What constitutes a great player?

Our friend Rob Singer showed us some big wins and wrote about some onlookers who watched his handpays:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

2 of them came by and said I had to be the greatest vp player of all time. I told them I was.

---

I noticed there were no "special plays" and what he played and won was with conventional strategy. Rob even says he won by playing with conventional strategy.

Question: does winning with conventional strategy make you the greatest vp player of all time? I ask that because anyone can learn and follow conventional strategy.

If you ask me, what makes the greatest vp player of all time is someone who does things differently so he can win with the greatest strategy and methodology of all time -- and not a strategy that anyone can learn from a book that all of us have access to.

If anyone can claim the title of the greatest player using conventional strategy, then it must be the guy who developed the conventional strategy.

He had one good run. I chalk it up to "shit happens." I've have many days like this and I'm sure you have also.

Everyone has good runs and I've had more than my share over the years, but not like this. I played maybe 1500 hands tops. What was unusual here was that I chose to play more sessions after winning what by any definition would have been far surpassing a pre-set win goal. Instead of going home and returning the next week after each session win like I've done hundreds of times in the past, I just played the four of them back-to-back. The main point is, it doesn't matter if the games are slightly negative--that's hardly the deciding factor. What matters is your overall approach and play strategy, of which to most players means they have none. Just PLAY!...and keep hoping for that intermittent gratification! Which naturally is a recipe for losing.

Alan, what really constitutes a "great" vp player? For one thing on these particular wins, it's the strategy used--as it's been during each of my last 17 years of consistent winning. I didn't go thru the detail of every hand of course, but had I been playing only at the $2 level I would have won noticeably less overall and per session. And there were some special plays that helped throughout, though none of them hit a session-ending winner like happens so many times.

Another thing that makes a great player is I'm not rushing back to see if I can press my luck anytime soon, like so many delirious winners do and what the casinos "train" players to do. I control when, where, and how I play and not the other way around via sweaty-palms-producing mailings or emails or calls from hosts.

This will also be interesting. I've been reading a lot on vpfree lately about a self-proclaimed "big-shot AP" who blabs that because he only plays on super duper extra points days and is "a winner" SP has stopped him from playing. I highly doubt it. Let's see if some 25c hot-shot AP is more visible than a 25c thru $2 player that netted over $25k profit in 3-4 hours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Another thing that makes a great player is I'm not rushing back to see if I can press my luck anytime soon

---

And there in lies the truth. It's just "luck." Again, as said many thousands of times, if this really worked, he could keep winning like this for eternity.

No jbjb you are dead wrong. My personal life and time are worth exponentially more to me than spending time in casinos. If I wanted or needed to win on an almost daily basis I'd have chosen to move to a IMO crappy, minority & crime-infested city like LV long ago, and I'd be winning those millions you talk about. Instead, as I've said over & over, I go there/play/win exactly as I choose to do with a life-balance that's just right for my particular situation and desires.

That wasn't the point so please don't twist what I said. All I said was that if it really worked, it'll work for eternity, which we all know it doesn't. I never said you had to live at the machine.

I'm also certain that your cherry picking results and not telling us all the losing trips you've had lately.

And what I said gives you the answer, even if it corrects your skewed vision. When you say "for an eternity" you mean over a lifetime, and that's exactly how it has played out for me since I began playing it. So whoever "we" is referring to must be a real dumb bunch.

You naturally would want this to be some sort of cherry-picking. A foolish thing to insinuate. Losers hate to read about or know people who actually win, although there are VERY few who can and have done it consistently. In my case I haven't played and won't play for a long time before and after this. That's what addicts do...plus they go UP in denomination because they get a strong feeling of confidence. And you might even see some of them run in and open up a line of credit out of casino-stupidity.

Alan, you're a nice guy who's been nice to me. So I'll post this, since it's been on my mind from the day you played 5 hours on ddbp and lost.
(1). Had you played 25c-$5 artt as Rob suggested, you most likely would have had a couple of quads to be able to start over.
(2). You would have been at the $5 most of the time- I know the quarter thing bothers you.
(3). You would have had plenty of shots at ddbp at $5-your desired level and game.
(4). You could have forgotten about "special" plays and just used common sense.
(5). The past is the past- but I see no harm in learning from it.
Best of luck to a nice guy.

sling... really? My crystal ball was shattered in the Northridge Earthquake. I have no idea if "ARTT" would work for me.

Rob... you had a good run. But the results you described and the strategy you played are no different than what others have had during lucky streaks. For example:

Jason hit five single line $4,000 royals in a 24 hour period at Caesars and Gold Strike. (I know the WOV doesn't believe this but it happened and of course he has the W2Gs to prove it.)

I hit two $5 royals (one for $24,000 and change, one fof $21,000 and change) at Caesars about ten years ago... with about 8 hours of craps in between in which I lost $12,000) and then went on to hit another $12,000 in various 50-play $1 video poker wins including quad aces with a kicker two times when dealt trip aces on one play.

