Video Poker Trucks Run Over Everybody

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Arc, you are really starting to frustrate me. I can't believe you wrote this:

Then why do you keep claiming you can win on negative machines with win/loss goals? That IS challenging the ER. You can't claim you will win on negative machines without overcoming the casino edge.

For the umpteenth time, walking away with a profit has nothing to do with challenging the ER or overcoming the casino edge. Do you not understand the concept? What is the problem here that you are having?

---

Alan, it is you having the problem. I guess your memory must be failing you. I've stated about a zillion times already that anyone playing any ridiculous strategy can walk away a winner occasionally. I thought we had put that question behind already. But no, you keep resorting to that issue over and over again. Write down somewhere ... "arc realizes anyone can win in the short term".

I've always been referring to winning on a negative machines over time. Got it?

That is what you are claiming your win/loss strategies will do. You have stated it many times. And, that is what I'm saying is not doable because it would mean you're return was better than than the optimal return. Sorry, no betting strategy can accomplish that task. It has been PROVEN mathematically which means it is just as valid as 2+2=4.

No Arc, we are not talking about how it is possible to win at a negative expectation game. What I am saying is that winning at a negative expectation game has NOTHING to do with violating the house edge, or the game's return or anything else. Winning has nothing to do with violating the math.

Now you are being a troll.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

No Arc, we are not talking about how it is possible to win at a negative expectation game. What I am saying is that winning at a negative expectation game has NOTHING to do with violating the house edge, or the game's return or anything else. Winning has nothing to do with violating the math.

Now you are being a troll.

---

Well maybe you can explain it to me, Alan. Here's the way the math works. When you claim you can win over time the math calculates that as a return of >100%. That is, more money comes out of the machines then goes into them. At least that is how I define 'winning". Now, if the ER of a machine is <100% that should mean that the best one can do is lose a some amount of money.

Therefore you are stating that you can beat the ER because any value >100% is obviously better than any ER which is <100%.

Arc, you are full of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Arc, you are full of it.

---

So, when presented with undeniable facts this is your response? Interesting.

Your facts have nothing to do with the discussion. You are creating new issues instead of answering the question or responding to the issue. The issue is this: walking away with a profit does not challenge the math of the game, the expected return, the house edge or anything else. It only means you walked away with a profit.

That's it. So stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Your facts have nothing to do with the discussion. You are creating new issues instead of answering the question or responding to the issue. The issue is this: walking away with a profit does not challenge the math of the game, the expected return, the house edge or anything else. It only means you walked away with a profit.

That's it. So stop.

---

Yes Alan, doing it one time doesn't mean anything as I've stated a zillion times. However, claiming a person can do it continually does challenge the math. You've been claiming a person can do it enough to make them a long term winner. That is nonsense.

You know what's also nonsense, Arc? Telling us you lose 55% of your sessions, winning 45%, and saying you have a six figure income playing 25-cent and $1 video poker after about six years. But I am not going to challenge you on it. Instead, I am going to accept it so that Singer's claim of winning $990,000 over ten years playing primarily $10 and $25 video seems reasonable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

You know what's also nonsense, Arc? Telling us you lose 55% of your sessions, winning 45%, and saying you have a six figure income playing 25-cent and $1 video poker after about six years.

---

Why is it nonsense? As long as my average win is substantially bigger than my average loss the results come out just fine. This is no different than many businesses. You may have a lot of expenses, but if your income is greater than those expenses you have a profit. And, as a businessman you know this to be true.

So, it appears you're just throwing crap at a wall right now and hoping some of it sticks.

No Arc. I really want you to have won $100,000+ It just means more support for Singer's claims about his nearly million dollar win.

All I can say is that it looks like arc doesn't want any scenario where anyone is able to win on negative machines over a long term. We all understand how the math works, but geez, I've done very well on a 99% game over 15 years only because I tried to stop playing at being ahead by varying amounts. Most of the time I was able to do that and the few times I waivered away I always ended up losing because I was a little too selfish. I don't consider any of it as beating the sacred math, not by a long shot. But I am doing better than optimal because optimal is only a theory isn't it? I actually consider my bonuspoker experience to be more on track with expectation than how badly I'm doing on the fpdw machines. Yes the math is there and yes it means a lot. But it doesn't mean it has got to be that way, and for someone like Singer to go out and teach his negative machine strategy to other people, it is not in the least bit wrong for him to do that because he's learned how to quit. As I asked earlier, if I win $300, $300, and $500 in 3 bonuspoker visits, where is it written that I HAVE to lose at least $1100 to make up for it because the game only calculates out to 99%. It doesn't, and in fact, I'm a believer in how these visits can always be broken up into their individually plotted points, while it's the math books that say they must be strung together. That's under a controlled circumstance. Videopoker has much more going on than that because there's a HUMAN making individual decisions.

Summary: no, absolutely NO, to the idea that the game's optimal ev cannot be bettered with actual results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

No Arc. I really want you to have won $100,000+ It just means more support for Singer's claims about his nearly million dollar win.

---

No it doesn't. As long as Singer claims his wins came on negative return games then my claims of winning with a large edge have no bearing on his claims. If he turns around and tells us that he was just kidding about the negative games then we would have to reassess his claims. For now, nothing about my success tells you anything about Singer's claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

No it doesn't. As long as Singer claims his wins came on negative return games then my claims of winning with a large edge have no bearing on his claims. If he turns around and tells us that he was just kidding about the negative games then we would have to reassess his claims. For now, nothing about my success tells you anything about Singer's claims.

---

Really, Arc? That's all I'm going to say. I defer to the comments above made by Jatki: "All I can say is that it looks like arc doesn't want any scenario where anyone is able to win on negative machines over a long term."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

All I can say is that it looks like arc doesn't want any scenario where anyone is able to win on negative machines over a long term. We all understand how the math works, but geez, I've done very well on a 99% game over 15 years only because I tried to stop playing at being ahead by varying amounts. Most of the time I was able to do that and the few times I waivered away I always ended up losing because I was a little too selfish. I don't consider any of it as beating the sacred math, not by a long shot. But I am doing better than optimal because optimal is only a theory isn't it?

---

No, it is mathematics based on games being random.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

I actually consider my bonuspoker experience to be more on track with expectation than how badly I'm doing on the fpdw machines. Yes the math is there and yes it means a lot. But it doesn't mean it has got to be that way, and for someone like Singer to go out and teach his negative machine strategy to other people, it is not in the least bit wrong for him to do that because he's learned how to quit. As I asked earlier, if I win $300, $300, and $500 in 3 bonuspoker visits, where is it written that I HAVE to lose at least $1100 to make up for it because the game only calculates out to 99%. It doesn't, and in fact, I'm a believer in how these visits can always be broken up into their individually plotted points, while it's the math books that say they must be strung together. That's under a controlled circumstance. Videopoker has much more going on than that because there's a HUMAN making individual decisions.

