Important Point

The most interesting aspect of the Casino Catfishing thread is that Rob made the comment that his government training enabled him to render polygraph testing inconclusive.

Now what is the point of that comment? If Rob's truth-telling, he'd have no motive for rendering results inconclusive. Rob, are you saying that somehow anything you answer on a polygraph shows as inconclusive, whether you want it to or not? Or what exactly are you saying?

I guess we could find out.

I still think a polygraph is the best way to examine these questions. If Rob's lying tests as inconclusive, well, good for him. If his truth-telling tests as inconclusive, well, that's a shame, because I frankly want to believe him.

I think it was a brilliant choice of words by Rob, because I think the courts consider all polygraph results to be inconclusive. And by saying that the results are inconclusive, and by saying he can make the results show inconclusive results, someone who takes a polygraph could easily point to the results and say "I was telling the truth even if the machine said I lied," or he could say "I lied even if the machine said I was telling the truth."

To have a polygraph results "stand" you would need to have the subject of the polygraph say "I believe the results of the polygraph and I will not challenge them." Then, the subject of the polygraph would be "stuck" with the results.

But when the potential subject of a polygraph raises any doubt, then like the court system has ruled, the results could not be used as proof.

So what Rob did was simply say, "don't bother with a polygraph."

So I have this question: would you accept the information from his tax returns if the tax return copies came directly from the IRS and we documented that the returns came right out of the mailing envelope from the IRS? You would have to accept that we would show only the lines show casino wins and casino losses which is really all we care about anyway.

Alan, first of all, I do think Rob won the money he claims to have won. I thought someone said Rob's son works for the IRS. I'd probably pass on that kind of IRS evidence, then. But that's not the issue. Rob likes to compartmentalize his play. He was this and he lost; he was something different and he won. Now he's recreational.The only real question is "Is he ahead lifetime gambling?" As in "total gambling." IRS documents won't demonstrate that, but a polygraph might.

We don't know what Rob won where and what he lost. Neither does the IRS. The only person who does is Rob.

But you raise a really, really interesting question. Why would Rob say, "Don't bother with a polygraph?"

I'm afraid you are raising a question about "lifetime wins/losses" that is actually irrelevant.

What is relevant, I think, is if Rob won his almost a million dollars playing his system over ten years. I also happen to believe him. He is on the record saying he lost, if I recall, a quarter million dollars before starting his system. It wouldn't matter to me if he lost five million dollars prior to starting his system, because the only thing he is being criticized for is his system.

What happened before and after his "system years" doesn't matter.

However, I find it ironic that if he had a "winning system" he wouldn't continue with it even after "retiring." If the system worked as a working professional, why shouldn't it also work for a part time retiree?

The big difference is this is not a court of law. It's pretty obvious Rob knows he would fail the test and is looking for a way to decline your invitation.

As for the IRS form. You would need to have Singer provide a mailing address that only Alan could access. Anything else would still lead to doubts.

I mentioned the possible result of inconclusive because if I chose to I could actually make it read out that, and rather than someone crying foul afterwards by assuming I might be able to manipulate the results, I brought it up now so it could be discussed. But it doesn't change the fact that I am fully willing to go thru the procedure. As I said earlier, the where and when needs to be identified. What's funny is arci's going around pretending like he has no problem with a test, but we all know he really can't get away from the misery at home to do it. And I'll bet right now that he,would say no if we offered to take it at his house.

I feel obligated to point out that it isn't "irrelevant" what Rob's overall win/losses pre and post "system" are. It is a given on this forum that Rob's system influenced his wins and losses, but only on this forum. Rob, Alan, and various others assign a cause-effect relationship to his system use. That is, at best, highly speculative. I think on most forums that would not be simply accepted. And most professional mathematicians would say his system is irrelevant, so whether he won or lost pre and post system-use may be a result of variance, not his use of an alleged system.

That's why his overall wins/losses are interesting.

But redietz we know from Rob's own statements that he lost dramatically using what he described as "advantage play" before he developed his system. Hence the question: is his system that good to account for a turnaround and a nearly-million dollars net win over ten years? I would be more concerned about his financial records during his "years of system play" more than anything else. But then, I accept that he won nearly a million dollars and I have no reason to doubt it. I also accept the strategy of reaching win goals and quitting before the machines suck it all back, and I accept that because I have seen wins come in spurts and I know that the wins don't continue indefinitely.

What I really need to know is why honest and true IRS documents wouldn't be enough to put his critics at ease?

First off, Alan, you didn't address anything I said above. Just because Rob or you or anyone wants to attribute Rob's dramatic turnaround to a system DOESN'T MEAN IT'S ACTUALLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THAT SYSTEM.

Second, I believe Rob won the money.

Third, didn't Rob say somewhere his son worked for the IRS or something? That's not the case, is it?

Ok redietz. I'm just trying to come up with something that might be a workable solution. Of course it's up to Rob and for the rest of you to decide. But it seems to me that the more conditions you put on this "exam" the less likely it's going to happen.

I suggested what I thought might be the easiest "proof" or "exam" of Rob's claims: tax returns ordered by mail from the IRS. I really doubt his son would tamper with the process.

