LUCK is almost EVERYTHING in Video Poker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Thanks for posting guys. But where has Rob Singer ever said "the math" is not correct? We have done "battle" over this question many times. Rob has never denied the "math" of the game, and he has never told me anything that says the "math" of the game is not correct. He even cites the math correctly in discussing his special plays.

---

When he says you can get lucky every day. Pure nonsense. Not only that, but he claims mathematically valid approaches will lose and a person will ONLY win by following his approach (unless they get lucky).

Go back and read his first comment on this thread ... the game is all luck and no skill. That's what he said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

What he has told me is that if he plays the game differently and "gets lucky" he will win more. He has also said that if he "times" his exits from the game properly (his win goal system) he will win more. None of that violates "the math" of the game, unless you want to say that "luck" is not part of the math, and "leaving the game" is not part of the math? And if you do, I have no disagreement and I'm guessing Rob won't disagree either.

---

idiotic nonsense. It doesn't address the issue. His system provides ZERO advantage. In fact, his special plays, his claims that the pay tables don't matter and claims anyone can win on negative games is all meant to encourage people to try his system. His system is designed to lead to HUGE losses for people who don't understand them.

Alan, you are allowing him to influence others to lose HUGE sums of money. You are aiding and abetting his lies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

That brings us to the core question: did he win more and is it because he did get lucky? And that my friends sums up the whole enchilada, magillah, and story.

If you want to challenge Rob's math, challenge how he balances out his wins and losses, because that's the only math to challenge here guys.

---

The math is simple and I provided you the PROOF. It doesn't matter if Rob won or lost. It only matters that he claims people will do better using his approach than proven mathematical approaches ... that is a LIE. It is a PROVEN LIE. By continuing to spread these lies you are aiding and abetting.

I can only report. You'll have to debate Rob.

Your saying that "reporting" the Nigerian scam would be perfectly fine. Hey, if anyone responds it their problem, not yours. Your perfectly innocent.

Disgusting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Your saying that "reporting" the Nigerian scam would be perfectly fine. Hey, if anyone responds it their problem, not yours. Your perfectly innocent.

Disgusting.

---

Let me ask you this, Arc, and all of the others who care to respond.

Suppose I was to do an interview with the leader of a Nigerian gang that was responsible for bilking American seniors out of millions of dollars with bogus emails about abandoned bank accounts in Nigerian banks, and lottery winnings waiting to be claimed, and suppose the purpose of my interview was to find out about how they operated -- would I be guilty of their crimes? Would I also be responsible for my readers or viewers for falling victim to their scheme? Would I be as guilty as the Nigerian scammers because I publicized what they did, and even how much money they claimed to have bilked Americans for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

When he says you can get lucky every day. Pure nonsense. Not only that, but he claims mathematically valid approaches will lose and a person will ONLY win by following his approach (unless they get lucky).

Go back and read his first comment on this thread ... the game is all luck and no skill. That's what he said.



idiotic nonsense. It doesn't address the issue. His system provides ZERO advantage. In fact, his special plays, his claims that the pay tables don't matter and claims anyone can win on negative games is all meant to encourage people to try his system. His system is designed to lead to HUGE losses for people who don't understand them.

Alan, you are allowing him to influence others to lose HUGE sums of money. You are aiding and abetting his lies.

The math is simple and I provided you the PROOF. It doesn't matter if Rob won or lost. It only matters that he claims people will do better using his approach than proven mathematical approaches ... that is a LIE. It is a PROVEN LIE. By continuing to spread these lies you are aiding and abetting.

---

You have not proven anything. All math tells you is that over a long term, your expected return is X. But you have also discussed, way too much, your bell curve. So you can tell us all that the expected return is X, but you can't prove that Singer didn't do what he says, as remote as that chance may or may not be. And you can't prove anything where there is an RNG--again--because that is only an expected return over the long term.

There would be no gambling at all if there weren't constant deviations from the expected return. We would all lose every time. So again, all you can do is tell us the ER--that does not prove anything else.

And Alan--the gambling police are on their way to get you for "aiding and abetting" all of us poor innocents that are being taken advantage of by Singer and have fallen prey to reading about his system. I myself am permanently scarred from reading about his wins and realizing that all the math I learned in school was a big fraud.

That's right, regnis, all of the math you learned in school was a big con. You summed it up beautifully.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

That's right, regnis, all of the math you learned in school was a big con. You summed it up beautifully.

---

redietz you caught it before I caught it. regnis made a mistake because even Rob wouldn't have said that. Nothing changes the math-- sorry regnis. It's just that Rob won on negative expectation games. His critics will just have to suck it up.

So, now that we have discussed my collusion with the Nigerian lottery scammers, and the con of high school math, and why I should turn myself in to the FBI and return my Emmy, let's focus on Rob's claim:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

For years I've been saying that the game of video poker is 95% luck and 5% skill

---

Would those of you who have me convicted of aiding and abetting the Nigerian crime lords please comment on what percentage of video poker you think is skill and what percentage is luck?

We have these discussions about live poker all the time, and I would like to compare notes.

Alan, you are changing the meaning of what I stated. Naturally, you would do that since you don't want to take responsibility for your actions. I said nothing about reporting from a "be careful" standpoint. I stated you reported from a "it may be true" standpoint telling people that they should try it if they think it might work for them. That is completely different ... and disgusting.

Regnis ... get a clue. Your comments are becoming increasingly silly while trying to support Singer. Why is that? Do you not understand mathematical proofs? Do you not understand that these are 100% verification of what I am saying? Do you really think giving a person maybe a 5% chance of winning is a good thing? Do you believe promoting a system where 95% of people who try it will lose (and many losses quite large) is moral? Are you working with Singer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

I stated you reported from a "it may be true" standpoint telling people that they should try it if they think it might work for them. That is completely different ... and disgusting.

---

Let me take this one point at a time:

1. I believe it is true that Rob Singer won that much money over ten years. I believe that Rob Singer did win that money playing "his way" which included his special plays, his use of win goals and loss limits, his changing denominations. When you think about it, winning on average about $100,000 per year playing for the most part $10/coin video poker is not really a huge accomplishment. How much have you won Arc playing at the $1 level? You claim wins of five figures, don't you?

2. While I never advocated the "special plays" (and you can review the videos again to see that I don't, but simply am presenting his special plays for everyone to see and understand), I will agree that yes, it might also work for others. "Might" is the operative word here, Arc. I certainly think win goals and loss limits do work and are a very valuable tool.

But a few sub-points here:

A. With one exception, I don't use Rob's special plays, so how can you call me an advocate of his special plays? The only one I see value in is his play with three aces in triple double bonus when also dealt a kicker. His special play is to hold only the three aces to improve his chances of drawing the fourth ace. In my entire life, I've been faced with that option only once -- and I held only the three aces, dropped the kicker and my hand did not improve. So while I didn't make the conventional strategy play, it didn't make a difference in the end.

