Rob Singer didn't beat video poker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

What's you're implying is as stupid as you are. (I say "implying" because you are never clear about anything).

There is no "sub-optimal by design" play. When +EV games were available thru the $100 level in the very early 2000's I played them first after playing 8/5 BP. But have you found anything positive on dollars thru $100 since then? Nope---and the only people who say they do are the magic potion ones who "claim" their cash back, free play, comps, drawings/tournaments and free beanie with propeller hats all add up to make a play "positive and playable".

Well I've never included any of that nonsense into my results, because it has nothing to do with actual play. So the result is THERE ARE VIRTUALLY NO POSITIVE MACHINES AT MY LEVELS ANYMORE, and there haven't been in a very long time. So I had no choice but to play what was available, and my play strategy compensated for that shortcoming rather nicely.

Continue to parse words all you like. It only reflects on the phony you.

---

Just where did you find those +EV $100 machines? I've been around since 1996 and have never seen one. Of course, I know about the incident at Caesar's Palace, because it made the news, where this guy who was like the number 10 man with Microsoft requested they put in $100 denom Deuces Wild. There were over a dozen different deuce payscales then but which one did some slot tech put up? He put up Full Pay Deuce Wild, 100.76%. So when the guy beat them they 86'd him. They blamed it on him. All he asked for was Deuces Wild. He didn't say anything about Full Pay.. Their slot tech is the one that fucked up. Rob this was all over the news so don't start your lying bullshit about it.

---

That's because you really HAVEN'T been around when it comes to gambling mickey. And you never read where I said fifty times that I don't and never have played any Deuces games except for 5c or 25c waiting for people?

Take this as a teachable moment....one your fatass suicide victim idol Tuna Fish Face should have been able to educate you on before jumping to end his miserable life. The Atlantis (Reno) ever heard of it? had two 5-credit $100 machines with 10/7 DBP and 10/6 DDBP. I played them both as needed multiple times.

---

Tuna died of brain cancer....and he wouldn't play those games unless a juicy promotion was going on....he had a long history with Atlantis....would they even let him play them on a promotion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Big, Big difference Alan. I increase my wagers in blackjack when I am playing with the advantage! Singer is never playing with an advantage. Each and every round is played at the same disadvantage or house advantage. Increasing wagers when at a disadvantage only serves to make you expected loss for that wager larger. Nothing Singer has ever said changes that. I am waiting for something, anything that that gives reason to why he is more likely to win in the later stages of the progression and recoup all his losses and then some, but there is nothing. And that is ALWAYS the problem with progression wagering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

UNDERSTAND THAT TODAY'S SESSION IS COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO ANY SESSION THAT HAS COME BEFORE OR THAT HAS YET TO COME----JUST AS WE ALL KNOW THAT ANY SINGLE HAND OF VP HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY BEFORE OR AFTER IT.

---

Now in the above quote from earlier today, Rob emphatically and correctly I might add, states that each round has nothing to do with rounds played prior to it. With this being true....and it is, what is it about the later segments of the progression that makes any kind of win to recoup earlier losses more likely?

And without some reasoning as to the above, then why play the lower levels of the progression? Why not just start with the higher levels (denominations) in which case you are simply playing higher denomination at the same negative expectation as every other player.


In short there is no mathematical reason why that higher level play is going to yield anything except the same losing expectation. The formula has not changed....it is amount wagered x expectation which with a -EV game will be a negative result. Anything and everything that came before that, including losses at lower levels of the progression do not change that mathematical formula.

---

Kew, a player using my strategy is no more likely to hit a quad or special quad at higher denoms. than at the lower ones. However, the converse of that is true also. You saw my values when four Aces or Kings are hit at a high level. They're not that difficult to see, esp. when only holding one unsuited high card in SDBP (the smaller one, or the one without a suited card or two or the one with the least suited smaller cards). Of course, a lone Ace is held above any other high card except a suited one. The bottom line---eventually a quad or better will appear. My strategy prepares for it as well as taking maximum advantage of it.