You will have to negotiate this with Rob -- if Rob even wants to negotiate. I will stand by ready to cooperate in any way I can.

But I, like you, believe Rob won the money. I wonder how you might be able to determine if Rob would have also won the money playing conventional video poker vs. his own system?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Ok redietz. I'm just trying to come up with something that might be a workable solution. Of course it's up to Rob and for the rest of you to decide. But it seems to me that the more conditions you put on this "exam" the less likely it's going to happen.

I suggested what I thought might be the easiest "proof" or "exam" of Rob's claims: tax returns ordered by mail from the IRS. I really doubt his son would tamper with the process.

---

This is a good approach. Alan could sign a non-disclosure agreement and the tax form mailed directly to him. This removes Rob from handling the documents and we all know that opening a letter and resealing it is not that difficult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

You will have to negotiate this with Rob -- if Rob even wants to negotiate. I will stand by ready to cooperate in any way I can.

But I, like you, believe Rob won the money. I wonder how you might be able to determine if Rob would have also won the money playing conventional video poker vs. his own system?

---

You really can't. The hands in VP are independent hence no betting system can change the expected return. This is what any mathematician would tell you. They would unanimously agree that whatever Singer won was the result of variance. However, you would at least put to bed the questions of whether he was able to overcome the odds of .03% to win what he claimed.

I prefer the previous proposals from months back--let's watch Rob play the system and see what the results are. Tax returns prove nothing. Let's have Rob play 4 different sessions so that 1 bad 1 doesn't skew the results. But since he would be the one at risk financially, there has to be some kind of arrangement to share the profit or loss. Alan can video the whole thing. This would also erase the suggestion that if he did win the $1,000,000 he was just exceptionally lucky. If he can repeat it 3 of the 4 times, that ain't luck.

Sorry, 3-4 timers is worthless. Last year I experience both a 8 session losing streak and a 6 session winning streak. In addition, Singer's system increases variance which mean streaks longer than this become more probable. The IRS letter would be much more meaningful as it would cover all his sessions for years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

I prefer the previous proposals from months back--let's watch Rob play the system and see what the results are. Tax returns prove nothing. Let's have Rob play 4 different sessions so that 1 bad 1 doesn't skew the results. But since he would be the one at risk financially, there has to be some kind of arrangement to share the profit or loss. Alan can video the whole thing. This would also erase the suggestion that if he did win the $1,000,000 he was just exceptionally lucky. If he can repeat it 3 of the 4 times, that ain't luck.

---

Rob faced a similar challenge from a bunch over on the LVA forum. It never happened because Rob required a high-dollar bet and Rob needed to play in both Vegas and Laughlin where the machines/games/denominations were available and the challengers didn't want to travel to Laughlin, if I recall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Sorry, 3-4 timers is worthless. Last year I experience both a 8 session losing streak and a 6 session winning streak. In addition, Singer's system increases variance which mean streaks longer than this become more probable. The IRS letter would be much more meaningful as it would cover all his sessions for years.

---

I think the IRS returns is the easiest, simplest way to confirm the winnings, if Rob wanted to cooperate.

But he says he wins 85% of the time--so let's see him win 3 of 4 and not make this a lifelong project.

The way Rob plays, he should win more than 75% of his sessions. That's clear. Winning three of four would be exactly what was expected.

There is nothing to say that any tax return filed is accurate. if you already claim that Singer is a liar, then why are you so willing to accept his tax returns as fact?

I would also never involve the IRS in anything as they are certainly the enemy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

There is nothing to say that any tax return filed is accurate. if you already claim that Singer is a liar, then why are you so willing to accept his tax returns as fact?

I would also never involve the IRS in anything as they are certainly the enemy.

---

Are you afraid of the answer? This does not bring in the branch of the IRS that you think is the enemy. These types of requests would go through a clerical department.

Why would I be afraid? I don't care if he is telling the "undeniable truth" or lying about everything. I just find any new system, concept, idea, etc. of interest and worth looking into.

And having worked against the IRS for 35 years now--they are the eenemy and any inquiry into your account can trigger other consequences and I would tell Singer not to do it.

Alan, I know you'd like to see IRS return info and while at first, seeing that I won precisely what I said I did over the years might give you a certain level of overall confidence, none of the jealous critics would ever admit to defeat from just that--for reasons identified by several posters. Then your own confidence & trust would wane, which is exactly what the,weak count on.

FYI: at this point in my life, with only retirement income and savings in our household, I'm not concerned with whatever else might be triggered by asking for the info. My son-in-law would do it with integrity, and seeing that my last audit ended with them sending me an $800 check, I'm not the least bit concerned.

I have no dispute with you Rob or your reports. I fully believe you won and could win using your system including win goals and moving up in denominations to reach the win goals.

My only question is how would you like to respond to redietz or other unbelievers? Or do you even want to bother?

