Has Singer ever published or posted his special vp plays?
Printable View
Has Singer ever published or posted his special vp plays?
Yes. SOME on this forum and some on his former VPTruth site. 95% of his plays are by common sense math plays and the special plays are used whenever there's a CHANCE to avoid a losing session. No Hocus-Pocus, but when they DO come through, they can save a session. Only a small portion have been posted, but by having win goals, ANY person with common sense can formulate his own. Not a big deal as some standard math plays don't work out anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodman22
Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshotYes. SOME on this forum and some on his former VPTruth site. 95% of his plays are by common sense math plays and the special plays are used whenever there's a CHANCE to avoid a losing session. No Hocus-Pocus, but when they DO come through, they can save a session. Only a small portion have been posted, but by having win goals, ANY person with common sense can formulate his own. Not a big deal as some standard math plays don't work out anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodman22
Any person with "common sense" wouldn't listen to him and his bogus gibberish!Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshotYes. SOME on this forum and some on his former VPTruth site. 95% of his plays are by common sense math plays and the special plays are used whenever there's a CHANCE to avoid a losing session. No Hocus-Pocus, but when they DO come through, they can save a session. Only a small portion have been posted, but by having win goals, ANY person with common sense can formulate his own. Not a big deal as some standard math plays don't work out anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodman22
Alansbestbuys has them with Rob explaining them.
There's a mathematical element to the ones in the videos on the alanbestbuys site woodman. Which means no one else here understands them.
Yeah, Ive got a copy somewhere in my home office. Basically start betting low, increase denomination if you hit and make strategy changes if the play will get you to your play goal. If your goal at the $2 level is to be up $1000, you are up $300 and are dealt AA66x in Bonus Poker, you can break it up because hitting 4 aces will get you over your goal. That's a quick summary. If I can find it, I'll post more.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodman22
I never go up in denomination after a win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor__ZYeah, Ive got a copy somewhere in my home office. Basically start betting low, increase denomination if you hit and make strategy changes if the play will get you to your play goal. If your goal at the $2 level is to be up $1000, you are up $300 and are dealt AA66x in Bonus Poker, you can break it up because hitting 4 aces will get you over your goal. That's a quick summary. If I can find it, I'll post more.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodman22
In BP, I would only break up 2pr. including Aces in a 6/5 game. But I never play that pay table.
You always have the chance to suck out with optimal strategy too....instead of shifting strategies to sub-optimal holds. That's what you idiots don't get.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshotYes. SOME on this forum and some on his former VPTruth site. 95% of his plays are by common sense math plays and the special plays are used whenever there's a CHANCE to avoid a losing session. No Hocus-Pocus, but when they DO come through, they can save a session. Only a small portion have been posted, but by having win goals, ANY person with common sense can formulate his own. Not a big deal as some standard math plays don't work out anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodman22
I have win goals too. I gamble with an edge which allows me to attain my win goals. The recurring sum of net edge times volume equals the earn.
Huge mistake. The Aces up is worth about 2.4 bets where the Aces alone is worth about 1.66 bets. Routinely making that hold cuts about half percent off an already really bad game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerI never go up in denomination after a win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor__ZYeah, Ive got a copy somewhere in my home office. Basically start betting low, increase denomination if you hit and make strategy changes if the play will get you to your play goal. If your goal at the $2 level is to be up $1000, you are up $300 and are dealt AA66x in Bonus Poker, you can break it up because hitting 4 aces will get you over your goal. That's a quick summary. If I can find it, I'll post more.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodman22
In BP, I would only break up 2pr. including Aces in a 6/5 game. But I never play that pay table.
Sure it may work once in a great while, however, if you play VP for years this the situation will come up enough times that you will be well behind unless you run like a god.
For anyone that wants to deviate from the mathematical correct strategy I suggest you play 100 play. You will quickly see how bad it turns out. Especially with the hand mentioned above. I'm sure there are VP programs where you can set up hands and draw them to see how things work out.
Rob if you would only use that on 6/5 but you would never play 6/5 why even mention it?
It seems to me that you are suggesting playing a 6/5 is mathematically bad odds and one should avoid it. This suggests that you do believe in math and good/bad odds. Yet you think its a good idea to toss the odds and math out the window if there is a chance it will help you meet your goal. That's only a temporary solution when you get lucky and it works. what about all the units/hands you lose in the long run? What about all the extra hands/ units you would have by playing the correct strategy? Don't they add up? Why cant a few extra hands per session get lucky as well and push you to your win goal? Just one extra hand can turn into many extra hands and many more shots at a win goal. You have to get fairly lucky for special play hands to hand to connect.
You play short term win goals. Can you explain how it is that many short term sessions don't add up to the long term?