---

What's your speed, Rob? If you played 4 hours a week I'll give you credit for 3000 hands per week. You can see Rob's math here is "eventually a quad or better will appear." Who can object to that? Sure it will, eventually. Rob was most likely holding a lone Ace about every 8 hands at DDB. How often would he connect for a quad on them? Well, you can't get that math from Rob. So here it is:

When you hold a lone Ace there are 47 cards remaining in the deck. There is 1 three-card combination that makes 3 Aces. The fourth card on the draw would have to be one of the 44 remaining sidecards, so 44 combinations that make quad Aces. How many combinations are left in the deck?

47X46X45X44/4X3X2X1 means there are 178,365 combinations left in the deck.

178,365/44 means the chance of converting the lone Ace into quads is 1 in 4,054. But Rob might make the lone Ace hold just 350 times a session.

The frequency of making 4 Aces this way would be 8 X 4054 = 32,452.

Rob played maybe 3000 hands per week. He might make quad aces this way every 11 weeks, maybe five times a year. But if you listen to Rob he did it practically every week. He has magical powers to make it happen.

Here's an example of how people have absolutely no knowledge of Rob's Special Plays but believe they do and make what are absolutely ridiculous statements about Rob's strategy. From the following by Mickeycrimm, mickeycrimm makes it seem Rob is always holding a lone ace no matter what else is dealt with it:

"Rob was most likely holding a lone Ace about every 8 hands at DDB."

Mickey do you really think that if Rob were dealt AJJ67 that he would ONLY hold the ace?

LOL

Mickeycrimm wrote "Alan says you played that high only a couple of times. Which one of you is lying? You've bragged repeatedly about a couple of $100,000 W2-G's and at least one $50K W2-G. On $100 DDBP the W2-G's would be 400K, 200K, 80K, 40K, 25K. I don't recall you ever bragging about those amounts."

Rob told me he hit two $100k royals on $25 games. The $50k came at the Wynn and he posted the photo on this forum which launched the claims that the photo was doctored because the $25 symbol was off center. That's when I made a trip from LA to check it out and with a photo I confirmed the $25 symbol was off center.

Rob never told me about any W2Gs from $100 video poker yet we all know any three of a kind would generate one and a straight or flush might mean a win goal was met.

I think the $100 game questions are pointless since Rob in all the years I've known him has never mentioned big $100 hands. He has told me he's primarily playing at $25.

He also said that as a pro he might have met his $2500 win goals on $5 games which is totally possible.

It was unlikely a win goal of $2500 was reached at $1 or $2. And Rob did not play multi line machines as I recall our conversations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Mickeycrimm wrote "Alan says you played that high only a couple of times. Which one of you is lying? You've bragged repeatedly about a couple of $100,000 W2-G's and at least one $50K W2-G. On $100 DDBP the W2-G's would be 400K, 200K, 80K, 40K, 25K. I don't recall you ever bragging about those amounts."

Rob told me he hit two $100k royals on $25 games. The $50k came at the Wynn and he posted the photo on this forum which launched the claims that the photo was doctored because the $25 symbol was off center. That's when I made a trip from LA to check it out and with a photo I confirmed the $25 symbol was off center.

Rob never told me about any W2Gs from $100 video poker yet we all know any three of a kind would generate one and a straight or flush might mean a win goal was met.

I think the $100 game questions are pointless since Rob in all the years I've known him has never mentioned big $100 hands. He has told me he's primarily playing at $25.

He also said that as a pro he might have met his $2500 win goals on $5 games which is totally possible.

It was unlikely a win goal of $2500 was reached at $1 or $2. And Rob did not play multi line machines as I recall our conversations.

---

Mickey makes stuff up because he's too dumb to reason things out, and all he does is poorly try to rearrange reality.

Of course I got W2G's the few times I needed to play the $100 machines. As you basically said, you get one for every trip and higher. My largest win on them was four 2's on BP. $20k.

I do have a published five play strategy that goes from 25c thru $25, up to 2000 credits each. The five times I played it were all winners. The win goal was $1000.