That's not very easy Alan. The best way would be to play some sessions with he/them witnessing, but already you'veseen how a reasonable number of them wouldn't satisfy anyone. It's also a tough one because I only use a $5k gambling bankroll these days, and I don't think my wife would be happy with me doing that just to make a nobody like arci eat crow. So it's probably that family comes first, my career is over, and let the people decide. I tried multiple times to set up a playing bet with the one with the Wizzard coming my closest to reality. But again, they couldn't deal with how often I should win according to their "theories".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

The way Rob plays, he should win more than 75% of his sessions. That's clear. Winning three of four would be exactly what was expected.

---

So are you saying that 75% is bad?? I would pay for a system that is 75% wins. You mathematicians really must be good as you're grinding out better than 75% on a + less than 1% advantage. Must be that "NEW MATH" they used to talk about when I was a kid.

First off regnis, his math is wrong. It predicts an 83%-88% win rate. The 75% comes from a loose, incomplete analysis that looks at straight optimal strategy over the "long term". But add in the special plays and the benefit gained from looking at the results of a single session of play--ie, the way every player plays, as in the "short term"--and it goes up around ten points.

Regardless, the math hacks have no choice but to claim the many smaller wins will be wiped out by the few larger losses, and nothing could be further from the undeniable truth as I've said many times before. These people, not knowing how to analyze such a strategy, are left with guessing that the more frequent, larger big wins do not more than make up for the few larger losers. They always say this because they get stuck in how to respond, other than to shreek "LIAR!"

Regnis, it's a Martingale like progressive where the bet keeps increasing. There's a small win goal so you see small wins but you also see big losses. The bottom line is the system does nothing to change the ER of the game. Singer claims it does which makes him a liar, plain and simple.

He claimed to have done an analysis but never produces it. The last time he was supposed to provide it was last October and as I predicted nothing was provided.

I often wonder why some people radiate such anger & conflict in their Internet spews when trying to force their opinions upon others. Arci has provided that answer, and continues to do so. The Good Lord has blessed some of us in our lives for all our lives. These others....well, after years of allowing the hatred, he eventually punishes them--some directly, and some even more severely, by making them suffer as they are made to watch a loved one suffer thru accidents or thru a bevy of cruel, decimating and life-sapping illnesses.

I'd say, rather clearly, that we are all witnesses to God's rath as we watch this unfold, perhaps as a lesson to all others who have lived decent & noble lives thus far. In the meantime, we all understand the victim's anger, and his need to keep calling the unaffected a "liar". He routes that dissatisfaction with his "unfair" predicament thru to the person who's healthy & happy life frustrates him the most.

Just remember this folks: What goes around always does come around, and in such a very righteous way. Treat a loved one or anyone other than that in a way that you would expect to be treated, for just a while or for the length of a brow-beating infected marriage, and you too WILL end up being the one having to live out your life on the Internet, while looking in the mirror each & every day asking why this happened to you.

Live a respectable life, and show kindness to others. Or be that guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Regnis, it's a Martingale like progressive where the bet keeps increasing. There's a small win goal so you see small wins but you also see big losses. The bottom line is the system does nothing to change the ER of the game. Singer claims it does which makes him a liar, plain and simple.

---

Let's be factual here. Rob never claimed his strategy changed the expected return of the game. The expected return is determined only by the paytable. Your actual return will vary from that expected return according to how you play. If, for example, you hold only aces no matter what you are dealt in jacks or better, your actual return will differ from the expected return.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Just remember this folks: What goes around always does come around, and in such a very righteous way.

Live a respectable life, and show kindness to others. Or be that guy.

---

Yes, remember that Rob.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Let's be factual here. Rob never claimed his strategy changed the expected return of the game. The expected return is determined only by the paytable. Your actual return will vary from that expected return according to how you play. If, for example, you hold only aces no matter what you are dealt in jacks or better, your actual return will differ from the expected return.

---

Alan, get a clue. Rob claims that anyone can win using his system on negative games. What do you call that? My or your expected return is different that the machine's expected return. Our ER includes the strategy we use and the errors we make (actually another form of strategy). It's unfortunate that the term ER is used for both but try to understand the context next time. However, since Rob claims you will win using his strategy he is claiming his strategy will turn a negative ER game into a positive ER situation for the gambler.

I concur Alan, although I've always preferred to advertise the "return" of the games I choose to play as actual, whether before or after I have results. Yes there is a mathematical "expected return" addressed by the games' paytables, but it's bogus/meaningless since no one will ever play that machine enough to even approach the theory behind the numbers.

Example: the $10 machine I recently hit four Aces on. It was a "shockingly poor" 9/5 paytable...one that was "very costly" but only theoretically and only if I were to play it into infinity. But I've made a career out of beating these supposedly "unbeatable" machines. I put $4000 into it, and I cashed out something like $9700 (go ahead Spock, check the actual picture, and when you see I'm off by a few bucks, call me a liar again then claim everything else I say or pictures I post are untrue). This $9700 means my actual return was almost 250%, and that is the only important statistic that ever has any meaning when playing any machine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

I often wonder why some people radiate such anger & conflict in their Internet spews when trying to force their opinions upon others.