B. I do not use Rob's system of changing denominations.

C. I do not advocate, nor do I play, with any kind of "bankroll" that Rob has and I openly disputed his strategy when it involved losses exceeding $50,000 just to obtain a $2,500 session win goal.

3. And if you think that is disgusting that I presented Rob's strategy online, in one place, for the world to see -- instead of it being in bits and pieces; and if you think showing his special plays as I did online with Rob actually explaining them... well, suck it up and deal with it. Or leave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

redietz you caught it before I caught it. regnis made a mistake because even Rob wouldn't have said that. Nothing changes the math-- sorry regnis. It's just that Rob won on negative expectation games. His critics will just have to suck it up.

---

Alan, I've posted this question before but it was lost in the ensuing melee. Is everyone just taking Rob's word for it that he won $1 million dollars? Is that a "net" profit of $1 million? By that I mean did he actually bank $1 million from VP play? He doesn't need to actually provide any evidence? I think you are right that providing IRS statements is the best way to prove that he declared $100,000 in gambling wins each year for 10 years.

Back to win goals and loss limits. Everyone agrees (except for regnis I guess who says math is a con :) ) that a negative EV machine will generate revenue for a casino and take all your money eventually. How can win goals and loss limits possibly ensure that you will make a net profit over time on these machines? How can you only have winning sessions on these machines, leaving all the losing sessions for the other players to suffer through? Sure, having these limits will make you a more "responsible" gambler, and you will definitely have those good feelings of "winning sessions" more often, but aren't your overall results added together what you really need to look at?

I know Rob always talks about "short term" play versus "long term" play. If he really won $1 million dollars playing his "short term" strategy, wouldn't he have run 10's of millions of dollars through these negative expectation machines to win that? At $5 to $50 a hand, that's close enough to "long term" for me. What do you estimate his EV was during his "professional" career? Did he squeeze out 102% from a 97% payback machine using his 5% skill or was it 95% luck? Are his special plays (which he has said he only uses 5% of the time) part of the 5% skill or the 95% luck of video poker?

a2a3dseddie you ask a lot of valid questions that Rob should respond to. I don't think everyone can beat the casinos and come out ahead at negative expectation video poker. Afer all, the definition of a negative expectation game is that you should lose the more you play. It is the same at craps -- a negative expectation game.

Yet, there are people who win. Either they did something different or they got lucky. Rob talks about getting lucky, and improving your chances to get lucky.

The winners are the exception. I can tell you that in craps the people who do win also make the exception -- which is to quit when they are ahead after a hot roll. Hence came such things as the "five count" to eliminate most shooters who seven-out quickly. The five count system coupled with come bets, unlike dice control, is supported by the math, although there is no assurance that a shooter will 7-out on the count of six or seven or eight.

Rob has also had his losses. Remember our discussion about how he dropped $50-thou chasing his $2,500 win goal? His system is not perfect and I think it was a miracle that on a $25 bonus game when dealt three queens with three to the royal that he held the royal cards and drew the royal. I would never break up three queens -- he did. Would you?

One thing you have to applaud Rob for is this: the casinos have it all figured out, so you have to do something different to beat the casinos at their game. I don't agree with a lot of what Rob says, but I can't argue with win goals. I do argue with the idea of a $50,000+ loss limit to reach a $2,500 win goal which to me is absurd.

But I was never a defender or advocate of Rob's system. I just presented it. Some things I like, some things I don't. You'll never catch me breaking up three queens with three to the royal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Alan, you are changing the meaning of what I stated. Naturally, you would do that since you don't want to take responsibility for your actions. I said nothing about reporting from a "be careful" standpoint. I stated you reported from a "it may be true" standpoint telling people that they should try it if they think it might work for them. That is completely different ... and disgusting.

Regnis ... get a clue. Your comments are becoming increasingly silly while trying to support Singer. Why is that? Do you not understand mathematical proofs? Do you not understand that these are 100% verification of what I am saying? Do you really think giving a person maybe a 5% chance of winning is a good thing? Do you believe promoting a system where 95% of people who try it will lose (and many losses quite large) is moral? Are you working with Singer?

---

At least he's not charging for the privilege of losing huge sums like Dancer is. Thats truly a scam!

Come on guys--like Vegas Lover before me do you not get that the comment re my high school math being a fraud was cynicism. It is my attempt, as most of my posts are, to show how stupid this argument has become. I never said that the math is wrong, and I never supported Singer's system other than to point out that no-one has "PROVEN" anything. If you can't recognize the difference between expected return and an individual's results day to day and session to session then I give up. Because thousands of people every day deviate from the norm and either win, or win big, or lose, or lose big. Most days, we are nowhere near the expected return.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Yet, there are people who win. Either they did something different or they got lucky. Rob talks about getting lucky, and improving your chances to get lucky.

---

That's absolutely right, Alan. Singer claims you can improve "your chances to get lucky". This is IMPOSSIBLE. Anyone making that claim is lying and anyone who promotes a different method of play to "get lucky" is promoting a scam. There's no other way to look at this. The math is 100% definitive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

The winners are the exception.

---

However, Singer NEVER says this. He never says most people will lose with his system. In fact, he claims people can win every day. How is that not a scam?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I don't agree with a lot of what Rob says, but I can't argue with win goals.

---

However, you never point out that win goals do nothing to change the ER, but only reduce the overall gambling and hence losses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

But I was never a defender or advocate of Rob's system. I just presented it. Some things I like, some things I don't. You'll never catch me breaking up three queens with three to the royal.

---

Presenting a scam as if it is legit is, in fact, abetting the scam. It's no different than presenting the Nigerian scam as legit. Sorry Alan, you are guilty of promoting a worthless system to unwary readers. Shame on you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

Most days, we are nowhere near the expected return.

---

You are so right. If you sit at a machine in a casino -- say it's a three reel slot machine with an expected return of 92%, or a 9/6 Jacks or Better machine with an expected return of 99.54% -- what is your real return?

I would suggest that for most players the real return is zero -- because they lost the money they brought to the casino for that day's play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quahaug

At least he's not charging for the privilege of losing huge sums like Dancer is. Thats truly a scam!

---

Total nonsense. Dancer only promotes people playing with a mathematical advantage. This is completely supported by the mathematics that is taught in every university in the world. How is that a scam? Why do you feel it necessary to lie?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

"Most days, we are nowhere near the expected return."

You are so right. If you sit at a machine in a casino -- say it's a three reel slot machine with an expected return of 92%, or a 9/6 Jacks or Better machine with an expected return of 99.54% -- what is your real return?

I would suggest that for most players the real return is zero -- because they lost the money they brought to the casino for that day's play.

---

That's right, but that is not what Singer claims. He claims you can win EVERY DAY. How is that not a scam?

Arci--it may well be a scam. I'm just reiterating that telling me what the ER is doesn't prove that it is a scam. So you are going to need some real live proof which you guys have never been able to arrange and probably never will. And so this goes on and on and on............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Total nonsense. Dancer only promotes people playing with a mathematical advantage. This is completely supported by the mathematics that is taught in every university in the world. How is that a scam? Why do you feel it necessary to lie?

