OK, explain how the "structured use" of ER lowering plays increases the ER. This should be humorous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
OK, explain how the "structured use" of ER lowering plays increases the ER. This should be humorous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I am not trying to defend Singer's system, but I do want to keep the discussion "on track." So arcimede$ I'd like to comment about this post:Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
The "math" does give us the expected return. If you vary the strategy dictated by the math, your return will be different -- either better or worse. Rob made it very clear in the discussion of the "special plays" what the "math expected return is" and how his "special plays" vary from that.
Yes, the "math" says his special plays will lose. But when he gets "lucky" and his special plays win, he can come out ahead of the expected return.
Rob has not included the "fifth card flipovers" in his strategy, so I don't see how it applies to the discussion of his strategy?
I really think that the evaluation of Rob's strategy actually comes down to this: how often do his special plays "hit" and what kind of "wins" do those special plays generate and can the dollar value of those special plays that "hit" offset the losses he has from not following the math?
Now I am going to ask all of you this question: is there a way to test that? And is there a way for Rob to teach when he makes his special plays -- what is that 5% of the time he deviates from "correct strategy"?
These are all good questions. And I would like to see the answers. But Im really interested in knowing when a special play is chosen over the "correct strategy play"? Is it done only when losing, or even when winning?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas_lover
On that session, yes. But not over time. Since he uses special plays quite often it would not very long for the ER difference to make a substantial difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
As they say in a trial, it goes to show the character of the person. If the person cannot be trusted then their claims become suspect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
How often is easy. Just apply statistics. That is what has ALREADY been done to determine the ER. That is why your continual retreat to this position in silly. The work has been done, the answer is known, you've been told the answer many times. You simply don't like the answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Already answered above. If I did the computation on an abacus instead of a computer would it change your mind?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
One of your problems, Alan, is you are only thinking about what happens when Singer hits one of those special plays. You need to focus on what happens when he doesn't. Take 10/6 DDB as an example. If dealt 2266x a special play would toss the second pair and go for the low quad. However, what is the return when a quad is not hit. The return is about 3 coins. The return of holding two pair is 8.8 coins. Singer gives up 5.8 coins for what? Well, we know it's 1:360 chance to hit the quad. We also know that quads occur about 1:420 hands in normal DDB strategy. The choice is a trade-off of 1.16 additional hands for holding two pair against an improvement of 1.17 at hitting the quad. That means he has increased his chances by a mere 1%. So, the reality is that many of the special plays provide almost no improved chances of winning while causing additional losses.
I asked these questions for a reason. At one point you state you apply optimal play 95% of the time and you make special plays 5% of the time. Since you don't keep track of your own special plays there's no way you can tell if you even apply optimal play enough to keep the losses small besides looking at your bankroll. Simply because most of the times you won't hit a better winner on the special plays. Looking at it from a mathimatical angle you just accomplish there's no way to check or your way of playing. I was only interested in knowing how many hands per hour you play on average to get a notion of the amount of special plays you make during an hour. Since that changes every hour and maybe even every session your play in total consist of more than an average "gamble". Arci, thanks for stepping in on this one, you make some valid points.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Now, Rob, please clarify, how many session do you end up being a winner on average. Do you only stop playing when you hit your $2500 dollar win goal or do you sometimes quit before that and accept a smaller win? What's the average amount you're down on a losing session?
For someone with so many personal issues, you'd think he'd at least TRY not to look so sad as he radiates his pathological lying in 5000 words or less!Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Huh? I asked you to pay attention and you seem not to have grasped any of it. It's like calling AMEX and getting someone in India, who answers every question asked with a script having nothing to do with the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas_lover
You think it makes sense to write down every time a special play is made, what it is, and why it's made? And most of the time I DO hit a better winner with the special play than what the optimal hold could have rendered. You still don't get it: If the dealt hand in As5d8d9cQh, the optimal hold in the games I play is AQ. I hold just the A. Holding the AQ will almost always yield a high pair IF you're going to get a winner. Because you're taking two slots and drawing only 3, opportunity for big winners is seriously decreased. But holding an A only opens it up to much more opportunity, and many more of the winners are more than a high pair. Phew!
The win goal is $2500 minimum. Always.