Summary: no, absolutely NO, to the idea that the game's optimal ev cannot be bettered with actual results.

---

Over the short term yes ... over the long term the chances get smaller and smaller. Just like my mention of the lottery on another thread. Just because something has a non-zero probability does not mean it's a wise investment of your money. During that run of losses I had earlier this year I was ahead in almost none of them. These claims that people always get ahead at some time during a session must be from playing on another planet. It certainly has never been true for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Really, Arc? That's all I'm going to say. I defer to the comments above made by Jatki: "All I can say is that it looks like arc doesn't want any scenario where anyone is able to win on negative machines over a long term."

---

It has nothing to do with wants/wishes/whatever ... it is simply mathematical reality. You are living in fantasy land if you it think has anything to do with me. I'm just the messenger. Sorry if you don't like the message.

If you want to live in fantasy land I would suggest buying power ball tickets. There's a lot more money to win living in that fantasy world.

Arc, You're just not making sense. You have a long string of losses yet you end up a winner. You lose 55% of the time on positive expectation machines no less, but your 45% of wins over time make you a winner. It's okay for you to win $100,000+ in six years playing 25-cent and $1 video poker but Singer who plays most of his action on $10 video poker can't win almost a million dollars over ten years. You say it is possible to win on a negative expectation game in one session, but you say it's impossible to win on a negative expectation game over the long term -- forgetting perhaps that the long term is a combination of short terms?

Sorry, this just does not make sense at all.

But hopefully you now understand that "actual results" can differ from "expected results" because that's just how it is in the real world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Arc, You're just not making sense. You have a long string of losses yet you end up a winner.

---

Yes, because I've also had strings of winners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

You lose 55% of the time on positive expectation machines no less, but your 45% of wins over time make you a winner.

---

Yes, because I win more on average than I lose. You can't lose a RF worth of credits in one hand, but sure can win them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

It's okay for you to win $100,000+ in six years playing 25-cent and $1 video poker but Singer who plays most of his action on $10 video poker can't win almost a million dollars over ten years.

---

Because I play positive return games and Singer doesn't. Already explained to you many times. Also, he doesn't average $10 denom ... more like $2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

You say it is possible to win on a negative expectation game in one session, but you say it's impossible to win on a negative expectation game over the long term -- forgetting perhaps that the long term is a combination of short terms?

---

Possible does not mean probable. The chances of winning or losing multiple session is very low. Just like I followed my 8 out 9 losses with 7 out of 9 wins. You seem to be unaware that VP really is based on random events. You seem to think that bad hands no longer appear when you set win/loss goals. What can I say. It's complete nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Sorry, this just does not make sense at all.

But hopefully you now understand that "actual results" can differ from "expected results" because that's just how it is in the real world.

---

It all makes perfect sense and I've explained it all to you many times. When are you going to start thinking rationally? It appears you are not even trying to understand the subject matter at all. You just want something to be true and are willing to ignore all relevant facts in order to maintain that belief.

Here's a thought, Alan. Take your questions to any University in your area. I hear there's quite a few in Southern California. Talk to someone in the math dept. Jot down the answers. Now, try another one. You are a reporter, right? Get back to us with the results.

Arc, I don't have to research it with a math department. I know too many people who win playing on negative expectation games. And a royal on a negative expectation game pays the same as a royal on one of your positive games.

You still cannot separate one concept from another. You still can't allow someone to win on a negative expectation game even if you concede they can win a session. You still can't allow a player to make a choice about when to cash out or when to stop feeding the losses.

In other words: you can't reason this. You abide only by the "expected" and never the "actual."

Did you mention living in a fantasy world?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Arc, I don't have to research it with a math department. I know too many people who win playing on negative expectation games. And a royal on a negative expectation game pays the same as a royal on one of your positive games.

---

Like I said ... you don't want to know the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

You still cannot separate one concept from another. You still can't allow someone to win on a negative expectation game even if you concede they can win a session. You still can't allow a player to make a choice about when to cash out or when to stop feeding the losses.

---

I allow for all of that, Alan. I simply am pointing out that the odds of remaining a winner dwindle significantly as time goes by. It's like the baseball analogy I used previously. According to Alan a baseball player who quit playing if he got a hit his first time to the plate would average better than one who continued to play an entire game. Yes, it's completely silly but it's the exact same claim you are making.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

In other words: you can't reason this. You abide only by the "expected" and never the "actual."

Did you mention living in a fantasy world?

---

Yes I did. You continue to do it in spite of being given the facts.

You win. I'm finished. Really, I am. Vegas_lover was right. And so was jatki. And gee, so was Singer.

A couple comments. Where arc says you can win a rf worth of credits in one hand but you sure can't lose them, there's something terribly inaccurate about that. You sure can lose them if you sit there long enough, I've done it.

I believe I used to know as much about Singer's strategy as anyone because of the interest he created about it in the paper. There's no way his play averages around the $2 denomination, it's more like the $5 - $10 denomination as far as averages go, and maybe even higher but not much. He used to write about his results each week, and I admit I called into his publisher more than once asking if they had seen proof of that huge taxable he claimed to have hit. They always confirmed, and they even put a lot of them in print next to his column with his personal info marked out. Now that doesn't serve as proof that he won anything, but it goes a long way and is certainly a lot more in that direction than any of the others have ever done.

I caught the comments about players being ahead most of their visits, I assume any amount, and arc saying that's not his experience. Then I respectfully submit he's posting from Mars, because it's most definitely been my experience. Ahead something on maybe 90% of my visits. It really is a game of discipline.

My last comment has to do with this never ending debate over if a player can win on negative machines over the long haul. I naturally know it's possible because it's a reality for me. What I don't understand is why there's even a question about if it's possible to continue to have winning visits on negative machines time and again. You go into a casino, you play and get ahead some amount of credits, you cash out and leave. Pay tables are of some importance but really mean very little in a one day visit. That happens all the time, who can dispute that? Then I'll ask the community this again, why is this scenario possible but it has to be that they just can't add up to a winner over whatever amount of time? Again, where is it written that the losses have to be more than the wins? That really makes no sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

You win. I'm finished. Really, I am. Vegas_lover was right. And so was jatki. And gee, so was Singer.

---

No, I didn't win a thing. You will be right back making the same illogical claims another day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

No, I didn't win a thing. You will be right back making the same illogical claims another day.