---

In Chicago, the only math being taught in school is how much to charge for a nickel bag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

That's right, regnis, all of the math you learned in school was a big con. You summed it up beautifully.

---

Thanks Red--now I can cancel my therapy.

Okay, Arc, this is the last time I am going to respond to you about this. Because I am tired of going over the same things over and over again:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Singer claims you can improve "your chances to get lucky". This is IMPOSSIBLE. Anyone making that claim is lying and anyone who promotes a different method of play to "get lucky" is promoting a scam. There's no other way to look at this. The math is 100% definitive.

---

Yes, Arc, Singer does suggest ways to improve your chances to get lucky. Such as holding only the three aces when dealt a full house in 7/5 bonus poker. You wouldn't do it, and I wouldn't do it, but it's true Arc -- if you only hold the three aces you have a chance to get lucky and draw the fourth ace. Yes, the math is 100% definite: if you hold the full house you will never get quad aces, and if you hold only the three aces you have a chance. That's what the math says. Deal with it, buster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

However, Singer NEVER says this. He never says most people will lose with his system. In fact, he claims people can win every day. How is that not a scam?

---

People do win every day on negative expectation machines. I hit two $20,000 only two days apart, on back to back sessions, playing negative expectation video poker. I also hit quad aces four times in the same two sessions I hit the royals. Miracles, and accidents, happen. It's not a scam because Singer never made the promise in return for a payment of any kind. Scam is a legal term. A scam is a crime. He committed no crime. You on the other hand libel him every time you accuse him of a scam and you libel me when you accuse me of supporting or aiding this alleged scam. Stop it, and that's my final warning to you. I am not going to tolerate it anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

However, you never point out that win goals do nothing to change the ER, but only reduce the overall gambling and hence losses.

---

Are we really going to have to go over this again, Arc? How many friggin' times must you be told that win goals do not change the expected return of any machine or game. They only change the actual return -- what's in your pocket. Can win goals reduce overall gambling? Maybe, if you reach your win goal or loss limit. But if you keep playing and only have a narrow change in wins and losses you theoretically could be playing forever before you reach a win goal or a loss limit.

Sure win goals could keep you from additional play that might keep you from winning more. But it's a tradeoff that you accept for not giving the win amount back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Presenting a scam as if it is legit is, in fact, abetting the scam. It's no different than presenting the Nigerian scam as legit. Sorry Alan, you are guilty of promoting a worthless system to unwary readers. Shame on you.

---

I told you above and I am telling you again. Stop it. And I am going to go one step farther, which legal counsel advised me to take: One more libelous comment from you alleging a scam and you will be banned from this forum. I have an obligation not to allow libelous posts to appear. Your posts about a scam involving Singer and me are libelous. You have been given notice. And I will also ban anyone else who also makes a libelous comment here.

There is plenty of room for discussion without libel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quahaug

At least he's not charging for the privilege of losing huge sums like Dancer is. Thats truly a scam!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Total nonsense. Dancer only promotes people playing with a mathematical advantage. This is completely supported by the mathematics that is taught in every university in the world. How is that a scam? Why do you feel it necessary to lie?

---

I want to comment here also. There is no justification here for accusing Bob Dancer of also running a scam. This is also a libelous statement. The issue is he lost money on some play that was supported by mathematics... but that is not a scam by any stretch.

Again, everyone has to be very careful about using the word scam. It is libelous without proof of a criminal act.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Okay, Arc, this is the last time I am going to respond to you about this. Because I am tired of going over the same things over and over again:

---

Then consider stopping ... instead you make excuses. Sad, very sad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Yes, Arc, Singer does suggest ways to improve your chances to get lucky. Such as holding only the three aces when dealt a full house in 7/5 bonus poker. You wouldn't do it, and I wouldn't do it, but it's true Arc -- if you only hold the three aces you have a chance to get lucky and draw the fourth ace. Yes, the math is 100% definite: if you hold the full house you will never get quad aces, and if you hold only the three aces you have a chance. That's what the math says. Deal with it, buster.

---

I've informed you several times that the majority of his special plays do not give you increased chances at getting lucky. Why do you continue to ignore the evidence and repeat Singer's lies? What's in it for you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

People do win every day on negative expectation machines. I hit two $20,000 only two days apart, on back to back sessions, playing negative expectation video poker. I also hit quad aces four times in the same two sessions I hit the royals. Miracles, and accidents, happen.

---

That's not the point and you know it. Continuing to provide cover for Singer's lies with this irrelevant nonsense is dishonest. We're not talking a single sessions. We're talking about general claims that are completely false.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

It's not a scam because Singer never made the promise in return for a payment of any kind. Scam is a legal term. A scam is a crime. He committed no crime. You on the other hand libel him every time you accuse him of a scam and you libel me when you accuse me of supporting or aiding this alleged scam. Stop it, and that's my final warning to you. I am not going to tolerate it anymore.

---

Scam is also a non-legal term to refer to claims that are not true. From the World Dictionary, "scam: 1.a stratagem for gain;" In Singer's case he has been trying to sell himself as a VP expert and professional when none of that is valid. It's only a legal scam if he directly profited from the people he dupes. Instead, the casinos are the ones that profit. Now, if it turned out that Singer had some kind of an arrangement with casinos, then the legal definition would apply. Are you sure he doesn't?

You wouldn't be so defensive if you thought there was nothing to the claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I told you above and I am telling you again. Stop it. And I am going to go one step farther, which legal counsel advised me to take: One more libelous comment from you alleging a scam and you will be banned from this forum. I have an obligation not to allow libelous posts to appear. Your posts about a scam involving Singer and me are libelous. You have been given notice. And I will also ban anyone else who also makes a libelous comment here.

There is plenty of room for discussion without libel.

---

Quit with the nonsense and do yourself a favor by deleting all the ridiculous Singer nonsense.

BTW, feel free to ban me at anytime. Please, please. You really think I care? The truth is you'd do yourself a bigger favor to ban both of us. Of course, you don't have the guts to admit you were wrong so I don't foresee that happening.

As it stands right now you have admitted you would rather promote Singer's lies than do the right and moral thing. You clearly don't want facts to be the heart of this forum. The only thing saving you right now is your forum is basically reader-less. Your actions are doing a good job of keeping it that way.

So that's the bottom line, Arc? You want me to delete all of the ridiculous nonsense? Well, if I deleted all of the ridiculous nonsense how would anyone be able to see the ridiculous nonsense?

There are plenty of facts here, and we all need some ridiculous nonsense to keep us sane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I want to comment here also. There is no justification here for accusing Bob Dancer of also running a scam. This is also a libelous statement.

Again, everyone has to be very careful about using the word scam. It is libelous without proof of a criminal act.

