Rob Singer sent me a trip report.

I think the spirit world communicated with Rob Singer that he has been discussed here on the forum... and perhaps only by coincidence, Rob sent me a trip report from an excursion to Tunica. He hit a big winner. Is anyone surprised?

But what is surprising is that Rob did not use a "special play" in an obvious "special play hand" at Triple Double Bonus. In fact, he followed conventional strategy and got lucky and won FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS on a $25 machine.

He sent this to me to point out that he doesn't always use his special plays -- but we know that. He has said he uses special plays only 5% of the time. He explained to me that while he normally would use a "special play" in this hand, he had to go for the big win, apparently because he was down by about ten-thousand dollars. Getting quad threes without the kicker only would have brought him back to even, I figure.

In this particular hand he was dealt trip 3s with an Ace kicker. The conventional play is to hold the kicker. The Singer "special play" is to hold on the 3s to maximize your chance for drawing the quad or case 3. But quad 3s wouldn't be enough... he had to get the quad with kicker.

Rob said in his email to me:

Alan: We went down to Tunica to meet up with some old friends from Houston. Good thing. Check this win that CET had to pay! I'm sending it to you so you may understand more about the Singer Special Plays. They don't all deviate from optimal strategy. Here's why:

You'll notice this hand held A333--something you might think is a no-no in my special-play world. But not so. Notice the amount of cash on the machine: $50,705. This was an ARTT session, five levels, $1 thru $25 with a win goal of $1000. If just the three 3's were held and a 4th 3 was drawn, the $10,000 win would NOT have attained the win goal. But here, because of the overall Singer methodology, the opportunity for a session-ending win was there by making the OPTIMAL play, which is to hold the Ace kicker. You don't see many of these, but then again, you don't see many like me.

You're probably asking yourself how this could be the hold when I advocate NEVER holding the kicker with 3 Aces in this game. Easy answer. Four Aces w/o a kicker will always attain my win goal. But the beauty of this particular hand is how the math does come into play along with all the other elements in my play strategies. It is the overall reason why negative EV games (and notice the "pitiful" 9/6 pay table on this "losing" game) consistently are beaten in my strategies. Here, to the tune of a $49,295 profit. AP's would claim any player was "losing X amount on every hand" on this game, thereby costing a fortune. HA!


Photo below sent to me by Rob as it was sent.

Nice win by Rob. Speaking of wins, it's been a while since you've posted photos of any VP wins. Last time I checked, it seemed that you were on a roll. How are you doing lately?

Always like to see people win. Wonder if it will get into the realm of since Rob is not in the pic that it's not his jackpot or what not. At least someone won 50k so good for them. Think the paytable is like 98% but I know Rob said he never cared about the payback %. Well I'll probably never get the the point where I play 125 a hand so it;s interesting to see either way.

What part of Nevada is Tunica in?

We all know that Rob always follows his strategy. How do we know? He's told us so many, many times. Hence, the only possible answer is he was not playing this machine. He simply took a picture of someone's big winner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

He sent this to me to point out that he doesn't always use his special plays

---

Nice try, but I'd guess the real reason he sent it is because he has a perverse need to always be in the limelight, and nobody would bite on this win over at WOV. It is also interesting that after previously stating he would only play at lower denominations the amounts keep rising higher and higher. Curious from someone who has repeatedly ridiculed others for doing the same, as well as claiming here that his days of playing high denominations were over. Sounds like addicted behavior to me.

Quote:

---

He explained to me that while he normally would use a "special play" in this hand, he had to go for the big win, apparently because he was down by about ten-thousand dollars.

---

Quote:

---

(Alan quoting Rob)
If just the three 3's were held and a 4th 3 was drawn, the $10,000 win would NOT have attained the win goal.

It is the overall reason why negative EV games (and notice the "pitiful" 9/6 pay table on this "losing" game) consistently are beaten in my strategies. Here, to the tune of a $49,295 profit.

---

Lets take a closer look.

He was down $10,000 and needed something more than the $10,000 win four 3's would have given him.

The win was for $50,000, which he states netted him a $49,295 profit.

If he was down $10,000 prior to that win wouldn't he have netted somewhere around $40,000?

The win meter in the image shows a total of $50,705. This is irrelevant from the standpoint of how far down he was because we don't know how much he put in. However, it is relevant in that the $705 is the reverse amount from $50,000 he claimed was his net win.

I'm must admit I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell ya that something doesn't seem quite right.

So, Spock and Arci, are you saying you don't believe in Santa Claus?

Obviously, Rob's "right living" put him on the list of those who've been nice and not naughty. Santa rewarded him. End of story.

Rob sent me a correction about the "profit." He made a mistake in his initial report and indeed he was down about ten-grand so his actual profit on the session was $40,705, he says.

Frankly, the dollar amount of the profit doesn't mean much to me. Either $40K or $50K it's a nice profit.

More importantly I think Rob's report points out that his "system" is arbitrary and sometimes he will use special plays and sometimes he won't. And I've said this all along -- if there are so many choices in an arbitrary system how could anyone follow it or learn to play it correctly? The bottom line, it seems, is there is no "correct way" to play it. And Rob depends on luck just like every other video poker player who follows basic, conventional strategy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Rob sent me a correction about the "profit." He made a mistake in his initial report and indeed he was down about ten-grand so his actual profit on the session was $40,705, he says.

Frankly, the dollar amount of the profit doesn't mean much to me. Either $40K or $50K it's a nice profit.

More importantly I think Rob's report points out that his "system" is arbitrary and sometimes he will use special plays and sometimes he won't. And I've said this all along -- if there are so many choices in an arbitrary system how could anyone follow it or learn to play it correctly? The bottom line, it seems, is there is no "correct way" to play it. And Rob depends on luck just like every other video poker player who follows basic, conventional strategy.

---

Does everyone really believe Rob hit this? I wonder what his loss limit was if he was just trying to win $1000.

Why doesn't he play all the time? He never loses.

He's not greedy. And for those who may wonder why Rob is almost never in the photos -- he has a tenuous relationship with the IRS and putting himself in photos could create problems.

