Will we ever see the report? Is there an update?
Printable View
Will we ever see the report? Is there an update?
Looks like Frank is getting close based on his LVA post. Of course, I already know the answer so it's not going to be much of a surprise. The math is the math and Frank will tell you exactly what I've told you many times over. Of course, there will be side issues that he will focus most of his time discussing. But, they will have little to do with expected return.
Frank sent me an email indicating that he was writing his report.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Arc, I'm afraid the "math" has never been an issue, because even Rob admitted from the start that he does not dispute "the math" and plays by "the math" about 95% of the time.
His examples posted here on our site (see http://alanbestbuys.com/id194.html) even concedes that his "special plays" have a lesser expectation than what proper play, or what "the math" says to do, has.
I do not expect Frank to make a report on whether or not Rob's system will make you a "winner" or if it will make you a "loser." Honestly, I don't know what he's going to report to us.
From his many posts since accepting the task of reviewing Rob's system, Frank has been more concerned with stopping gambling addiction. It wouldn't surprise me if his report continues on that path, using Rob's system as a means to curtail gambling addition.
And it wouldn't surprise me if the opponents of the Singer system will not get any support by what Frank says.
So, we'll see. The countdown is on.
Once again you are confused, Alan. As I told you before Singer continually disputes the math. You just have your eyes closed. Doesn't look like you will be opening them soon either.
What Singer has said about the math is clear here on my website, in the videos and in the text. You just won't give up, Arc.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Edited to add: I invite you to once again revisit this page http://alanbestbuys.com/id194.html, read the text and listen to the interview, and no where does Rob Singer dispute the math of the game. NO WHERE.
Alan, why do you limit yourself to what is on your website? I've given you several references to places where Singer disputes the math in one form or another. The fact you have chosen to ignore them says a lot about your motivations.
You raised a valid question, and you are entitled to an answer:Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
I can only report what Rob said to me, and what he said in our videos and interviews in person and on the phone and through emails. The Internet is filled with libelous statements, fictitious statements, misstatements. And when it came time for me to interview Rob about his system, I wanted to be sure exactly what his system was, and so I asked him specific questions and got specific, concrete answers, definitive answers.
I interviewed the man in the flesh, and his words were captured on high definition video, and his own description that "the math" offers a greater return than his "special plays" came from him.
I think what you should be saying, Arc, is this: Rob ignores "the math play" to take long shots. You would be correct saying this, I would agree with you, and so would Rob.
But to say that he "disputes the math" is absolutely wrong. He ignores the math plays in certain situations, he does not dispute the math.
Alan, you are of course right in that I do not dispute the math. Arci has his own agenda as always, and it's obvious the pressure he's under these days is showing. He seems to look for comfort by creating controversy that he can argue about for the sake of arguing.
For those who've paid attention, and you have, they'd understand I've said that while the math is pure, and assuming the machines are 100% random - which I don't believe they are but did prepare my strategy as IF they are - it is because humans are playing the game and not robots, that does not allow AP's or anyone else to play according to how the books play it all out in words. For support to this and as told to me by several local casino managers while writing for Gaming Today and published as such, in their own words, all those lucrative-sounding promotions that just keep rolling out non-stop are primarily targeting the AP's who'll always bring in more money than normal to take their shots against the math. You can ask Bob Dancer about that and why it is he has to keep working, for additional support.
In the meantime, good job getting arci back on. He's a load of fun, isn't he!
I almost forgot--on the Frank (a fair & truthful critic) & myself discussions, I'm sure he knows how some people who are already irritated that he's even talking to me, will both use criticizms either way and spin whatever he says however they choose to. In other words, arci will find yet another way to ease his self-induced agony up there no matter what. And you know what else? Dancer and all his aliases on all the vp and Wizard of Odds forums will continue to duck debating me just as he wanted no part of betting me while I played in front of him and ran for cover when he had the chance to accept my challenge of proof-of-winning. Criticizing from afar and from behind a keyboard, as we've seen, are my critics best moves.
"assuming the machines are 100% random - which I don't believe they are "
Perfect example of not accepting the math. The math only applies when the games are random. So, if Singer does not believe the games are random then he doesn't accept the math.
"but did prepare my strategy as IF they are "
Which means he doesn't have a clue about the math. I already demonstrated in a previous thread that his system DOES NOT do what he claims it does, that is, his special plays do not lead to more session wins.
Alan, too bad you never read that thread, you might have learned something.
Again, you raise a good question. In particular you wrote: "his special plays do not lead to more session wins." Rob says he has won nearly a million dollars over a ten year period. Since he is playing negative expectation games (primarily 8/5 bonus) how do you account for his profits if not for "getting lucky" and his special plays? Or, are you saying he didn't win?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Another point you made is: "his special plays do not lead to more session wins." Well, is the objective here to make more session wins or to have a bigger net win? If I recall, Arc, you posted on the LVA site that you win something like 3 out of ten sessions, yet you are a net winner? Personally, I don't doubt that Rob is more likely a winner on more sessions because of his betting progressions. And, Arc, I think you also agree that a betting progression can make you a winner with or without Rob's system.
You see, Arc, I am not an advocate for either side here. I understand -- and actually play -- following what the math says to play. But I also can appreciate how violating the "math driven plays" (my term) can combine with a little luck to give you a win.
I appreciate that, but I don't necessarily follow it.
Let me again call your attention to how Rob justifies his special plays.
In one of the video taped interviews he did with me he said "if you give yourself more opportunity for that big winner to come you're going to have higher odds of hitting that winner" (at 01:28) and "I did a risk analysis for every one of these special plays" (at 2:04).
You can watch that interview again (first video on the page) at http://alanbestbuys.com/id194.html
Now, while I have not seen the actual studies that Rob did, it does make sense to me that if you give yourself the chance for the big win, you have a greater chance of getting the big win. If you hold AAAKK in 7/5 bonus, you will never draw the case ace for the quad jackpot. And that is one of Rob's special plays because he says a full house in 7/5 bonus isn't big enough to give up the chance for the quad aces. Yet, he says, in 8/5 bonus he would hold AAAKK.
Yeah, he violates the math, he ignores the math driven plays, but he is giving himself the chance for a big win. And holding the full house will never give you quad aces. You have to appreciate his thought process even if you don't follow it.
Alan, when someone as anal as arci is driven by an agenda, you will never receive comprehensible input. His odd rambling reply to my post confirms that.
Just earlier tonight @ Terribles was another example of how special plays that deviate from the math are not only the smart play at times--they're the right play. On $2 ACES BP I was dealt unsuited AJQ with a 2 and 3. All the AP's would religiously hold the JQ, but I never do. The Ace happened to be with the letter "E" in the 4th position and I held it, but it really didn't matter where it was placed because I always hold only the Ace in that situation. Moments later I was looking at 7AAAA and in order for $8000. So what would an AP like arci be staring at? Maybe a pair of Q's for 10 bucks, because he would never give either a royal or the Aces to be the final hand here.