---

Is quahaug on notice now too? How about Singer for slander? He's dammaging your reputation calling you a gambling addict. How about me. I said you were mathimatically challenged.

Another one of your comments:
You want me to delete all of the ridiculous nonsense? Well, if I deleted all of the ridiculous nonsense how would anyone be able to see the ridiculous nonsense?

I don't think that's your main concern. I think the main issue is there wouldn't be much left. Sorry, this one was too obvious.

Next comment:
There are plenty of facts here, and we all need some ridiculous nonsense to keep us sane

Really? I guess we disagree about that (not the first time), besides the math dictating the basics of the VP game I haven't seen a lot of facts. I did see a lot of statements, claims and malarkey.

A very interesting comment:
but it's true Arc -- if you only hold the three aces you have a chance to get lucky and draw the fourth ace.

Very true, but does it IMPROVE your chances to get lucky compared to holding the original full house? If you don't get the fourth ace, think about the number of credits (hands) you've lost. Think about how lucky you could get on those credits/hands you just lost. Could you please show us the mathematical proof that dropping the full house will improve your chance to get lucky overall?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vegas_lover

How about me. I said you were mathimatically challenged.

---

While misspelled, this statement is true and therefore is not libelous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vegas_lover

A very interesting comment:
but it's true Arc -- if you only hold the three aces you have a chance to get lucky and draw the fourth ace.

Very true, but does it IMPROVE your chances to get lucky compared to holding the original full house? If you don't get the fourth ace, think about the number of credits (hands) you've lost. Think about how lucky you could get on those credits/hands you just lost. Could you please show us the mathematical proof that dropping the full house will improve your chance to get lucky overall?

---

I hold the full house.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

While misspelled, this statement is true and therefore is not libelous.

---

There's a lot more I misspelled, want to continue in Dutch?

And how about quahaug? How about Singer? And how about responding to the rest of post #106? Not convenient?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I hold the full house.

---

Alan, when are you going to make an actual effort to answer the questions people ask you? I didn't ask you what you would do and you know it. Singer claims dropping the full house IMPROVES your chances to get lucky. Please show us exactly how this IMPROVES your chances to get lucky (and take the lost credits when you don't get the fourth ace into account).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie

Is everyone just taking Rob's word for it that he won $1 million dollars? Is that a "net" profit of $1 million? By that I mean did he actually bank $1 million from VP play? He doesn't need to actually provide any evidence?

---

I believe there is no choice but to take his word for it as there doesn't appear to be anything else available that might be more conclusive. It is interesting that he has frequently stated that all AP's are lying, as are others who post images of their wins online, and even suggested that Alan lie about his gambling experiences in order to regain Rob's good graces, especially in light of his own record which is much farther removed from normal expectations than any others I've ever encountered.

If you process all the available information he's presented in the past 5 years, by his own accounts he's averaging one royal approximately every 3500 hands. That is just royals, and doesn't include other high paying hands such as aces or ACES$ or 2/3/4 with a kicker. We've also been beguiled by his recounting of wins that defy odds of nearly 9 million to 1 as well as numerous cases where mere minutes of play resulted in phenomenal returns.

Each individual has to make their own decision as to if they find that plausible.

Or you can pay him $25,000 to prove it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spock

I believe there is no choice but to take his word for it as there doesn't appear to be anything else available that might be more conclusive. It is interesting that he has frequently stated that all AP's are lying, as are others who post images of their wins online, and even suggested that Alan lie about his gambling experiences in order to regain Rob's good graces, especially in light of his own record which is much farther removed from normal expectations than any others I've ever encountered.

If you process all the available information he's presented in the past 5 years, by his own accounts he's averaging one royal approximately every 3500 hands. That is just royals, and doesn't include other high paying hands such as aces or ACES$ or 2/3/4 with a kicker. We've also been beguiled by his recounting of wins that defy odds of nearly 9 million to 1 as well as numerous cases where mere minutes of play resulted in phenomenal returns.

Each individual has to make their own decision as to if they find that plausible.

Or you can pay him $25,000 to prove it.

---

LOL, thumbs up

Beautiful post, Spock.

Let me add, however, that it's possible Rob gets a royal every 3,500 hands because God really, really likes him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vegas_lover

Alan, when are you going to make an actual effort to answer the questions people ask you? I didn't ask you what you would do and you know it. Singer claims dropping the full house IMPROVES your chances to get lucky. Please show us exactly how this IMPROVES your chances to get lucky (and take the lost credits when you don't get the fourth ace into account).

---

I can't answer for Singer. But it certainly makes sense to me that his goal is to get quad aces and the way to do that is to drop the full house and hold only the aces to get his session winning jackpot. Do I do it? No.

While we are nitpicking here, how do I know you are really a Vegas Lover??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I can't answer for Singer. But it certainly makes sense to me that his goal is to get quad aces and the way to do that is to drop the full house and hold only the aces to get his session winning jackpot. Do I do it? No.

While we are nitpicking here, how do I know you are really a Vegas Lover??

---

Please educate me. Why are we nitpicking? Please share your knowledge?

How do you know I'm really a Vegas Lover? Pretty simple, you don't! Now was that so difficult? You see, I answer questions.

How about Quahaug? how about Singer? Are they on notice as well for making potentially libelous statements? You're still evading questions Alan.

It's obvious you don't like me, but that's not the point.

Okay Vegas_lover let me make this clear to you and to everyone else:

LIBELOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. AS A WEBSITE OPERATOR I HAVE A LEGAL OBLIGATION NOT TO ALLOW LIBELOUS COMMENTS TO BE MADE ON THE SITE. THE LIBEL LAWS ARE SPECIFIC, AND WHILE COMMENTS MADE ABOUT PUBLIC FIGURES MAY BE PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION, THE LIBEL LAWS DO NOT ALLOW COMMENTS MADE WITH THE DESIRE AND INTENTION TO CAUSE HARM AND THEY MAY STILL CONSIDERED TO BE LIBEL.

Again, there is plenty of room for discussion and for even questioning statements without making libelous comments.

Vegas_lover, I like you. When you get to Vegas let me know and I'll buy you and your wife dinner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Okay Vegas_lover let me make this clear to you and to everyone else:

LIBELOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. AS A WEBSITE OPERATOR I HAVE A LEGAL OBLIGATION NOT TO ALLOW LIBELOUS COMMENTS TO BE MADE ON THE SITE. THE LIBEL LAWS ARE SPECIFIC, AND WHILE COMMENTS MADE ABOUT PUBLIC FIGURES MAY BE PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION, THE LIBEL LAWS DO NOT ALLOW COMMENTS MADE WITH THE DESIRE AND INTENTION TO CAUSE HARM AND THEY MAY STILL CONSIDERED TO BE LIBEL.

Again, there is plenty of room for discussion and for even questioning statements without making libelous comments.

Vegas_lover, I like you. When you get to Vegas let me know and I'll buy you and your wife dinner.