Arci will never input anything helpful because he's a hateful person who is overtaken by envy over my vp success. He's unique in that as an APer he has lost--even so much as to have been forced to leave LV back for beautiful Minnesota with his tail tucked firmly between his legs. Didn't work out, and it was just another scramble he needed to take care of before hitting the forums with another made-up explanation. Plus you've seen him humble himself trying to do damage control whenever I bring up his anti-social behavior on the other forums.
Here's Arci exposing more of his uneducated knowledge about my strategy. He tries so hard doesn't he!? If I play 10/6 DDB I never break up any 2 pair except for Aces. I said he had maybe 60% knowledge of what I do. Change that to 50% at best.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Here you go again throwing mud. Alan, I guess this is all ok for you right? Even when other contributors get back on topic to ask a number of questions to get some info from the million dollar man, he pulls you back down again. I'll refer to your previous request stated in slightly different words (you asked us to drop the testosterone and get back on topic): "Please don't mind Mr. Singer being an arrogant troublemaker, take all the insults you can take but please stay calm and civil and swallow it all"..........Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
See http://www.alanbestbuys.com/id197.html and you will see this play is listed as number 28. The only difference is it is 4499x instead of 2266x. Could it be I know more about his special plays than he does? Could it be he makes it up as he goes along?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
If winning over $100K while spending my winters in Vegas classifies as "didn't work out", then I guess it didn't. Oh yeah, that was mainly playing quarters until the last year. I wonder how many lies Singer will have to post before Alan catches on?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Arc, I dont know if this affects your math, but the example you cited is not for 10/6 DDB.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Vegas_Lover is correct... there is too much time spent on who is lying and who isn't, and what are lies, and who lives where and what people are driving. Let's stop it.
We have another Forum for cars.
We have an Open forum to discuss where you enjoy living.
Please guys, let's talk about Rob's system here without the "colorful comments." Yes, Rob, that includes you. I'm spending too much time here and it is taking me away from the work that pays the bills.
That is where you go when you click on 10/6 DDB. It also states those are the plays for 10/6 DDB at the top of the page. So, that is where some unsuspecting person would be directed. I guess when you're dealing with something this exact then it really doesn't matter. Also, item 34 is the same play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I suspect it would make a slight difference when playing 9/5 TDPP. You would hit the goal 8% more often. But remember, you only hit the quad .28% of the time so this is an improvement from .26% by playing optimal strategy. Do you really think reaching a goal .02% (2 out of 1000) more often is worth the cost? Every special play costs money.
I would call that spot on! But I'm certain Rob will disagreeQuote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Alan, have you ever asked Singer why he pockets wins over 40 credits? For example, look at the 9/5 TBPP example. A win of 45 credits for a FH would allow 9 more hands to be played. That provides (9/420) a 2% chance of hitting a quad. That is 8 times more often than his special play above. If a strategy is supposed to generate wins and go home then pocketing these wins is 180° opposite of what you should do. In fact, this one play alone likely reduces the chances of going home a winner by more than ALL the special plays combined help to produce a winner.
This is trivial math. Anyone who claims to have done a "risk analysis" is blowing wind up your ... you know what.
One other factor I haven't mentioned is the amount lost as a result of unsuccessful special plays also puts the player in a bigger hole. That means whenever a quad is hit, the probability it will produce a winning session is reduced. I suspect this would completely negate the 1% when a special play would produce a winning session in DDB. It also would reduce the times any special play produces a winning session.
It is similar to the effect that pocketing wins has on the system. Although in this case it means bigger winners are required to cover for the losses acquired by the use of the special plays.
Whoops! Arci is caught (edited) about what he claims to know about my play strategy. And what's even funnier here is that he's even misleading HIMSELF now since the post he quoted by me only talks about 10/6DDB, and he's pretending "play listed as number 28" refers to 10/6DDB when it's clearly identified as TBP+!Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
(remainder of post deleted)
Once again Rob you're a day late and a dollar short. Alan already mentioned this and it turns out #34 is the relevant special play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
One does wonder how dedicated you are to your own strategy when clicking on 10/6 DDB takes a person to 9/5 DBPP. Did you ever check it out? I suppose you're going to blame Alan for this screw up.