See how brillliant these AP's are, esp. when they're criticizing what I do? And you wonder why arci gets so frustrated on these forums? :)
I doubt he has won anything close to what he claims. He probably started off winning which would not be unusual given the high variance of his system. He started bragging it up and when the losses started coming he just couldn't admit his failure. Look at him now ... he claimed he was retiring from gambling but now is gambling away in that mecca Pahrump. He has told so many lies why would anyone believe anything he says.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Alan, the point is he CLAIMS they lead to more session wins while I demonstrated they do not. So, you're OK that his claims are a lie?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Overall I win a little over 40% of my sessions. Singer should win 70-80% using a progression. I stated many times there is nothing wrong with a progression if a person can handle the different denoms. The problem is not the progression, it is the lies that he repeats over and over again. 1) A person can win using negative return games by using his approach and 2) A person can not win playing standard optimal strategy on positive games and 3) His special plays improve a persons chances of winning. Of course, he also spews more lies like the 5th card flip-over, the hot/cold machines, the NGC in cahoots with casinos, 3 mathematicians blessing his system and so on. Lies on top of lies on top of lies just so he can claim he's a VP bigwig and extract a few comps/CB from using other people's playing cards while teaching them nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Bwah hahaha hahaha hahahaQuote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Any hold can lead to a win. Everyone has seen situations where IF they had held another set of cards they would have done better with the cards that were drawn. However, they is NO system that can take advantage of that because you can't foresee what cards are going to come up in a random machine. Only suckers fall for that nonsense. That is what Singer counts on. Frank tried to explain this to you in many ways. You still don't understand.
Oh yes, the magic elixir of special plays. Has he shown you his risk analysis? Didn't think so. It's all another lie told right to your face. Why are you such an easy mark? There is no risk analysis and I've shown you his special plays do the exact opposite of what he claims in most cases. Sorry to be so blunt but there's no nice way to tell you you've been suckered. I've provided you a factual description of why his special plays fail. I explained the math very simply if you take the time to study it. Yet, here you are once again claiming his special plays do something they don't do. Absolutely mind-boggling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Look Arc, Bob Dancer never showed me his tax returns when I went to his seminar at a north Vegas casino about five years ago and he said his video poker income for the previous year was $250,000 with half of it coming from wins on $25 triple play DW ($375 per push of the button) and half coming from cash back money. But I believed him then and I believe him now.
You wrote: "Alan, the point is he CLAIMS they lead to more session wins while I demonstrated they do not. So, you're OK that his claims are a lie?"
In all honestly, how can you demonstrate what he claims are a lie? Computer simulations are just that, simulations. They cannot replicate what actually happened in the real world. The "math" says his system fails, until his system gets one of the big wins.
I've now played more than 140,000 hands since my last royal. I play according to the math. I break up dealt straights and flushes when I have four to the royal. I hold 3 to the royal when I am dealt a fourth flush card, I still haven't hit in more than 140,000 hands. As Rob says, it's a matter of luck, isn't it? So why not give luck a better chance to work?
No one says you have to play Rob's way (I don't). But I still think the idea should be available to those who want to try it. Maybe you can't prove it works, and maybe you can't disprove his claims either.
He'll tell you luck was on his side with his special plays. I think that's a reasonable statement. So what's the problem? He got lucky.
So what, this has nothing to do with Dancer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I did not do a simulation. I demonstrated that mathematically most of his special plays do the exact opposite of what he claims. Unless you claim 1+1 is something other than 2, you are wrong. Maybe you should read what I did instead of responding with strawman nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Once again you propose strawman nonsense. This is not about Singer's system vs. standard play overall. This is whether a special play really does lead to more wins. In other words, his special plays DO NOT give luck a better chance to work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Arc let me end this by saying something that even Rob will agree with: mathematically ALL of the special plays will fail. Thanks.
Once again you fail to grasp the main point. I'm not talking about the expected return of the special play. I'm talking about the claim that the special play will "give luck a chance to work". That is, it will lead to more wins that allow the player to reach their win goal and leave. What I demonstrated is that most of the special plays do the exact opposite. They lead to fewer big wins.
If his special play (holding a lone ace when the AP move is to drop it) concludes with drawing AAA for quad aces, I would have to say that his special play DID give luck a better chance. If you drop that ace, luck has ZERO chance. I don't agree with Singer's overall philosophy, but once in a blue moon, his "blind squirrel" tactics just might come through.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Your view is correct only if you limit yourself to looking at one one hand and ignoring what happens when you miss. However, the stated goal of the special plays is to improve your chances of reaching a specified win goal. It never says anything about a single hand. If you cost yourself additional play by making a poor choice of holds then those lost hands decrease your chances of reaching the win goal. One has to weigh the overall impact of the one approach with the other. With most of the special plays the player actually decreases their chance of hitting the win goal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Vic
For example, assume you have a 75% chance winning (reaching a win goal) using optimal strategy and a 5 level progression. With Singer's strategy variations including his special plays that number is less than 75%. So, instead of giving luck a chance, he's giving up expected return AND giving luck less chance. A complete failure.
This is something that Rob has not made clear -- in his books, in my conversations with him, in the interviews we did: when does he make his special plays and when does the follow the math that 95% of the time? Rob should comment about Arc's post.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Of course he hasn't. He made it all up to begin with. There was no risk analysis, there were no mathematicains that validated his system and, most likely, his claims of winning are bogus. He's taking advantage of folks who do not have the mathematical skills to analyze his system. And, while he will respond to this, he will not provide anything of value. It will just be more of the same nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Let me ask you this: Why must his strategy be proven by the math of the game? In craps, for example, the math tells you not to make hardways bets. Yet, within the last year, there was a player who parlayed $25 on the hard-10 to a win in excess of $40,000. This was written about on the LVA forum, and it's also not that unusual for the game of craps.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
I personally know a player who parlayed $1 on 12 to more than $27,000 as the 12 hit three times in a row.
Crazy bets can win, but you have to bet them to win.
What Singer has laid out for us is some "special plays" as he calls them where you might decide to go for the crazy bet. For example, when to hold the full house with aces in 7/5 bonus, and when just to hold the aces.
Arc, no matter what you write, I still haven't seen Rob's information about when he plays by the math 95% of the time and when he makes his special plays. This is something I asked for him to talk about in another video-taped interview.
The funny thing is, if Rob's strategy was titled "How to win a video poker tournament" it might be called brilliant. Because even Bob Dancer in his articles about winning a video poker tournament has talked about making unconventional plays to hit a royal.
All of this controversy over Rob's system may never have developed if two things had happened:
1. He did title his strategy "How to win a video poker tournament with off-beat and wild plays."
2. Instead of calling it a system that others could use, he wrote books that were titled: "How I beat the casinos at video poker by playing it my crazy way"
Since I always stated I have no problem with Singer playing anyway he wants, all you did was just repeat what I've been saying for years. The problem is that is not what Singer did. He claimed standard math plays do not work while a person could win with his approach. He also made many other unsubstantiated claims that I have documented.
Deal with reality, Alan. Not some fantasy that never happened.
The "reality" that allows for AP to win at video poker is nearly extinct. Positive expectation games are almost impossible to find, cash back and bounce back money has been eliminated or greatly reduced, even Bob Dancer has written about how casinos are preventing APers from participating in certain promotions.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
With the video poker deck now stacked against the concept of advantage play, perhaps you need something like Singer's system to make you leave a winner?
Pure nonsense. Silly strawman argument. Singer's system does not change the math and can't make more than a few lucky people winners. Sorry Alan, but this attempt to change the subject from the fact Singer's system does not even do what it is advertised to do is beyond obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Arc, this is what you will never understand. You continue to say "Singer's system does not change the math" and you are correct. Singer's system does not change the math. Singer will also tell you that according to the math, his "special plays" are all at a disadvantage.
But Singer does not play by the math exclusively. He says he only plays by the math 95% of the time. That is what Singer's system is all about. It's all about putting the "math plays" aside at certain times to try to get lucky to hit something bigger.
Now you can argue that trying to get something bigger might not work, and is destined to fail. And you might be right-- or you might be wrong.