---

Actually, if we met in Vegas I'm pretty much certain you would appreciate me, and I would probably appreciate you as well. But what was this? Am I on notice now? Please be specific? Tell me where my statements have been libelous and I'll contact my lawyer.

You told Arci very clearly he was very close to getting banned. Than quahaug made a similar remark about Bob Dancer. Singer has said a lot of things that could be libelous. Now, I've asked you at least 3 times if they're on notice as well. Why are you so reluctant to just answer that simple question. I DON'T GET IT, PLEASE EXPLAIN?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spock

I believe there is no choice but to take his word for it as there doesn't appear to be anything else available that might be more conclusive. It is interesting that he has frequently stated that all AP's are lying, as are others who post images of their wins online, and even suggested that Alan lie about his gambling experiences in order to regain Rob's good graces, especially in light of his own record which is much farther removed from normal expectations than any others I've ever encountered.

If you process all the available information he's presented in the past 5 years, by his own accounts he's averaging one royal approximately every 3500 hands. That is just royals, and doesn't include other high paying hands such as aces or ACES$ or 2/3/4 with a kicker. We've also been beguiled by his recounting of wins that defy odds of nearly 9 million to 1 as well as numerous cases where mere minutes of play resulted in phenomenal returns.

Each individual has to make their own decision as to if they find that plausible.

Or you can pay him $25,000 to prove it.

---

It's so cute that I can still irritate a collection of self-proclaimed "geniuses" and jealous haters from atop mountains. :)

Eddie, that's $984,000 NET profit, and I only count money won directly from the machines. The slot club fluff is a dirty trick used by AP's to make it appear they've won at each year's end. And I am thoroughly convinced Dancer includes his entire video poker business into his claims of always being a "winner".

Spock, I thought you were some sort of thorough, deep thinker. Yet you revel in throwing out false assertions and assumptions about me, such as a royal every 3500 hands, when you have absolutely no clue as to how many hands I play. A tad careless perhaps?

Here's an exercise for anyone who chooses education over lies and envy, to work out and report back on.

The game is 7/5 BP. You're suddenly ultra-intelligent, and chose to play my single play strategy over 7 hours of boring, monotonous single denomination AP vp. You're on your 3rd level with no soft profits banked, and you're 70 credits into your 100 BP credits. You're dealt AAA55. Most people would hold this because it pays 35 credits--or $175 in this case. And I would've also, if the FH win would have gotten me to a session mini-win goal. But 70 credits in does not do that.

So I hold the Aces only, which gives me an opportunity for a $2000 win, and allows me to return to a lower denomination of BP to start over again--this time with soft profit banked.

Now, confused critics would complain that tossing the FH would give me LESS opportunity to reach a goal with four Aces, but not only are they technically wrong--they're mathematically wrong. And here's why. 3 Aces on the deal is a powerful hand in goal-oriented vp. Tossing the opportunity presented for a sure thing 4 more hands is just plain stupid. Would those 4 more hands be more or less likely to deal another four Aces opportunity?

Think about it, then try again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Here's an exercise for anyone who chooses education over lies and envy, to work out and report back on.

The game is 7/5 BP. You're suddenly ultra-intelligent, and chose to play my single play strategy over 7 hours of boring, monotonous single denomination AP vp. You're on your 3rd level with no soft profits banked, and you're 70 credits into your 100 BP credits. You're dealt AAA55. Most people would hold this because it pays 35 credits--or $175 in this case. And I would've also, if the FH win would have gotten me to a session mini-win goal. But 70 credits in does not do that.

So I hold the Aces only, which gives me an opportunity for a $2000 win, and allows me to return to a lower denomination of BP to start over again--this time with soft profit banked.

Now, confused critics would complain that tossing the FH would give me LESS opportunity to reach a goal with four Aces, but not only are they technically wrong--they're mathematically wrong. And here's why. 3 Aces on the deal is a powerful hand in goal-oriented vp. Tossing the opportunity presented for a sure thing 4 more hands is just plain stupid. Would those 4 more hands be more or less likely to deal another four Aces opportunity?

Think about it, then try again.

---

That is so easy to understand. I can't help but remember how many times full houses have only lengthened my LOSING sessions. My fondest memories are the swept hand, or the single card draw, or the so-called "special play" that sent me home. It's just plain ole' horse sense. And no, it's not some magic "move" that "makes" the machine give me a big winner=I know that's what's gonna be said. And no, it's not all the time-just when common sense says "hey, you can't make it back to even/steven with a full house or whatever-but here's the OPPORTUNITY to END the session and win." Sorry for the interruption, but there was a break in all the bullcrap and it got interesting.

Vegas lover it was a generic statement for the Forum.

Rob, I do not agree with your "special play" about holding only the three aces in a dealt full house in 7/5 Bonus Poker. However, I should note that Bob Dancer says he would only hold the three aces if he played 6/5 Bonus Poker.

But let me get back to my objection to your strategy.

As you mentioned the dealt full house pays $175 and I would not want to risk $175 for a 2.1% chance of winning $2,000. I think it's too much to risk for too little of a chance.

However, I once told how I was in a deep hole one session and I was dealt a full house with 3 aces playing 8/5 Bonus... and I broke up the full house and caught the quad aces. But I only did it once and never again. In that case I was risking $200 to win $2000 but I was more than $2,000 in the hole and it was "hit the quads" or go home. I know that when playing 8/5 Bonus you would hold the $200 full house.

As I've already stated I believe the 3 aces BP situation is one of the few cases where holding them will slightly increase your chances of hitting a win goal. It's all the rest that fail. Not surprising that Singer would choose it to obviate the discussion. How about breaking up 2-pair? He won't touch that one because it will always fail.

Also, did anyone else note all he did was his usual name calling when Spock pointed out the fact he had claimed one RF every 3500 hands? In no way did he provide any evidence to refute it. Now, why can't he simply provide that information if it existed? The fact he didn't provide anything to refute it is the key evidence to take away from this discussion.

That is what happens when liars are caught red-handed. Just like when Singer claimed he both lived and didn't live in Carefree; just like when Singer claimed he would bring in papers to support his system; just like why Singer could not provide any evidence he lived in a 4500+ sq foot home; just like the fact that Singer has NEVER provided any evidence that he has won anything let alone close to a million dollars.

When a person makes specific claims and never backs them up when asked the only possible conclusion is the person is not to be trusted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Also, did anyone else note all he did was his usual name calling when Spock pointed out the fact he had claimed one RF every 3500 hands? In no way did he provide any evidence to refute it.

---

In all fairness, it would seem to me that the person making the original claim is responsible for producing evidence to back it up. For Rob to refute it he would need to know on what it is based. Since I suspect others might be interested as well, I've included it below.

In November of 2008 Rob did a podcast for the Gamblers Book Club:

http://gamblersbookclub.libsyn.com/e...hor-rob-singer

At the 38:16 mark he says:

"My method of play requires much more concentration then when I used to be an advantage optimal play player only. Then I used to play... I could play up to 1,400 hands per hour when I was like that and I used to time myself. I don't think I was accurate, because nobody could be accurate like that. But now I might play 500 hands an hour."

