The Great Sioux Nation. The Video Poker APs. Are these the Noble Redmen? Or are they blood thirsty Savages.
Are Singer and Mendelson authentic VP hero's or arrogant strategists in too deep? There is a great divide on the subject. I'm troubled.
I stand in the valley of the Little Big Horn. My eyes look up to the ridge. Wow. There sure are a lot of fuckin' Indians.
But still, I'm with the 7th Calvary!
Is there any hope for a cease fire on the subject?
"Is there any hope for a cease fire on the subject?"
No.
Mr Pete, you have to ask yourself this following question:
Why does Rob, and Alan both run for the exits the times when they are up $6.25 each?
Pete, Argentino never ceases fire. Never.Quote:
Originally Posted by pahrump pete
Another Great Thread about Las Vegas and how to go about gambling inside of the Casinos!
Nope. I just play his strategy ,(modified to suit me) and don't even post about it anymore because they can't keep their mouths shut about those who disagree. Since I don't win enormous amounts like some here it doesn't matter to me what happens, as I'm enjoying the way I play. Both are dickheads when it comes to getting along with others.Quote:
Originally Posted by pahrump pete
Slingshot, I hear you. I haven't been here too long but I've read plenty of past posts. Lots of hate on both sides. However, so far I'm able to put the nasty words aside. I only see the actual words and arguments pro and con. Singer makes the most sense to me. Just my point of view, I don't care to argue about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshotNope. I just play his strategy ,(modified to suit me) and don't even post about it anymore because they can't keep their mouths shut about those who disagree. Since I don't win enormous amounts like some here it doesn't matter to me what happens, as I'm enjoying the way I play. Both are dickheads when it comes to getting along with others.Quote:
Originally Posted by pahrump pete
My 2¢- NO strategy is 100%. But when a strategy gives one so many opportunities and options AND one has strong discipline (harder than one thinks) and one of the chief tenets of the strategy is quitting when ahead a reasonable amount and opponents make fun of that- more power to them. Let'em keep filling the machines. The trolling pro and con mean nothing to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by pahrump peteSlingshot, I hear you. I haven't been here too long but I've read plenty of past posts. Lots of hate on both sides. However, so far I'm able to put the nasty words aside. I only see the actual words and arguments pro and con. Singer makes the most sense to me. Just my point of view, I don't care to argue about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshotNope. I just play his strategy ,(modified to suit me) and don't even post about it anymore because they can't keep their mouths shut about those who disagree. Since I don't win enormous amounts like some here it doesn't matter to me what happens, as I'm enjoying the way I play. Both are dickheads when it comes to getting along with others.Quote:
Originally Posted by pahrump pete
Here's to the voodoo gamblers. Gonna stick a pin in it. Negative games beget negative longterm results and it don't matter how many pins you stick in it. Don't forget to tag the building.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshotMy 2¢- NO strategy is 100%. But when a strategy gives one so many opportunities and options AND one has strong discipline (harder than one thinks) and one of the chief tenets of the strategy is quitting when ahead a reasonable amount and opponents make fun of that- more power to them. Let'em keep filling the machines. The trolling pro and con mean nothing to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by pahrump peteSlingshot, I hear you. I haven't been here too long but I've read plenty of past posts. Lots of hate on both sides. However, so far I'm able to put the nasty words aside. I only see the actual words and arguments pro and con. Singer makes the most sense to me. Just my point of view, I don't care to argue about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
Slingshot says-My 2¢- NO strategy is 100%. But when a strategy gives one so many opportunities and options AND one has strong discipline (harder than one thinks) and one of the chief tenets of the strategy is quitting when ahead a reasonable amount and opponents make fun of that- more power to them. Let'em keep filling the machines. The trolling pro and con mean nothing to me.
Nicely said. Ever read his book? I got it a few days ago. He doesn't promise 100% results. The principals he advises when you play are the key. As you say. I think new players would benefit when they play if they gave more weight to a laminated card of some simple principals instead of a laminated card of perfect play.