Why could you be wrong? Because even in the bad math of a lottery, there are lottery winners. And even in the game of craps where the 12 is a bad bet, players hit the 12. And even in video poker when holding a single ace is a bad play when you have a pair of 9s, someone will hold the ace and get a royal or three more aces. That is what Singer's system is all about.
Trying to tell me that Singer is trying to redefine math is silly. He's not, he never has. All he has tried to do with his special plays is set aside "small wins" for a chance to get "big wins."
What you might say is that he's a crazy gambler, instead of a disciplined video poker player.
Try this for an analogy: instead of investing in shares of IBM, he trades call options on IBM.
Here's another analogy: instead of holding AAAKK in 7/5 Bonus and taking the full house payoff, he holds only AAA to try for the quads, hoping to hit the case Ace enough times to meet his goal.
Arc, you will argue that the math says it is better to hold the full house, and Singer says the full house won't make him happy. And that's the difference between you and he. Singer knows his strategy of dumping the full house has a lower expected value, but his "special play" gives him the opportunity to hit quad aces, and when he plays, he says his goal is to hit quads and especially quad aces.
Simply it comes down to this: he has different goals than you have. He plays differently than you do. He is NOT trying to change the math.
With that said, you can criticize him all you want that your math plays are better than his non-math plays. And to that I would say best of luck to both of you.
So again returning to your last post above, where you say "Singer's system does not change the math and can't make more than a few lucky people winners," I would alter it slightly to say, instead, "Singer's system does not change the math and might make some lucky people winners."
First, thank you Alan for once again being the voice of reason by ASKING questions instead of making up how many so-called bogus "demonstrations" have been done that are factually lacking & nebulous enough to be able to draw unsupportable conclusions for only oneself in order to pretend to feel good about something you know little about. And special credit is given for getting arci to give up more of his time to this. Have you noticed how shaken he's getting and how simple it is to rattle the poor fellow? Video poker has found a way to put pressure on everything about his life. "Something to enjoy & behold" would not be giving this enough justice!Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Vegas Vic was onto something reasonable, which only got under arci's skin. Good job there too:). We'll look at this scenario from 2 perspectives. First, playing like I was at Terribles where I just felt like playing $2 ACES BP while I was also watching the game, if I always played like that without strategy and using special plays, yes, I would be on a faster track to being a loser than a winner. Still, with such an odd & lucky/big hit and if I only played at the $2 level, it would take a much longer time to be a loser and it may not even happen depending on what my royal frequency was. So arci is more right than wrong on his jealous criticism here.
Now back to my play strategy, where these type big hits have come many many times at crazy high denominations because of the progression. In such cases, the overall math distribution of expectation & profitting is severely interrupted because once one of these is hit, my next hand is at my lowest denomination when I return for a session. This is where arci and his emotional, helter-skelter, and never-math-analyzed BS becomes laughable.
What happens when I "miss"? Well, for one thing, there are many other winning hands that can occur that are totally ignored by such a critic--simply because he just doesn't want that aspect looked at by the readers. I've already explained the decrease in EV and why it's important to go for the opportunity when it exists and there's a reasonable give-up in expectation. Further critic obfuscation appears when they try to make it look like how all of the other times when the big hit isn't realized, how it's just going to tear apart my profiting.
Well, there just isn't that many hands that will be played like this at the higher levels because I play far less at these levels than the lower ones. Only a few hits--like the $25 RF at Bellagio, the $10 RF at Planet Hollywood by holding a lone Ace instead of a QK unsuited, the multiple $15,000 quad J's/Q's/K's on $25 SDBP at Aquarius, and the quad 2's on $100 DDBP at Caesar's from tossing the second pair of low cards, have always meant that I would never be a loser. Sure there were a lot more times these special plays didn't work. Big deal....and that's exactly how I developed it to work.
Here I'll insert arci's guess and then continue to show him how wrong he is. Of course, he makes these uneducated criticizms because of envy and because he likes to lie. All it takes is simple reading skills to expose this trait: "However, the stated goal of the special plays is to improve your chances of reaching a specified win goal. It never says anything about a single hand. If you cost yourself additional play by making a poor choice of holds then those lost hands decrease your chances of reaching the win goal. One has to weigh the overall impact of the one approach with the other. With most of the special plays the player actually decreases their chance of hitting the win goal."
He got the first part right in that the purpose of making these plays is to reach a pre-determined win goal--and leave until I choose to play my next session starting at my lowest denomination. He put in the part about a "single hand" probably because he couldn't figure out how to attack my understood procedure. His sentence makes no sense. His next part is even more ludicrous. He says these special plays will cost me hands that if played, COULD get me to my win goal. Duh! So what does he think the special plays do--earn me a free cup of tea?? If my #of hands ARE reduced for the session because I tossed a second pair or a JQ unsuited for the Ace--and some of the time they are--then what about the times they are INCREASED because FH's hit anyway, or unexpected draw-4-quads appear, or trips pop up anyway.....on & on, and that's ignoring the dollar values of these hands along with the huge amounts win over the $2500 win goal when the plays word! Again, because he has no rationale for his criticizm other than a disdain for me, arci is applying long-term rules to short-term play, and he will never either understand the strategy or agree to it until he discusses it with me face-to-face--and he has ducked that opportunity twice in the past. Just like Dancer, he'd prefer to live in a world safely driven by contempt from behind the keyboard rather than face me knowing they'd get destroyed moments into any debate. I know a lot of players who would enjoy watching either or both of them squirm in my presence.
Alan, I just noticed where arci says there was no risk analysis done for these special plays. Are you laughing yet or what! He's probably watched our brief videos a dozen times because he loves to hate to love me. Now you know why this "man of numbers from the 50's" "missed" the calculations. Funny or what?
Absolutely hilarious. Did you read what you wrote? First you claim I "will never understand" and you say I am "correct".Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
There's nothing wrong with him doing that himself. However, claiming it will lead to more wins when it does the exact opposite is the problem. You just went full circle and are now back arguing the same nonsense as before. Good grief.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
No, I'm not arguing a thing. I'm simply pointing out the mathematics doesn't support Singer's claims. It has nothing to do with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
More strawman nonsense. As has been covered umpteen times before, I'm talking about future expectation not what one lucky player might do if he spins around 5 times before pressing deal. You're right back to ignoring reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Of course, the same can be said about always holding the first 3 cards no matter what they are. Sometimes it will be the best hold. Or, maybe you prefer the last 3 cards? It "does not change the math and might make some lucky people winners".Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You just have to love it. Singer has made me into the next coming of Carnac the Magnificent. Remember when I wrote this about Singer ...
"while he will respond to this, he will not provide anything of value. It will just be more of the same nonsense."
And what does Singer respond with ...
"instead of making up how many so-called bogus "demonstrations" have been done that are factually lacking & nebulous enough to be able to draw unsupportable conclusions for only oneself in order to pretend to feel good about something you know little about."
Pretty much content free wouldn't you say? And that was about the best Singer could do. The rest of his rant provided none of the items I stated he would not provide. No risk analysis, no refutation of the fact his claims don't do what he states. Nothing. Just as I said.
Arc, let me say it again:
1. You are correct that Singer's system does not change the math of the game. And he's not trying to change the math of the game.
2. Singer says he doesn't always follow the math of the game. But he says he does 95% of the time.
3. Sometimes Singer will disregard the math and avoid the correct math play in an attempt to make a bigger win than what the "math play" calls for. He refers to it as a "special play" so that he will attempt to get lucky.
You because of your devotion to the math of the game cannot comprehend that someone would deliberately not make the "correct play" as dictated by the math. But that is exactly what Singer will do on occasion and as he said, about 5% of the time. And he says that by not following the math (the correct holds) he has managed to score some big wins.