So 500 hands per hour is the benchmark, and he has restated it more than once since then. But even if that was doubled it would only be slightly less amazing.

In that same broadcast, at the 17:25 mark he says:

"This year I had a very unusually lucky year. I hit 4 royals, I played 25 hours total and I won directly from the machines a hundred and ninety two thousand dollars"

In early 2009 he said "...2008 saw my last hand of video poker played in late August (other than the free-play I get as I play "chase the freebies"..)" so it basically encompasses the entire year.

25 hours at 500 hands per hour would be 12,500 hands. 4 royals in 12,500 hands is one royal every 3,125 hands. An unusually lucky year to be sure.

Or is it?

Information about 2009 is scarce, with the only statement I know of being from August of that year: "Speaking of playing, mine has been on the puny side thus far this year. I believe I've played only 20 sessions and have won just under $11,000 while going 15-5. Of course, the majority of that came on a lucky hit on the $5 machine at M".

I have no idea what that "lucky hit" was, and I didn't include anything from 2009 because there is insufficient information.

While 2010 didn't seem to get much play from Rob, he did post more about his escapades.

In April of 2010 he wrote:

"I enter May 2010 ahead $24,500 for the year. I say lucky because I've been blessed with three $2 royals this year and I've not played more than 8 total hours"

8 hours at 500 hands per hour is 4,000 hands, 3 royals would equal one royal every 1,333 hands.

In August of 2010 he wrote:

"I've played a whole 5 hours in 2010 and most of it via the free-play route, but thanks to a very unusual four Royal Flushes (one on quarters and THREE on $2 machines) I've profited over $20,000"

(Clarification; there is no typo there, at least not on my part. The initial statement in April was "Not more than 8 hours", the second statement in August was "I've played a whole 5 hours". The only logical conclusion I can come to is that the VP testing machine in his garage also functioned as a time traveling device.)

5 hours at 500 hands per hour is 2,500 hands, 4 royals would equal one royal every 625 hands. But since this statement doesn't mesh with the other I'm going to be generous to Rob and use only the larger figure.

I didn't find any more statements about play in 2010, so we don't know if there was any more play at all, or if it was "not for profit" play so it didn't count.

In August of 2011 he began reporting his large hits on this forum, below are the royals:

8/29/11 $2
9/11/11 .50

On 10/11/11 he wrote:

"I don't play very often any more but I do have 2 royals ($1 & 50c) in Sept. in maybe 1000 hands."
(assuming the .50 was the same as the one he posted on 9/11, that still leaves an unaccounted for $1 royal, which I've included below)

10/11/11 $1
10/26/11 .25
4/7/12 $2
12/9/12 $2
12/19/12 $5
2/24/13 .25

He's repeated ad naseum that he only plays for 90 minutes every 10 days, "if that". There is about 18 months depicted above, which would come to about 54 sessions, (18 months x 30 days = 540 divided by playing every 10 days = 54).

At 500 hands per hour each session is 750 hands, so the total number of hands played would be 40,500. (750 x 54 = 40,500).

There were 8 reported royals, or one royal everyt 5,062.5 hands.

Over the course of the entire period the average comes to about one royal every 3,200 hands. So I was slightly off.

It should be noted that everything above is Rob's own statements; all I did was put the pieces together to make a larger picture. Even if the time/amount played or hands per hour is significantly modified it would still likely point to a rather remarkable record, one that has endured for a significant length of time.

Ok, who wants to make a bet Rob will come back with misterious new data that will contradict what Spock has just shared?

So Alan, you still believe Rob is being honest? BTW, I have nice ocean front property in Wyoming I can sell you at a steal.

So he told a lie about how many hours he played video poker? That's horrible if he lied about how many hours played.

For comparison it took me, (I am estimating here, because I didn't actually count the number of hands), less than a thousand hands to hit two twenty-thou royals earlier this month. One was at Rincon on a Thursday night, and one was at Caesars on Saturday night.

About six months ago, my son hit four one-dollar royals at Caesars in less than twenty-four hours plus a one-dollar progressive at Gold Strike in Jean on the freeway on the ride up to Vegas.

But tsk tsk tsk if he fibbed about the number of hours played... even the number of royals won.

It really makes me wonder about those people over on LVA who report hitting thirty or forty royals a year.

The problem with your analysis, Alan, is this has been going on for over a decade. Spock just gave you the latest. However, it was no different before then. How do you think he reached the million dollars?

When a person continually gets caught in one lie after another (remember jatki) then why would you ever believe anything they say? Oh, that's right, you want to defend your decision to promote Singer's BS.

I think you have certainly raised some good questions here about timing and hours played and frequency of royals.

Did I tell you the story about how I won the money for my wife's engagement ring? I was playing the $5 Bonus Progressive at Caesars in the Forum Casino. This was about ten years ago. I hit it for $24,000. While waiting for the payoff (it took a bit of time back then) I brought Shelley over to the machine and we played for about three minutes and during that time she hit quad aces on one of the machines, and I also hit quad aces. Then I got the $24,000 payoff and I went to play craps. At about 8-am I lost a ton of money playing craps and on the way up to the room I passed by the Jacks or Better progressive and I put in $200. And on the third play I hit that royal for a bit more than $21,000. I estimate I hit those two royals about 20 hands apart.

Yes, we have to look further into Rob's claims about the frequency of royals.

Oh, by the way, you remember how I was dealt a royal on a 50-play 5-cent machine at Mandalay Bay? Oh, that's another story.

Right, Alan. Are you ready to make me an offer on that nice Wyoming beach property.

If it walks like a duck and talks like duck ... then Alan will think it's an Eagle.

I, myself, have hit royals almost back-to-back...just a few minutes apart.

Alan:

You can show us the lucky streak, but what about balancing it out with the time when you went 170,000 hands without any royal at all? I once went a half a million hands without a royal some years ago, and that was after I had a beautiful month with only about 30 hours of play and 6 royals.

The Poisson Distribution is a big factor here.

I think we need to face it that the Las Vegas forum would be a lot more boring without Rob being here, and I think there is an incentive for Alan to keep things exciting by keeping Rob around.

(Just....being neutral as usual!)

EDIT TO ADD: Think of it this way: Don't journalists relish exciting stories? Don't they bring in more television ratings and internet viewer traffic? What makes for a more exciting story than continuous conflict? If everybody agreed with each other it becomes a lot more dull and makes life harder for journalists.

This Dancer person holds classes in the casinos, has a book titled "Video poker for WINNERS", and there's no implication that you too can be a winner? How naive must a person be to think Southpoint is so anxious to give away money that they have this expert come in and tell you how to rape them. Come on get real.