---

Yes, we've seen you do this many times on various subjects. Your projection is obvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Arci has provided that answer, and continues to do so. The Good Lord has blessed some of us in our lives for all our lives. These others....well, after years of allowing the hatred, he eventually punishes them--some directly, and some even more severely, by making them suffer as they are made to watch a loved one suffer thru accidents or thru a bevy of cruel, decimating and life-sapping illnesses.

---

More projection and interesting that you blame God for your problems. What a cop out. You really need to take responsibility for all the lies and nonsense you continue to spread. If you really do believe in God then you must know a dark after-life awaits you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

I'd say, rather clearly, that we are all witnesses to God's rath as we watch this unfold, perhaps as a lesson to all others who have lived decent & noble lives thus far. In the meantime, we all understand the victim's anger, and his need to keep calling the unaffected a "liar". He routes that dissatisfaction with his "unfair" predicament thru to the person who's healthy & happy life frustrates him the most.

---

This projection tells us that Robbie thinks his life has been "unfair". Well, maybe if he didn't constantly lie he wouldn't be in the predicament he now finds himself. Remember, he claimed many times that anyone who lived in NV was a loser. Now, that's where he lives in a trailer no less. This is the man who dreamed so much of living in a big house that he lied about it while living in a small apartment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Just remember this folks: What goes around always does come around, and in such a very righteous way. Treat a loved one or anyone other than that in a way that you would expect to be treated, for just a while or for the length of a brow-beating infected marriage, and you too WILL end up being the one having to live out your life on the Internet, while looking in the mirror each & every day asking why this happened to you.

---

Singer has often projected his abuse in the past. This is just another example where he admits to abusing family members and feeling bad about it. Yet, I suspect he still does exactly that after drinking too much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Live a respectable life, and show kindness to others. Or be that guy.

---

Yes, we know you are "that guy". Instead of feeling sorry for yourself why don't you do something about it. Check yourself into a mental health clinic and ask them for help. Your malignant narcissism is treatable. The first step would be to admit all your lies. Once you release that burden from your conscience you have a chance to move beyond it. You will no longer NEED to protect that which you know is holding you locked in your current misery. You can start today.

Arci never gets it straight, perhaps because of a jealousy-driven agenda. I guess my pictures continue to put him over the edge. My apologies.

My "claim" is that my play strategies, if played exactly as I have played them, are true and proven winning strategies, and will allow any player a far better opportunity to win a session and win overall on ANY + or -EV game, than playing only optimal play on any "positive" only game. ER is irrelevant since no one will ever play the machine enough to realize it, ever.

And arci, please, no successful debater has ever run out of effective replies while resorting to saying everything's just a projection. You're making this too easy. After all my friend, who's the one with the "squeak squeak"? :)

Bottom line buddy....bottom line. Gets you every time.

Consistency is a beautiful thing. Not so for neurosis. One thing about arci: he's always shown that when he's worked up enough after reading some of my longer posts filled with zingers, he scrambles into line-item-veto mode!

God bless the poor guy :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Regnis, it's a Martingale like progressive where the bet keeps increasing. There's a small win goal so you see small wins but you also see big losses. The bottom line is the system does nothing to change the ER of the game. Singer claims it does which makes him a liar, plain and simple.

He claimed to have done an analysis but never produces it. The last time he was supposed to provide it was last October and as I predicted nothing was provided.

---

Let's be clear about the claims that Rob's system is a Martingale. In a Martingale, let's say your initial bet is $5.00 The most you can ever win is that $5.00, so you may wind up risking a large amount of $$ just to win $5.00. In Rob's system, and I'm sure he doesn't need me to explain it, the opportunity exists to win much greater amounts with as small a hand as a full house at the higher denominations, not to mention the big quads.So can we at least stop using the Martigale claim.

As a side note, at the race track on Sunday, a novice was explaining (correctly) to his date that the favorite wins about 1/3 of the time. This is in fact historically correct over about 100 years. However, he was explaining to her that he was going to just keep doubling his bet until the favorite won. A parade of longshots had him broke in no time--and he forgets some favorites pay too low (like 2-5) for the Martingale to work. I resisted all urges to explain it to him as his date seemed impressed with his knowledge.

I'm glad to see that God's wrath has gotten Arci. I am taking a poll, however, and would like to know which god. Are we talking old testament god, Jesus, Allah, Zeus or whom?

I like to keep tabs on these things because, as a fervent worshipper of Beelezebub, I need to know from which direction the wrath is coming. I like to keep on the move.

I prefer in a gadda davida redietz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I'm glad to see that God's wrath has gotten Arci. I am taking a poll, however, and would like to know which god. Are we talking old testament god, Jesus, Allah, Zeus or whom?

I like to keep tabs on these things because, as a fervent worshipper of Beelezebub, I need to know from which direction the wrath is coming. I like to keep on the move.

---

No, you really haven't "seen" it yet. We're still awaiting a display of arci's courage to put up that current picture. Only THEN will we see the result of God's wrath.....only then will you come to realize the reason behind his constant anger with people who have a healthy & happy life and say it, and only then will you get your good belly laugh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

Let's be clear about the claims that Rob's system is a Martingale. In a Martingale, let's say your initial bet is $5.00 The most you can ever win is that $5.00, so you may wind up risking a large amount of $$ just to win $5.00. In Rob's system, and I'm sure he doesn't need me to explain it, the opportunity exists to win much greater amounts with as small a hand as a full house at the higher denominations, not to mention the big quads.So can we at least stop using the Martigale claim.

