. It's
extraordinarily improbable that play at denominations no higher than
$.50 would be required to successfuly follow his strategy with a
reasonable win goal (say the $625 that would be the $.25 scaled down
goal from his $2500 initial $1 play goal).
I suspect you have followed a "system" of your own design based upon
your interpretation of what you believe Singer advocates. Singer is
very clear that he advises strict adherence to his strategy.
- H.
maybe i have been lucky, but the highest i highest
machine i progressed to using singers method was the
$5.00 machine...i only have used his system a few
times, since i play mostly for pleasure and
entertainment with my wife sitting and playing by my
side. again i am not in this game to be a
professional...i realize there are more downs than
ups.. i also like playing joker poker and various
progressive machines where i do not attempt using mr
singers system.
--- Harry Porter <harry.porter@verizon.net> wrote:
martin stern wrote:
> i have tried his system on a lower denomination
> level($.25 and .50) and it does work....This couldn't have been Singer's "single play vp
strategy".The strategy is published at VPTruth at:
http://www.vptruth.com/stratsingleplay.cfmThat strategy suggests, among other things, that
when beginning play
at $.25, a starting bankroll of $4300 is warranted.
It's
extraordinarily improbable that play at
denominations no higher than
$.50 would be required to successfuly follow his
strategy with a
reasonable win goal (say the $625 that would be the
$.25 scaled down
goal from his $2500 initial $1 play goal).I suspect you have followed a "system" of your own
design based upon
your interpretation of what you believe Singer
advocates. Singer is
very clear that he advises strict adherence to his
strategy.- H.
______________________________________________________
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, martin stern <historyman1943@y...>
wrote:
you are entitled to ypur opinion…but until such time
as u do something for the group u ought to keep the
nasty comments to yourself…maybe you do not agee
with his ideas, but this doent give u the right to
call him or aybodt else names
where is the administator???i hpught we were to
reframe from name calling???--- jim thompson <meldrone@y...> wrote:
> Rob Singer is a sleazy shill. It's not a
> "philosophy".
> It's a pack of lies.
>
calling singer a sleazy shill is no more offensive than calling the
sky blue IMNSHO
M J
>
>
>
>
>
______________________________________________________
> Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief
> effort.
> http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
>______________________________________________________
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
martin stern wrote:
maybe i have been lucky, but the highest i highest
machine i progressed to using singers method was the
$5.00 machine...
My aplogies for my comment ... I took you statement to suggest that
you had never had cause to play other than $.25/$.50 machines.
- H.
I've started to do some "first-principle" computations (not Monte
Carlo
simulations) regarding Rob's "strategies". I think discussion of
these
computations (or similar ones by others) would be an excellent
subject
for this group-- so long as we do stay away from making claims we
can't
substantiate or comments about Rob himself.
My computations are based on a kind of Bayesian-like approach using
exact (or nearly exact) PDFs and finite hand RoR curves. Here is how
I
sum up RS's strategy: You start with a session bank roll (or stake)
that is much larger than your win goal. If the win goal is achieved
you stop playing. If you lose your stake you stop playing. You chose
the game (bet amount, etc) based on how much you have already
lost/won
this session and some time factor. [Is this description correct
enough?]
At least to first order (neglecting the change of game and time
constraints), the RS strategy boils down to assuming that P(LA;SA),
the
probability of losing some LARGE amount (LA) before wining at least a
small amount (SA) is small enough that P(LA;SA) << SA/LA. Hence,
one
could assume (in the long run) that someone following this strategy
expects to win the SA many times (in separate successful sessions)
before losing the LA once, at least most of the time.
Is this a reasonable way to approach a mathematical description of RS
strategy? Comments?
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:
martin stern wrote:
> maybe i have been lucky, but the highest i highest
> machine i progressed to using singers method was the
> $5.00 machine...My aplogies for my comment ... I took you statement to suggest that
you had never had cause to play other than $.25/$.50 machines.- H.
As a long time Singer observer, I believe that
any attempted objective analysis of Singer
systems isn't going to be very productive. It's
been done on the old vp_heaven group and
Rob's reply has always been that his special
plays, known only to him, are a vital ingredient
that weren't considered.
vpFae
On 10 Sep 2005 at 22:18, cdfsrule wrote:
Is this a reasonable way to approach a mathematical
description of RS strategy? Comments?