Winpoker is a perfect example of this:Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
It was actually one of these programs that caused me to search beyond the everyday thinking on VP. I was dealt a high pair w/3 to the royal and opted for the royal. A teaching screen appeared telling me that was not the most advantageous play. I overrode the warning and actually hit the royal. I was expecting a hand that would show me "you shoulda listened."Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplayWinpoker is a perfect example of this:Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
What's the expected loss on that hand by making that disadvantageous hold?Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
How many more hands will you need to play to mitigate the 4000 credits you won by using your slingshot special play?
I don't know or even worry about the math as I'm not there every hour or every day f the week beating my brains out fighting against the long term- which is always in the casino's favor. By the time I return, many thousands of hands have been run through the machines and have NO bearing on what I may or may not hit or the hands needed to play to mitigate my last visit. I can't fathom how anyone can believe my wins today affect my next visit. The machines don't hold today's wins in memory and start up where I left off. How absurd!! And when I say I don't worry about the math, that doesn't mean it doesn't determine if and when I make such plays. And losing some battles (sessions) is part of the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyWhat's the expected loss on that hand by making that disadvantageous hold?Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
How many more hands will you need to play to mitigate the 4000 credits you won by using your slingshot special play?
I'm not talking about hands played when you're not there, I'm talking about the hands you need to play to get to expectation.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
Your dealt high pair was at worst a push, so it must have been a positive play to hold the pair.
You broke up the high pair, and held 3-to-the-royal instead, I'm guessing your hold was a negative play with an expected loss.
But you won 4000 credits.
How many times does a hand like that occur, where you are dealt a high pair with 3-to-the-royal?
How many more times will you need to "misplay" such a hand to reach expectation for the dealt hand played that way?
I don't know how many hands you'll need to play to make up for your mistake, but somebody here does...that's why I'm asking.
I enjoyed my "mistake". Three to the Royal is an " always " hand for me. Players forget the number of times the quads never come anyway. It also depends on the game and where you are in your play. In the artt strategy, for example, the first goal in bonus poker is to return to square one so 2 pair with A's would be held IF a full house would return one to square one. But after that, A's would be the best hold. So math DOES come into play in this case. So how can ONE answer or example satisfy justification if one uses SHORT term strategy, win/loss goals, and so called special plays to make decisions. I will always take common sense and luck- using THIS kind of math no matter how many times I'm called an idiot- over a logic card to make decisions. But as for the "math" for the long run, someone else will have to chime in.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyI'm not talking about hands played when you're not there, I'm talking about the hands you need to play to get to expectation.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
Your dealt high pair was at worst a push, so it must have been a positive play to hold the pair.
You broke up the high pair, and held 3-to-the-royal instead, I'm guessing your hold was a negative play with an expected loss.
But you won 4000 credits.
How many times does a hand like that occur, where you are dealt a high pair with 3-to-the-royal?
How many more times will you need to "misplay" such a hand to reach expectation for the dealt hand played that way?
I don't know how many hands you'll need to play to make up for your mistake, but somebody here does...that's why I'm asking.
Special plays that deviate from optimal play while giving up very little in game EV, are not made to outsmart the machines, bend the math books, or for any other confusing purposes. They simply afford the player a better chance at experiencing good luck and/or a hand that will send a goal-oriented person home. We all know there can be no winning without good luck. These plays bump those odds up.
Yes there are times that keeping the optimal hand will result in a better win than playing out the special play. There are also the infrequent times making the special play will result in a very large winner. Some of these plays are only used on higher limits and in the more volatile games. If anyone here were to completely understand all aspects of how and when they are all used, you'd understand that which you so quickly and blindly dismiss: that there is a large and positive gap in overall winning using special plays in your strategy vs.simple expert-only play.
Axel asks me the age-old question about why playing many short term sessions does not add up to the "long term". In order to comprehend the answer one must first clear their minds about how they play and try to put themselves into the shoes of a Singer-style player.
Technically, anyone could say anything they do is "long-term" unless it's one and done. A baseball player hits for certain averages each distinct year, and his success is largely measured by that metric. His "overall" lifetime avg. really doesn't earn him much, outside at a shot at the HoF. A postal worker makes a yearly salary and every year that's what of utmost importance to him or her. But when you look at the sum of all those years when it's over, the long-term grand total means next to nothing.
In my vp play, I go into a weekly session with a specific win goal so I can quit and go home until I decide to return and try again. When that win is attained, it's almost always in the middle of a very complex increasing and decreasing denominational and volatility point of impact. And at that time everything for that session comes to an abrupt end. So what happens when I return to play another session? Correct. I start at the lowest denomination on the game with the least volatility, with special plays being used at a higher rate as I go up in denomination. It is, in actual effect, a completely new and different session, with winning results coming right away, in 20 minutes, an hour, 5 hours or even more.