---

He knows that Alan. This is just one of those instances where a frustrated critic looks for the "tiniest" of windows to go thru in order to pretend something that isn't, is, in order to scratch an unreachable itch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Alan, get a clue. Rob claims that anyone can win using his system on negative games. What do you call that? My or your expected return is different that the machine's expected return. Our ER includes the strategy we use and the errors we make (actually another form of strategy). It's unfortunate that the term ER is used for both but try to understand the context next time. However, since Rob claims you will win using his strategy he is claiming his strategy will turn a negative ER game into a positive ER situation for the gambler.

---

We have gone over this a hundred times: expected return is different from actual return. I don't understand why you can't separate the two?

Let me give you another real world experience but this time from the TV news business: the expected tenure of a TV station news director (the boss of the TV news department) is a bit less than three years. This is based on statistics of all of the TV stations in the USA. Yet, Ralph Renick in Miami at WTVJ was news director there for something like 32 years. Andy Brigham was news director at WTVH in Syracuse for about 20 years. So their actual tenure was different from their expected tenure. It's the same playing video poker.

Here's a gambling analogy: A shooter at craps is expected to roll the dice 7 times before he sevens-out. Some will have an actual "hand" that lasts two rolls, and some lucky players might roll the dice a hundred times.

Alan-Arci is always willing to recognize the ebbs and flows, except when it comes to Singer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

We have gone over this a hundred times: expected return is different from actual return. I don't understand why you can't separate the two?

---

Well it appears it will take 101 before you understand. "Actual return" references past results. We are not talking about past results in this case. We are talking about future results. The game has a future ER and the player has his own personal future ER. They are different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Let me give you another real world experience but this time from the TV news business: the expected tenure of a TV station news director (the boss of the TV news department) is a bit less than three years. This is based on statistics of all of the TV stations in the USA. Yet, Ralph Renick in Miami at WTVJ was news director there for something like 32 years. Andy Brigham was news director at WTVH in Syracuse for about 20 years. So their actual tenure was different from their expected tenure. It's the same playing video poker.

---

And not related at all to the current discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Here's a gambling analogy: A shooter at craps is expected to roll the dice 7 times before he sevens-out. Some will have an actual "hand" that lasts two rolls, and some lucky players might roll the dice a hundred times.

---

Still not related. Alan, try the understand the difference between future and past and maybe you will catch on.

That's right Arc, "actual return" refers to past results... and it has nothing to do with expected return which is expected or forecast or theoretical. Expected return is not necessarily your future results unless you have a crystal ball or a time machine.

Future expected return? Wow, you made that one up, didn't you? Yes, Arc, all expected return is a future forecast of the possibility of what will happen with expert play over time. But "future expected return" is the verbose way of saying "expected return" isn't it?

"The game has a future ER and the player has his own personal future ER. They are different."

This is one of the many curious statements made by arci about video poker that bears more scrutiny. So often he's stated that the more a person plays say a 102% play, the closer to that expectation he will come. So by strict definition, the MACHINE has a "future ER" of 102%, and the PLAYER has the very same ER since AP's only are able to see things in a long-term setting.

I'm confused by his statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

That's right Arc, "actual return" refers to past results... and it has nothing to do with expected return which is expected or forecast or theoretical. Expected return is not necessarily your future results unless you have a crystal ball or a time machine.

Future expected return? Wow, you made that one up, didn't you? Yes, Arc, all expected return is a future forecast of the possibility of what will happen with expert play over time. But "future expected return" is the verbose way of saying "expected return" isn't it?

---

Yes it is, but since you seem to struggle with the idea I thought I would emphasize that point about the future. The important issue is the difference between the game's ER and the player's ER. This is why I stated Singer claimed his strategy turned a negative game into a positive situation. That is, while the game itself had a negative ER, by using Singer's strategy the player's ER would be positive. Of course, that is nonsense, but that is what Singer is claiming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

"The game has a future ER and the player has his own personal future ER. They are different."

This is one of the many curious statements made by arci about video poker that bears more scrutiny. So often he's stated that the more a person plays say a 102% play, the closer to that expectation he will come. So by strict definition, the MACHINE has a "future ER" of 102%, and the PLAYER has the very same ER since AP's only are able to see things in a long-term setting.

I'm confused by his statement.

---

Obviously, and no one is surprised. Maybe if you took the time to read what I wrote you could remove some of the fog.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Yes it is, but since you seem to struggle with the idea I thought I would emphasize that point about the future. The important issue is the difference between the game's ER and the player's ER. This is why I stated Singer claimed his strategy turned a negative game into a positive situation. That is, while the game itself had a negative ER, by using Singer's strategy the player's ER would be positive. Of course, that is nonsense, but that is what Singer is claiming.