Almost forgot. Does anybody know when the next card counting class at The M is. Oh there isn't one. Never mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quahaug

This Dancer person holds classes in the casinos, has a book titled "Video poker for WINNERS", and there's no implication that you too can be a winner? How naive must a person be to think Southpoint is so anxious to give away money that they have this expert come in and tell you how to rape them. Come on get real.

---

You will see the "tested genius" reply with how all the people who go to Dancer's classes are stupid and incompetent and the casino knows this so they pay him to reel in the sheep. AP's of course, don't need education because they already know more than everybody else. Just like teenagers. And when Dancer gets paid 5 or 6 thousand dollars a year from various casinos to "teach", there's little doubt he includes that into his "winning formula" for the year.

I attended one of Bob Dancer's seminars... it might have been as much as ten years ago at the Fiesta in North Vegas. I recall that the seminar was held off to the side of the casino in an alcove near the 9/6 Jacks or Better machines with a large photo of Bob Dancer at the top of each machine saying he endorsed these machines. Imagine that, he endorsed 9/6 Jacks or Better... a negative expectation machine. Of course I didn't know better back then... I didn't know better until I read about the importance of playing only positive expectation games here.

By the way, could someone explain why Dancer writes about these promotions he plays on negative expectation games? Could the gift cards and the cards really pay off more than what he might lose? Oh, never mind what he might lose. We've since learned he lost.

Your actions are becoming more and more questionable by the minute Alan. First you tell Arci he is close to being banned because he called Singer a scammer. Quahaug comes back and states that Dancer is running the real scam. You only give him a slap on the wrist and after that you join in to question everything Dancer does. What is this? Dancer is not here, and although I think he's an obnoxious, arrogant jerk, you should do yourself a favor and investigate the system you report about on your own website some more before you start to comment about Dancer's system.

First the whole discussion about Singer's strategy is about numbers and all of a sudden there's a 180 degree twist. Singer has tested a machine for hours and hours and has collected a storage room filled with data. All this data should have been produced about 6 months ago and as a reporter you don't put any effort into finding out if this data really excists or not. 1% can make the difference between a positive and negative game so yes, the numbers discussion is crucial!

You also don't question Rob about why all his machine testing, collecting data and doing detailed mathemathical research was so important to develop his strategy but when he throws around his numbers for years and years on forums and in his published articles and somebody shows his numbers aren't correct it was all just guessing. All of that means nothing to you. The true reporter in you does not become more critical and does not start to investigate other claims some more either? No, you like to shift your focus to Dancer. Great reporting!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vegas_lover

Your actions are becoming more and more questionable by the minute Alan. First you tell Arci he is close to being banned because he called Singer a scammer. Quahaug comes back and states that Dancer is running the real scam. You only give him a slap on the wrist and after that you join in to question everything Dancer does. What is this? Dancer is not here, and although I think he's an obnoxious, arrogant jerk, you would do yourself a favor to investigate the system you report about on your own website some more before you start to comment about Dancer's system.

---

Why do I find your comments ironic? Actually it's one of the funniest things I ever read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Why do I find your comments ironic? Actually it's one of the funniest things I ever read.

---

Please enlighten me Alan. What is so ironic about them? What's so funny about them? Because you think I'm an obnoxious jerk? I am, maybe I'm closer to reality about your motives than you like?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vegas_lover

First the whole discussion about Singer's strategy is about numbers and all of a sudden there's a 180 degree twist. Singer has tested a machine for hours and hours and has collected a storage room filled with data. All this data should have been produced about 6 months ago and as a reporter you don't put any effort into finding out if this data really excists or not. 1% can make the difference between a positive and negative game so yes, the numbers discussion is crucial!

You also don't question Rob about why all his machine testing, collecting data and doing detailed mathemathical research was so important to develop his strategy but when he throws around his numbers for years and years on forums and in his published articles and somebody shows his numbers aren't correct it was all just guessing. All of that means nothing to you. The true reporter in you does not become more critical and does not start to investigate other claims some more either? No, you like to shift you focus to Dancer. Great reporting!

---

I see that you have amended your post to add two more paragraphs. Vegas_lover, my friend, I'm afraid you haven't been fair in your assessment. I challenged Rob from the start -- in the very first interview I did with him -- about machines not being random. That video you can see here and it is separate from the interviews about the special plays which was done during a second interview session:

http://alanbestbuys.com/id132.html The interview runs about 11:20 also please read the text that accompanies the interview in the article titled: ROB SINGER: THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL NAME IN VIDEO POKER

And also please read the two other articles that follow it.

Now some background: I first approached Rob to do an interview -- and he not only graciously agreed, but arranged that we could do the interview in the high limits room of the Hard Rock Casino -- because I was interested in his claims that machines are not 100% random. When I did that interview with him he told me about his "special plays." I had no idea what the special plays were prior to this. When I was back here in LA I did some more research about his special plays and realized that for the most part, there was very little information about what the special plays were and why Rob created them. So I asked him for the opportunity for a second interview, which we did at Caesars Palace, so that Rob could show and explain the basic special plays that he uses when he is not playing the "conventional style." And let me add he says he uses his special plays only 5% of the time.

I have always been a critic of his claim that the machines are not random -- and that is the supposed data in the storage unit. Like others I have been waiting for Rob to come up with the data, and in several posts here I even challenged that if he produced such data it would be worthless because of his testing methods and the data appears only on a print out and to be analyzed it would have to be put into a program. My biggest criticism is that Rob returned the machine so we have no way to even verify the data against the machine, and by returning the machine we lost the evidence of an error or something more sinister.

So when you say that I "don't question Rob" about the machine, the testing, the data and the research, you should go back in the forum and read what you missed. You missed a lot. You missed that I challenged Rob from the beginning.

Now, in all fairness to Rob, where I think he "has something" is his ideas about win goals and loss limts. I do not embrace his special plays with the exception of trip aces in triple double bonus, and you can read about that too.

But that, dear Vegas_lover is only one of his special plays and I would venture that most video poker players would probably do the same thing which is hold the three aces and not the kicker. And do you want to know why? Because in double double bonus you don't hold a kicker with three aces. Only in triple double bonus do you hold the kicker -- and most video poker players probably don't know that the conventional strategy is different with TDB.

I think you owe me an apology. I doubt you will, however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vegas_lover

Please enlighten me Alan. What is so ironic about them? What's so funny about them? Because you think I'm an obnoxious jerk? I am, maybe I'm closer to reality about your motives than you like?

---

No I don't think you're an obnoxious jerk. You called Dancer an obnoxious, arrogant jerk. You didn't tell us you knew Dancer that well that you could call him an obnoxious, arrogant jerk.

Gee, when I met him, he came across as being a very pleasant, informative, intelligent fellow.

I haven't missed anything. I know you have questioned Rob about the data in the storage unit, I know you have been critical about some of his claims. I've read it all and I've watched all the videos. BUT I find it interesting (and questionable) investigative journalism is not high on your priority list. Because the way in which you question anything Rob says is marginal at best. You seem not to be interested in finding out the truth about his system at all. And since you're a reporter and have been a reporter for a long time, that raises red flags.