---

This doesn't add up. I have to believe arc only posts when he believes he's in a 100%+ situation. If people don't see it his way, well, he used to name-call but now he claims everyone's illogical and silly.

My question is, how can it really be positive and arc DOESN'T WIN a thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

A couple comments. Where arc says you can win a rf worth of credits in one hand but you sure can't lose them, there's something terribly inaccurate about that. You sure can lose them if you sit there long enough, I've done it.

---

So have I. I was just making the point that big wins make it easier to leave with a bigger session win. To get the same amount of losses requires a much longer time. Since I play sessions of a predetermined length this factor can come into play. However, it still does not overcome the return of a game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

I believe I used to know as much about Singer's strategy as anyone because of the interest he created about it in the paper. There's no way his play averages around the $2 denomination, it's more like the $5 - $10 denomination as far as averages go, and maybe even higher but not much. He used to write about his results each week, and I admit I called into his publisher more than once asking if they had seen proof of that huge taxable he claimed to have hit. They always confirmed, and they even put a lot of them in print next to his column with his personal info marked out. Now that doesn't serve as proof that he won anything, but it goes a long way and is certainly a lot more in that direction than any of the others have ever done.

---

We all hit big jackpots occasionally. Anecdotal evidence like that is worthless. I created a simulation of his system so I know what his average denomination comes out to. I just love it when people think their imagination is stronger than actual evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

I caught the comments about players being ahead most of their visits, I assume any amount, and arc saying that's not his experience. Then I respectfully submit he's posting from Mars, because it's most definitely been my experience. Ahead something on maybe 90% of my visits. It really is a game of discipline.

---

I don't dispute that someone might get ahead a few credits on "most" sessions. In fact, I demonstrated that with another simulation that used 5 credit win goals. However, to get ahead any meaningful amount seriously drops that percentage very quickly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

My last comment has to do with this never ending debate over if a player can win on negative machines over the long haul. I naturally know it's possible because it's a reality for me. What I don't understand is why there's even a question about if it's possible to continue to have winning visits on negative machines time and again. You go into a casino, you play and get ahead some amount of credits, you cash out and leave. Pay tables are of some importance but really mean very little in a one day visit. That happens all the time, who can dispute that? Then I'll ask the community this again, why is this scenario possible but it has to be that they just can't add up to a winner over whatever amount of time? Again, where is it written that the losses have to be more than the wins? That really makes no sense.

---

Of course it makes sense. It is based on the frequency of the hands you are dealt. In order to win over time on a negative game you must be dealt better hands than everyone else. How exactly do you get the RNG to deal you better hands? The answer is simple .... you don't. Of course, there are always a small percentage of people who show up in the right hand edge of the bell curve. So, it is possible but it is not probable. Only fools believe they can overcome the odds and always get luckier cards than everyone else.

Arc, you'll never understand how the game is really played if you don't want to get that no one needs better hands or better luck to show a long haul profit on a negative game if they get ahead and quit most of the time. You might be slick with the calculator but you show little in the realm of what really happens at the machins. Are you sure you play videopoker at all?

Your continuance on Singer's avg. denomintion being $2 does show what he's always said, that no one has even come close to understanding his strategy. I've seen your remarks about your simulation numerous times in various places, and as much as you may think you know what he does enough to do an accurate simulation, I'm believing him that you don't. Think about it, if he constantly had those tax forms published alongside his column that had to be on $5 and much higher at times (I saw one for $100,000, a few $40,000, and even a $50,000 or two and I'm sure I missed some over those years) then how in the hey is he averaging the $2 machine? That alone says to me that you are off by a factor of holy smokes!

I did follow the Frank saga with him and I was really rooting for Frank to learn his strategy so he could post his thoughts on it. When you think about it, wasn't that the purpose of what Frank was doing? How come he stopped and never did that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

Arc, you'll never understand how the game is really played if you don't want to get that no one needs better hands or better luck to show a long haul profit on a negative game if they get ahead and quit most of the time. You might be slick with the calculator but you show little in the realm of what really happens at the machins. Are you sure you play videopoker at all?

---

No, I just make it all up ... well, me and all the other mathematicians in the world. We just love to kid you guys. As for all those electronics and things that work because they use math, well they really only work because of some voodoo incantations made by the manufacturers. The math really doesn't work.

Look, you are saying that you can win when you are dealt the same frequency distribution of cards as any other player. Somehow your credits add up differently because of when you leave. What can I say when someone makes such a completely illogical claim. You are missing a basic grade school understanding of math. Quit while you are behind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

Your continuance on Singer's avg. denomintion being $2 does show what he's always said, that no one has even come close to understanding his strategy. I've seen your remarks about your simulation numerous times in various places, and as much as you may think you know what he does enough to do an accurate simulation, I'm believing him that you don't. Think about it, if he constantly had those tax forms published alongside his column that had to be on $5 and much higher at times (I saw one for $100,000, a few $40,000, and even a $50,000 or two and I'm sure I missed some over those years) then how in the hey is he averaging the $2 machine? That alone says to me that you are off by a factor of holy smokes!

---

Coming from you that is completely useless. We already know you think credits add up differently for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

I did follow the Frank saga with him and I was really rooting for Frank to learn his strategy so he could post his thoughts on it. When you think about it, wasn't that the purpose of what Frank was doing? How come he stopped and never did that?

---

He didn't stop. He was hoping there was something good would come from Singer's strategy. He soon realized that Singer was just full of it so he did what Frank always does. He tried not to say anything negative. I'm not like Frank. I tell you the truth.

Frank found out what the rest of us found out: there is no way to test Rob's system. There are too many variables. You cannot prove the overall system. At best you can test some of the elements in it.

Ironically, the elements can fulfill Rob's goals:
You can hit a $2500 win goal when you play at higher levels. Rob says most of his "wins" occur at the $10 level.
You can cash out and quit when you are ahead and avoid giving back your wins.
Special plays violate the traditional strategy but they can provide a win to reach a win goal.

You can't prove it but Rob did it. I said all along if Rob wrote a book that says "this is how I beat the casinos" instead of saying "this system will beat the casinos" he would be a hero.

Arci...I believe your game of choice is OEJ? Are there multiple casinos where you find this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

A couple comments. Where arc says you can win a rf worth of credits in one hand but you sure can't lose them, there's something terribly inaccurate about that. You sure can lose them if you sit there long enough, I've done it.