The Wynn machine you checked on was where I hit $100k playing $25 TDBP with Aces & kicker. $50k winners were at Harrahs Tahoe and in Louisiana. Both on $25 TDBP. All during retirement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Here's an example of how people have absolutely no knowledge of Rob's Special Plays but believe they do and make what are absolutely ridiculous statements about Rob's strategy. From the following by Mickeycrimm, mickeycrimm makes it seem Rob is always holding a lone ace no matter what else is dealt with it:

"Rob was most likely holding a lone Ace about every 8 hands at DDB."

Mickey do you really think that if Rob were dealt AJJ67 that he would ONLY hold the ace?

LOL

---

"vp experts" mickey and redietz should get a room, where they can make up their stories and follies without any annoying disturbances from the facts.

Rob wrote "The Wynn machine you checked on was where I hit $100k playing $25 TDBP with Aces & kicker."

I think it was the quad 3s with kicker for $50k. I tried to find the thread. Can anyone help?

I've still got the $100k Aces pic from Wynn on my computer Alan. And I used it for my moniker when I joined Gambling Forums if you want to check there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Here's an example of how people have absolutely no knowledge of Rob's Special Plays but believe they do and make what are absolutely ridiculous statements about Rob's strategy. From the following by Mickeycrimm, mickeycrimm makes it seem Rob is always holding a lone ace no matter what else is dealt with it:

"Rob was most likely holding a lone Ace about every 8 hands at DDB."

Mickey do you really think that if Rob were dealt AJJ67 that he would ONLY hold the ace?

LOL

---

You don't know the stats on the frequency of holding a lone ace, idiot. I do. On DDB with optimal it every 8.5 hands. I'll show it to you on the software later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Here's an example of how people have absolutely no knowledge of Rob's Special Plays but believe they do and make what are absolutely ridiculous statements about Rob's strategy. From the following by Mickeycrimm, mickeycrimm makes it seem Rob is always holding a lone ace no matter what else is dealt with it:

"Rob was most likely holding a lone Ace about every 8 hands at DDB."

Mickey do you really think that if Rob were dealt AJJ67 that he would ONLY hold the ace?

LOL

---

"vp experts" mickey and redietz should get a room, where they can make up their stories and follies without any annoying disturbances from the facts.

---

I am not a "vp expert." Not even close. I don't even play deuces wild without a strategy card in my pocket.

I simply ask the obvious questions that anyone would ask, such as "Were the systems discovered through experimentation, which would require many, many hours, or was there some phenomenal calculus discovery that provided formulas for the systems?" or "Why has nobody else come up with even one of the special plays that works when thousands of presumably intelligent people, math experts and gambling execs among them, are trying?" or "How does one convince the IRS that one should be allowed to file as a professional, which requires a model in place to make profits, when the previous five years have been losing years?"

None of these questions have anything to do with video poker. They are simple, obvious questions anyone would ask.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Alan, I didn't read all the nonsense.

I did read your reply to my question.

I understand that you said you don't know of his system works.

My question was...DO YOU THINK IT WORKS?

Yes or no?


If your son or someone close to you Asked if they should use his system to win money would you suggest to them yes or no.

I don't need any explanation. Just a yes or no... do you THINK Rob Singer has a profitable system. should people with money who want to beat VP invest Money playing Rob' s System? YOUR OPINION YES OR NO?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I don't use Rob's system. I don't even know his system. I interviewed him about his special plays and I don't use special plays.

I also don't play the games Rob says to play according to his system.

Why don't you ask slingshot who apparently knows Rob's system and follows it.

---

Axelwolf, this is Alan's way of supporting his friend, sort of answering you and not denouncing him.

One thing we know for sure about Alan, it's that he wants to win money gambling. If he thought Rob's system could make him $1 million he would follow it. The fact that he doesn't speaks volumes.

I sometimes wonder why he hasn't let Rob 'train him' since they're such close friends?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Alan, I didn't read all the nonsense.

I did read your reply to my question.

I understand that you said you don't know of his system works.

My question was...DO YOU THINK IT WORKS?

Yes or no?


If your son or someone close to you Asked if they should use his system to win money would you suggest to them yes or no.

I don't need any explanation. Just a yes or no... do you THINK Rob Singer has a profitable system. should people with money who want to beat VP invest Money playing Rob' s System? YOUR OPINION YES OR NO?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I don't use Rob's system. I don't even know his system. I interviewed him about his special plays and I don't use special plays.