It's Christmas -- why so cynical?

Redietz please explain how Rob appearing in the photos would have any effect on the IRS? This was obviously a W2G pay so the IRS knows he hit it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

He's not greedy. And for those who may wonder why Rob is almost never in the photos -- he has a tenuous relationship with the IRS and putting himself in photos could create problems.

It's Christmas -- why so cynical?

---

It's interesting you say that. I guess one of the people Rob had an axe to grind with on another forum claimed that Rob has a son-in-law that was a regional manager with the IRS that Rob had look into this guys personal finances and cause all kinds of tax troubles with. If Rob really had that clout, you figure taxes would be a non-issue. Oh well either way I guess it makes a good story. For me a 50k win is a 50k win no matter who hit it. Someone walked out of the casino happy.

He got lucky. All of our jackpot hits are pure luck and we know it. The rest is just fodder for talk.

Thanks for posting, Alan. As you may notice, it was all related to a win goal, but I believe this is the first time I've read of him doing this with special quads and answers a question I've had on my mind for years. Of course I was fairly sure I knew the answer but this verified it.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slingshot

I believe this is the first time I've read of him doing this with special quads and answers a question I've had on my mind for years. Of course I was fairly sure I knew the answer but this verified it.:)

---

Well, please clue me in. What did Rob verify? The only thing I got out of it was that his strategy changes from hand to hand which in effect is moment to moment. So unless you have the mind of Rob Singer how can you possibly say you know or follow his strategy?

I understand that Rob says he uses "special plays" only 5% of the time he plays... but he has also posted that he always makes the "special plays" when they show up, and now he talks about how he deliberately avoided using a special play. So slingshot, since you are a follower of Rob -- what did he verify?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Well, please clue me in. What did Rob verify? The only thing I got out of it was that his strategy changes from hand to hand which in effect is moment to moment. So unless you have the mind of Rob Singer how can you possibly say you know or follow his strategy?

I understand that Rob says he uses "special plays" only 5% of the time he plays... but he has also posted that he always makes the "special plays" when they show up, and now he talks about how he deliberately avoided using a special play. So slingshot, since you are a follower of Rob -- what did he verify?

---

Sorry-I thought it was obvious and that he explained his choice. 4 threes on a $25 machine was "only" $10,000 and left him short of a win goal-being $10,000 behind. Going for the kicker by holding it was a play he normally never makes, but it would not only get his win goal but exceed it. Since this was a play he wrote about in his former articles as being unwise to make=I often wondered if he would do it if this far behind. So if anyone kept up with where they were in their play they would know exactly when or when not to use it. It's simple stuff, Alan.

Rob also emailed me, and I am afraid that his thinking is backwards here.

I can understand using a special play which results in a smaller win (special play: don't hold kickers to improve chance for quads) but here Rob isn't looking for a smaller win -- he is taking a higher risk option which is holding the kicker and reducing his chance for drawing the quad card.

In explaining his special plays, he says he is going for the easier win (quad without kicker) because the smaller quad payoff would allow him to meet a win goal. But in the case now, he is so far underwater that his "special play strategy" would fail to bail him out.

Now let's reverse it: if he never used a special play, and instead used a conventional play and hit a bigger payoff earlier in his session, he would never be in the position he found himself in here -- which was in the hole by ten grand.

In other words, Rob just gave us a reason NEVER to use his special plays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Rob also emailed me, and I am afraid that his thinking is backwards here.

I can understand using a special play which results in a smaller win (special play: don't hold kickers to improve chance for quads) but here Rob isn't looking for a smaller win -- he is taking a higher risk option which is holding the kicker and reducing his chance for drawing the quad card.

In explaining his special plays, he says he is going for the easier win (quad without kicker) because the smaller quad payoff would allow him to meet a win goal. But in the case now, he is so far underwater that his "special play strategy" would fail to bail him out.

Now let's reverse it: if he never used a special play, and instead used a conventional play and hit a bigger payoff earlier in his session, he would never be in the position he found himself in here -- which was in the hole by ten grand.

In other words, Rob just gave us a reason NEVER to use his special plays.

---

Alan, you're combining what actually happened with "what if". I don't get how you guys come up with all this stuff. A simple explanation is always met with the worst possible scenario to try to discredit the method. I'm outta here.:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slingshot

Alan, you're combining what actually happened with "what if". I don't get how you guys come up with all this stuff. A simple explanation is always met with the worst possible scenario to try to discredit the method. I'm outta here.:confused:

---

Unfortunately it's the "what if" that determines whether or not there is a strategy that can be followed or used. As I said initially, Rob's "strategy" has too many conditions, too many variables, too many options, too many choices to make it a system or strategy that anyone can actually follow or use.

Rob essentially tells us that whatever he does was the right decision but we really can't go into his mind to determine how the right decision was arrived it. With conventional strategy we don't have those problems.

Slingshot, why do you put so much faith into what Rob says? Why does anyone?

Rob has sent me several emails saying that win goals determine when special plays are used. This makes no sense to me. I always thought the use of special plays was to improve the chance of winning certain hands and adding win goals to the equation challenges the basic concept. And again it means Rob's strategy can only be followed by Rob.

I love Rob. I really do, but some other posters have pointed out in the past that Rob's reports of large winnings seem to curiously follow other folks' reports of large winnings like night follows day -- almost in a cause-and-effect fashion that defies logical non-quantum explanation.

If Rob does have some quantum effects working for him, I suggest he send my friend AV some danish and coffee comps. But congrats to Rob for the win.

Rob continues to send me emails telling me that my analysis is all wrong. Rob is no longer banned. He can now reply himself.

In the meantime I want to say this:

If Rob can use a conventional play and not a special play when he is already in the hole by ten thousand dollars, why can't he use the conventional play from the start when a big, conventional play win (such as four of a kind plus the kicker) would give him more than what he determines to be the win goal amount?

Also, I want to publicly congratulate Rob on his exceptional track record playing video poker in 2013. This is a direct quote from his email to me:

"Follow what I say. It has made me nearly $100k in VERY limited play this year, as well as several hundred thousand in years past."