I believe I used to know as much about Singer's strategy as anyone because of the interest he created about it in the paper. There's no way his play averages around the $2 denomination, it's more like the $5 - $10 denomination as far as averages go, and maybe even higher but not much. He used to write about his results each week, and I admit I called into his publisher more than once asking if they had seen proof of that huge taxable he claimed to have hit. They always confirmed, and they even put a lot of them in print next to his column with his personal info marked out. Now that doesn't serve as proof that he won anything, but it goes a long way and is certainly a lot more in that direction than any of the others have ever done.

I caught the comments about players being ahead most of their visits, I assume any amount, and arc saying that's not his experience. Then I respectfully submit he's posting from Mars, because it's most definitely been my experience. Ahead something on maybe 90% of my visits. It really is a game of discipline.

My last comment has to do with this never ending debate over if a player can win on negative machines over the long haul. I naturally know it's possible because it's a reality for me. What I don't understand is why there's even a question about if it's possible to continue to have winning visits on negative machines time and again. You go into a casino, you play and get ahead some amount of credits, you cash out and leave. Pay tables are of some importance but really mean very little in a one day visit. That happens all the time, who can dispute that? Then I'll ask the community this again, why is this scenario possible but it has to be that they just can't add up to a winner over whatever amount of time? Again, where is it written that the losses have to be more than the wins? That really makes no sense.

---

Careful, Jatki. You may be accused of being a Singer follower, like me. LOL> I play regularly, and the PLAYING actually follows all that Rob talks about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

No, I just make it all up ... well, me and all the other mathematicians in the world. We just love to kid you guys. As for all those electronics and things that work because they use math, well they really only work because of some voodoo incantations made by the manufacturers. The math really doesn't work.

Look, you are saying that you can win when you are dealt the same frequency distribution of cards as any other player. Somehow your credits add up differently because of when you leave. What can I say when someone makes such a completely illogical claim. You are missing a basic grade school understanding of math. Quit while you are behind.



Coming from you that is completely useless. We already know you think credits add up differently for you.



He didn't stop. He was hoping there was something good would come from Singer's strategy. He soon realized that Singer was just full of it so he did what Frank always does. He tried not to say anything negative. I'm not like Frank. I tell you the truth.

---

I really don't get why you constantly have to try and give the impression that you know more than others do and are better than others here, just like on LV A. We're all just regular people arc. From the posts I've read throughout, you're not the richest, not the smartest, and you may not even be the most knowledgeable about videopoker. You never seem to want to learn anything, new or otherwise. And I thought I was old.

Videopoker is only part math. We all know that. It is so easy to throw the expectation off, either by making stupid holds in order to lose, or as Singer does at times (which you or I or anyone else really do not know when) by making slightly risky holds that at times make big huge winners out of it. The math is there, but only a fool would believe that human input cannot overpower what's expected. I believe that's why we've been given the supreme intelligence on this earth, and why it is we who created the computers and because of that, we are always one step ahead of them. To think a human developed rng can do better than the human mind is almost painfully funny.

I didn't see a reply about how you could be so far off when you I'm guessing made up how Singer only plays $2 on average after I told you what I read in the paper, and why is that information useless? And what's this about credits adding up differently for me? For someone who professes to only supply the facts and retort nonsense, what do you think such a pair of answers does to your image here? I keep on shifting back and forth between how you may be a super expert, and how you may equally be what you called me earlier, a troll.

Frank didn't stop, is he still going with it? As stated, I kept up with the Frank saga, and I see nowhere that supports what you say. Why would you say something that has no basis in fact? If you identified that as an opinion then it would mean something. I have to ask anyone who knows and not just wants it to be some agenda-pleasing way, where does it originate from that Frank was hoping something good would come of a Singer review? I never saw it that way, only that he wanted the truth, otherwise why bother. It seems to me that for Frank to quit whatever he was doing without knowing anything about what Singer does, something else was in play. You just say he realized Singer was full of it because that's what you prefer to believe, but the rest of us see it differently, I'm certain. I just find it awfully strange and frustrating that no one has ever wanted to meet with the guy and follow through on learning what he does well enough to confirm it with the rest of us. I watched him try damn hard to do it on that Shack forum, and he didn't even attach a bet to it, then it was the Shack experts who tried to get him to pay them to review it. Everywhere else there were bets and they never work. That's why many of us got our hopes up with Frank but he fizzled away. He's a strange cat for sure, but it looked mighty good for a while anyway.

Slingshot, I only now read your post. I don't really support Singer's strategy because it's too difficult to understand for one thing, and the limits are not my bag anyway. But you're right, I got banned on two forums for saying some things that defend what he does and says, and I've been accused of being him more than that. All in a days work, but I respect the guy and it isn't right to say something mean about anyone. Singer does that a lot, but he's not here right now and it's not helpful slamming him or lying about him at will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

I really don't get why you constantly have to try and give the impression that you know more than others do and are better than others here, just like on LV A. We're all just regular people arc. From the posts I've read throughout, you're not the richest, not the smartest, and you may not even be the most knowledgeable about videopoker. You never seem to want to learn anything, new or otherwise. And I thought I was old.

---

As I've said before, I'm just providing the views that have been developed long before me. I've never claimed those ideas were mine. However, when I decided to play VP I did the research necessary to understand the topic at hand. One wonders why you trying to make this about me and not about the facts themselves. You once again sounds extremely envious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

Videopoker is only part math. We all know that. It is so easy to throw the expectation off, either by making stupid holds in order to lose, or as Singer does at times (which you or I or anyone else really do not know when) by making slightly risky holds that at times make big huge winners out of it. The math is there, but only a fool would believe that human input cannot overpower what's expected. I believe that's why we've been given the supreme intelligence on this earth, and why it is we who created the computers and because of that, we are always one step ahead of them. To think a human developed rng can do better than the human mind is almost painfully funny.

---

Silly nonsense. Once again and I'll say it slow as I can. The strategies developed for VP are for optimal play. There is no way for the human mind to "overpower" them. The fact is the human mind discovered them and we use computers as needed as a tool. Saying this kind of ridiculous BS only shows you are completely clueless. Quit while you are behind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

I didn't see a reply about how you could be so far off when you I'm guessing made up how Singer only plays $2 on average after I told you what I read in the paper, and why is that information useless?

---

Well, maybe you should read my replies more closely. The $2 and change average is from the simulations. And, it makes perfectly logical sense if you think about his strategy. I won't waste any of my time explaining it to you as you've shown a resistance to understanding simple facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

And what's this about credits adding up differently for me? For someone who professes to only supply the facts and retort nonsense, what do you think such a pair of answers does to your image here? I keep on shifting back and forth between how you may be a super expert, and how you may equally be what you called me earlier, a troll.