---

I'm not struggling with the idea at all, Arc. I just think we should be clear about our definitions here. So allow me to repeat the definitions that I am working with:

Expected Return is theoretical and applies to each hand and to the future.
Actual Return is what happened in the past whether it be a particular hand or session or lifetime of play.

Now I have to question your use of "expected return" for the game and "expected return" for the player. I thought that the expected return is the expected return... period. Unless, of course, the player is not using "proper strategy" because I think all of the expressions of "expected return" are based on "proper strategy."

For the record, Rob has always said that the "expected return" on his strategy and holds and special plays has pretty much always been lower than the "expected return" of conventional play. But he says his strategy differences allow for the possibility of winning certain big hands. And this brings us back to the original starting point of this discussion: Rob never challenges the "expected return."

To be correct, I think the proper statement would be something like this:

Video poker games have an expected return. But Rob believes that by utilizing so-called special plays and utilizing a win goal strategy that his actual return can exceed the expected return.

Now will that work?

edited to add:

The reason why I want to point out what Rob has said before (you can see the videos, since the info is there) and what the "working definitions" of certain terms are, is because Rob is not as crazy as his critics make him out to be. In the first place he is no different from anyone else who walks into a casino: he tries to win and he is motivated to win. Secondly he will sometimes take chances or change his play to maximize his chances of winning.

For some reason only the so-called "advantage players" have a problem with the concept of quitting when ahead, whether that objection is based on the short term, the long term, or when the next session will be played. The rest of the world, I submit, does not have a problem with the concept of quitting when you have a lead.

Now you've ruined it for me Alan. It was more fun thinking Arci is chasing around a crazy lunatic all these years on all these forums. Now you tell us Rob isn't crazy. sheesh!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

To be correct, I think the proper statement would be something like this:

Video poker games have an expected return. But Rob believes that by utilizing so-called special plays and utilizing a win goal strategy that his actual return can exceed the expected return.

Now will that work?

---

You're playing games. When someone claims the future return will be greater than 100% by using a particular strategy, they are claiming the game is positive for that player. And, since we are talking about the future we are taking about the expected return of the player.

Arc, you're missing the point. Rob's special. The laws of probability don't apply to him. So get off your high horse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Arc, you're missing the point. Rob's special. The laws of probability don't apply to him. So get off your high horse.

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4w8vzTT7uA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hq6l5767Iek

He's "special" alright ... if there was a Special Olympics in VP he would certainly qualify. It's kind of funny to watch the handstands his supporters will do to try and make it seem like Singer is reasonable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I'm not struggling with the idea at all, Arc. I just think we should be clear about our definitions here. So allow me to repeat the definitions that I am working with:

Expected Return is theoretical and applies to each hand and to the future.
Actual Return is what happened in the past whether it be a particular hand or session or lifetime of play.

Now I have to question your use of "expected return" for the game and "expected return" for the player. I thought that the expected return is the expected return... period. Unless, of course, the player is not using "proper strategy" because I think all of the expressions of "expected return" are based on "proper strategy."

For the record, Rob has always said that the "expected return" on his strategy and holds and special plays has pretty much always been lower than the "expected return" of conventional play. But he says his strategy differences allow for the possibility of winning certain big hands. And this brings us back to the original starting point of this discussion: Rob never challenges the "expected return."

To be correct, I think the proper statement would be something like this:

Video poker games have an expected return. But Rob believes that by utilizing so-called special plays and utilizing a win goal strategy that his actual return can exceed the expected return.

Now will that work?

edited to add:

The reason why I want to point out what Rob has said before (you can see the videos, since the info is there) and what the "working definitions" of certain terms are, is because Rob is not as crazy as his critics make him out to be. In the first place he is no different from anyone else who walks into a casino: he tries to win and he is motivated to win. Secondly he will sometimes take chances or change his play to maximize his chances of winning.

For some reason only the so-called "advantage players" have a problem with the concept of quitting when ahead, whether that objection is based on the short term, the long term, or when the next session will be played. The rest of the world, I submit, does not have a problem with the concept of quitting when you have a lead.

---

You've only frustrated arci into more desperate namecalling Alan, so I'll offer the calm approach to that which he does not comprehend. (But I do understand WHY he so easily is on edge these days....)

I've said before, what the paytable's ER equates to over an unknown amount of time is irrelevant to me--as it should be to every player because it has no meaning--and I of course play the best paytable found in the casino I choose to play in for the game I choose to play. But because of my strategy used, the special plays that are at times game-changing, the amount of bankroll used vs. the comparitively small win goal, and now because of the best of all indicators: historical data, I can expect to finish with a highly positive ACTUAL RETURN at least 85% of the time on any -EV game TODAY. And since our play is simply a number of individual sessions played TODAY, it is intelligent to believe that those highly positive actual returns will happen again and again and again--to the tune of 85% of the time. No machine knows what you've been doing and where, and every time one is played it is a new experience. It is warped thinking to believe that, because a game is -EV, the math will come by and just snatch all those wins away. By the same token that AP's have yet to figure out, the 15% losers are not all huge because of the soft profits banked along the way, and over 25% of the sessions will end with a huge profit well over the $2500 minimum required to quit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