Damn, I don't follow him and even I can understand what he's doing.
Let me put it a different way: YOU DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW THE MATH OF THE GAME TO WIN.
Playing video poker is not a test-- you are not scored by how many "correct plays" you make.
If Rob has success playing his way, then good for him. If you don't want to play his way, don't. And if you have success playing your way, then good for you.
We have been going around in circles over this for way too long. It's all been blown up out of proportion.
Those of you who are devoted to the perfect play and perfect math of the game -- go ahead continue your beliefs and continue doing what you're doing. I'm mostly with you.
Rob, on the other hand, is simply showing that sometimes you have to take a little extra gamble to score a big win. And since he's taking that extra gamble in a casino -- and not during open heart surgery -- it's OK with me that he's doing it.
And here's a bit of reality for you: all those books and programs that Ive bought over the years and thousands of other players have bought over the years written by the video poker "experts" haven't busted the casinos yet.
Alan, why do you continue to repeat the same BS? I've explained the situation numerous times yet you always incorrectly state my position. I have no problem with anyone going for big wins.That is not nor has ever been the issue. What Singer has claimed is his special plays will allow him to reach his win goal quicker when IN FACT they do just the opposite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
So please Alan, quit redefining the problem. It has nothing to do with with any of your 3 points. I stated it above yet again. Either read it over and over again until you understand it, or simply give up.
Obviously not. You clearly haven't caught on that what he's doing is not the same as what he claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
StrawmanQuote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
The only reality is you are not taking the time to understand the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I understand the situation: You just disagree with Rob's system and you have every right to do that. And, for the most part, I wouldn't make many of the "special plays" that Rob makes either.
On the other hand, he still hasn't made clear what his "progression system" is, nor has he defined when he deviates from the math for that 5% of the time when he chooses to make special plays. And I hope that soon he will write about it here or that we can do another video interview about it.
In the meantime, I look forward to Frank's report. But I think we're not going to see anything that's unexpected. From what Frank has said publicly already, I think he is going to lay out the problem and the situation without making any judgment himself.
Those who thought he would sit as judge and jury will be disappointed.
Obviously you don't understand. It has nothing to do with "disagreeing with Rob's system". It is very simple. His special play claims are not supported by a simple analysis. All you've done once again is prove you refuse to try and understand the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
He claims his special plays will lead to reaching his win goal more often. This would mean the special plays should INCREASE session wins. However, most of them don't. They DECREASE session wins. That's it, Alan. Nothing to do with whether his system will win or lose overall. That is a strawman you keep repeating.
Here's where you are still missing his concept. You are looking at the long term play as dictated by the math. He is not. He looks at short term goals per session or trip.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
As an experiment, do this, because I think it's a good example of what Rob is doing.
Say you are dealt AAAKK 47 times in 7/5 Bonus Poker.
Arc: you and I would hold the full house, but Rob would only hold the 3 aces in 7/5. (In 8/5 he holds the full house.)
Now, using your math figure for me his possible outcomes when drawing two cards holding 3 aces in 7/5 bonus.
Here's an illustration of what I think his reasoning is:
A. On each and every hand he will always have at least three of a kind. There is no loss, but he is giving up the payoff of a full house.
B. He doesn't care about a full house. That is what his strategy is all about. You care about a full house. He wants the quad Aces. That's the difference between you and how you play and the Singer Strategy.
C. He will gladly take the gamble to get the fourth ace because that fourth ace (on a $5 machine which he usually plays) would return $2,000 and remember his win goal is $2,500 and he leaves.
D. You will argue that holding the full house will give him more money over time (and it will) but it will never give him the four aces he needs to stop playing and get out of the casino.
Different goals and different methods to reach those goals. That's all this entire argument has been about. Singer has been painted as a great evil but he's not. He simply is playing video poker in a different way with a different objective.
Now some math questions for what I would describe as a perfect world scenario.
He holds 3 aces for 47 hands at a $5/coin 7/5 Bonus game:
1. Guaranteed minimum return: 3 of a kind X 47 hands = $3525. Cost for those 47 plays: 47 X $25 = $1175. Net profit = $2350.
2, Guaranteed return if he holds the full house: $175 X 47 hands = $8225. Cost for those 47 plays: $1175. Net profit = $7050.
3. Possible return when he holds the 3 aces over 47 hands? If the math is with him he gets the quad ace 1 time for $2,000. His net win now becomes 1 X $2,000 + 46 X $75 = $5,450 and this assumes no other full houses when he holds the three aces.
The difference between the conventional play vs the Singer play in this perfect world scenario is $1,600. The "conventional play" obviously comes out ahead. There is NO question about it. Singer will tell you this himself, just as I am showing it to you here.
But I think what Singer will argue is this (and Rob, I hope you will please comment):
If you always hold the full house, you will never have a chance for the quad aces, and the $2,000 win. And while holding the full house will return more money over the long term -- he doesn't want to be in the casino for the long term. He wants to hit his quad aces once and leave. And in the meantime, holding the three aces ain't so bad, and you still might get a few full houses along the way.
That sums up the Singer system.
Arc, he knows his system is at a mathematical disadvantage. He doesn't care, however, because his stated goal is not to play for a long period of time. His goal is to make a big hit and stop playing and enjoy the rest of the trip.
Now, Frank Kneeland has argued that there is no logic in quitting if you are going to return to the casino later. And I'm not going to touch that. I'll let Rob debate that with Frank.
So to get back to your point: YES according to the math, the Singer system will decrease session wins. But Singer's system allows for the big session win that will allow him to reach his $2,500 win goal and leave.
Its not my system -- so please don't attack me. I'm just trying to make sure everyone understands it. And let me say this: I hope I have explained it properly here. I think I have. Thanks.
Alan, if you think you're going to get anything other than frustration and personal attacks from arci, you're mistaken. Aside from all his ranting about your posts, look how he selected two statements from my post that scored direct hits against his claims, and then he tried to make you believe they "ain't nothin'"! Precious, isn't it? The pressure he's under up there IS showing.
You're analysis above is correct, except that if the 7/5 FH does get me to a mini-win goal I do keep it no matter what--and that has happened quite a few times across all the denominations. But just prepare yourself for more name-calling by arci because other than him claiming to have done phantom "demonstrations", he does that the best.
Absolutely hilarious. I say "Nothing to do with whether his system will win or lose overall." and you come back and claim "You are looking at the long term play". Are you capable of reading and understanding simple English? Doesn't appear to be the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I'm talking about individual sessions, Alan. That's it. Nothing to do with long term. I'm talking about "short term goals". What I'm telling you is his special plays DO NOT increase the likelihood that he will meet those goals. Got it?
I find it ironic that you, a long term player, who admits to winning only 4 out of 10 sessions, is really this concerned about how Rob Singer does on individual sessions.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
I think the discussion of this subject is exhausted.
I'm not concerned with "how Rob Singer does". I don't give a hoot. What I'm trying to do is help you understand that you're advertising a lie. Singer claims his special plays will increase wins at the cost of a small penalty in long term ER. You've continued to support that claim. Well, they don't. At least most of the ones I looked at. At least you're starting to understand what I'm telling you. I guess that's something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Arc, I appreciate your comments but we've gone over this many times... in fact, too many times. I think I summed it up by saying your goals and Singer's goals are different. And in fact, the math supports your way of playing. But Singer's way of playing fits his goal of trying to play less and reach (win) a particular goal.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
There is no lie. He is very upfront about what the math says and what chances he is taking. If you don't like his system, don't play by it. Quite frankly, I don't and I know that you don't.