So: it seems that when Rob has been posting nothing but big wins, he really has had nothing but big wins. He's da man.

I just had another email exchange with Rob. I think he's upset that I am not giving him credit for this play being a "special play."

Rob sent this to me:

"Nothing's changed Alan, not even you're inability to comprehend."

And I wrote back to Rob:

If you had simply said "this was one of those times when I put aside my special plays and made the conventional play -- because I only use special plays 5% of the time" -- there would be no controversy.

Instead you tried to make this a special play. And that just makes you look foolish. YOU CAN'T TAKE CREDIT FOR EVERYTHING that turns out right. And that's what you're trying to do. PUT YOUR EGO ASIDE AND JUST SAY "I played the conventional way this time and it worked."

OK Alan, let da man clear this up. I'm not addressing the boo birds or the blinded critics or offer apologies for winning--just more education on how to consistently win if you enjoy playing video poker.

Alan is confused, and by him making solo comments I've been trying to clear that confusion up in e-mails. So he did the efficient, smart thing by asking me to explain it here.

The explanation is very simple: holding the A333 was the optimal hold, AND IT WAS NOT A SPECIAL PLAY. And I have said that from the start, although I can see how it might wrongly be construed as being a SPECIAL PLAY. Special plays are only plays that deviate from optimal strategy. The reason I sent this hand to him is because it's an infrequent but excellent example of when I would use the optimal play over an expected special play.

Had hitting four 3's without the kicker (a $10,000 winner) allowed me to make at least a $1000 profit, I would have made the special play and held only the three 3's. But in this case, with hitting four 3's only allowing me to be up $705, making a SPECIAL PLAY hold is eliminated. Therefore, the optimal hold won out.

BTW, the $49k number was my overall trip win. Two other ARTT sessions similar to this one were played-- all to success.

Pretty soon we'll be hearing from Rob about big wins on cruise ships.

When Robbie "retired" he claimed he was no longer going to bet at high levels. Now, add that to the lie about always doing what he says he's going to do and this entire thread is just one huge belly laugh. You have to believe Robbie lied earlier to believe he is telling the truth now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Rob will not be returning. I am closing this thread.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Rob is no longer banned. He can now reply himself.

---

And, the fickle finger of fate award goes to ....

I'm just glad Rob's back. Alan anointed me the resident troll and slur master in his absence, and I can tell you -- it's like trying to take over for Batman. Heavy is the head that wears the cowl.

First of all, I am glad that Rob cleared this up and posted himself. It is not a special play. The conventional video poker wisdom gets the credit. That makes me wonder if maybe there is no reason to ever use special plays since when you get lucky, you might as well get lucky and get the big wins with the kickers?

No doubt arci is terribly jealous and not particularly happy over this thread--esp. after I mashed him elsewhere recently :)--but he & Spock made one point that deserves attention. Why am I playing at above $2 when upon retiring I said I was NOT going to do it?

Think back....how many people have made comments like "if he wins so much then why doesn't he play every day" or "he wins so much he should be playing high limits all the time"? Well, my first issue was time. We're not in Nevada or other trustworthy locations all the time or even much of the time any more. We travel a lot, I won't play at or even go into Indian casinos as a rule, and I don't much care to play long sessions over and over again. So I've slowly adopted shorter, higher limit playing sessions and have done so well this year that I'll likely file as a professional gambler once again, if it's advantageous for our situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

First of all, I am glad that Rob cleared this up and posted himself. It is not a special play. The conventional video poker wisdom gets the credit. That makes me wonder if maybe there is no reason to ever use special plays since when you get lucky, you might as well get lucky and get the big wins with the kickers?

---

No. I haven't really played tdbp until this year and it is NOT an enjoyable game...esp. at high levels. The special plays have been far more valuable as a winning tool for my strategies for a long time. This picture and the lessons about the special play concept is just a follow-up to some of the large wins I put in the paper in years past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

The special plays have been far more valuable as a winning tool for my strategies for a long time.

---

Unfortunately, Rob, this time your strategy got you into a $10,000 hole and it took a conventional play to get you out of the hole. Even you recognize that a special play would not have gotten you out of your $10,000 hole and given you a $1,000 win goal.

Perhaps we can say that "special plays" work early in a session before you are in a big hole. But once you are in a big hole, you must play conventional strategy (at least in holding kickers when appropriate) to dig you out of the hole. That is, afterall, what you did here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Had hitting four 3's without the kicker (a $10,000 winner) allowed me to make at least a $1000 profit, I would have made the special play and held only the three 3's. But in this case, with hitting four 3's only allowing me to be up $705, making a SPECIAL PLAY hold is eliminated. Therefore, the optimal hold won out.

---

So, if a $10,000 winner would have netted you $1000 you use the special play but if it's only $995 you use the conventional play?

Was $10,000 your stop loss limit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Unfortunately, Rob, this time your strategy got you into a $10,000 hole and it took a conventional play to get you out of the hole. Even you recognize that a special play would not have gotten you out of your $10,000 hole and given you a $1,000 win goal.

Perhaps we can say that "special plays" work early in a session before you are in a big hole. But once you are in a big hole, you must play conventional strategy (at least in holding kickers when appropriate) to dig you out of the hole. That is, afterall, what you did here.

---

Alan, you're once again stuck on a "big" amount, just as you usually are whenever I mention my $33k loss one time, or using a $57,200 bankroll to win a minimum of "just" $2500. Open your mind a bit--these sound like big amounts to some, but I wouldn't be messing with them if losing any of it were devastating to me.

How many people can post a pic of their $50,000 vp win? Start thinking in those relative terms. Yes, I used a conventional play to get it, and I'm glad you've finally realized that it was not one of my special plays. You do know that most of my holds actually are conventional, right? But you keep forgetting, if I had just another $295 on the screen when the hand was dealt, I would have made the special play of holding just the 3's. Why? Because nothing trumps a win goal, and that would have gotten me to exactly +$1000.