I've said before, what the paytable's ER equates to over an unknown amount of time is irrelevant to me--as it should be to every player because it has no meaning--and I of course play the best paytable found in the casino I choose to play in for the game I choose to play. But because of my strategy used, the special plays that are at times game-changing, the amount of bankroll used vs. the comparitively small win goal, and now because of the best of all indicators: historical data, I can expect to finish with a highly positive ACTUAL RETURN at least 85% of the time on any -EV game TODAY. And since our play is simply a number of individual sessions played TODAY, it is intelligent to believe that those highly positive actual returns will happen again and again and again--to the tune of 85% of the time. No machine knows what you've been doing and where, and every time one is played it is a new experience. It is warped thinking to believe that, because a game is -EV, the math will come by and just snatch all those wins away. By the same token that AP's have yet to figure out, the 15% losers are not all huge because of the soft profits banked along the way, and over 25% of the sessions will end with a huge profit well over the $2500 minimum required to quit.

---

Rob, I can't endorse your figure of winning 85% of the time, because I have never kept personal records that would indicate if the figure is right or wrong for me. But I've agreed with one of your principles from the start: you can get ahead on a negative expectation game, and if you quit when ahead you will leave the casino a winner.

No one can argue that. But knowing when to quit is all art and zero science. And yes, quitting early may mean you are leaving future wins "on the table" so to speak.

Each player has to decide what is right for them. For some players a small win equal to 20% of their starting bankroll is wonderful. In your case, your $2,500 win goal represented only about 5% of your "professional bankroll."

And if the math shows that the longer we play at negative games the more likely we are going to lose, then by all means we should all quit when we have a profit -- no matter how small -- on a negative game. The only question is this: is that profit enough of a profit to make us satisfied with the trip to the casino? Can you, for example, take $100 to a casino and leave with a $5 profit or a $20 profit?

More obvious projections and screw-ups:

1) "I do understand WHY he so easily is on edge these days" ... This tells us Singer is in lots of stress due to being outed on the pictures and many other recent findings.
2) "I of course play the best pay table" .. Another sign of stress. Singer constant claims the pay table doesn't matter so this little slip up gives away that he really knows it makes a big difference. It completely contradicts the rest of his claims. Absolutely hilarious.
3) "No machine knows what you've been doing and where, and every time one is played it is a new experience." ... which means absolutely nothing and changes nothing. It's the fact the machines are random that leads to predictable results over time and has nothing to do with what a person has been doing. One thing this means is that the machines aren't more likely to hit if one uses a progression. The exact opposite behavior that Singer has told us he believes.

Can you two kids give this a rest? Even I can spot the inconsistencies of this back and forth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

1) "I do understand WHY he so easily is on edge these days" ... This tells us Singer is in lots of stress due to being outed on the pictures and many other recent findings.

---

I think the explanation by Rob of having multiple cameras has cleared up the allegations that he stole pictures from another source. Have you identified the photos as being posted elsewhere by someone else? If you have, please provide the links.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

2) "I of course play the best pay table" .. Another sign of stress. Singer constant claims the pay table doesn't matter so this little slip up gives away that he really knows it makes a big difference. It completely contradicts the rest of his claims. Absolutely hilarious.

---

Rob has always said that he plays the best available pay table. And yes, he has also said that he can win on a negative pay table. I don't think Rob has contradicted himself at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

3) "No machine knows what you've been doing and where, and every time one is played it is a new experience." ... which means absolutely nothing and changes nothing. It's the fact the machines are random that leads to predictable results over time and has nothing to do with what a person has been doing. One thing this means is that the machines aren't more likely to hit if one uses a progression. The exact opposite behavior that Singer has told us he believes.

---

Actually, Arc, everything I've ever read says that each hand in video poker is independent of the previous hand, which is why it is OK to play on a machine that just hit a royal, and why the same machine can have two royals back to back. So I have to agree with Rob's statement ""No machine knows what you've been doing and where, and every time one is played it is a new experience."

But you are also correct that the machines are random and that only reinforces Rob's statement "No machine knows what you've been doing and where, and every time one is played it is a new experience."

I also agree with you, Arc, when you wrote "the machines aren't more likely to hit if one uses a progression." And indeed Rob has gone through a huge chunk of money trying to hit a big payoff with his strategy of changing denominations. I think he lost something like $50,000+ once. But by the same token, hasn't Dancer also lost a lot of money chasing promotions? I guess it all means that no matter what strategy you use, it's still a random game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Rob has always said that he plays the best available pay table. And yes, he has also said that he can win on a negative pay table. I don't think Rob has contradicted himself at all.

---

When he says this: "I've said before, what the paytable's ER equates to over an unknown amount of time is irrelevant to me", he IS contradicting himself. If the ER doesn't matter to him, then the pay table he plays shouldn't matter. By selectively choosing to "play the best pay table", he is inherently demonstrating clear awareness and concern over the ER of the game. Otherwise, he'd be sitting down at 6/5 JOB, 7/5 Triple Double and 10/7 Shockwave games each and every time he's in a casino. He can continue to say it doesn't matter via the "short term vs long term" angle, but the proof (and truth) lies in the decision to search out and play the best pay tables. ER matters to Rob.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I think the explanation by Rob of having multiple cameras has cleared up the allegations that he stole pictures from another source. Have you identified the photos as being posted elsewhere by someone else? If you have, please provide the links.