This is actually worse than I mentioned here. In addition to the 9 hands lost directly by pocketing the FH, additional hands are lost by the winners generated while playing the original 9 hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Assuming the 77% return for below quad payouts that means 3.85 credits are generated by each hand or almost 35 credits on the first iteration, then those 35 credits yield 27 credits ... 21 ... 16 ... 11 ... 8 ... 5 ... 3. Overall it comes out to over 25 additional hands. So, replacing 9 with 25 yields (25/420) a 6% added quad opportunity which is over 20 times the effect of the special play.
We have special plays for three games on that same page. I thought the text clearly defined which game "special plays" were being presented. So, blame the goof on me.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Now let's look at special play #27 where Rob holds a single ACE OVER 3SF (456). The chances of hitting the SF are 3/1081 (.278%) while the chances of hitting quad aces are 44/178365 (.025%). That's right, the chances of hitting the SF are over 10 times the chances of hitting quad aces.
Since a SF returns 500 credits in this game it is almost as good as low quads at 600 credits and not that far from aces at 1200. He gives up 1.15 credits on average to give himself a REDUCED chance of going home a winner. Of course, these credits then reduce the number of hands played which also works against the stated goal of winning quickly.
Tell me again about the "risk analysis". It's more than obvious from the few items I've already addressed that absolutely no thinking about winning quickly went into the special plays and overall strategy.
Alan, there's a function in HTML that allows you to specify a place in a page to start. You should update the links to include the offset. Easy fix.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
This is too much fun. On to special play #30. Holding trip deuces instead of a dealt FH. Well, since the FH is pulled immediately we already know from above that reduces the quad opportunity by 6%. The trip deuces hits once every 23.5 times or 4.3% of the time.
Oops, if instead of pocketing the FH he went ahead and played the credits he would INCREASE his opportunity to go home a quick winner. One almost has to wonder if any of the special plays are helpful in attaining the stated goal.
This is too much fun. On to special play #30. Holding trip deuces instead of a dealt FH. Well, since the FH is pulled immediately we already know from above that reduces the quad opportunity by 6%. The trip deuces hits once every 23.5 times or 4.3% of the time.
Oops, if instead of pocketing the FH he went ahead and played the credits he would INCREASE his opportunity to go home a quick winner. One almost has to wonder if any of the special plays are helpful in attaining the stated goal.
Another fallacy in Singer's approach to winning quickly is playing any hands of BP. He plays 100 credits of BP and then 300 credits of a high variance game. Clearly, the high variance games offer more chances at big winners. That's what makes them high variance. So, why would one choose to play a lower variance game that just happens to be the worst paytable of the bunch. Pretty much defies the special play logic completely.
With that said it is also clear that playing the lower variance BP will provide more hands. Will these more hands provide any additional help at reaching the win goal? Even at the $10 denomination the quad aces are only worth $4000 and $3200 has already been invested so it is unlikely to achieve a win goal even including pocketed wins. That means the only way to reach that goal is through a RF at all levels below $25.
Therefore, the opportunity to hit a win-goal ($2500) producing result is extremely limited. It might permit a win that allows returning to a previous level but that is about it. It sure appears like playing BP reduces the chances of hitting a session ending winner. Oops.
Oh how you HATE to get caught being wrong! You already know this but irritating you, esp. when you're going thru sooo much, is a joy to behold. When you click on 10/6DDB you get items on the same page as TBP+, BUT THAT'S WHY EACH GROUP OF HANDS IS LABELED AS PERTINENT TO A CERTAIN GAME, GENIUS! On hand #28 read it and weep one more time: "And in the next group, Rob Singer's strategy for 9/5 Triple Bonus Poker Plus" which includes #'s 27-29.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
And who is it that's talking about hand #34?
Gee, that was hard. Please come up with some more doozies!
Now we get entertained as arci tries to scramble his way out of what he got himself into. And then notice how he's trying to "explain away" the strategy and special plays in order to redirect the conversation away from the lies he was caught telling.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
If taking arci out to the woodshed didn't happen so many times on so many different forums over the years, I have to admit it would be a whole lot funnier than it is today.
God this is enjoyable!