BTW, they paid me in five stacks. I put all of it into my wife's purse and left--tipping nobody. And guess what? We all lived thru it.

Gee Rob Singer... I didn't know this was a screen name for Bill Gates.

By the way, what was your stop loss limit? I think a2a3dseddie asked an important question so we can understand just what is "relative" to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Gee Rob Singer... I didn't know this was a screen name for Bill Gates.

By the way, what was your stop loss limit? I think a2a3dseddie asked an important question so we can understand just what is "relative" to you.

---

I already answered that: $30,000. In other words, no cashouts in 3 sessions, with no other winning sessions. Total failure. It's never happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

I already answered that: $30,000. In other words, no cashouts in 3 sessions, with no other winning sessions. Total failure. It's never happened.

---

Refresh my memory: what happened when you had that session and you lost $33,000 ??? Wasn't that session loss the equivalent of about one-third of a year's income?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Refresh my memory: what happened when you had that session and you lost $33,000 ??? Wasn't that session loss the equivalent of about one-third of a year's income?

---

This was ARTT Alan, with a session bankroll requirement of $10k. That loss? It came in an SPS session, where the session bankroll is$57,200. And BTW, I ended that year +$65k.

Hey Alan, did you ever get those tax returns that Robbie said he sent in for?

Rob, I think the most important thing I got from this is that NOTHING trumps a win goal.:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slingshot

Rob, I think the most important thing I got from this is that NOTHING trumps a win goal.:cool:

---

Of course it is, because that alone creates responsibility in gambling. It encompasses reason, structure, and discipline which are all required for consistent and overall winning.

Arci, I was able to stop the tax returns and it cost me fifty bucks. But it didn't stop my article about you welching on your own challenge. :)

BTW, they're starting the dig on my daughter's new home up there later this week. How is that possible in the tundra at this time of year? She promises it'll be ready for our visit next summer though, and we'll be back for the holiday season too. Will you be ready? I expect Pappy Van Winkle bourbon, and Cindy likes B&B. What's your wife drink?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Arci, I was able to stop the tax returns and it cost me fifty bucks. But it didn't stop my article about you welching on your own challenge. :)

---

Ok, your tax returns will never come. How about sending a picture of the completed tax form the casino issued you for that nice 50K win?

Of course if (choose one):

1. The forms are already with your accountant.
2. The forms are at a relative's house.
3. The forms are filed away in a locker.
4. You need several weeks post a picture.
5. Someone has to come up with $25,000 in order for you to do it.

Then we understand. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie

How about sending a picture of the completed tax form the casino issued you for that nice 50K win?

---

I am more interested in knowing Rob's overall accounting. How much was he in the hole before he hit the 50K win? Was he in the hold from this one session or in multiple sessions?

How much did his special plays cost him at lower denominations? (Obviously he never reached his win goals at $1, $2, $5 or $10.)

I don't doubt he hit this. A more important point is to put this one win in context of all of his play. Rob has made various comments alluding that he plays very little but consistently walks out of the casinos with huge winners. That is of more interest to me that one big win such as this one.

It's one thing to hit big winners -- but it's another to hit so many in so little actual time playing. And that is what I am really curious about. Care to explain Rob? Any figures on the ratio of big wins to actual number of hands played?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Arci, I was able to stop the tax returns and it cost me fifty bucks. But it didn't stop my article about you welching on your own challenge. :)

---

There is no way to stop the process once it has begun. They get a form, they process it. I can only chuckle at your silly attempt to hide the fact you lied in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

There is no way to stop the process once it has begun. They get a form, they process it. I can only chuckle at your silly attempt to hide the fact you lied in the first place.

---

My son-in-law stopped it arci. Ask mickeycrimm on WoV if he has the capabilities. In fact....ask yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I am more interested in knowing Rob's overall accounting. How much was he in the hole before he hit the 50K win? Was he in the hold from this one session or in multiple sessions?

How much did his special plays cost him at lower denominations? (Obviously he never reached his win goals at $1, $2, $5 or $10.)

I don't doubt he hit this. A more important point is to put this one win in context of all of his play. Rob has made various comments alluding that he plays very little but consistently walks out of the casinos with huge winners. That is of more interest to me that one big win such as this one.

It's one thing to hit big winners -- but it's another to hit so many in so little actual time playing. And that is what I am really curious about. Care to explain Rob? Any figures on the ratio of big wins to actual number of hands played?

---

OK Eddie, give me a few moments and I'll make one up on photoshop out of an old $5k one...dufus:)

Alan, I explained earlier. I played three five level, $1 thru $25 ARTT sessions. Another thread also details that winning strategy. I put a $10k ticket into the machine to start each session. The first two sessions I was never behind. Together they gave me a $9k+ profit. How many hands did I play? No idea and who cares. I only count where I am vs. where I need to be, and money. Yes there were a few special plays at each level that didn't work, less that pushed, but every one was important to do right. Just as the right decision was made NOT to use the special play on the last hand, because of the required minimum win goal attainment rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

OK Eddie, give me a few moments and I'll make one up on photoshop out of an old $5k one...dufus:)

---

Ok Rob, I've not called you any names or insulted you. I'd just like to see some proof as I'm sure many others would as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Alan, I explained earlier. I played three five level, $1 thru $25 ARTT sessions. Another thread also details that winning strategy. I put a $10k ticket into the machine to start each session.

---

This is the problem I have with your strategy: with $10,000 and a one-thousand dollar win goal, why bother playing at the $1 and $2 levels? Why not start playing Bonus at $5 where a few full houses and a lucky streak of just trips and pairs and straights will get you a thousand dollar profit? The other night I started with $500 and quickly found myself up more than a thousand dollars by hitting a quad in Aces and Faces.

It seems to me that you are doomed to dig yourself into a hole playing at the lower levels of $1 and $2 because you probably won't reach your thousand dollar win goal with either a royal or a whole bunch of quads.

If you really want to play as little as possible (one of your goals is not to stay in the casino) then take your ten grand, sit at a $5 or $10 machine and hit a quad and get out of there. Instead, you are pretty much forcing yourself to feed the casino at the lower levels until you work yourself up to $10 and $25 and by then you might already have a big hole to fill... as you did in this latest example.