---

The math is quite simple, if you believe you can beat a negative machine by cashing out based on win/loss goals then you must believe that credits somehow add up differently for you. The math tells you it can't be done so that's about the only thing that can lead a person to such a wrong conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

Frank didn't stop, is he still going with it? As stated, I kept up with the Frank saga, and I see nowhere that supports what you say. Why would you say something that has no basis in fact? If you identified that as an opinion then it would mean something. I have to ask anyone who knows and not just wants it to be some agenda-pleasing way, where does it originate from that Frank was hoping something good would come of a Singer review? I never saw it that way, only that he wanted the truth, otherwise why bother. It seems to me that for Frank to quit whatever he was doing without knowing anything about what Singer does, something else was in play. You just say he realized Singer was full of it because that's what you prefer to believe, but the rest of us see it differently, I'm certain. I just find it awfully strange and frustrating that no one has ever wanted to meet with the guy and follow through on learning what he does well enough to confirm it with the rest of us. I watched him try damn hard to do it on that Shack forum, and he didn't even attach a bet to it, then it was the Shack experts who tried to get him to pay them to review it. Everywhere else there were bets and they never work. That's why many of us got our hopes up with Frank but he fizzled away. He's a strange cat for sure, but it looked mighty good for a while anyway.

---

Well, all of Frank's comments are here for you to read. Instead of making claims about what I said why don't you go back and read them. Of course, what you'll find is Frank got frustrated with Alan when Alan wouldn't accept the simple reality Frank provided. More or less what Alan does with his comments to me. The reality Frank provided is the exact same one I provide. He just does it less directly.

Whatever happened to Frank, anyway? Does he still run a website and/or is he still doing AP'ing?

Is that what makes you feel better arc, more of the nonsense and silly things along with being purposely vague on your incorrect claim about what denomination Singer averages? I'll bet you don't think anyone has caught onto how you've avoiding this issue either.

What's how Frank and Alan related have anything to do with why Frank quit his review? Are you comfortable leaving that one with loose ends too? I guess so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Count Room

Whatever happened to Frank, anyway? Does he still run a website and/or is he still doing AP'ing?

---

I saw he put up a few posts on vpfree in the last week or two. Something about the plight of a friend's child taking him away from everything for a while. But wasn't he doing some kind of model for players to test the machines in some way? That part I'm lost on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

Is that what makes you feel better arc, more of the nonsense and silly things along with being purposely vague on your incorrect claim about what denomination Singer averages? I'll bet you don't think anyone has caught onto how you've avoiding this issue either.

---

Yessiree, you are really on top of your game. I've now answered it twice and you missed it both times. However, it does make it obvious you are not reading my comments. That is exactly what trolls do. What a loser.

You haven't answered anything arc, and you can't hide behind your simulations either because you haven't explained them. It is so simple, you claim singer plays at the $2 level and I showed how that's not possible. But I see you are into calling people names instead of answering the hard ones. How wonderful, and I'm sure you're surrounded by people who enjoy that type of thing.

When Singer goes to a casino with his $50,000+ bankroll with a $2,500 win goal he starts with play at the $1 level and moves up from there. He told me that the bulk of his play ends up at the $10 level. He has sometimes played at the $25 level when he got into a big hole. I think he said he played at the $100 level only once, or maybe twice.

The bulk of his play does not end up at the $10 level if his description of his system is accurate. It can't. He's playing a progression which causes him to reset back to previous levels when he hits a jackpot that doesn't make his win goal. Also, if he hits his goal early he may never reach any of the higher denoms.

For example, say he played through the first two levels and then hits quad Kings playing SDB. That is 600 credits at $5 or $3000. If he was early in that play his total investment from the previous levels was only $1200. He would reset to the $1 level most times and to the $2 level other times depending on exactly when he hits the quad.

As a result of small quads he may reset to the $1 level several times during a session. Each time he will play both $1 and $2 before he ever gets any higher. His hands at those level pile up while at higher levels he may only play through once quite often. This means his average play is usually $2+. Also note that Singer only played his full 6 levels like 3 times and didn't even play 5 levels all the time. As a result he rarely played at the $25 level.

Now, if Singer actually said most of his play was at the $10 level then either he lying about how his progression works or he was lying about his play. I suspect he meant he quit after the $10 level playing only 4 levels of the progression. Once again this would reduce the average denom significantly.

Arc, here's where I suggest you talk to Singer. I'm just telling you what he told me. He told me the bulk of his play is at the $10 level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Arc, here's where I suggest you talk to Singer. I'm just telling you what he told me. He told me the bulk of his play is at the $10 level.

---

Well, if that is the case then he was lying his method of play. Can't say I'm surprised. The most likely case is he was lying about almost everything.

Arci: I guess you've been too busy with the gunfight out in the middle of the street to notice that one of the citizens on the sidewalk posted a question a few pages back. I was inquiring about your VP game of choice.. OEJ perhaps? I don't know if I've seen this one or does it go under another name as some VP games do? Where do you play it most? Can you post what the pay tables are at the various levels?

One Eyed Jacks is an old game that was created for the Grand Casinos. The Grand was eventually bought out by Harrahs and the game is now generally available. However, you can't find it in very many places. The game I play is a knock-off version of the game built by Atronic (a European company I believe).

If you look at the vpfree pay tables on their web page you will find some of the pay tables for the game:

http://www.west-point.org/users/usma...228/V/PayV.htm

The games are in alphabetical order. The game I play now is the 100.28 version. I used to play the 101.4 version in Vegas when we wintered there. It was my top play.

I play the game at a local casino here in Minnesota. The reason the game is very popular in my state is one of the tribes subcontracted with Grand casinos to operate their new casinos in the early 90s. The games were installed by Grand casinos and now they have a huge following. In order to compete with the Grands (there are 2 of them), the casino I play at installed a different version. They went through a couple of manufacturers and now have the Atronics version called Two Jacks Wild installed.

I really don't think they will be around that much longer. Minnesota has maximum return on VP of 98%. No one knew the return of OEJs back when they were first installed. The machines actually paid out only 93% due to the complexity of the game. Since then the old machines have been "grandfathered" but when they are replaced by a newer machine only the <98% pay tables are allowed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

The bulk of his play does not end up at the $10 level if his description of his system is accurate. It can't. He's playing a progression which causes him to reset back to previous levels when he hits a jackpot that doesn't make his win goal. Also, if he hits his goal early he may never reach any of the higher denoms.

For example, say he played through the first two levels and then hits quad Kings playing SDB. That is 600 credits at $5 or $3000. If he was early in that play his total investment from the previous levels was only $1200. He would reset to the $1 level most times and to the $2 level other times depending on exactly when he hits the quad.