One of the more prescious quotes of the day: "Since a SF returns 500 credits in this game it is almost as good as low quads at 600 credits and not that far from aces at 1200."Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
So tell us Mr. Math, just how far from 500 credits is 1200?? Oh I see, it's "almost as good". You don't do your own taxes do you??
Rob, the objections that Arcimede$ brought out here are no different than the objections other players would also bring up. So, some additional information from you justifying these plays would be appreciated by everyone.
Don't expect anything from Singer, Alan. You can see by the way he is "scrambling" that he knows I have demonstrated his strategy is a complete fraud. I have no problem with deviations from optimal play as long as it achieves a goal. After all, optimal strategy is just a goal oriented strategy itself. The goal is optimize one's ER.
In this case though the strategy itself as well as the special plays do not all work towards the stated goal of hitting quick winners. OTOH, the strategy does have enough aspects that would confuse someone without the mathematical expertise to do an analysis. The complexity could make it "look" like something reasonable. This is exactly what one would expect if the REAL GOAL is to entice those without the math experience into going through an "education session". The multitude of special plays gives Singer an out if he were ever challenged. He simply claims the person did not correctly use the special plays and might even convince them to go through another "education session".
As I've stated in the past, the entire system is a scam.
It's one thing to say you don't agree with a "system" and to say a system won't work based on your research, or existing data or even "the math of the game," but you should be careful about labeling something a "fraud" or a "scam" unless you have proof that will stand up in court that it is a fraud or a scam. I'm asking you to reconsider your statement, Arcimede$.
That was exactly the reason why I was starting to ask for specific numbers about his HPH, percentage of perfect play and number of special plays applied per hour/session. We're on the same page here...Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Oh how you HATE to get caught being wrong! You already know this but irritating you, esp. when you're going thru sooo much, is a joy to behold. When you click on 10/6DDB you get items on the same page as TBP+, BUT THAT'S WHY EACH GROUP OF HANDS IS LABELED AS PERTINENT TO A CERTAIN GAME, GENIUS! On hand #28 read it and weep one more time: "And in the next group, Rob Singer's strategy for 9/5 Triple Bonus Poker Plus" which includes #'s 27-29.
And who is it that's talking about hand #34?
Gee, that was hard. Please come up with some more doozies!
Now we get entertained as arci tries to scramble his way out of what he got himself into. And then notice how he's trying to "explain away" the strategy and special plays in order to redirect the conversation away from the lies he was caught telling.
If taking arci out to the woodshed didn't happen so many times on so many different forums over the years, I have to admit it would be a whole lot funnier than it is today.
God this is enjoyable!
One of the more prescious quotes of the day: "Since a SF returns 500 credits in this game it is almost as good as low quads at 600 credits and not that far from aces at 1200."
So tell us Mr. Math, just how far from 500 credits is 1200?? Oh I see, it's "almost as good". You don't do your own taxes do you??
Alan, I see you earlier call for keeping the testosterone down helped a lot. See a pattern here??? I believe I said to you a couple of times: Arci has given you some honoust en correct math. He has been showing the math in Singer's system is incorrect and actually lowering his chances to turn out a winner. There were no personal attacks from Arci to Singer in these posts. And what is Singer's pattern of behaviour..........exactly..... throw around more mud and insults. That's why nobody can have an in dept conversation with him about his system....because sooner or later he is going to feel the heat and start a fight.....Did you also notice that Mr. Singer who claims to be a math genius did not correct Arci's math of the last couple of posts? His responses had little to nothing to do with the statements made by Arci. Doesn't that make you wonder??
He's also posting on your dime.....
Vegas_lover (Did I get it right?): There's no point in arguing with someone like arci who not only is personally biased....he just isn't qualified enough in applied mathematics to follow what I showed in my special play videos, or to interpret anything accurately enough in order to present a valid analysis here.
That's why I've embraced having a true professional look at my strategy. With his expertise also comes an upbeat personality, an open mind, and an attitude absent the hate, conflict and envy that you've seen presented here. In time you will see the absolute truth behind why the strategy is extremely profitable, and the special plays increase the value of certain holds over optimal play. The right guy has come along to actually do this, and therein lies the reason you see so much hatred towards me here. It had been on LVA but as soon as those threads shut down, my stalker had no choice but to bring it over here. One must wonder why someone in his position would continue on with what to him has to be an enormous, repititious waste of time. You now see just how much I'm inside the guy's head all the time.