Alan you say all that because you don't understand the strategy. Why don't you just ask questions instead of making blind guesses, and I just got another mickeycrimm-style anonymous e-mail from WoV with your "it's his undoing" message in it. Those people hate me because I made their hero administrator look like a chump and coward a few years ago. They're just like arci--they would never believe I hit anything no matter what proof I provided, because it hurts them to see me win and they just can't cope with the facts. Cindy took a video of me being paid at the machine for our family and friends. Even if I posted that somehow over there or even over here, there would be those who make stupid "liar" claims anyway, and if it caused too much heartburn for them, they'd have no choice but to say what that idiot axelsomething said about me losing even though I won.

People can believe whatever they want. Until it becomes normal procedure for you and everybody else to post more than just a picture of the wins--just as they have done for years on vpFree--a picture is all anyone will ever get from me also.

Instead of telling me that I don't understand, explain to me how my thinking is wrong?

It seems to me you are wasting a lot of bullets on low denomination machines because only a very few LUCKY hands will help you reach your win goal. But if you used those same bullets shooting at the high denomination targets you'd hit your win goal faster. Explain why that thinking is wrong?

Of course Rob, I am not as lucky as you... I don't go to casinos and seemingly hit huge payoffs and jackpots every time I go. I actually lose money sometimes... something which appears to be foreign to you.

And for everyone else: what I said on WOV is that this particular thread with Rob getting this particular jackpot has "ten pounds of Rob Singer in a five pound bag." In other words, there are just too many inconsistencies all wrapped up in this one report of yours including challenges of your special plays strategy, your retirement, your consistent big wins, even your chasing losses.

You react like a loser who doesn't want or need to know I win, and win consistently. I told you why I'm playing higher denominations these days. And you keep coming off as dense when you refuse to understand, no matter how many times I've told you, why I kept the Ace on this hold. What's "inconsistent" about it when I played the session and hand EXACTLY as my strategy requires? So I win almost all the time. Tough love--that's what my strategies do, remember? And your continued rant about "chasing losses" is the same old thickness you keep displaying, no matter how often I explain it's all part of my strategy. If you don't like it, tell ME--not do what you've been doing lately and bring your disgust over to a forum you know I can't post on. You've done that twice, and it's a cowardly move.

Your comment on my "wasting lots of bullets on low denominations" is yet another example of you not paying attention multiple times. Do you know how ARTT is played? More than 95% of the credits are usually played on the highest denomination. And it is not impossible to attain my win goal on lower denominations. Of the three sessions I played and won here, one of them was won at the $5 level.

Call me every name in the book, Rob, but you still haven't answered my questions or responded to my challenge of your system.

1. Why do you waste time -- and money -- playing lower denominations with such a big bankroll when it is very unlikely you will ever reach a win goal (at your levels)?? Why not simply start out at $5 or $10 and "cut to the chase"?

2. I understand fully your special plays for attaining win goals when you don't have big losses, but as you have reminded us here, many of your "special plays" become ineffective when you have fallen into a hole. For example, just holding the 3s in this thread.

3. "Chasing losses" is a real issue. Just as people should have a win goal, they need a loss limit. In your current example you had a $30,000 bankroll, $10,000 per session to make a $1,000 profit. Now, if someone had a $200 bankroll, what would the profit target be for them? And how much should they be ready to lose? Personally, I think you're crazy risking $10,000 to win $1,000. At least tell us you're shooting for the moon with your ten grand. If you only want a 10% return there are safer ways to get it without setting foot in a casino.

3. Anything I say over on WOV I can and do say here. So, answer questions #1 and #2 above, quit the name calling, and let's discuss your system and methodology.

It behooves me to point out that having a huge bankroll with the stated purpose of winning a fraction of that bankroll, while technically putting the entire bankroll at risk, is what every casino does. So there is nothing "crazy" about it in and of itself. The issue is that the casino generally, although not always, has an edge. Rob argues that his manner of play neutralizes that edge. If he were correct, there would be nothing inherently wrong with mirroring what casinos do.

Rob's style of play has nothing to with recreational value, whatever that is, or entertainment time, or anything like that. He doesn't have to concern himself with the fact that mega-losses would reduce or end his casino time or time spent playing, because he derives no enjoyment from being in a casino or playing in and of itself.

It boils down to whether one believes Rob's strategies flip the odds in his favor. If they do, there's nothing wrong with his style of play if that style of play is an inherent necessary component of flipping the advantage to him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

It boils down to whether one believes Rob's strategies flip the odds in his favor.

---

I think you have to come up with a different statement and a different phrase to use. Even Rob will concede that his style of play does nothing to alter the odds of the game because the math is the math and even Rob will tell you this. What makes Rob's play different are:

1. Choice of exit point -- the win goal or loss limit (though it appears his loss limit can be when his trip bankroll is wiped out)
2. Taking advantage of lucky draws
3. Maximizing his chance of getting a lucky draw (the special plays)

Rob I have a direct question about this particular hand: dealt three 3s with an ace. Why didn't you use your "special play" strategy and hold only the trip 3s while rationalizing that you then had two chances to draw the quad 3 plus you still could draw one of the three additional aces in the deck or one of the four 2s in the deck (a total of 7 kickers)???

In retrospect you might have played the correct strategy but your "special play strategy" still would have held up for this hand. Why did you divert from it??? I would like you to explain that in detail -- why the diversion from the Singer strategy?

What you did was in effect give yourself one chance to draw the one card for the big win, while the "special play" would have given you two chances to draw at least the quad card plus 7 remaining kickers. I think this is an inconsistency and you should explain it.

Please see the video I did with you about this exact "special play" which is #16 here: http://alanbestbuys.com/id195.html

Forget this VP BS. I want to know where to get the "Pappy" cause we can't get any here. Small allotment gone within seconds at the few stores that get it here.