I have never heard Singer claim anything about increasing wins "at the cost of a small penalty in long term ER." The only numbers Rob has offered are detailed in the discussion of his special plays and there they are all there for all to see.
And, for the record, there is no advertisement. Rob paid me nothing for my inquiry into his system. On the contrary, it cost me a lot of money to present his system publicly for all to see and judge for themselves.
Now, you've seen his system and you've made your judgment of it, and you're welcome.
Nope. Most of the time they do not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Yes, it is a lie if the special plays do not give him a better chance of winning. That is the point. Most of them do not. Sure, holding 3 aces over a FH does. But that is only one. Most of the special plays DO NOT increase his chances of going home a winner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Sure you have. Whenever he says he's taking a chance to go home a winner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
The problem is you should now understand that his claims are a lie. I've shown you several examples. It's not a matter of judgement. It's mathematical fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
This is funny. Notice how arci continues to make believe the special plays don't give me more opportunity to go home a winner, yet he has no reasoning behind it other than disdain and envy. Sure is a fine analytical methodology!
And at the same time he's not wanting to see the expectation calculations we put up with the videos which clearly show how a risk analysis works. I know it's not something out of the 50's and they weren't worked with a slide rule, which may be where the disconnect is. Now you can see why he brings his unimpressive views & turns them into baseless arguments onto the forums. All he wants is something to do....something to kill all that lonesome time he has while everyone else is out enjoying themselves. Using personal attacks to do that might give him a touch of satisfaction, but it sure didn't do him any good when he got permanently banned from vpFREE for it.
BTW Alan, as you've made clear, ALL of the special plays increase my chance of going home a winner. That's 100% for those who are mathematically challenged or are from the punch card era. And arci keeps asserting he's done some sort of "analysis" or "demonstration" of on my strategy, while at the same time purporting to understand the special plays and his having included those into his phantom reviews. Ask him to show you any of that and all you'll get is his corrupt interpretation to fit is agenda, because when he's had chances to meet with me while he made the now HUGE mistake of moving to LV, he was a no-show on at least 2 occasions. If he understands even 50% of what I've developed and how it was developed, I'd be surprised. As the Wizard of Odds has said, only those who fear the truth about something will not want to face it.
Too bad for Rob that I already demonstrated that several special plays do not increase chances of winning. They were in this thread.
http://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/showth...-Forums/page11
Of course, that makes it obvious that Rob is lying right now. He even commented in the referenced thread. So, not only does he know his claims are lies, he continues to lie in order to cover it up.
I don't recall Rob Singer ever saying that his special plays increase the chances of winning. In fact, in all of the Special Plays presented on this website, the statistics presented by Rob show that the Special Plays are at a disadvantage to the conventional plays. Rob is very upfront about this.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
It seems to me that the point that Rob is making is this: it's not that his Special Plays have a better chance of winning. It's just that when they do "click" or hit he will win more than what the "optimal hold" will win. Rob said his "system" is based on going for the big wins which are mostly quads and quad aces when the chance of getting those present themselves. And he says he deviates from the accepted "math plays" just 5% of the time.
And what we haven't determined yet from Rob is when he will elect to make those Special Plays-- and when that "5% of the time" is that he does not follow the "math of the game"?
Arcimedes, it seems to me that Rob's system is not a threat or even a challenge to the accepted math of the game. It seems to me that Rob's entire "system" is just a way to show which kinds of dealt hands a player might choose to work with to take a long shot. And when you take those long shots you might get lucky and you might not.
It's actually the same playing conventional strategy by the "math". It doesn't really matter if I play the correct strategy or not because the random number generator might not cooperate when I make the "math play". For example, I could be dealt a flush with four to the royal 200 times and never get the royal card. (Didn't that happen to you, Arc?) You see, conventional strategy is also subject to a RNG just as Singer's strategy is.
You need luck with the Singer strategy just as you need luck with the conventional strategy. I guess if you wanted to eliminate the "luck factor" then the next time you are dealt a flush with four to the royal you should just hold the dealt flush. That will eliminate the "luck factor" wouldn't it?
We're all still waiting for Frank's report. I hope it is posted soon so we have something new to discuss.
Once again arci shows how little knowledge he has when looking at risk analyses. The only thing he knows how to do, in-between the deserved struggles he brought upon himself up there as we all know, is to pretend any play is going to be faced an infinite number of times. He seems enthralled by FH's and apparently has so little money available to gamble with that he just couldn't separate himself from one in order to try for a session-ending winner. Oops, my goof. As an AP, he doesn't stop gambling until he either passes out at the machines, he goes broke, or an agonizing call comes in from home.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
When someone can't stop playing the machines then they are never going to recognize the reward advantage of a special play. His "demonstrations" are nothing more than a make-believe agenda that he follows out of compulsion.
Alan, you're again correct and arci just doesn't like it. The plays are only a threat to the CASINOS because they don't like players to make them IF they are in conjunction with leaving when a win goal is attained. And as you've seen right here, AP's don't see them as a threat because so far, none of them understand or even WANT to understand them.
When I make the special plays is determined by the game, the denomination, and where I'm at in my session and YTD win goal. They are not constant, and it's just another in a long line of facts that exposes the confusion and lack of knowledge displayed by arci. Here he wants everyone to believe in his by-the-math long-term analysis, when in reality he has less than 50% of the input needed in order to do anything close to an accurate review.
But I still like how he can't get himself to comment on those $2 A-C-E-S I hit the other day. If he wasn't so jealous of everything Rob Singer then you can be sure he'd have been obsessed with analyzing the odds of hitting such a magnificant hand until the Minnesota cows came home!
Thank you for posting Rob. One of the important things you said in your post above is this:
"When I make the special plays is determined by the game, the denomination, and where I'm at in my session and YTD win goal. They are not constant."
This is actually, very important, because when you mention these variables (and we really don't know what they are) it really becomes impossible for anyone to give a proper analysis of your system.
I've been asking this very question several times both here on this forum and on the LVA forum: when do you make the special plays and when do you stick with the conventional or optimal plays? You refer to the conventional plays as the optimal holds in your discussion of your strategy.
So unless you told Frank how you determine when you choose to make your special plays no one can really follow your system or provide an analysis of it, or prove if it works or doesn't work. Did you explain this part of your system to Frank?
As an example of why this is a major issue, I will mention here a special play mentioned earlier in this thread: the full house with three aces in 7/5 Bonus. Rob, your special play is to hold only the three aces but you would hold the full house when it allows you to reach one of your goals. (You always hold the full house in 8/5 bonus, however.)
Rob, you and I have discussed doing another video on this point. Thanks.
The very last post by Singer contained this quote... "ALL of the special plays increase my chance of going home a winner. "Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I guess when you're in denial it affects your ability to read.
You're into word games now. Alan. I just said "increases chances of winning" and now you say " he will win more than what the "optimal hold" will win". If you can explain the difference in these two be my guest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Yeah, I know, you're right back into misunderstanding my point that I've already explained to you a dozen times. New day ... right back to making the same mistake. Sorry to ruin your day but we are talking about the exact same thing. In both cases we're talking about a single session. Nothing to do with long term or long term math. I'm looking a each special play and telling you that most of them will lead to FEWER winning sessions.
So, when Rob tells you it's about taking chances, you should respond that most of his special plays fail to increase winning sessions so why would anyone take a chance that reduces their winning sessions? Think about it, Alan. Singer's special plays are doing the exact opposite of what he claims.