Again, Rob, please extend to Frank my invitation for him to present his findings here. And yes, I am pleased to meet him in Vegas to do a complete video interview with him that will be presented here -- unedited -- and that I will also post on YouTube so others can use it on their websites. He can also use it on his, of course.
Vegas_lover (Did I get it right?): There's no point in arguing with someone like arci who not only is personally biased....he just isn't qualified enough in applied mathematics to follow what I showed in my special play videos, or to interpret anything accurately enough in order to present a valid analysis here.
What is your mathematical background? Please do show evidence......I am schooled in math and statistics and I see a whole different thing than you do. I see Arci making valid points. You might not like them, but that doesn't make them untrue.
The right guy has come along to actually do this, and therein lies the reason you see so much hatred towards me here.
Nice try but you saying this makes me wonder if you are capable of seeing your own faults. Hatred towards you has nothing to do with Frank Kneeland researching your system. It has eveything to do with you constantly making an effort to insult people to the bone. You don't like me because I challenge your system and confront you with your own behaviour. Your response is to call all Dutch people arrogant idiotes, I am just plain jealous and after that the entire continent of Europe is just slow. The reason for you receiving so much hatred is you're very easy to hate with all the insults you make and constantly provocing anybody that challenges your system.
You constantly put blame on others while you are AT LEAST 50% to blame for all the s**t you get. The fact that you don't see or acknowledge that ruines the little bit of credibility you might have with us outsiders. You've been throwing insults at me from the beginning as well. At this point I'm not even going to discuss math with you because you haven't given straight answers and with every question I ask, you start your response with calling me a dumb ass. Now that's a waist of time. Even tough you might think you're inside my head now too, don't think too much of it. You're an easy target and as soon as I shut down my laptop you're not in my mind for one second.
It had been on LVA but as soon as those threads shut down, my stalker had no choice but to bring it over here. One must wonder why someone in his position would continue on with what to him has to be an enormous, repititious waste of time. You now see just how much I'm inside the guy's head all the time.
The two of you are like a bad marriage. You claim Arci stalks you but it doesn't matter on which vp or vegas forum you post, you always have to mention his name and other stupid AP-ers (as you call them) when being challenged about your system. The same goes for all the bad stuff you have to say about Bob Dancer at any opportunity you get. Again, Arci is just as much in your head as the other way around. BUT in my book, Arci makes a lot more sense because he at least does approach your system in a mathimatical way.
You have a very, very thick skull Rob. Your host on this forum has asked several times to lose the "colourful comments" and stop the insult. A number of your post have been edited more than once. Now, you tone down a little but your last post is just a repeat of a number of insults directed at Arci with a little "gift rapping".
This should be all the evidence Alan needs to be convinced Singer has no clue about his own system. The fact is I didn't apply any complicated mathematics in my analysis. It was nothing but arithmetic. However, what makes the analysis a little complex is understanding when and how to apply the arithmetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Note that Singer claims I am not qualified yet provides no rebuttal logic at all. Why is that? Simple, he has none. That is why all his comments are personal attacks and bluffs.
When I called Singer's system a fraud it is a simple conclusion based on the evidence at hand. He has stated the goals of his system and the analysis shows his system is NOT targetted towards achieving those goals. The ONLY possible conclusion is the system is a fraud. You and others can determine for yourselves what that says about Singer himself.
As I've also stated before I'm not sure Singer has broken any laws. However, you really need to reconsider whether you want to continue to highlight his system given what you now know.
Alan, you are welcome to have anyone review my analysis. I provided it to you for free. You already have seen another degreed mathematician, vegas_lover, agree with what I have presented. Get a 3rd or 4th opinion if you like. It will not change one thing.
Note that Singer claims I am not qualified yet provides no rebuttal logic at all.
What wonders me is what does he know about you not being qualified to analyse his system that the rest of us don't know? Do you have some kind of personal background and does Singer know anything about your level of eduction? In other words what's Singer's standard for determing who's qualified to evaluate his system?