How do you define session. Play one hand, win, quit (for now). Is
this a session? Play another hand. Is this a continuation of the
first session or is it truly another?
I barely remember playing when I was not ahead, at some point. If I
quit then, would that have been a session?
OR, did my session start 15 or 18 years ago and is it still going on
with each new passing day?
If a session can be defined as a finite period, then those who
advocate win goals may be correct, but if it is a continuous play,
regarless of the time frame involved, then the concept of goal setting
is valueless.
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 22:18:50 -0000, you wrote:
I've started to do some "first-principle" computations (not Monte
Carlo
simulations) regarding Rob's "strategies". I think discussion of
these
computations (or similar ones by others) would be an excellent
subject
for this group-- so long as we do stay away from making claims we
can't
substantiate or comments about Rob himself.My computations are based on a kind of Bayesian-like approach using
exact (or nearly exact) PDFs and finite hand RoR curves. Here is how
I
sum up RS's strategy: You start with a session bank roll (or stake)
that is much larger than your win goal. If the win goal is achieved
you stop playing. If you lose your stake you stop playing. You chose
the game (bet amount, etc) based on how much you have already
lost/won
this session and some time factor. [Is this description correct
enough?]At least to first order (neglecting the change of game and time
constraints), the RS strategy boils down to assuming that P(LA;SA),
the
probability of losing some LARGE amount (LA) before wining at least a
small amount (SA) is small enough that P(LA;SA) << SA/LA. Hence,
one
could assume (in the long run) that someone following this strategy
expects to win the SA many times (in separate successful sessions)
before losing the LA once, at least most of the time.Is this a reasonable way to approach a mathematical description of RS
strategy? Comments?--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:martin stern wrote:
> maybe i have been lucky, but the highest i highest
> machine i progressed to using singers method was the
> $5.00 machine...My aplogies for my comment ... I took you statement to suggest that
you had never had cause to play other than $.25/$.50 machines.- H.
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
He once explained a special play to me. If I remember correctly, he
would break 2 pair if one pair were 2's, 3's or 4's because, if he
caught a quad, he would then be ahead.
He claimed that he did sometimes catch a quad and that it pulled him
out of the hole and made his goal. Of course, most of the time, he
threw away a winner and merely put himself deeper into the hole.
I would assume that his other special plays were similar.
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 17:30:44 -0700, you wrote:
On 10 Sep 2005 at 22:18, cdfsrule wrote:
Is this a reasonable way to approach a mathematical
description of RS strategy? Comments?As a long time Singer observer, I believe that
any attempted objective analysis of Singer
systems isn't going to be very productive. It's
been done on the old vp_heaven group and
Rob's reply has always been that his special
plays, known only to him, are a vital ingredient
that weren't considered.vpFae
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
I believe your assumptions are fairly accurate. You also might want
to look at:
www.bjmath.com/bjmath/progress/unfair.html
I've started to do some "first-principle" computations (not Monte
Carlo
simulations) regarding Rob's "strategies". I think discussion of
these
computations (or similar ones by others) would be an excellent
subject
for this group-- so long as we do stay away from making claims we
can't
substantiate or comments about Rob himself.My computations are based on a kind of Bayesian-like approach using
exact (or nearly exact) PDFs and finite hand RoR curves. Here is
how
I
sum up RS's strategy: You start with a session bank roll (or stake)
that is much larger than your win goal. If the win goal is
achieved
you stop playing. If you lose your stake you stop playing. You
chose
the game (bet amount, etc) based on how much you have already
lost/won
this session and some time factor. [Is this description correct
enough?]At least to first order (neglecting the change of game and time
constraints), the RS strategy boils down to assuming that P(LA;SA),
the
probability of losing some LARGE amount (LA) before wining at least
a
small amount (SA) is small enough that P(LA;SA) << SA/LA. Hence,
one
could assume (in the long run) that someone following this strategy
expects to win the SA many times (in separate successful sessions)
before losing the LA once, at least most of the time.Is this a reasonable way to approach a mathematical description of
RS
strategy? Comments?
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:
> martin stern wrote:
> > maybe i have been lucky, but the highest i highest
> > machine i progressed to using singers method was the
> > $5.00 machine...
>
> My aplogies for my comment ... I took you statement to suggest
that
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "cdfsrule" <groups.yahoo@v...> wrote:
> you had never had cause to play other than $.25/$.50 machines.
>
> - H.