As a result of small quads he may reset to the $1 level several times during a session. Each time he will play both $1 and $2 before he ever gets any higher. His hands at those level pile up while at higher levels he may only play through once quite often. This means his average play is usually $2+. Also note that Singer only played his full 6 levels like 3 times and didn't even play 5 levels all the time. As a result he rarely played at the $25 level.

Now, if Singer actually said most of his play was at the $10 level then either he lying about how his progression works or he was lying about his play. I suspect he meant he quit after the $10 level playing only 4 levels of the progression. Once again this would reduce the average denom significantly.

---

I'm familiar with what his strategy says, and you are not depicting it as it really is. First off, he doesn't do the reset to previous levels only with jackpot hits. Some of those confusing 40 credit cash outs along with I think a 10 credit profit into the soft profit pool will do it too.

Then, in your example of hitting four Kings on $5 sdbp, he's not just recovering the $1200 lost from the $1 and the $2 levels. He also has to recover the 100 credits lost at the $5 bonuspoker level plus anything lost on $5 sdbp prior to hitting those kings.

Singer had many jackpot pictures (taxables I mean) from the $10 and $25 levels, so your characterization of him not playing much at $25 is far off. The same with the $100 machines, as both you and Alan are incorrect. I remember at least a half dozen wild winners he boasted about at that level, but I don't know how many times he played there.

So arc, you ended up only contradicting yourself. You're depicting someone who wins his $2500 all the time at the lower levels when you've claimed he didn't win at all or whatever crazy criticism you dished out without support, and the fact is there's no way he would have done that without visits to the higher denominations many times over. His column and taxables confirmed that, but you're not wanting any of it. Further, you or I or anyone else has no clue as to when he uses those special plays, because he clearly doesn't use them all the time, and there's something about why he at times ndidn't go to the $100 level when he could have. So you do not understand his strategy even close while calling him a liar for no good reason, and Alan, I implore you to ask him to either come on and explain it fully or to write it up somewhere where we could all read it. Unless you're happy reading arc's sour grapes time and again, on and on.

I never asked Rob to leave. He is not banned. He is welcome to return any time he likes.

Getting back to Rob's special plays-- he said this many times. About 95% of the time he played a conventional strategy. He used special plays 5% of the time. Sometimes, he would not use a special play when it presented itself because he was doing just fine playing the conventional way.

If you ask me, the whole hullabaloo about his special plays was overdone, overblown, and simply made too much of. And even Rob said the biggest reason for his wins is not the special plays but because of his "discipline" and keeping to win goals.

His critics, however, love to harp on the special plays. But even Rob concedes his special plays have a lower return -- but when they hit they give him what he needs. Hence his overall theme of "getting lucky."

Of course the math guys cannot accept anything besides playing by the math. Heck, they can't even accept the idea of playing with win goals. When they play on their "positive expectation machines with or without side benefits" every hand they play they count as money in the bank... even when they lose.

It's really hysterical when you step back and look at how the debate has gone.

He makes it very clear to me-it all depends on keeping up with where you are in the strategy. He even says he uses it in the last 100 credits of his strategy if he hasn't a chance of reaching it by ap strategy. I've even kept 3 A's in bp instead of a full house if more than 30 credits away from returning me to the lower denom. Win goals again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

I'm familiar with what his strategy says, and you are not depicting it as it really is. First off, he doesn't do the reset to previous levels only with jackpot hits. Some of those confusing 40 credit cash outs along with I think a 10 credit profit into the soft profit pool will do it too.

---

Bwah haha haha haha. You are truly a tool. I was simply pointing out one aspect of his strategy that would cause him to revert to previous levels. The point was he will end up playing more times at those lower levels. Now, you come along and add another point that supports what I was saying. It was not my intent to describe the entire strategy but if you want add more evidence that supports my point I have no problem with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

Then, in your example of hitting four Kings on $5 sdbp, he's not just recovering the $1200 lost from the $1 and the $2 levels. He also has to recover the 100 credits lost at the $5 bonuspoker level plus anything lost on $5 sdbp prior to hitting those kings.

---

Yup, that's why I stated he could go back to either the $1 or $2 level. Do you know how to read, don't you? I'm beginning to wonder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

Singer had many jackpot pictures (taxables I mean) from the $10 and $25 levels, so your characterization of him not playing much at $25 is far off. The same with the $100 machines, as both you and Alan are incorrect. I remember at least a half dozen wild winners he boasted about at that level, but I don't know how many times he played there.

---

Well, Singer himself claims 3 times at the $100 level. So, I guess you'll have to argue with him about it. Maybe you can convince him he really played more. You can talk to him right after to talk to Dancer.

And, IIRC, he played about 30 times at the $25 level. That's about one tenth of his total sessions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

So arc, you ended up only contradicting yourself. You're depicting someone who wins his $2500 all the time at the lower levels when you've claimed he didn't win at all or whatever crazy criticism you dished out without support, and the fact is there's no way he would have done that without visits to the higher denominations many times over. His column and taxables confirmed that, but you're not wanting any of it.

---

Well old timer, Singer actually told me how many times he played at those levels. So, you are making a complete fool out of yourself here. BTW, you do realize Singer could create his own W2G look-a-likes, don't you? You do understand how easy that would be? You have head of scanners, copiers and printers, right? Well, I suppose given your previous comments I probably should be nicer. You clearly aren't very smart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

Further, you or I or anyone else has no clue as to when he uses those special plays, because he clearly doesn't use them all the time, and there's something about why he at times ndidn't go to the $100 level when he could have. So you do not understand his strategy even close while calling him a liar for no good reason, and Alan, I implore you to ask him to either come on and explain it fully or to write it up somewhere where we could all read it. Unless you're happy reading arc's sour grapes time and again, on and on.

---

Look, for all we know Singer never played a single hand of VP using his strategy. It could be complete scam. You are a fool if you believe him. I'm only repeating the things he has said. I personally believe most of it is lies. Of course, he counts on a few suckers like you to carry the load for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I never asked Rob to leave. He is not banned. He is welcome to return any time he likes.

---

Does anyone else find it interesting he stopped posting here and at vpfree at exactly the same time as backsider quit posting at vp.com?

And, it turns out he did this right after I asked him why he was wasting his life on video poker forums when he claimed he was retired from VP and was on a vacation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slingshot

He makes it very clear to me-it all depends on keeping up with where you are in the strategy. He even says he uses it in the last 100 credits of his strategy if he hasn't a chance of reaching it by ap strategy. I've even kept 3 A's in bp instead of a full house if more than 30 credits away from returning me to the lower denom. Win goals again.