Alan, you are welcome to have anyone review my analysis. I provided it to you for free. You already have seen another degreed mathematician, vegas_lover, agree with what I have presented. Get a 3rd or 4th opinion if you like. It will not change one thing.
Rob, Alan, I'm afraid I have to agree with this statement...
Singer has no standard. He knows he has spent no time or effort to validate his system. Singer once claimed there were 3 mathematicians that had reviewed his system. Of course, they were all from foreign countries and could not be reached through the internet. It was an obvious lie and became a standing joke. It's similar to his other actions. His claims about hot/cold streaks, his claims about the 5th card repeats, his claims to have inside information from IGT, his claims that the NV gaming commission is in cahoots with casinos, etc. They all feed into the typical naive gambler paranoia. He feeds on the fears and superstitions that surround gambling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas_lover
As far as I can tell he developed his system for one reason. To try and make it appear he was some kind of VP expert. Singer is intensely jealous of any and all of the well known VP gurus. I think he wanted to be one of them but failed to get any recognition. He then went off on this anti-establishment route to see if he could gain recognition. I suspect his entire reason for developing his system was ego. Using it to garner free comps was likely just a side benefit.
You'll notice that if someone says nice things about him, Singer will praise the person, but make one negative comment and he will throw out tons of insults. Text book narcissistic behavior.
PS. I'm pretty sure Singer knows I have a degree in Math.
Well, Arci I won't pass judgement about his motives because I do not know the man well enough. You sure do know more about math than the average "kid from the block" so there he has two people with a math degree and we're both not qualified to do the math. That boggles the mind...I'm curious if Singer will come back to defend the mathimatical approach of his system. The cards are not in his favour in my opinion, until he proves us wrong. But I'm very curious about how he will accomplish that. Do you know if Frank Kneeland has a math degree?
Frank has never mentioned having a degree. He is known for managing a team of VP professionals that focus on progressive jackpots. There's no doubt he has a lot of experience in analyzing VP games/plays. Since the math we are talking about here is not very complicated it certainly doesn't take a math degree to understand. The key talent is problem solving. Being able to look at a situation and break it down and assess it. From what I've seen in his various posts I'd say Frank is skilled in this area.
I don't know if Frank's doing a complete analysis of Singer's system or not. I just did a cursory analysis of a couple of Singer's special plays and strategy elements. Since Singer's system broke down with only a cursory look, I find it hard to believe Frank would waste his time going much further than I did.
I believe you're right about that Arci. I guess we'll just have to wait and find out. IF Singer is right and his system proves to be a succes I will be the first one to admit I was wrong and I will be more than willing to promote his system to anybody who wants to know about it. I don't think it will happen though. Despite of Kneeland's obvious experience and knowledge about the subject I would still find it strange that a person withput a math degree would be more capable to do the analysis than somebody with the proper education on the subject. But of course, that only applies when Kneeland doesn't have a math degree. I agree with you that the math to analyse this system is pretty basic. But still, a large percentage of the people out there would not now where to start and how to make the calculations needed.
I guess we'll just have to see what happens.
I think the key skill to assess Singer's system is the knowledge of the details of VP. For example, I used the knowledge that 77% of the return in DBPP is below the quad level in my assessment. Most people would have no idea how to find this information. I used arithmetic in applying this fact to the problem, but just knowing arithmetic would not be enough.
I think Frank has the same level of knowledge that I have in this area.
I do want to make one final comment in general. Rob, Alan, I'm not particularly proud of the way this discussion evolved. Too many harsh words were said and too many insults were filling the air. This created a huge diversion from the issues at hand and I am not proud of my part. I've lost my temper at several moments and that usually isn't my style, for that I apologize. Although I do not believe in Rob's sytem I do appreciate the quest to find a system that gives the players better odds while playing the casino's.