Glad to see bringing Rob Singer back to this forum really improved the atmosphere around here and thank God he toned down considerably (sarcasm mode off). Haven't been around here for weeks because I've been to busy at work. I'm glad to see I didn't really miss anything worthwhile. Merry Christmas everybody, enjoy the next couple of months filled with Singer insults.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Call me every name in the book, Rob, but you still haven't answered my questions or responded to my challenge of your system.

1. Why do you waste time -- and money -- playing lower denominations with such a big bankroll when it is very unlikely you will ever reach a win goal (at your levels)?? Why not simply start out at $5 or $10 and "cut to the chase"?

2. I understand fully your special plays for attaining win goals when you don't have big losses, but as you have reminded us here, many of your "special plays" become ineffective when you have fallen into a hole. For example, just holding the 3s in this thread.

3. "Chasing losses" is a real issue. Just as people should have a win goal, they need a loss limit. In your current example you had a $30,000 bankroll, $10,000 per session to make a $1,000 profit. Now, if someone had a $200 bankroll, what would the profit target be for them? And how much should they be ready to lose? Personally, I think you're crazy risking $10,000 to win $1,000. At least tell us you're shooting for the moon with your ten grand. If you only want a 10% return there are safer ways to get it without setting foot in a casino.

3. Anything I say over on WOV I can and do say here. So, answer questions #1 and #2 above, quit the name calling, and let's discuss your system and methodology.

---

Alan, every question you're asking I've answered time and again. But since I just read that thread on WoV and you were respectable this time, I'll give it another try. BTW, if you could ask Cesspit to e-mail me @ rob.singer1111@yahoo.com, I'd appreciate it. I remember we had a decent but unfinished discussion 3 years ago, and I noticed some inconsistencies in what he wrote.

1. In ARTT, the lower denoms. play an integral part. The more the better actually, and the % of winning sessions goes up proportionally to the # of denominations. You have to be familiar with the strategy, but in short, it's 100 credits at the highest denom. of BP credits, then if needed, 300 at the advanced BP game. As you climb, whenever 2pr. or better is hit until after the first hand at the highest denom. at BP, you book the soft profit and return to the lowest denom. So for instance, hit a quad or multiple smaller winners in the lower denoms. as you climb, then your session win goal is easily met. It isn't easy to understand without me at the machine with the aspiring player, which is why I tried to get the Wizard and his math freaks together in LV. So no matter how many times they claim I wouldn't explain anything to them, they do know that they had their chance, only it turned into an embarrassment for the entire bunch when they couldn't explain why they wouldn't do it. I was banned rather than my keeping the constant pressure on.

In SPS, where 400 credits are used at six denominations each, try understanding this: Say you go to a casino with $2500 and want to win $500 while planning to only play dollars. How successful do you think you'd be? Now go in with $15,000, keep that same $500 goal, and use a structured strategy that climbs in denomination as you lose (aka, chasing losses to you). See a better chance? Of course....a MUCH better chance. Your comment here would be the common criticism: "Sounds like a lot of little winners, but they'll all get wiped out when the infrequent big loss occurs". So have you never seen me post the even BIGGER winners? Those happen more than anybody cares to accept, and together with all those "little" winners, it adds up to a nice, very consistent method of profitting from play. No one but me does this, which is why I'm so hated, envied, you name it. I know what it's like playing AP or the way you mostly play. I learned from that.

2. I didn't send you this big hit to confuse you about special plays. They absolutely ARE designed to get the big hit to either "catch up" or end the session, and 98% of them will out-perform the optimal play. I sent you this example because it is one of the very, very few times the special play takes a back seat.And remember, it's all dependent upon where I'm at in my win goal. Had I been down only $8900 as I said, I would have made the special play of holding 333, thereby having twice the chance of hitting the session-ending $10k winner.

3. Chasing losses: I think I've explained that as best I can. You can't win if you don't play, and since most players get behind as they continue to play, you won't leave a winner unless you hit a jackpot, suddenly hit multiple intermediate winners, or progress in denomination with a large bankroll.

4. Sure there might be other, better ways to make money with a good bankroll. But every once in a while I make a LOT of money doing this. And it is extraordinary enjoyment for me beating casinos regularly, after what happened to me in my early days trying.

Rob thanks for the detailed response. But I want to draw particular attention to this comment you made:

Say you go to a casino with $2500 and want to win $500 while planning to only play dollars. How successful do you think you'd be? Now go in with $15,000, keep that same $500 goal, and use a structured strategy that climbs in denomination as you lose (aka, chasing losses to you). See a better chance? Of course....a MUCH better chance.

Rob: get real. You're asking me to walk into a casino with $15K ?? That's problem number one: never in my life would I walk into a casino with $15K nor would I set up a credit line for that much, nor would I play that much... and to win $500 with a $15K potential investment which is a return of 3.33% ??? Rob, do you consider this to be a smart thing to do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Rob I have a direct question about this particular hand: dealt three 3s with an ace. Why didn't you use your "special play" strategy and hold only the trip 3s while rationalizing that you then had two chances to draw the quad 3 plus you still could draw one of the three additional aces in the deck or one of the four 2s in the deck (a total of 7 kickers)???

In retrospect you might have played the correct strategy but your "special play strategy" still would have held up for this hand. Why did you divert from it??? I would like you to explain that in detail -- why the diversion from the Singer strategy?

What you did was in effect give yourself one chance to draw the one card for the big win, while the "special play" would have given you two chances to draw at least the quad card plus 7 remaining kickers. I think this is an inconsistency and you should explain it.

Please see the video I did with you about this exact "special play" which is #16 here: http://alanbestbuys.com/id195.html

---

If you remember, I play most hands optimally. And as I've explained twice, I did not for for the four threes (aka, a SPECIAL play that deviates from optimal strategy) simply because four 3's would not have allowed me to attain my $1000 win goal. And if you remember in our special play discussions, no special play ever depends on getting a kicker in a kicker game, even though there's always a chance of getting it. Again, I did not divert from my strategy. You keep saying that because what I'm telling you just won't sink in for some reason. I followed the rules of the strategy to the letter for the game I was playing.