Who's book? Who are we talking about here? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by pahrump pete
Mickey, his post is just a troll post looking for a reaction. Don't give it to him.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmHere's to the voodoo gamblers. Gonna stick a pin in it. Negative games beget negative longterm results and it don't matter how many pins you stick in it. Don't forget to tag the building.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshotMy 2¢- NO strategy is 100%. But when a strategy gives one so many opportunities and options AND one has strong discipline (harder than one thinks) and one of the chief tenets of the strategy is quitting when ahead a reasonable amount and opponents make fun of that- more power to them. Let'em keep filling the machines. The trolling pro and con mean nothing to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by pahrump pete
Probably one of Singer's garbage books.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJWho's book? Who are we talking about here? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by pahrump pete
This is what I am trying to get to the bottom of. Was Pahrump Pete referring to Rob Singer strategy and book?Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjbProbably one of Singer's garbage books.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJWho's book? Who are we talking about here? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by pahrump pete
Hey, Pete. Did you live or used to live in a trailer court in Pahrump? That is, until your RV got repossessed for non-payment?Quote:
Originally Posted by pahrump pete
I had the same thought upon seeing Pahrump Pete's handle for the first time. And I have to say the subject matter of most of his posts has done little to calm that suspicion. Someone else PMed me that they though it might be someone else. You might have received that PM as well MC. The reason given had some validity to that as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
I mean to be honest, I saw a lot of members signing up in the early part of this year and some of the handles just have an odd ring to them. I mentioned this a bit ago, thinking Dan might have a comment as to why. I even inquired if he was advertising somewhere that might explain all these new sign-ups. I got no response from Dan as I usually don't.
All I can say is I would hope that Dan is checking IP addresses, because it just isn't fair if he is allowing sock puppets for the purpose of some member with zero credibility attempting to build some. Unfortunately based on Dan's interest in this forum and the time he puts into it, I have little confidence he is doing anything like that to protect integrity. Maybe occasionally when he is asked directly. :( I guess time will tell.
My apologies for getting this started. I followed his website for 6-7 years and emailed him quite a bit. I also played during this time and got to experience all I could glean. Later, on Alan's forum I found my understanding of what he was saying was a little off. Then one day everything kinda clicked and I got what he was saying- just to answer your question. I better get off here as I feel the onslaught. All I will say is keep an open mind- and good LUCK!Quote:
Originally Posted by pahrump pete
I am sure it seems like an onslaught to you. I am sorry about that. But that is because the math doesn't add up to those of us that believe in Math. :rolleyes: And "your" guy refuses to answer or account for that. When someone raises a question he immediately starts some sort of personal attack rant, for the obvious purpose of deflecting or changing the subject. BTW, this is a common troll tactic.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
So trying to keep and open mind, and change the usual discourse, can I ask you, in your years of following this strategy, what are your results? Have you made the buckets of money that Singer claimed he did? Have you made any kind of steady profits? I am not challenging you to prove anything. I am asking you for honest results.
There are people on these forums like my friend Bosox that doesn't like it when I talk results, but it matters. At the very least a persons results have to match up with possibilities in regards to the math.
So I will leave it at that to start. AND I was going to ask these same questions of Pahrump Pete if he confirmed that he was referencing Singer's "system" or methodology. So Pahrump Pete, feel free to share your experiences as well. I truly am interested.
I can honestly say if I'd had the discipline to STOP whenever I was $100+ I would have very FEW losing days. Buckets of money? I go up in denominations from 5-25¢ while he went up 5 or more STARTING at $1's. So, win like him? Are you serious? Just because he's an asshole in public relations doesn't negate his methods. That's all I have to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJI am sure it seems like an onslaught to you. I am sorry about that. But that is because the math doesn't add up to those of us that believe in Math. :rolleyes: And "your" guy refuses to answer or account for that. When someone raises a question he immediately starts some sort of personal attack rant, for the obvious purpose of deflecting or changing the subject. BTW, this is a common troll tactic.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
So trying to keep and open mind, and change the usual discourse, can I ask you, in your years of following this strategy, what are your results? Have you made the buckets of money that Singer claimed he did? Have you made any kind of steady profits? I am not challenging you to prove anything. I am asking you for honest results.