Thank you Vegas_Lover for posting this. This is one of the best posts we've had. I commend you for it. I also commend you for saying this: "Although I do not believe in Rob's sytem I do appreciate the quest to find a system that gives the players better odds while playing the casino's." Everyone should think carefully about what you wrote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas_lover
Alan, when arci gets up as he does every day at the same time like clockwork, he's gonna go thru the same 'ol boring daily routine and immediately jump on the computer looking for an argument to occupy his time. He isn't going to take too kindly to what you said here even though they are truly significant words of wisdom. He'll take this personally, and quickly shift into damage control claiming you don't know what you're talking about and how you purposely took what the other guy said wrong just to enhance your own agenda. In other words, it is a stain against a True Believer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
As I wrote in the other thread maybe it's time for everyone to sit out until there is actual information to post so that we have something substantial to discuss. Frank Kneeland said in a post tonight on the LVA Forum that he won't be able to look at your system Rob for several more weeks. Well, perhaps we should all take a collective "time out" until he can tell us what he found from his analysis.
I don't want to cut off the discussion about facts and information, but I think we can stop playing "can you top this" with insults, attacks, smears, etc. I think we've heard all the negatives.
But what I would think would be entertaining are new ideas about how to beat the casinos. Please not a rehash of math and comps and cashback, but does anyone really have something that's new???
And the funny thing is, I'm going to guess there isn't!!
Funny, I thought I had provided you with some interesting analysis. You know ... "actual information". I'm curious what you expect from Frank that hasn't already been provided. If you didn't understand my analysis then shouldn't you be asking questions until you do understand. Since you haven't asked any questions I can only assume you understood what was posted. If that is the case, then what additional information do you need?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
It is perfectly clear that Singer has misrepresented his system. You're like people that still support the war in Afghanistan. Nothing is going to change, time to cut your losses.
Alan, maybe you should pick a special play to be analyzed and it can be discussed. If you don't like the ones I did pick another one. For example, #26 where JJ is selected over suited JT97. Singer claimed JJ had a better chance of hitting. But this is easily refuted. The chances of hitting a quad holding JJ is 1:360 as I've noted before. The odds of hitting the SF are 1:47. Yes that's right, 7.7 times more often. The JJ pays 600 coins and the SF pays 400 coins so either of them could yield a winning session. Since the math play produces about 3000 credits in big winners to the 600 for holding JJ it's pretty clear that the math play will yield many more winning sessions.
How much evidence do you need, Alan?
Alan, I keep looking for a special play that will yield more winning sessions as advertised by Singer. So, I thought #24 looked good. Singer holds a single ace over suited TJ. So, what are the potenetial session ending results. Holding the ace you have quad aces, kings and queens, a RF and an ace low SF. One of those happens 1:3716. Holding the JT you have quad jacks, a RF and 3 SFs. One of those happens 1:3243. Looks like I failed again.
One last try before I go out to play golf. This one has to work. Holding a single Q over unsuited KQ. You hit the quads the same as in the Ace example plus you get one more SF (1:3640). In the KQ example you only have quad ks and Qs. which is 1:8108.
Phew, I finally found a special play that does what it advertises. And, the cost isn't too high at just over a tenth of a credit. Even though this happens a lot ... well, maybe we should think a little more about the cost. Remember you are giving up .12 credits 3639 times for every hit. That is almost 437 credits. Hmmmmm, maybe it's not such a good play after all.
Arc, thank you for your analysis. Now, I think what we are all waiting for is Rob to reply with some actual numbers to back up his decision/strategy/play.
Don't hold your breath. If he had the ability to respond to my first couple of items he would have done so by now. I doubt I've put more than an hour into all the items I analyzed, so were not talking a big effort here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I think the last item I analyzed is pretty interesting because I finally found one special play that did hit a big winner more often than the math play. However, when you consider what it costs and the few number of times the decision is even called for, it's unlikely a "short term" player would run into it enough to make a difference. In other words, it's a complete waste of effort.
Well, it looks as though there is a break in the action. This thread provides evidence for why I find the Singer debates so fascinating in terms of social psychology. Not so interesting in terms of math.
I will be humongously syrprised if Mr. Kneeland's analysis of the Singer method yields much beyond what's already been said. My only claim to math fame is playing intramural hoops for the Penn State math department grad team, but unless quantum mechanics from an alternate universe comes nto play, the Singer method will not outperform pure advantage play given identical coin-in.
None of that, however, addresses any of the questions of my orignal letter, which seems to have been hijacked. So let me pose some questions for arcimedes, vegas, and other APers. Since I'm also an advantage player, I'll speculate, too.