Compare this with your typical advantage player, who plays according to the clock, the bladder or bowels, the wife, or Mr. Sandman. They play right on thru large wins because they're believing in that the grind-it-out gods will eventually bestow tiny riches upon them if they play more than AOC served short-shot drinks to whites.
It's obvious an AP is just gonna put on his non-thinking cap and keep on repeating their trusty old cliche': +EV means you win, and -EV means you lose. And that couldn't be further from the mathematical truth. These special plays were not designed to hammer the math. They are simply used to increase the possibilities of hitting a session ending winner. Thru goodluck....which took skill to figure out.
Yeah, thats it. Sling you should start holding two-card royals over high pairs and see how that works for you. Remember, your object is to get lucky so go for it. As a matter of fact, why don't you hold 1-card royals over high pairs. That way you have many, many more chances to get lucky.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshotIt was actually one of these programs that caused me to search beyond the everyday thinking on VP. I was dealt a high pair w/3 to the royal and opted for the royal. A teaching screen appeared telling me that was not the most advantageous play. I overrode the warning and actually hit the royal. I was expecting a hand that would show me "you shoulda listened."Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplayWinpoker is a perfect example of this:Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Those 4000 credits on that software are extremely valuable, right fart belly? Why don't you ask sling the idiot why he uses a video poker trainer if he is not going to follow instructions. WTF is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyWhat's the expected loss on that hand by making that disadvantageous hold?Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
How many more hands will you need to play to mitigate the 4000 credits you won by using your slingshot special play?
If your bullshit worked you could make a million dollars a month with it. No excuses, dickweed. If it really works then you are an underachiever to the 10th power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
His point was that he deviated from the optimal hold, and won enough credits to render the instructed play moot for many hands...so many that he may never be able to play that many hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
If a player were to discard a high pair in favor of holding 3-to-the-royal, and then hit the royal, how many more total hands would he need to play, such that he could play the same hand "wrong" enough times to reach expectation?
Thousands of hands, millions of hands, billions of hands?
You tell me, I don't know, that's why I'm asking.
Try to repress your gay fantasies long enough to answer.
I believe the issue here is concentrating on the royal. Sometimes special quads at a certain level of play end a session. I know this is not the answer to your question and there are many mathematical computations to answer your question. The point is, as Rob mentioned, to win a set goal and not to chase a royal- then start over or leave. Mickey- who mentioned TWO to a royal? The answer to your question is merely an equation. But here's something else to ponder- how do you know WHERE in that equation ANY machine is at the time you're playing. As I said, why be concerned about the unknown? The reason I learned using Rob's strategies is because it is so FLEXIBLE and a creative mind has multiple options. Oh, and Mickey,- I have hit 2-Royal several times.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyHis point was that he deviated from the optimal hold, and won enough credits to render the instructed play moot for many hands...so many that he may never be able to play that many hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
If a player were to discard a high pair in favor of holding 3-to-the-royal, and then hit the royal, how many more total hands would he need to play, such that he could play the same hand "wrong" enough times to reach expectation?
Thousands of hands, millions of hands, billions of hands?
You tell me, I don't know, that's why I'm asking.
Try to repress your gay fantasies long enough to answer.
Here's a fine example of one of these stupid "Special Plays" and what usually happens. Keep throwing your money away folks....
https://i.imgur.com/XyUVLRk.jpg
Why do you say that?Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
Do the mistakes of one player have any effect on the expected return of another player?
If one player doesn't always make the optimal holds, does that mean the next player on that machine will have a better chance of winning?
Can you, jbjb, explain what the original hand EV was, why just holding a 2 was a special play, and what the special play EV give was vs. the optimal hold EV....and if that % falls within my acceptable range of using a special play?Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
What's that--you have no idea of the math on this? Maybe you can get mickey to do it for you :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmIf your bullshit worked you could make a million dollars a month with it. No excuses, dickweed. If it really works then you are an underachiever to the 10th power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Mickey, you've gotta read and write more carefully. "Works" is a relative term -- it doesn't really mean anything. Whether something "works" is subjective. It is dependent on the "goals" of the person employing the process.
In his latest summary, Singer" doesn't actually say his stuff will win going forward. He doesn't actually state that his stuff will outperform optimal strategy.
He has, evidently, "wised up." All he's saying is that he has some alternative way of playing that he doesn't really compare to anything in terms of financial results. He makes no mathematical claims to winning. Anybody can invent an alternative way of playing video poker. A cockroach could have an alternative way of playing video poker. As long as no claims to outperforming optimal strategy are made, or no claims to winning going forward are made, it's all just a word salad.
WEIRD!! For even me!!Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
The lady that hit the lottery caught lightning in a bottle then bragged about how she picked her numbers and only bought two tickets. It's all noise. Doesn't mean anything. Sling caught lightning in a bottle then bragged about changing the strategy and that's what led to it. It's all noise.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyHis point was that he deviated from the optimal hold, and won enough credits to render the instructed play moot for many hands...so many that he may never be able to play that many hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
If a player were to discard a high pair in favor of holding 3-to-the-royal, and then hit the royal, how many more total hands would he need to play, such that he could play the same hand "wrong" enough times to reach expectation?