There are people on these forums like my friend Bosox that doesn't like it when I talk results, but it matters. At the very least a persons results have to match up with possibilities in regards to the math.
So I will leave it at that to start. AND I was going to ask these same questions of Pahrump Pete if he confirmed that he was referencing Singer's "system" or methodology. So Pahrump Pete, feel free to share your experiences as well. I truly am interested.
Slingshot, "If only I had stopped when I was ahead" is a statement heard in every casino hundreds of times a day. Every losing player says that.
But anyway, I want to clarify what you are saying. I understand you play lower limits, but you are saying that proportionally, you win the same as Singer claims. That if you were playing higher limits you would have made buckets of money? I need to clarify this before anything else.
I have another question for you guys claiming to be playing and winning using Singer's VP strategy.
Did you read his farewell post yesterday afternoon? I waited to bring this up because I wanted to see who else would mention it. I am not going to link to it because I refuse to link to him or anything he says. But it is in the AP's wrongly prosecuted thread.
By my reading of it this person posting as Rob Singer, realizing he has now lost all credibility with his VP claims, is now trying out a new tactic. I'll let everyone read for themselves and decide for themselves exactly what he was saying, but this was my take.
He said something to the effect that his whole existence on these forums and claims for the last 10 years was basically an act. He specifically pointed out that in real life he is not the loud mouth hater that he personifies online. He went on to allude to the reason he does that and has made all these false claims is because he is a real AP, something he always claims he is not and has to protect his "golden goose".
I invite people to read the post and tell me if they interpret his statement differently because I don't see any other interpretation. I also would like to hear responses from the guys using his system, to what I believe is him stating that this "system" is what we all knew all along....a bunch of baloney.
I mean frankly this guy is such a troll, I believe nothing he says anymore. Even this is probably just throwing mud at the wall and seeing what people might believe. But I have to say, it is the first thing he has said, or that I interpreted that way, that made even a little bit of sense.
Add on: My guess is that his intention is that after this time out that he announced because he is "traveling" he will re-emerge claiming to be the ultimate AP, because he was able to deflect everyone away from his AP activities and protect his games. I don't buy that either but I think that is where he is or was heading (maybe I have derailed that now):rolleyes:
Pahrump pete is not Rob Singer.
I was talking about and did read "The Undeniable Truth about Video Poker recently.
The book is written for the beginning player and is very mellow and tame. There are no outrageous claims made by Singer about winning.
Rob says his approach may not be for everyone and he will not promise positive results as others have.
Singer says you have to rely on knowing when to quit and goals can vary. Consistently profitable playing is attained by Luck, discipline and common sense.
Singer doesn't explain his systems in this book. Perhaps they would have too overwhelming for a new player to take on.
From the little I know of his strategies, I don't have the bankroll for them. However the short time I have been determined to keep more of my winnings instead of giving it back in the same session has made for a much more enjoyable casino experience.
That's all folks.
First, it’s obvious how Kewlj is obsessed with this place, one of the only places he could still post at. Other than Alan, who else swears to leave this place only to return within two weeks at least 10 times so far? That should tell you out of the gate a few of his wires are crossed. AP’s are all over Alan for this move, but never say a peep about Kewlj doing it.
Now he starts complaining about new sign ups who don’t agree with his math standards or their handles, with suggestions their sock puppets. He also exposes how the click pm each other making sure they join each other’s attack on something that might strengthen their argument of bullshit. We’ve seen this more than once already with Reditz. Not a single word when new sign ups came here praising him. I brought up Bob21 as a sock puppet for Kewlj simply because I couldn’t believe anyone could pop-in and just start praising his past endless bullshit, along with sounding like he was all-in on sucking this queer’s cock.
Then Kewlj wants to give Dan a lesson and a wake up call on how to run his forum. Why? Simply because new posters are not for a better phrase, in his camp.
He asks others for honest results. For the record shithead, this is a 99.9% anonymous forum. You or anyone else posting what is being claimed as honest results are meaningless for everyone including you without actual confirmed facts. Yet, you want others to share their alleged honest experiences with you because you’re interested. You’re not interested in hearing anything but what you believe. That has been proven a thousand times here already with you. What you really want is nothing but another one of your one way because you say so arguments.