I also don't play the games Rob says to play according to his system.

Why don't you ask slingshot who apparently knows Rob's system and follows it.

---

Axelwolf, this is Alan's way of supporting his friend, sort of answering you and not denouncing him.

One thing we know for sure about Alan, it's that he wants to win money gambling. If he thought Rob's system could make him $1 million he would follow it. The fact that he doesn't speaks volumes.

I sometimes wonder why he hasn't let Rob 'train him' since they're such close friends?

---

Alan is obviously a degenerate asswipe that would leave his own flesh and blood unpaid and twisting in the wind in order to tap his vein at a craps table

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Here's an example of how people have absolutely no knowledge of Rob's Special Plays but believe they do and make what are absolutely ridiculous statements about Rob's strategy. From the following by Mickeycrimm, mickeycrimm makes it seem Rob is always holding a lone ace no matter what else is dealt with it:

"Rob was most likely holding a lone Ace about every 8 hands at DDB."

Mickey do you really think that if Rob were dealt AJJ67 that he would ONLY hold the ace?

LOL

---

You don't know the stats on the frequency of holding a lone ace, idiot. I do. On DDB with optimal it every 8.5 hands. I'll show it to you on the software later.

---

Don't call me an idiot because you're the idiot. Rob isn't going to hold lone aces on every fucking hand. So fuck off

Ya know eddie, since I'm not winning using conventional VP and I went to Dancer's classes and I used his software and read Grochowskis book, and i havent won, maybe I should get trained by Rob?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Ya know eddie, since I'm not winning using conventional VP and I went to Dancer's classes and I used his software and read Grochowskis book, and i havent won, maybe I should get trained by Rob?

---

I think that's a great idea! Maybe bring slingshot along too!

I don't say that to be sarcastic or in an insulting way. Seriously.

You two are perhaps his biggest supporters on this forum. You both play a lot of VP. Let's see if you can be successful playing his way. He says he's trained hundreds of successful players, what's 2 more?

It would be great to read updates on how the 2 of you were doing. Since you live in Las Vegas now Alan, you could do multiple daily sessions. From the way Rob describes his financial situation (along with yours and your pension) putting together another $172,000 bankroll doesn't seem like it would be a problem at all.

Sorry eddie but I'm not a supporter of the Rob Singer system. I am an advocate for accuracy. And I am an opponent of everyone who twists and turns the truth to serve their own agendas.

Now if Rob told me something about his system I'm going to make it known what that is when someone posts false info. That doesn't mean I support his system.

And fuck everybody who doesn't understand the difference. I'm pretty disgusted with all of the assholes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Sorry eddie but I'm not a supporter of the Rob Singer system. I am an advocate for accuracy. And I am an opponent of everyone who twists and turns the truth to serve their own agendas.

Now if Rob told me something about his system I'm going to make it known what that is when someone posts false info. That doesn't mean I support his system.

And fuck everybody who doesn't understand the difference. I'm pretty disgusted with all of the assholes.

---

I guess the next question is "Why aren't you a supporter?"

arcimede$, redietz, RS___, jbjb, mickeycrimm, kewlj, and so many others don't support his system based on the math. Why don't you? I mean, you just said you aren't winning using Dancer's or Grochowski's methods. What makes you think his system doesn't work?

Reason #1 is I wouldn't use his special plays. Since that's part of his system that gets me out.

Secondly I didn't even know about his other things such as the progression until he posted about it here.

My interview with him was about special plays and whether machines were rigged. It was not about the entire system.

Did you even read my report? Obviously not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Reason #1 is I wouldn't use his special plays. Since that's part of his system that gets me out.

Secondly I didn't even know about his other things such as the progression until he posted about it here.

My interview with him was about special plays and whether machines were rigged. It was not about the entire system.

Did you even read my report? Obviously not.

---

Of course I read your report and watched the YouTube videos from way back when!

During those videos, it really did seem like you were impartial and were just reporting information. These days? Not so much.

It's like he's been blowing Singer after taking it up the ass and finally realized "this tastes like shit."