About a year ago I hit a $8,000 royal followed by a $4,000 royal just FIVE HANDS apart, and the second royal came on $500 of free play that I won in a drawing at Caesars.

Last October with $2,000 in a $25 8/5 Bonus game I went on the run of my life which included a $100,000 royal. And then a couple weeks later (also October 2015) I am dealt a $31,005 progressive royal at Bellagio. The photos are all posted.

There were no special plays. It was all conventional strategy which I happened to learn following Dancer and Grochowski.

I got lucky just as you got lucky. Just as Jason got lucky.

In fact I've had three dealt royals in my life: the 50-play 5-cent royal at Mandalay Bay for $10,000; a progressive at Rincon for $36,000 and the Bellagio royal in October. There was NO strategy involved with dealt royals -- all I did was push "deal."

That's great Alan but none of what you described comes close to what I saw Thurs. night. Denomination doesn't matter.

You seem hung up about downplaying what role the special plays take. Over the years I've had at least 50 sessions end with my attaining my pre-set profit from using them. And if you really want to talk denomination, don't forget the special play of 3 Q's I tossed on $25 BP to get the royal.

Yes it is all luck, and the special plays simply give this luck a bit more opportunity to appear, although it didn't occur in the very short time I played this time. And read through what sling said--he understands the ARTT strategy. Of course you or Jason didn't need it for those wins you wrote about, but if you had utilized ARTT and the special plays every time you both played the past 15 years, you'd be reporting about consistent and yearly profiting instead of how the losses are acceptable because you play for entertainment. But you won't see this because you're not interested in it, and most players certainly don't want to put in the work in order to understand it. All I see is you missing out.

I'm not downplaying the lucky hits you had with special plays. I'm questioning your claim that you're the greatest VP player of all time when you're playing with the same conventional strategy anyone can learn from the various books, articles and tapes that are widely available.

Put your ego aside, Rob. You won money. Congratulations. It has nothing to do with being the greatest... if there is such a thing.

There's no such thing as a great video poker player.

There are great video poker analysts -- guys who mathematically analyze the games and figure out the plays for optimal return.

But everyone else playing VP are pretty much just monkeys who parrot a rigid strategy figured out by others. And the ones that don't are BAD video poker players (because they are throwing away money).

Even the originators of optimal play aren't great players. They are just great game analysts.

I suppose it could be said that APs can be described as "great players" if they realize how to milk comp systems to make video poker +EV for them, but that is more playing the comp program than beating video poker itself.

As video poker is a game with constant strategy (unlike regular poker), there really isn't skill involved.

At least blackjack actually does have some skill involved, due to adjustments made via card counting.

Alan, the reason I know there has never been as great a vp player as myself is because of how for years I've written about my very consistent personal successes at the game, and for years all it's done is irritate the AP's into calling me a fraud and a liar. Happens all the time, whether I post pics, W2G's, or anything related to my superiority.

No one has ever played the game utilizing the strategies I've been using the past 16+ years. That's what makes me different, and that's why I win so often and so much. It's also why I'm the absolute best.

I use every bit of the math guys like arci and Dan claim to use, but I know when and how to deviate from it in order to help walk out a winner TODAY. These blind AP's don't want it to be, but you know they've got to be wrangling with all the money I win. I guess the only way they can cope is to tell themselves I just HAVE to be losing lots in-between these hits, because it just can't be. Right now you can bet people like Dan, arci and spock (thank you once again for the tip my friend :)) are arduously scanning thru the pictures trying to find ANYTHING they can use to discredit my success once again. It's what I live for on this forum, really. Weak people like them sicken me, and a good slap down is worth a thousand good nights' sleep.:)

Maybe whoever hit the $400,000 AWAK on hundred play is the greatest.

Congratulations on the big day, Rob. Is there any chance you could loan coach some money?

Speaking of "the world's greatest video poker player," WoV signed up Dancer in what they are touting as a coup. Just one thing -- you're not allowed to criticize him. Any thoughts on that?

Alan,

Just checked in to see if the same old guys were here making the same old arguments. They are. You seem to be the only one that will admit to losses. The amount of winners on the internet really defies the odds.

I think it's a matter of perspective, looking at your resume and business, my guess is your income far exceeds most of the fixed income folks on this forum. Wins of $20K are a huge event to these guys, for you it's just a small percentage of your income and you can always increase your income by drumming up more business. $20K is still a lot of money, but a lot less when your income is a million a year vs $50K a year.

I have friends that are problem gamblers and the tell-tale sign of the problem gambler is the inability to talk about losses. It's always I won this, I won that, but never the "what it took to win". They are always winners. Till I talk to the rest of the family, or they ask to borrow money.

I commend you on you honesty on this board.