No, I do not change the mathematical odds in my favor. Those always belong to the house, whether the game is 93% or 104%. For the amount of time a player plays any machine on any visit, the casino always has the advantage. Redietz said it best when he said that I negate the house advantage with my method of play. No casino wants or expects any player to walk after getting ahead for the visit. I've figured out the optimal way of getting ahead a small amount compared to the bankroll I use, and then I walk. Procedural advantage: (by a WIDE margin) - Singer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Rob thanks for the detailed response. But I want to draw particular attention to this comment you made:

Say you go to a casino with $2500 and want to win $500 while planning to only play dollars. How successful do you think you'd be? Now go in with $15,000, keep that same $500 goal, and use a structured strategy that climbs in denomination as you lose (aka, chasing losses to you). See a better chance? Of course....a MUCH better chance.

Rob: get real. You're asking me to walk into a casino with $15K ?? That's problem number one: never in my life would I walk into a casino with $15K nor would I set up a credit line for that much, nor would I play that much... and to win $500 with a $15K potential investment which is a return of 3.33% ??? Rob, do you consider this to be a smart thing to do?

---

Of course I do! Read what I said: sometimes I win a LOT of money. Most times I win a small amount. It adds up. You don't see it because it's not you. But I consider consistent winning BECAUSE I take a large bankroll in, as well worth the risk.

While quad 3s without a kicker would not have given you the money to make up your $10K deficit AND given you a win goal, your special play of just going for the quads (and dropping the kicker) would have given you a much stronger chance of making a sizeable win which could have paid down nearly all of your loss at this point.

You were taking a 1/47 shot -- plain and simple. For a player who prides himself on taking a walk when he has a profit, putting it all on the line for a 1/47 shot seems out of character.

In fact, just getting the quad threes (dropping the kicker) would have paid you $10,000 which pretty much would put you back to even.

So here's the tale of the tape:

Rob Singer gambled on a one card draw to wipe out a ten thousand dollar deficit instead of taking a two-card draw to wipe out a ten thousand dollar deficit.

And what if you didn't hit the miracle card? Where would you be now? I'll tell you where: right where the casinos wanted you to be drawing, drawing for a 1/47 jackpot card and in the hole by ten grand.

First Alan, I was up over $9k from the two prior sessions, so poor Rob would not have been right where the casino wanted him had he missed that 3 and eventually lost the $10k session.

Next, my strategies are not specifically designed to make the hold-- be it optimal or a SPECIAL play--that gets me "closer to a win goal". Sometimes they do, but it is only because I made the special play that was meant to hit a big winner and when the optimal hold would hit a small winner at best. And why do you persist on this 1 in 47 thing or that "RS gambled and got lucky". It's all a gamble and it's mostly luck for every player who hits something. 1in 47 or 2 in 47 is meaningless inasmuch as which hold follows the strategy's absolute requirement to hit the session- ending win goal. And since that hold was the optimal play this time and for one of the very infrequent times, it wasn't even a struggle to choose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

First Alan, I was up over $9k from the two prior sessions,

---

Of course I should have known. You never lose, you always come through with the wins when you need them, and you always make the right decision about your system because only you know it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Of course I should have known. You never lose, you always come through with the wins when you need them, and you always make the right decision about your system because only you know it.

---

Not the wisest choice of words. What you should have said is the truth....that I said twice before in this thread that I was up around $9k prior to playing a third and final session. You're getting after me for having and following a winning strategy that you don't really understand, and it's almost like you want me to apologize for all my winning this year when others lose or depend on their ginormous over-valuation skills on their year-end gifts from the GGWU. It's fine if you don't like it and if you don't care to believe me. Like I said, none of that affects or changes the good fortune I've experienced or the joy we have over it around here. The problem I DO have is now you got that moron mickeycrimm going with messages to me. I hope you reconsider next time. You do know that he's an alcoholic with violent tendencies that he spews in his messages, right?

BTW, as for your comment that I never lose....remember when I posted about my HUGE losing streak lady year where I just couldn't hit a quad to save my arse? Yes that was the last time I've left a casino a loser, but why don't you remember these things? Is it age-related?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

You're getting after me for having and following a winning strategy that you don't really understand,

---

You're absolutely right: I don't understand. And I don't think anyone else can understand it either. Sure we can understand the basics such as what is a special play, as well as win goals and loss limits... but it's the application of those ideas which are impossible to follow.

For example, you are up $9,000 on previous sessions, but you return to the casino to play a third session and then find yourself $10,000 in the hole? Is that Rob Singer telling us that? Rob Singer who historically would take the money and run? And the same Rob Singer who would belittle others for being addicts if they did the same thing?

Sorry, Rob. I can't understand. And I don't want to rehash the special play thing anymore because that horse has been beaten beyond the point of death.

But Alan, I've always pegged you as someone who had the ability to understand the method more than any others I've discussed it with. And I still believe that...if you would only clear your mind of all the incorrect assumptions you have about it and just LISTEN. It is not difficult and is not something "only Rob" can understand.

Now for the third tiresome time about the three sessions. Remember I told you I went in to play THREE sessions period? Because I had Cindy and friends with me and they wanted to watch and have some drinks for a fun time for the evening? I told you this time my only goal was to restart whenever I attained at least a $1000 win goal, and to play three sessions no matter what happened. Remember that? And to further clear your wanton misconceptions, this type of thing is what I mean by saying I'm retired from professional play. Had I not been, I'd have set an overall walk goal of $1500.

If you read these things then you won't confuse yourself so much. Or just ask, without the crazy assumptions or assertions that seem to never have a basis in the strategy's facts.

Rob, I understand your basic principles. I understand special plays and win loss goals, but it is how you mix them all together that whizzes way over my head.

To be honest, you don't have a "system" or "method" or "strategy" that others can properly apply. That doesn't mean it hasn't worked for you and it doesn't mean it can't work for others. But you can't expect anyone else to believe it, follow it, or understand it, because there are too many variables inside the head of Rob Singer.

Every other video poker strategy guide is specific, in part because it doesn't have an many variables as your system has.