Singer doesn't want a "proper analysis" as that will make it obvious that it's all a bunch of lies. The fact is tossing a FH and holding 3 aces in 8/5 BP will win just as often as 7/5 BP. In both cases it is 2 out of every 47 tries. In both cases the hold of 3 aces will lead to more session wins than holding the FH. This is one of the few special plays that does lead to more session wins. Anf yet, Singer does not employ this hold in 8/5 BP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
It's this kind of idiocy that makes it obvious that Singer has no clue about the true value of any of his special plays. He doesn't even understand when they might work.
You should also be asking him for a real "risk analysis". He keeps claiming he's done them, where are they? Or, is it simply ... "duh, looks like it might work, dem aces sure are pretty".
Is it possible that the entire source of your dispute with Arci has to do with what is meant by the word "disputes"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Math says do A
Rob says do B
Rob also says he does not dispute the math (Hmm... but math said do A. What would you call that exactly if not "disputing"?)
As soon as he said to do other than A, he had already disputed it regardless of his admonitions to the contrary.
I have had lengthy discussion with Rob about this, and what he disputes is that math alone can render the truth where VP is concerned. Since the mathematical explanation for all things gambling, says that only math is required to determine odds and strategies, Rob begun disputing that they day he began conceiving of his system and remains a staunch disputer to this day. Math also says that Rob's system is wrong, so at the very least he disputes that, which is by extension disputing the math.
In my report on his system I open with making it clear that he disputes the math. Rob proof read it and agreed.
Functionally it works like this: I agree that 2+2 = 4. You then go to add 2 apples and 2 oranges. I stop you and say, "What are you doing, you can't add apples and oranges?" You remind me that 2+2 = 4 and that I agreed with that. I say, "Well I'm not disputing the math, I'm just disputing its use here!"
The logical fallacy being committed here is grave. Saying that one can't add apples and oranges is disputing the math, because the math says you can add two of anything to two of anything and get four of anything.
It is true that on your site he does not implicitly state that he disputes the math. It is not something he said, it is everything he says.
Hope this clears up the misunderstandings rather than creates more. I don't usually like to take sides in these things, but Arci is so far on the side of correct in this it is really hard to even understand why you can't see it. My guess it that one of your cognitive distortions is blocking you. Pity we are never aware of those ourselves.
I am looking a great deal beyond the math in my eval, so don't think the report will be completely negative. It is safe to say it can't be proven with math. That isn't negative it just is.
~FK
P.S. We all have cognitive distortions and biases and saying that someone else has them is not an insult in any way. I have them as well I'm sure, though they are likely different ones. The two defining qualities of all biases are that all people have them, and that no one is ever aware of them.
P.P.S Thinking that you are completely unbiased is a cognitive bias, so if you believe this you are guaranteed to be wrong.
One of the recurring themes in my conversations with Rob is that his use of the English language is oft fast and loose, as he adds or alters definitions and includes additional meaning in some words.
Believe it or not: I could say, "Rob disputes the Math." He could say, "I don't dispute the math", and we could both be right...and even be in agreement with each other.
I already know his definition of, "The Math" is not conventional in anyway, as we had a long talk about what was meant by, "The math working". It would not surprise me to find out he uses a different definition of "disputing" as well.
We had a very long discussion which ended in me begging him to stick to dictionary definitions so we didn't waste anymore time on misunderstandings. Since that time our discussions have gotten much better.
~FK
Frank Kneeland wrote above:
"Math says do A
Rob says do B
Rob also says he does not dispute the math (Hmm... but math said do A. What would you call that exactly if not "disputing"?)
As soon as he said to do other than A, he had already disputed it regardless of his admonitions to the contrary."
And at this point, I have to sit out and just wait for Frank's report and Rob's comments, because I never thought of the math telling anybody to do anything. I do not understand how math can say to do A. I think of the math of the game of video poker as showing what is expected to happen based on the remaining cards in the deck. I never thought that the math of the game was controlling your own choice or decision making process.
Ah ha...a break through.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Now your POV makes so much more sense. You haven't read my book have you. I cover this in laborious detail. We math based AP's do exactly what they math says is the best course of action at all times with all the personal choice of a snow flake in an avalanche.
In fact there really isn't much decision making in AP at all, only number crunching and memorization. The only decision one can make is to be right or wrong.
Math is a hard science and not an experimental science. It's the difference between fact, opinion and theory.
Here's an example outside our discussion that might be easier to grasp.
A farmer says he AGREES WITH AND DOES NOT DISPUTE ALL THE RULES OF FARMING. He then goes on to state that they don't work for growing onions, and that when it comes to onions, he's going to do his own thing.
Our farmer in this example has not made any errors or disputed "the rules of farming", unless the "the rules of farming" expressly state that they work for growing onions and using any other method would be inferior.
Here the farmer can say he isn't disputing the rules of farming all he wants, it merely makes him wrong if he chooses to ignore them where onions are concerned.
He could even be right about onions!!! He would however be wrong about not disputing the rules of farming.
Thanks Frank for the posts and explanations. But as I said earlier in this thread, when you play video poker you are not graded for following the math. You are not rewarded for remembering which is the best play according to the math. Video poker is a gamble because you have no control over the RNG. The so-called rules of the math only go so far to help you to win.
If you are going to maintain that you should only play by the math then there is no point meeting with Rob Singer any further. I can tell you and everyone else right now -- you will reject his strategy.
A. You will reject any idea of a special play that violates the best expected value of a draw.
B. You will reject his concept of quitting when he reaches a win goal.
C. You will reject playing any higher variance game without a positive return or close to a positive return on the paytable.
Just admit it: Rob doesn't follow the math, so it can't work.
Alan, there is no argument that Singer does not follow the math. That is obvious. however, you are still ignoring the fact that he claims his special plays increase his chances of going home a winner. Most of them don't. So, even ignoring all the long term math stuff, we still see that Singer is lying about what his system provides.
BTW, it doesn't matter when Singer makes these special plays. They fail in EVERY situation.
If I used one of his special plays and it hit big, would you say that I failed?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
No! I would say you failed as soon as you decided to make a less than optimal play. To be clear this would have been before hitting the draw button. So you can't include your results in the decision because they haven't happened yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Vic
You are confusing results with expectancies. They mix less well than oil and water.
When you ask a question about whether or not someone made a good decision you disclude the results of that decision, because to do otherwise invites hindsight bias. You must take yourself back in time to the moment of the decision put yourself in their shoes and weigh the information. Julius Caesar's did real well crossing the Rubicon. Napoleon did less well at Waterloo. One of them was a brilliant military strategist that got some bad information. One of them just flipped a coin to decide on whether or not to commit his forces. I'll give you a clue who is who: Even now with 20/20 hindsight, I'd follow Napoleon any-day over Caesar.
I have this silly opinion that my life shouldn't be decided on coin tosses.
~FK
The kind of things you are suggesting will be in my report might be if I had set out to disprove the RS system. I did not. I set out with the intent to prove it and find efficacy in it. Where I have failed you can draw your own conclusions. If that leads to believe that because Rob departs from math it can't work, then that will be your words not mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Others have approached this from the POV of disproving Rob's claims, I was trying to boldly go where none have gone before. I may have failed, but it will not be for lack of trying.
~FK
Well, that's an interesting statement, Frank. Did I read this correctly? You were trying to prove the efficacy of Rob's strategy and system?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Kneeland
So based on what you know, how do you feel about Rob's strategy for holding cards that are different from what "the math" says to hold, what he refers to as the "optimal hold"? Case in point: example #2 in Bonus Poker, which you will find on this page http://alanbestbuys.com/id194.html with Rob's video comment:
2. In this next hand, instead of holding two high cards, Rob's special play is to hold only the Ace, increasing the chances for quad aces.
Ah Qd 6c 7c 2s: OH=AQ @ $2.40; SP=A @ $2.36.