---

Yes, that what he claims. Maybe you can educate Vic. You obviously understand Singer's strategy much better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Does anyone else find it interesting he stopped posting here and at vpfree at exactly the same time as backsider quit posting at vp.com?

And, it turns out he did this right after I asked him why he was wasting his life on video poker forums when he claimed he was retired from VP and was on a vacation.

---

Does the guy have to post? No, he doesn't. If he decides to post again he is welcome. If he decides it's a pointless exercise I can understand that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Yes, that what he claims. Maybe you can educate Vic. You obviously understand Singer's strategy much better.

---

I merely try to get the best understanding I can and play however I want. You guys try to make it etched in stone as the only way to play. If I don't feel right at a machine, I get up, leave and try somewhere else. If aart isn't working for me, I'll switch to something else. They don't put glue in my vp seats, and I'm not tied down to "computer perfect" play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

One Eyed Jacks is an old game that was created for the Grand Casinos. The Grand was eventually bought out by Harrahs and the game is now generally available. However, you can't find it in very many places. The game I play is a knock-off version of the game built by Atronic (a European company I believe).

If you look at the vpfree pay tables on their web page you will find some of the pay tables for the game:

http://www.west-point.org/users/usma...228/V/PayV.htm

The games are in alphabetical order. The game I play now is the 100.28 version. I used to play the 101.4 version in Vegas when we wintered there. It was my top play.

I play the game at a local casino here in Minnesota. The reason the game is very popular in my state is one of the tribes subcontracted with Grand casinos to operate their new casinos in the early 90s. The games were installed by Grand casinos and now they have a huge following. In order to compete with the Grands (there are 2 of them), the casino I play at installed a different version. They went through a couple of manufacturers and now have the Atronics version called Two Jacks Wild installed.

I really don't think they will be around that much longer. Minnesota has maximum return on VP of 98%. No one knew the return of OEJs back when they were first installed. The machines actually paid out only 93% due to the complexity of the game. Since then the old machines have been "grandfathered" but when they are replaced by a newer machine only the <98% pay tables are allowed.

---

Thanks. This is exactly what I was looking for. I've been in well over a hundred casinos, but never one in Minnesota, so this particular game wasn't ringing a bell with me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Yes, that what he claims. Maybe you can educate Vic. You obviously understand Singer's strategy much better.

---

Thanks, again, but I am not interested in any education courtesy of the Singer School of VP. I may not be rich from VP, but I manage to sustain my playing dollar through wise decision making skills learned before I ever heard of Rob. I'm a firm believer in avoiding the pitfalls of the S.W.A.G. method of play, and to date, it works for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I'm a firm believer in avoiding the pitfalls of the S.W.A.G. method of play, and to date, it works for me.

---

What is the S.W.A.G. method of play? Did I miss this somewhere, or is this some new concoction of abbreviations?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

What is the S.W.A.G. method of play? Did I miss this somewhere, or is this some new concoction of abbreviations?

---

Scientific Wild A$$ Guess

WAG was, at the two companies I worked at, what our engineers who quoted jobs called a Wild Ass Guess. So I imagine Vic, in his inimitable but "I don't need no help nohow" fashion, put the S in front of it for Singer--only because of his ignorance of the strategy, of course. But remember, he was speaking to arci. :)

Arci..again, thanks for the info on OEJ. I looked up the pay table you provided, and for one coin, a royal is 800. (Other sites show 1 coin = 250, progressing to a 5 coin = 4,000 royal.) Is this 800 coin amount incorrect, or does it progress up to a royal that's way over 4,000?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

WAG was, at the two companies I worked at, what our engineers who quoted jobs called a Wild Ass Guess. So I imagine Vic, in his inimitable but "I don't need no help nohow" fashion, put the S in front of it for Singer--only because of his ignorance of the strategy, of course. But remember, he was speaking to arci. :)

---

Always have to make it about YOU, right Rob?

"S.W.A.G." has been around for years and years. http://www.acronymfinder.com/SWAG.html Surprised you aren't aware of this, given your "I know everything" fashion of posting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Arci..again, thanks for the info on OEJ. I looked up the pay table you provided, and for one coin, a royal is 800. (Other sites show 1 coin = 250, progressing to a 5 coin = 4,000 royal.) Is this 800 coin amount incorrect, or does it progress up to a royal that's way over 4,000?

---

The RF for my current game is standard, 250 for one coin and 4000 for betting 5.

BTW, I have been using SWAG since I can remember. Hard to believe anyone who worked for a technology company wouldn't have heard of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Always have to make it about YOU, right Rob?

"S.W.A.G." has been around for years and years. http://www.acronymfinder.com/SWAG.html Surprised you aren't aware of this, given your "I know everything" fashion of posting.

---

Where did I say I didn't know it Vic? The real surprise is how you apparently didn't get the "S is for Singer" part, because that's what you really meant.

Yes arci, you worked so long ago....bet you didn't foresee all the anguish your retirement would bring way back then! I mean, sitting at a KEYBOARD for hours on end, with only a weekly 6-7 hour waste of time on ANOTHER KEYBOARD as a break?:)

My reading lessons here have me quantifying arc as chuckling at those keyboards, theoretically. That's the plus ev play.

Vic, S.W.A.G is widely known and was frequently used as Singer said in a company I worked at, Sylvania, as a Sylvania Wild Ass Guess. I've never heard the word Scientific for the S, but it is as good as any if your company doesn't begin with an S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Yes arci, you worked so long ago....bet you didn't foresee all the anguish your retirement would bring way back then! I mean, sitting at a KEYBOARD for hours on end, with only a weekly 6-7 hour waste of time on ANOTHER KEYBOARD as a break?:)

---

Yes, it's just awful being retired now for 14 years since I was smart enough to invest wisely, have a plan and retire at age 52. Unlike some addict named Singer who gambled away their own money, there inheritance and who know how much of his wife's earnings, couldn't hold a real job and eventually had to come up with an idiotic gambling system to try and find some reason for their existence, I actually am living well with a real home instead of a trailer.

BTW, you forgot to mention the 5-6 golf outings a week and my bowling excursions. You seem to forget that I traveled the country years ago due to my early retirement. I didn't need to wait until my wife qualified for social security. I guess your memory is starting to fail in your old age. Probably all those brain cells you destroyed with your alcoholism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Where did I say I didn't know it Vic? The real surprise is how you apparently didn't get the "S is for Singer" part, because that's what you really meant.

---

And it's no surprise you always know exactly what someone else is thinking.