---

Nonsense. Even if a person has multiple phones it's unlikely they would use them to take pictures. people are creatures of habit and once a particular camera was used it's highly likely it would continue to be used. Not only that, but it doesn't explain the huge gaps in the picture names. It appears Alan only believes what he wants to believe and ignores the reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Rob has always said that he plays the best available pay table. And yes, he has also said that he can win on a negative pay table. I don't think Rob has contradicted himself at all.

---

Of course it contradicts him ... in many ways. Just because you don't want to believe it's a contradiction doesn't make it so. I provided the rationale, use your brain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Actually, Arc, everything I've ever read says that each hand in video poker is independent of the previous hand, which is why it is OK to play on a machine that just hit a royal, and why the same machine can have two royals back to back. So I have to agree with Rob's statement ""No machine knows what you've been doing and where, and every time one is played it is a new experience."

---

I said it was correct. Do you even bother to read what you quote?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

But you are also correct that the machines are random and that only reinforces Rob's statement "No machine knows what you've been doing and where, and every time one is played it is a new experience."

I also agree with you, Arc, when you wrote "the machines aren't more likely to hit if one uses a progression." And indeed Rob has gone through a huge chunk of money trying to hit a big payoff with his strategy of changing denominations. I think he lost something like $50,000+ once. But by the same token, hasn't Dancer also lost a lot of money chasing promotions? I guess it all means that no matter what strategy you use, it's still a random game.

---

Once again you entirely miss the point. Singer was trying to use these statements to support his illogical thinking when they support the exact opposite of what he claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

When he says this: "I've said before, what the paytable's ER equates to over an unknown amount of time is irrelevant to me", he IS contradicting himself. If the ER doesn't matter to him, then the pay table he plays shouldn't matter. By selectively choosing to "play the best pay table", he is inherently demonstrating clear awareness and concern over the ER of the game. Otherwise, he'd be sitting down at 6/5 JOB, 7/5 Triple Double and 10/7 Shockwave games each and every time he's in a casino. He can continue to say it doesn't matter via the "short term vs long term" angle, but the proof (and truth) lies in the decision to search out and play the best pay tables. ER matters to Rob.

---

I think it makes perfect sense for someone to choose between the "lesser of two evils" when playing video poker, and to play using the best machine/game with the best potential available. The bottom line is that the ER does matter. All Rob has claimed is that with his system he can win regardless of the ER, but that doesn't mean he rejects the ER.

Arc do me a favor: find the photos you believe he stole from someone else. If they exist elsewhere on the Internet, show us the links to them.

It makes perfect sense to me that he uses different phones/cameras to take pictures. I have four pens on my desk. I don't use the same pen every time I need to write something. (I would have used the phone/camera example, but I have only one phone. LOL My son, on the other hand, has at least three that I know about... heaven knows how many more he has??)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Arc do me a favor: find the photos you believe he stole from someone else. If they exist elsewhere on the Internet, show us the links to them.

---

Not my job. The evidence that was presented by Spock is quite damning. Of course, it does require good logical thinking to understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

It makes perfect sense to me that he uses different phones/cameras to take pictures. I have four pens on my desk. I don't use the same pen every time I need to write something. (I would have used the phone/camera example, but I have only one phone. LOL My son, on the other hand, has at least three that I know about... heaven knows how many more he has??)

---

Alan, just keeping ignoring the facts. It's clear you'll ignore them and believe what you want. I suspect Rob gets a good laugh about your gullibility. BTW, how many cameras do you use to take pictures at casinos?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Not my job. The evidence that was presented by Spock is quite damning. Of course, it does require good logical thinking to understand.

---

If you can't prove otherwise, then I believe Rob used different cameras.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

BTW, how many cameras do you use to take pictures at casinos?

---

Our TV show is shot with one camera at a time, though the cameraman might switch to a smaller camera when he is in a confined space such as in a helicopter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

If you can't prove otherwise, then I believe Rob used different cameras.

---

Da plane, da plane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Our TV show is shot with one camera at a time, though the cameraman might switch to a smaller camera when he is in a confined space such as in a helicopter.

---

What does that have to do with the question? How many cameras do you take to the CASINO?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

What does that have to do with the question? How many cameras do you take to the CASINO?

---

I'm sorry, I misread the question. I thought you were referring to TV cameras. To answer your question: I have one cellphone with a camera and that's all I have. Rob has shown us a photo of a bag with three cellphones/cameras in it. My son carries at least three phones with him at all times.

I have had conversations with Rob on one number and then he asked me to call him back on another number or he called me back on another number.

Why do you reject the idea that the guy could carry more than one phone with him? Just about every phone has a camera these days! Even my ancient Blackberry had a camera before I switched to my Samsung galaxyS.