Rob's position is that holding only the ace has a slightly lower value than holding AQ offsuit, but his objective is to get quad aces and he wants to maximize his chance for that.
Frank, do you see any value in that play? And, specifically, what value do you see?
As Frank already noted it has nothing to do with success or failure. It all has to do with expectation. Let me put the question back at you in a different way ... if you are playing DDB and held only the ace from AQ (the correct play) would drawing 3 queens be considered a failure?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Vic
I suppose most people would, but it would not be a failure for the reasons most of them would think about.
That's the problem with considering low probability results as a reason to make a particular hold. There are all kinds of low probability draws. Why would anyone take that into consideration?
Here's another one that demonstrates that Singer does not always go for big wins. Say you're dealt TTTTJ. Assume a RF will generate enough money to "go home a winner" but the 4 tens won't. Why doesn't Singer hold the suited TJ? Yes, it would be ridiculous to toss the quad tens but this demonstrates a fallacy in Singer's claims. He does not base his decisions on reaching his win goals alone. He factors in the value of the holds. Of course, once you make this type of decision then you have to ask why make the lower return hold in one case and the higher return hold in another? For this Singer has no answer because he never did a risk analysis. It's easy to show that some of his special plays are completely bogus on both counts.
This is very interesting, Arc. Let me start with this comment you made:Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
As Frank already noted it has nothing to do with success or failure. It all has to do with expectation.
That reminds me of what is sometimes said about scholastic sports: it's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game.
Well, that was in school. In the big leagues, it's all about winning.
I also like this comment you made:
Say you're dealt TTTTJ. Assume a RF will generate enough money to "go home a winner" but the 4 tens won't. Why doesn't Singer hold the suited TJ? Yes, it would be ridiculous to toss the quad tens but this demonstrates a fallacy in Singer's claims.
Bob Dancer actually discussed an issue like this when talking about tournament strategy when the player with the royal is likely going to win. And, see Singer's own Special Play when he had had three queens with three to the royal, held the royal cards and got the royal for a $100K win. He not only discussed it with me in one of our videos, but he wrote about it in his newspaper column. Look at the video again and then ask yourself is it about winning or how you play the game?
And you can see the video about this "Special Play" which is #13 on this page: http://alanbestbuys.com/id194.html
Please note that I called it "the craziest, whackiest, and most incredible of Rob Singer's lucky plays, but even Rob admits he tries this rarely." In fact, Rob told me he faced this particular hand only twice in his life and made the Special Play only once... and it worked.
Miracles do happen. Oh, and I love how Rob told me how the video poker strategy police came down on him.
Funny thing happened with my son. He had a pair of aces with three to the royal playing double double bonus, broke up the aces, and got the royal. He was soooo wrong as he was collecting that $4800 progressive jackpot.
You're asking questions that will be covered in the final draft. I'd prefer to wait and offer the information in context. I'm meeting Rob on the 10th of next month and will then be typing up my final report.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
According to Rob he did do a risk analysis. Where the disconnect lies is what Rob considered to be a "risk analysis". That will be in my report. Many of the statements he has made seem false, because as I have said before, he does not use standard definition of words and processes.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Arci says he didn't do a risk analysis
Rob says he did do a risk analysis
They are both right because they are talking about completely different things.
I'm curious to know if this statement indicates your own bias? First you say about Rob that "many of the statements he has made seem false, because as I have said before, he does not use standard definition of words and processes" but then you say:Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Kneeland
"Arci says he didn't do a risk analysis
Rob says he did do a risk analysis
They are both right because they are talking about completely different things."
Are you going to be a good judge for the others who will read your report? Or a fair guide for where your analysis will lead the reader? Or will you say that everyone is right because they are talking about completely different things?
In all seriousness, I'm not expecting a report... I'm expecting a book.
I have done the best I can. That's all anyone can do. It is small book sized. The intro is 2500 words. I'm expecting it to be around 10,000 when I'm finished.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Nope, Rob is simply lying to your face. Did you ask him about the 3 mathematicians that supposedly validated his system? They just happen to all live in foreign lands. They didn't have email addresses either. Isn't that a coincidence. Of course, we all know there are no math guys in the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Kneeland
So, it is a complete lie. In fact, if Rob had their analysis why would he want you to do an analysis? Just print what he already has. I've dealt with Singer for many years and it's beyond obvious that Singer just lies and then lies some more to cover up previous lies.
This is what malignant narcissists do. They have no problem lying right in your face, that's part of their condition. Whatever Singer has told you can't be trusted. Not a single word. Sure, there will be truths sprinkled in here and there. That's what all good liars have learned. All con men as well.
Of course it is. However, you've blinded yourself by considering wild stories of lucky wins and ignore the far more prevalent cases where the special plays fail over and over and over again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You ignored my comment about drawing 3 queens holding A instead of AQ. Do you think holding AQ is a good play because it *might* hit someday? I know you don't, but why in the world would you think it was ever a good play for anyone? Well, that's basically what the special plays are all about.
Strawman. You don't get to keep your credits in tournament play. Hence, it is a completely different game. Apples and Oranges if you will. If you can't see how this is different I'm really concerned for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
No one cares if people take a "shot" once in awhile. I can easily see that it could increase the enjoyment for certain types of players. However, you never have these players telling you that you will win more often doing this. Nor, do they tell you other strategies won't work. Only Singer does that. Clear the cobwebs from your mind, Alan, and focus on the basic elements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Question: is a formal risk analysis really needed for some of these "special plays"? Look, it doesn't take much of an analysis for me to decide if I want to risk breaking up a full house with three aces in 8/5 bonus poker to try for quad aces. And it doesn't take much of an analysis for me to decide not to hold a kicker when dealt three aces on triple-double-bonus.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
(By the way, Singer would not break up that full house in 8/5 bonus, and he would not hold the kicker when dealt 3 aces in TDB and neither would I even though "the math" says to hold the kicker.)
You need more analysis? Are we playing video poker here or planning a manned space shot to Jupiter?
Here you go again, Arcimedes. Above you wrote:
"you've blinded yourself by considering wild stories of lucky wins and ignore the far more prevalent cases where the special plays fail over and over and over again."
The problem with all of your arguments is that you don't have all the information to reach a valid conclusion. And neither do I. We still don't know when Singer will make his "Special Plays." He says 5% of the time but which 5% of the time?
Do you know, Arc? Can you cite, quote or report exactly what Rob does and when he does it? And when he plays by the same math you play? You can't. I can't. And so far, Rob hasn't told us in enough detail that anyone can give an accurate analysis of his system.
Hmm...and I guess you know that because you have hacked into my email and are aware of each and every word we have exchanged?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Really, you spend a lot of time on conjecture.
On this particular point, when I asked him what he meant by "risk analysis" his answer was not what I expected, but it perfectly explained what he meant without any confabulation or need for it.
Incidentally, what he meant was he thought about it a lot in his head. Here's his exact words:
ROB: I looked at the expectation of the optimal holds, I calculated what the expectation was with my alternate holds, I looked at the "give" and the potential opportunity, and I decided if the potential reward was worth the risk.
Obviously, this isn't what you or I would consider a risk analysis, but it is what he meant when he used the term and he did do it.
To get from misuse of the English language and poor math skills to lying is quite the stretch, and I don't think you are accounting for how distorted some people's memory and beliefs can be when sunk cost bias comes into play.
I can't speak for what he has done in the past, but during our exchanges I have not detected any deliberate subterfuge. He believes what he says. At least what he has said to me.
Seriously Arci, if someone was color blind, would you call them a lier if they told you the sky was gray?