I've encountered an entire spectrum of personalities in dozens of forums covering a wide range of topics and you are quickly rising to the top of the list for the most overbearing and pompous participants. Congrats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

Vic, S.W.A.G is widely known and was frequently used as Singer said in a company I worked at, Sylvania, as a Sylvania Wild Ass Guess. I've never heard the word Scientific for the S, but it is as good as any if your company doesn't begin with an S.

---

I guess seeing "Scientific" as the first on the acronym list means it was a deep dark secret from the entire world. However, if Sylvania wants to lay claim to it and Rob is convinced the "S" automatically and irrefutably = Singer, more power to them.

Would everyone please step back and take a deep breath and see what happened here? We're now discussing video poker in terms of acronyms used in the electronics industry, mixed in with who is or isn't having the best retirement and who had the best pre-retirement financial plan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Would everyone please step back and take a deep breath and see what happened here? We're now discussing video poker in terms of acronyms used in the electronics industry, mixed in with who is or isn't having the best retirement and who had the best pre-retirement financial plan.

---

Arci and I were having a respectable VP exchange and you inquired about the acronym I used, which is not a problem whatsoever. You asked, I answered. At that point, Rob intruded by insulting me (and Arci), which hijacked the thread into its present state. I don't need to step back nor do I need to take a deep breath when I did not deserve his comment. Alan, I respect your position, but you need to recognize the instigator in situations like this.

For Arci:

I've been playing OEJ courtesy of vpgenius, but I haven't located a true strategy. Which game strategy most closely can be implemented in your opinion and experience? I'm thinking in terms of how one could easily apply JOB to BP. Thanks, and if I locate this game in a casino, I'll give it a try.

Vic, I just coated my hands in baby powder, so you should be safe now.

Arci, seeing that my wife just turned 60 and can't collect SS, we'll let that define the rest of your sour grapes post. :) But just as always, thank you for showing another small piece of your angry side.

Chip, chip, chipping away,
Chipping at your tower of cool!

Now go back and check on that pot of boiling water! And strengthen the walker, would you! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

For Arci:

I've been playing OEJ courtesy of vpgenius, but I haven't located a true strategy. Which game strategy most closely can be implemented in your opinion and experience? I'm thinking in terms of how one could easily apply JOB to BP. Thanks, and if I locate this game in a casino, I'll give it a try.

---

The closest strategy is double joker poker. The best strategy for the game itself is by Wolf Video Poker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

The closest strategy is double joker poker. The best strategy for the game itself is by Wolf Video Poker.

---

I appreciate the straight up responses you've given me. The condescending haughtiness by a different poster is getting tiresome.

How volatile would you consider this game to be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Alan, I respect your position, but you need to recognize the instigator in situations like this.

---

I did not blame you. But look at what happened. So I am appealing to everyone. So let's talk about something neutral... strip clubs, for example. LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I did not blame you. But look at what happened. So I am appealing to everyone. So let's talk about something neutral... strip clubs, for example. LOL

---

Don't "appeal to everyone". Take care of business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Don't "appeal to everyone". Take care of business.

---

There have been several offenders here. If I "banned" all of them, even I couldn't participate in future discussions. So I must appeal to everyone. :-)

Yes, Vegas Vic, I have to admit -- if I were Arcimedes, I'd be more proprietary regarding the video poker information he provides. Hell, proprietary isn't the word -- loose lips sink ships. I'd be a veritable clam. But, to his credit, he's almost always in educational mode.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

There have been several offenders here. If I "banned" all of them, even I couldn't participate in future discussions. So I must appeal to everyone. :-)

---

On the contrary, there's the axiom "if you don't take care of business, you lose business". However, if having an amateur forum is your goal, carry on.

What is it you want, Vegas Vic? If you want me to ban someone, I'm not going to do it for anything less than a criminal matter or something equally serious. I believe in free speech and an open exchange of ideas. Unfortunately there are some boobs in the world who can't act like adults and there are some jerks who have no regard for others' feelings or emotions, and there are those who have no conception of what is good taste and what is poor taste. Perhaps the jerks will come around; or perhaps others will see them for what they are as they continue their childish ways. But the forum remains open.

So again, is there something you would like me to do?

That seems the very definition of "public forum." If people want to hang themselves, or profile themselves, with their own words, so be it.

Not much one can do -- everybody has the right to make an idiot of himself.

As for Rob, it's not like people can't attach a real name to his vitriol. If he really upsets someone at some point -- well, as I've always said -- outside of the president and a couple of CEO's, anybody in this country, properly motivated, can do anything to anyone. We are all in each other's hands.

Oh will everybody please stop crying. It's a forum with mostly unknown people hurling insults now and then. So what. I've had to adapt when I didn't expect to want to. Arc tells lies about Singer, then Singer pokes fun at him. That's the American way and as Redietz said, we're all in everyone else's hands. That's where arc lands when he decides to lie, and big deal if Singer aims his shots below the belt. I personally don't like it, but would I do the same if someone came on and made up unflatterring stories about me? For sure. Besides, Singer is a known entity in the area of videopoker. Who in the heck is arc anyway, other than a multi-forum self-annointed know-it-all who can't ever seem to get enough praise coming his way and when he doesn't and or can't convert others to his way of thinking, he calls the them every name in the book.

Fair is fair people, so grow some and these little things will pass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I appreciate the straight up responses you've given me. The condescending haughtiness by a different poster is getting tiresome.

How volatile would you consider this game to be?

---

Just a little less volatile that DDB. I believe the variance is right around 40.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

What is it you want, Vegas Vic? If you want me to ban someone, I'm not going to do it for anything less than a criminal matter or something equally serious. I believe in free speech and an open exchange of ideas. Unfortunately there are some boobs in the world who can't act like adults and there are some jerks who have no regard for others' feelings or emotions, and there are those who have no conception of what is good taste and what is poor taste. Perhaps the jerks will come around; or perhaps others will see them for what they are as they continue their childish ways. But the forum remains open.

So again, is there something you would like me to do?

---

There is no such thing as free speech in this forum if you so choose to establish well defined rules of decorum. Your house, your rules. It's obvious you believe in letting the inmates run the asylum and it's this lack of control which perpetuates the childish behavior. Many forums institute "time outs" (temporary banishment) based upon frequency and /or severity of offence. You, as the administrator, have the right to decide and the right to dictate the consequences. Provocateurs find out quickly that continued participation is not an automatic given.

As it is now, many sensible topics and exchanges are being derailed into belligerent elementary school antics. Any newbies out there who stumble across this forum looking for some serious and practical information will be lucky to find any as it's too cumbersome to sift through all the crap. I would think your objective is to drive traffic, not drive it away.

Your call.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Just a little less volatile that DDB. I believe the variance is right around 40.

---

Thanks for providing the insight.