The bottom line, I'm afraid, is that you can't be critical of those who don't embrace your system. Your system can't be embraced -- there is just too much for anyone to put their arms around it. I say that figuratively and literally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

My son-in-law stopped it arci. Ask mickeycrimm on WoV if he has the capabilities. In fact....ask yourself.

---

Sure he did. I suspect there's a little too much separation of duties at the IRS. It would almost assuredly violate privacy regulations.

IIRC, at one time Robbie stated he would NEVER keep a kicker with 3 aces. His logic was it cut his chances of winning in half. Now, maybe I'm remembering wrong, but that seems to go against what Robbie is stating here. If his decision is based on cutting the chances of a big winner in half then it would apply equally to threes.

EDIT: Found it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwf8...layer_embedded

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Sure he did. I suspect there's a little too much separation of duties at the IRS. It would almost assuredly violate privacy regulations.

---

I wonder if this is a violation of IRS rules and regulations and if someone might lose their job?

Well, there is no doubt now that Singer is lying. He claims:

1) He always does what he says.
2) He would "never" hold a kicker with 3 threes in TDB.

Hence, the picture he provided was not a hand Singer was playing. I can hardly wait for the .... but, but, but.

In fact, Arc, if you listen to what he said in the video he address a situation exactly like the one in question here. I am just too confused by what he says and what he means. This is why his system, method, way of playing is too complicated for anyone to follow.

Again look and carefully listen to what is said in Special Play #16 here: http://alanbestbuys.com/id195.html

Alan, I linked to the video above. His use of the word "never" says it all. Once again he has been caught in a outright fabrication.

I can see arci's again been wounded by me...and I like it! How long will he keep trying to find a reason to ease his troubled mind that I didn't really hit this horrifying winner! But alas, once again he's caught in his own trap. He knows why but Alan doesn't, so I'll break the bad news right now.

The video is very, very clear, and once again I'd like to thank arci for searching for it, posting it, and then giving education an opportunity to come to the forefront of video poker mastering. These videos ALL explain what I do in the course of making SPECIAL PLAYS ONLY....and why. And when I say that I would "NEVER" hold a kicker in performing a special play, that's exactly what I meant. Never. Was holding A333 ever identified as a SPECIAL PLAY HOLD? Nope. Just as I've been saying from my first post on. Better you think before posting arci. I expect more out of someone who prides themself on knowing more than everyone else. You also need to brush up on your math too.

Arci, for a geek you sure must have a lot of other, more pressing issues on your mind right now in order to slip this baldly. You see what I mean by those "consequences" yet?:) Sorry Charlie...

I was so excited about another arci toe-stubbing that I missed his IRS ramble. Keep worrying about it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

In fact, Arc, if you listen to what he said in the video he address a situation exactly like the one in question here. I am just too confused by what he says and what he means. This is why his system, method, way of playing is too complicated for anyone to follow.

Again look and carefully listen to what is said in Special Play #16 here: http://alanbestbuys.com/id195.html

---

Alan, I'm happy you posted that SPECIAL PLAY reminder also. I would NEVER hold a kicker with three Aces in TDBP just as I said. It would always be the special play hold of three Aces only, because four Aces would ALWAYS allow me to attain a win goal.

Next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Rob, I understand your basic principles. I understand special plays and win loss goals, but it is how you mix them all together that whizzes way over my head.

To be honest, you don't have a "system" or "method" or "strategy" that others can properly apply. That doesn't mean it hasn't worked for you and it doesn't mean it can't work for others. But you can't expect anyone else to believe it, follow it, or understand it, because there are too many variables inside the head of Rob Singer.

Every other video poker strategy guide is specific, in part because it doesn't have an many variables as your system has.

The bottom line, I'm afraid, is that you can't be critical of those who don't embrace your system. Your system can't be embraced -- there is just too much for anyone to put their arms around it. I say that figuratively and literally.

---

Alan, your assumptions are so wrong. If I sat with you at a machine for just 2 hours, I guarantee you would come away with an understanding and full appreciation of my approach. Continuing to "argue" it here is pointless. And look at what it did to poor arci. Here he was, all excited and exuberant that he thought he finally found a real error, when he simply forgot that the videos only discuss special play utilization. Poor fellow. Doesn't he have ENUF problems without this humiliation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Alan, I'm happy you posted that SPECIAL PLAY reminder also. I would NEVER hold a kicker with three Aces in TDBP just as I said. It would always be the special play hold of three Aces only, because four Aces would ALWAYS allow me to attain a win goal.

Next.

---

Rob, Special Play #16 is what you should be looking at. It is not the one with three aces which is play #15.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Alan, your assumptions are so wrong. If I sat with you at a machine for just 2 hours, I guarantee you would come away with an understanding and full appreciation of my approach. Continuing to "argue" it here is pointless. And look at what it did to poor arci. Here he was, all excited and exuberant that he thought he finally found a real error, when he simply forgot that the videos only discuss special play utilization. Poor fellow. Doesn't he have ENUF problems without this humiliation?

---

And I'm sorry, but I agree with Arc. Look again at Special Play #16. Those are your words unedited.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Rob, Special Play #16 is what you should be looking at. It is not the one with three aces which is play #15.



And I'm sorry, but I agree with Arc. Look again at Special Play #16. Those are your words unedited.

---

That's right Alan, because #15 talks about Aces and what the rules are for SPECIAL PLAYS-- not conventional plays. But #16 refers to deuces, and it clearly explains that NO SPECIAL PLAY would ever hold the kicker. Just remind yourself that everything about these videos is only referring to what a SPECIAL PLAY hold is. Holding trips = SPECIAL PLAY. Holding the kicker with trips = CONVENTIONAL PLAY. Get it? In my $50k hand, how many times does it take you to understand that the hold I made was NOT a SPECIAL PLAY. Do you understand yet? And do you understand the reason WHY I chose to make the conventional play yet? It might help if you read my initial post and the one last night again explaining why I made the optimal hold and not the SPECIAL PLAY hold of just the three 3's.

Arci has an agenda that's always falling apart. You have a reading problem.