This forum would eventually grow without you always creating arguments with anyone who doubts your bullshit from the endless fairytales you print here.
Why don’t you tie all your cash in a rag, then connect it to a wooden pole, grab a big cardboard box and get back under the tunnel.
[QUOTE=kewlJ;85226]Slingshot, "If only I had stopped when I was ahead" is a statement heard in every casino hundreds of times a day. Every losing player says that.
But anyway, I want to clarify what you are saying. I understand you play lower limits, but you are saying that proportionally, you win the same as Singer claims. That if you were playing higher limits you would have made buckets of money? I need to clarify this before anything else.[/QUOTbill,
I don't speculate. But did you get what I said? Almost EVERY trip it wasn't unusual to be ahead over $100. These last few weeks have been unusually good, as my $165 Chrysler battery $100 replacement rear window brake light to pass inspection. $80 sticker and inspection fee were paid for by winnings. And that doesn't include the $300 anniversary celebration with my wife. Yeah- the money's gone now, but the IMPORTANT things in life are OK. And FORMER losers are the ones who learn from the past and fight to quit when it's time. Just one other memory came to mind. I once saved enough for one session to advance to dollars. As I was on my 3rd $100 bill, I noticed how uncomfortable I felt knowing this session was gonna be the last. Well, long story short-I hit quads on ddbp for a relieving $80 win. At first I was happy, but then I thought hey- I could a done this on quarters without all the stress. I won't do it again unless I have the proper bankroll.
Here' a Singer mini system:
5 cent
10 cent
25 cent
50 cent
$1
$5
Bankroll for the play would be $20 + $40 + $100 + $200 + $400 + $2000 = $2760
Win goal would be $120 which is directly proportional to Singer's win goal.
According to Singer he rarely if ever needed the last bet level, $100. So you shouldn't need the last bet level, $5, on this progression. That means you could put this play down with just $760.
Correct- and I've stopped at dimes with $85 win. Why? This is the single play strategy and I'd been there over an hour and had to leave. This would be a great strategy for keybangers as it is very time consuming. My favorite is artt strategy for both free play and regular play. Of course, on free play, the bonus poker part of the strategy is key.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Oh, one last thought. There IS a $2 session after the $1 session. Some machines have 10 credits at $1-or 20 credits at 50¢.
Thank you Mickey & Sling for that info. Definitely interested in a small test. Great.
I was thinking of five-coin machines. The Singer progression looks like this:Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshotCorrect- and I've stopped at dimes with $85 win. Why? This is the single play strategy and I'd been there over an hour and had to leave. This would be a great strategy for keybangers as it is very time consuming. My favorite is artt strategy for both free play and regular play. Of course, on free play, the bonus poker part of the strategy is key.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Oh, one last thought. There IS a $2 session after the $1 session. Some machines have 10 credits at $1-or 20 credits at 50¢.
1,2,5,10,25,100
The mini progression I put up looks like this:
1,2,5,10,20,100
The only minor difference is the Singer 25 level and the Mini 20 level. If you go from $1 denom to $2 denom it would only be 40X on the last level.
Thanks. The only machines left here are 5-25-50¢ with 5-25 credits. So $2.50 would be my max. Then there's the $1 machines and $5 machines on high limit floor.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmI was thinking of five-coin machines. The Singer progression looks like this:Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshotCorrect- and I've stopped at dimes with $85 win. Why? This is the single play strategy and I'd been there over an hour and had to leave. This would be a great strategy for keybangers as it is very time consuming. My favorite is artt strategy for both free play and regular play. Of course, on free play, the bonus poker part of the strategy is key.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Oh, one last thought. There IS a $2 session after the $1 session. Some machines have 10 credits at $1-or 20 credits at 50¢.
1,2,5,10,25,100
The mini progression I put up looks like this:
1,2,5,10,20,100
The only minor difference is the Singer 25 level and the Mini 20 level. If you go from $1 denom to $2 denom it would only be 40X on the last level.