James40 if I didn't talk about my losses I'd be a liar. I've lost plenty. As everyone knows my full name is Alan Augustus Octavius Mendelson and because of my losses, Caesars named TWO towers after me.

Alan, the mere fact you are willing to talk about your losses places you in the top 1% of all gamblers. I run a business and I'm a bottom line type guy, pretty pictures and a good story don't mean a lot to me. I'm a recreational gambler that uses CET as a cheap source of rooms. We eat at good restaurants, watch some good shows and concerts, use the pools/spa/gym and relax. Harvey's in Lake Tahoe has a great summer concert series. I don't have a gambling budget or bankroll, we gamble till we feel like we've had enough and then do something else. I do ok on VP and my wife loses on slots. I hate slots, but she likes them and I like her so I live with it. So while we lose a bit, we come back talking about the food we ate, the shows we saw, the concerts we heard or the places we visited. We very seldom talk about the gambling.

Speaking of budgets, we just returned from a vacation in SoCal. We stayed near the pier in Santa Monica and took the kids to a day at Universal Studios and 3 days in Disneyland. Vegas needs to take a look at the Disney model, as I spent more in those 7 days than I've ever spent in Vegas.

I hesitate to ask how much you paid for admission to Disneyland. I know it's expensive. If MGM gets away with charging for parking, what's next? An entrance fee to the casino so you can enjoy the air conditioning and the lights and piped-in music?

I still have a military affiliation and was able to purchase the tickets at a significant discount ($143 a head for the 3 day park-hopper) through Travis AFB. Hotels and food though I had to pay full freight and Santa Monica does not play around with hotel prices. When we got to Disneyland, the two 16 year old boys went off to get a "giant" corndog and drink. They texted me and said it was $25 for two dogs and two drinks. Welcome to the world of Disney. The 9 year old wanted to buy everything she saw. In the end, everyone was tired and happy, so it was worth whatever we paid.

Vegas will keep trying new streams of revenue as we go along. The younger people aren't the big gamblers the old folks are. Young guys want the parties and booze and have more disposable income than the older fixed income folks. Hell, they are probably still living with their folks. Some things will work and stay around, others will die off as people vote with their feet. If resort fees go away, other fees will go up. Free drinks will go away, comps will be cut back, rooms will become more expensive. It's a business first and foremost.

If resort fees go away, the "real price" of rooms will be advertised. Resort fees only shift dollars from the advertised price to the room + fee price.

I would hate to think that free drinks will go away... but they might decide to "ration" the time that cocktail waitresses spend in the lower level gaming areas. I see that already. Cocktail waitresses are always available in high limit slots but not in lower coin-in gaming areas. It's like that in EVERY casino.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

If resort fees go away, the "real price" of rooms will be advertised. Resort fees only shift dollars from the advertised price to the room + fee price.

I would hate to think that free drinks will go away... but they might decide to "ration" the time that cocktail waitresses spend in the lower level gaming areas. I see that already. Cocktail waitresses are always available in high limit slots but not in lower coin-in gaming areas. It's like that in EVERY casino.

---

Alan, it seems to me cocktail waitress numbers and placement are radically different from 25 years ago. I'm guessing fewer overall per square foot/number of gamblers, with some reduction in high limit areas and radical reductions in general floor coverage, including race/sports where there is still coverage.

Is that your sense of it?

Maybe I should split this Disney discussion into its own topic, but I actually went to Disneyland fairly frugally late last year.

First off, I'm fortunate enough to have a friend who works for Disney (not Disneyland, but Disney). She used to be able to get me into BOTH Disneyland and CA Adventure for free, but they clamped down on that, so now she was only able to get me 1 free park-hopper ticket and an okay discount (like 20%) on the other two tickets I needed (one other adult, one child). Still, that was a large savings overall.

So we went to both parks. You end up doing a LOT of walking when you squeeze 2 parks in one day. I was exhausted by the end.

Fortunately my son (who had just turned 5 when we went) is not a big "buy me merchandise" type of kid. So we didn't have to buy any souvenirs. We kept our food consumption to a minimum. That is, we didn't go hungry, but we also didn't gorge ourselves or buy tons of snacks.

I stayed in a nearby chain hotel (walking distance) where I was able to get an upgraded room thanks to my tier status there. I also got an additional discount, so our room was something like $99, and we got to park there for free.

All in all, I spent $285 total on tickets (for BOTH parks combined, 3 people), $99 on a hotel, zero on parking, and probably about $80 on food.

So I got away under $500, which was a pretty amazing feat given that it involved 3 people going to both Disney parks.

I always hate missing California Adventure because my favorite ride (Soarin' Over California) is in that park. If you've never been on that ride, you should definitely try it. It's not a roller coaster, and it's not wild or scary at all. It's the closest feeling you'll ever have to free-form flying over landscapes. I could sit on that thing for hours and not get sick of it. One "trick" to that ride is to make sure you get the upper row, so you don't see feet dangling over you (ruins the flying illusion).