No, I've seen Singer spew 100s if not 1000s of lies. I know the man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Kneeland
I've also seen the way he treats complete strangers and celebrates the death of other individuals. This is not rocket science. Singer fits every symptom of NPD to a tee.
Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I do find it distressing. If you really believe RS has NPD that you'd say that on a public forum. You do realize how inappropriate that is?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
If anyone truly had a mental problem, that should be a private matter, and your goal should be to help them, not malign them in public. Since when was picking on people with mental problems appropriate...did I miss a memo?
Right or wrong, I find your approach and motivation unsettling. If you are right, what you are doing with the information is unkind. If you are wrong, your statements are libelous. For you this is a lose lose scenario. I must say I'm having just as hard a time understanding you as I am Rob.
I'm not doubting what you are saying only why and how you are saying it. I hope you understand the distinction. Many of your post are insightful, informative and a great contribution to the forum community. When you get going on Rob, it just turns my stomach and lessen my opinion of you, not Rob. Think on that.
I've asked him to get help for many years. He has chosen not to seek help. For what it's worth NPD is generally not successfully treated in most individuals so it was not very likely he could be helped. First he would actually want to be helped. I've seen no evidence of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Kneeland
I deal in the facts. One day you will realize I am right. What you are missing is Singer is out there dealing with people. Those people, like you and Alan, have a right to know exactly the type of person they are dealing with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Kneeland
BTW, it's not libel to state facts no matter how harmful they might be. All I'd need to do to prove my case is show Singer's comments in various fora. It's hard for him to defend his attacks on dead people and that is only the tip of the iceberg.
I don't care what went on in other forums and websites. It's not appropriate. Stop it.
And for the record, Rob Singer has always conducted himself honorably with me. And what went on, for whatever reasons, on other websites will not be allowed to continue here. And that's for all parties.
Picturing Alan with four arms covering his eyes and ears saying ... Don't you dare present evidence to make it obvious I've been fooled. I don't want to know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Yes, you have been successfully conned. You really can fool some of the people all of the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Bye.
Arcimede$ you continue to misunderstand that reporting information and differiing viewpoints is not being conned. It is both an obligation and a right to allow ideas to be presented and discussed. In my 35+ years of being on TV and reporting on radio and in print no one ever accused me of being conned because I reported on controversial ideas. And wow, have I reported on controversial ideas ranging from A to Z -- from abortion rights to Zoos keeping elephants.
You might not like the ideas being presented and discussed and you have every right to say that, and to present your objections to those ideas.
But asking me or any other forum moderator to censor those ideas goes against the principles of a free press and the rights and privileges of our country-- our Constitutional freedoms.
You have a grudge against Rob, and Rob has a grudge against you. You guys should find your own sandbox to do battle in.
I am not going to let your grudge to destroy this forum and I am not going to allow his grudge to destroy this forum. You are both welcome to present your differing ideas here-- just keep it civil and stick to the issue.
Keep it mature. If you want to take your ball and go home, then goodbye. But if you want to express your ideas -- and yes your objections to Rob's strategy or even to my ideas -- you are welcome to do it.
I'm a fully aware of that. If you re-read my post you'll notice I said, "if you were wrong".Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
I also find it odd that you seem to think you are trying to save me from what I believe about Rob, when you don't actually know what that is. Keep in mind, I don't blurt out all my thoughts like you do if I believe they might offend or hurt someone.
Next, NPD and its related disorders in known by the psychiatric profession to be aggravated and exacerbated by public confrontation. So one needs to ask again, if you wanted to help why would you behave in a manner that is known to make the problem worse?
Lastly, to make a diagnosis of NPD even for a licensed therapist, would require many tests and quite a lot of time. To think you could make such a judgment based on forum posts and your limited and outdated psychological experience is really the height of conceit. I certainly wouldn't presume to post a medical diagnosis about someone (anyone) if I wasn't a medical doctor.
I passed on a great deal of this issue to a practicing licensed therapists and all they could say was that they couldn't be sure of anything.
I don't expect this to change your behavior in any way, but if I had not voiced my strong disapproval to this situation I would have felt remiss in my duties.
You remind me of that old adage: "If one hunts monsters, one must be careful not to become one themselves."
It might appall you to know that when I was reading some of your and Rob's more acerbic exchanges, I had to keep looking at the header to distinguish who was talking. From the tone and wording I could not tell you apart. I'm sure of few things in life, but I'm guessing that isn't something you would want. As is usually my intent with these comments is not one of chastisement. I tried to put my self in your shoes and I would certainly want to know how others were perceiving me. This is advice, nothing more.
Good luck and just be aware that from my POV you aren't achieving your professed goals in an optimal fashion.
This is, as always, fascinating. I wanted to comment on certain definitions because they are at the heart of everything.
The value or danger of Singer's methodology has to be compared to something. Now, one can compare it to the play of the 1 in 1000 vp player who adheres religiously to actual by-the-book advantage play all of the time, no exceptions. Or it can be compared to the "looser" play of those who define themselves as advantage players but who deviate from by-the-book occasionally, almsot all of whom lose lifetime. Or it can be compared to the "average" vp player, who also loses lifetime.
Next we can ask whether the "by-the-book-all-the-time" vp players have the same or fewer or more weaknesses to dabble in non-vp negative expectation games in casinos. Since they spend more time in casinos, and have become part of the culture, perhaps that leads to leakage in non-vp venues. For example, Dancer is the ultimate by-the-book guy. But he dabbles in other things. I can tell you that dabbling in sports betting probably results in such leakage. Leaning on the "Wizard of Odds" and saying "these are advantage plays" doesn't mean you actually know what you are doing. And Dancer, finally, is not qualified to evaluate which sports bettors know anything about anything. My point is that, unless the by-the-book guys stick to their field of expertise, they tend to blow it.
What does this have to do with Singer? Frank will get into locus of control at some point. Singer's methodology may have its advantages -- it stresses no leakage via internal locus of control. And if 99.9999% of players leak, then it has value.
I was notified by e-mail that there was a distressing exchange going on here--which is unfortunate given the way I know Alan wants his forum conducted because it has something to do with his livlihood--and the theme seems to always be the same headed by a constant. I've only chosen to read this one page of posts, and who would have guessed that it's arci against the world? Now it becomes abundantly clear why he was permanently banned from vpFREE.
I'm supposed to be a victim of NPD? I never knew what that was until arci started using that out of his frustration against me when I began chastising him for what he's done to his family. Whenever I hear this I just think of what a great time I had with my wife last night or at dinner today, and then give a great big smile from ear to ear. And I REALLY like the taste of them apples :)
Attacks on dead people? It's not libel to state facts no matter how harmful they may be, and this cadaver only got that which he begged for during his existence as a videopoker.com hack--knowing I was banned from responding. What goes around comes around, and in SUCH a righteous way.
Anyway, I know Alan is having trouble hitting a royal this year. Kind of odd that I haven't seen a SF in TWO years, but RF's are no stranger to me. I hit another one today on quarters, again on a 6/5 BP machine at the local bar playing $40 while waiting for a pizza and a pulled pork sandwich to take up to the RV.
I manage to visit Las Vegas once or twice a year, and during each week's visit, I play a lot of VP every day. The rest of the year, I might average 6 hours a month at local Detroit casinos with an occasional visit to other Michigan casino locations. That's probably not a lot of time spent playing compared to most of you. Since I started playing VP in 2004, I've had 23 RF (sorry, Alan) and probably average at least two SF a year (sorry, Rob). Having learned to play by using Bob Dancer's materials, do these two stats make Bob's system a better one than what Rob preaches?
Who knows?
It is what it is.