As I said I know I'm an obnoxious jerk when it comes to this subject and your approach. And no, you won't get an apology because I don't believe you're entitled to one. As soon as you show a different approach (more hands on) I will be the first to compliment you with it and apologize for being that obnoxious jerk.

In my opinion, you're doing a lousy job reporting about Singer's system as an objective, investigative reporter. What I've seen and read you haven't questioned Rob's screwy statements half as much as you did with Arci or Redietz. But at least their comments have been based on science (you know that funny little thing called math).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

You called Dancer an obnoxious, arrogant jerk. You didn't tell us you knew Dancer that well that you could call him an obnoxious, arrogant jerk..

---

I don't have to know him well enough. My statement is based on his weekly articles on LVA that show up on several websites every week. Almost everybody responds to his articles in the same way and most people don't consider him to be a friendly, likeable guy. In many ways (when it comes to behavior) he's a lot like Rob Singer.

Really? You don't know Bob Dancer yet you have the gall to call him "an obnoxious, arrogant jerk"? Shame on you.

And about my interview and reporting style: Alan Burke I'm not . Google him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Really? You don't know Bob Dancer yet you have the gall to call him "an obnoxious, arrogant jerk"? Shame on you.

---

Haha good one. Who are you trying to fool?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Really? You don't know Bob Dancer yet you have the gall to call him "an obnoxious, arrogant jerk"? Shame on you.

---

http://youtu.be/w9m69lCF6R4

In this video between 1:36 and 3:00 is a nice piece about how you can dislike somebody without having met the person. Enjoy

Sure you can dislike someone. But vegas_lover, you called Bob Dancer "an obnoxious, arrogant jerk" -- how do you know he's "an obnoxious, arrogant jerk" when all you've done is read his columns?

I've read his columns and my only reaction has been why didn't he write about his wins? And I met the man, and he came across to me as being pleasant, respectable, intelligent, interesting, knowledgeable, friendly... and nothing close to be "an obnoxious, arrogant jerk," as you described him. So still -- shame on you.

Well shame on me then. Nothing changed. It's not the first time you read things differently than the majority :)

I'm with Alan. Dancer's articles do not make me think of him as a jerk, although I certainly don't think of him as a suave or life of the party type. I imagine him to be as Alan descibed, but also a bit like an accountant.

Vegas_lover has it right ... and I have met the guy.

I've read virtually all of Dancer's stuff. I've not actually shaken his hand, although I've seen him interacting with people. His writing comes across as arrogant and a touch misogynistic, which works for him in LV. He'd be run out of town in NY or DC. In person, I suspect his persona is not as grating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I've read virtually all of Dancer's stuff. I've not actually shaken his hand, although I've seen him interacting with people. His writing comes across as arrogant and a touch misogynistic, which works for him in LV. He'd be run out of town in NY or DC. In person, I suspect his persona is not as grating.

---

Dancer in NY talking to Vinnie like he talks in his articles; Vinnie would introduce Dancer to his bat :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quahaug

This Dancer person holds classes in the casinos, has a book titled "Video poker for WINNERS", and there's no implication that you too can be a winner? How naive must a person be to think Southpoint is so anxious to give away money that they have this expert come in and tell you how to rape them. Come on get real.

---

I don't know you at all but I take great offense at your choice of words. If you're trying to be funny or just creatively descriptive, you failed massively at both.

Vegas Vic are you specifically objecting to the use of the word rape? I can understand that some people are offended by it. It is a very strong word, perhaps one of the strongest in our vocabulary.

When I covered the labor problems at the now defunct Eastern Airlines back in the 1980s, Eastern's Chairman -- Col. Frank Borman -- the astronaut who read from the Bible as their Apollo mission orbited the moon in the 1960s, came over to me after a news conference about union negotiations and whispered in my ear, "we were raped."

I thought the comment was meant to be private. But Frank Borman also made the same comment to a reporter from the Miami Herald and the next morning the banner headline in the paper read "we were raped."

The quote became part of aviation history. See http://www.skygod.com/quotes/airline.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I don't know you at all but I take great offense at your choice of words. If you're trying to be funny or just creatively descriptive, you failed massively at both.

---

Rape "a carrying away buy force". Lighten up. Its an internet forum for goodness sakes, don't get your panties in a bunch over it.

By the way, how about addressing the post itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I don't know you at all but I take great offense at your choice of words. If you're trying to be funny or just creatively descriptive, you failed massively at both.

---

I understand why Vic says he's "offended" when he and everyone well knows using the word "rape" outside the nasty "box" is and has been accepted for an eternity. When people with limited vision try to come to grips with what I've accomplished in vp, frustration abounds. This is part of Vic's reaction. Eddie tosses in comments from all over the map, as he tries SO hard to dance with the devil. Spock....now there's a closet masochist. And arci? Where else could one possibly get to experience end-of-life hopelessness along with such alluring neurosis in the same wonderful package?

But it all ends at the same dead end for the lot. They are all extremely jealous of my unorthodox video poker success, with the added bonus of course, of arci being hurt by my personal life's enjoyment while he is left like a bruised apple at the end of another long & cruel season. The lies, more lies about his lies, the constant insults to the host--it all spells one thing: aggrevation with someone else's accomplishments. And what better venue to live out that aggrevation than in the virtual reality in the declining years of a punished life.

I wonder if we could return to this thread in a civilized manner? Is there any way to define how much of video poker play is "luck" or is there no way to quantify it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I wonder if we could return to this thread in a civilized manner? Is there any way to define how much of video poker play is "luck" or is there no way to quantify it?

---

It's just common sense Alan. If you know the game, you apply that knowledge to the deal you get, but outside of that you can only hope the machine gives you either a winner - or a better winner than your dealt winner if you were lucky. Therefore, my estimate is 95% luck to 5% skill, compared to a regular slot machine which is 100% luck.

I wonder if we can come up with a number, a percentage?

Clearly everything in the initial deal all depends on luck. How much of the game is the initial deal? Is it 50% or more?
What happens when you decide which cards to hold is all skill -- or your lack of skill.
When replacement cards are dealt that also is pure luck.

So... if drawing and this is facetious:
5 cards 100% luck
4 cards 80% luck
3 cards 60% luck
2 cards 20% luck
1 card 10% luck

That's not how it works. By your % method, you can conversely say if you kept 4 of the cards then you had a deal that was 80% luck etc.

The luck vs. skill argument is always trying to determine how much skill is needed to hold cards. I say that part is simple common sense, just as knowing how and when to push the buttons correctly. Thus, the 5% figure. So it all rests on what cards are dealt, and what comes up on the draw.

Actually Rob what I am suggesting is that the deal is always 100% luck, but its the decision about which cards to hold that is the only skill in the game, and the draw is also all luck.

Since the decision about which cards to hold is only one-third of the game (deal, decision, draw) then at the most skill would be only 33.33% of video poker.