1) What percent of self-defined "advantage players" would you estimate are ahead lifetime?
2) What percent of people who invest in advantage-play software, books, and classes are ahead lifetime?
3) Out of all the video poker players in the US who have played more than 50,000 hands, how many are ahead? My estimate is a couple of thousand. Maybe fewer.
4) Does the existence of advantage-play software, books, and coaching contribute or detract from the casinos' bottom lines?
Advantage play has been in the public domain for quite a few years now. If people aren't using it, it's not because of Singer. It's simply because (1) people can't use pure advantage play (for whatever behavioral reasons) or (2) people don't want to use pure advantage play. It really is that simple.
Now, since the huge majority of players know of advantage play, but lose, isn't it conceivable (not likely, but conceivable) that the "Singer method" may actually benefit them compared to what they're currently doing? Less seat-time and more discipline usually helps players' bottom lines.
Players have been rejecting advantage play for years. There are reasons for this, which we can discuss another time. Consigning the Singer method to the pyre may be inappropriate.
The more interesting questions are still to come. Unless Mr. Kneeland has some startling revelations, what happens when the Singer method is revealed to have mathematical holes? How will Mr. Singer respond? For those sociologists in the audience (and arcimedes), I recommend reading "When Prophecy Fails" as a warm-up.
And for the APers, will you take a stab at, gulp, speculating regarding my questions? And are you willing to acknowledge that most video poker players have rejected pure advantage play for (what to them) are good reasons?
Alan -- you've done a great job moderating. On we go....
"1) What percent of self-defined "advantage players" would you estimate are ahead lifetime?"
This really depends on who you consider advantage players. If you assume it's someone who attended one Dancer class and gives it a quick shot, then the number is probably quite small. If you only consider those who put a concentrated effort and understand that 100.1% games are not an advantage, then it's probably closer to 80%.
"2) What percent of people who invest in advantage-play software, books, and classes are ahead lifetime?"
Not very many. Most people will not stick to it. All it will take is one losing streak and they will lose interest.
"3) Out of all the video poker players in the US who have played more than 50,000 hands, how many are ahead? My estimate is a couple of thousand. Maybe fewer."
There are millions of VP players. I wouldn't even try to estimate a number but I'd say the long term winners are probably <1% of the total.
"4) Does the existence of advantage-play software, books, and coaching contribute or detract from the casinos' bottom lines?"
Hard to say. First of all, very few VP players invest in those items hence they only apply to a few individuals. If you only look at that group then it's very likely that they will do better as a group and hence detract from the bottom line. For it work the other way you'd have to see this group play more VP than they otherwise would.
"Now, since the huge majority of players know of advantage play, but lose, isn't it conceivable (not likely, but conceivable) that the "Singer method" may actually benefit them compared to what they're currently doing? Less seat-time and more discipline usually helps players' bottom lines."
I don't think Singer's method will lead to less seat time. Remember, a progression leads to more sessions wins. IMO, it's more likely many players would be fooled into believing they can win with the method and actually play more. At least up until the time they hit a couple of bad losses. Even then, some might continue on for awhile.
In addition, discipline is not restricted to Singer's strategies. It applies to whatever technique a player might choose.
Thanks you for answering these questions Arci because I would really be on thin ice commenting on these questions because I'm not a VP-player. I'm not going to speculate (at this point) about Singer's reaction if Kneeland concludes that the system has mathimatical holes. I have an idea of how he will respond but I'll leave that up to him.
What does disappoint me is that Singer, who has been very dedicated to defending his system, has not responded yet to any of the math presented in this thread. All the "personal bickering" got swift replies, but the math somehow doesn't. I'm truly interested in his mathimatical approach of the development of his system.
You've already seen the complete mathematical analysis that Singer used. Zero, zilch, nada, none (and maybe you can add some others).Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas_lover
Rob, your silence speaks volumes!!!
I'm sure he is consulting with his 3 mythical mathematicians demanding his virtual money back. ;)
I've been away from the forums for almost 2 weeks now (enjoying a great Caribbean cruise) and it appears that my infrequent posts, which have been pointedly at odds with Mr. Singer, have hit a nerve with him. He can't get me out of his mind and it's an honor, believe me.