Thousands of hands, millions of hands, billions of hands?
You tell me, I don't know, that's why I'm asking.
Try to repress your gay fantasies long enough to answer.
The fact is, when you hold a 3-card royal you have a 1 in 1081 chance of completing the royal. I've held many a 3-card royal and came up with the royal. It's going to happen to sling and anyone else that plays the game, if they play long enough.
I could hold 3-card royals over high pairs and sooner or later I will hit a royal. Then I could come on here and say "Hey, I was playing video poker the other day and held a 3-card royal over a high pair. I hit the royal. All these people that say it's the wrong strategy are stupid." What gets lost in the shuffle is how many times the 3-card royal was held and the royal didn't happen.
So start holding those 2-card royals over high pairs. Hey, you're trying to get lucky, right? Thats the big secret to Rob's system, trying to get lucky. Go for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshotI believe the issue here is concentrating on the royal. Sometimes special quads at a certain level of play end a session. I know this is not the answer to your question and there are many mathematical computations to answer your question. The point is, as Rob mentioned, to win a set goal and not to chase a royal- then start over or leave. Mickey- who mentioned TWO to a royal? The answer to your question is merely an equation. But here's something else to ponder- how do you know WHERE in that equation ANY machine is at the time you're playing. As I said, why be concerned about the unknown? The reason I learned using Rob's strategies is because it is so FLEXIBLE and a creative mind has multiple options. Oh, and Mickey,- I have hit 2-Royal several times.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyHis point was that he deviated from the optimal hold, and won enough credits to render the instructed play moot for many hands...so many that he may never be able to play that many hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
If a player were to discard a high pair in favor of holding 3-to-the-royal, and then hit the royal, how many more total hands would he need to play, such that he could play the same hand "wrong" enough times to reach expectation?
Thousands of hands, millions of hands, billions of hands?
You tell me, I don't know, that's why I'm asking.
Try to repress your gay fantasies long enough to answer.
And all this time I thought I was doing it because I had 14 hands that could be made from choosing those cards! Dang!!Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmThe lady that hit the lottery caught lightning in a bottle then bragged about how she picked her numbers and only bought two tickets. It's all noise. Doesn't mean anything. Sling caught lightning in a bottle then bragged about changing the strategy and that's what led to it. It's all noise.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyHis point was that he deviated from the optimal hold, and won enough credits to render the instructed play moot for many hands...so many that he may never be able to play that many hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
If a player were to discard a high pair in favor of holding 3-to-the-royal, and then hit the royal, how many more total hands would he need to play, such that he could play the same hand "wrong" enough times to reach expectation?
Thousands of hands, millions of hands, billions of hands?
You tell me, I don't know, that's why I'm asking.
Try to repress your gay fantasies long enough to answer.
The fact is, when you hold a 3-card royal you have a 1 in 1081 chance of completing the royal. I've held many a 3-card royal and came up with the royal. It's going to happen to sling and anyone else that plays the game, if they play long enough.
I could hold 3-card royals over high pairs and sooner or later I will hit a royal. Then I could come on here and say "Hey, I was playing video poker the other day and held a 3-card royal over a high pair. I hit the royal. All these people that say it's the wrong strategy are stupid." What gets lost in the shuffle is how many times the 3-card royal was held and the royal didn't happen.
If you hold a 2 card royal over a pay pair you will get absolutely rapped. You won't have to worry about the long run your money isn't going to last that long playing that way.
I certainly hope for everyone sake that isn't suggested by any one or any system. Then again, I hope people are playing that way so the casinos are sure to keep VP and not be tempted to replace them with slots.
If you hold 3 to a royal over a high pair, why not also hold 2 to a royal over a high pair? What could go wrong, math doesn't apply to me if I don't want it to!!
Just to be clear- Mickey is the one who, as is his custom, changed the subject from 3 to a royal to 2 to a royal.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
He also misdirects other posts- like saying some strategies are Martingale strategies. "Staying on cue is not what he do."
This is basic stuff. The only reason jbjb claims holding only a 2 is a special play of mine is because he doesn't, can't, and will never understand the math and usage behind them. The same goes for mickey and his claiming holding 2-to-the-RF over a pair is also a special play I use. Both are lies and both come from people frustrated over their having no math education and being too dense to comprehend the strategy behind the use of special plays.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
So Rob, I take it you've stopped claiming your special plays outperform optimal play. You've also stopped claiming your systems will win money going forward. I wanted to thank you for being responsible enough to do that.
As far as debating use of win goals and special plays and gobbledygook, that's all fine and dandy as long as you don't actually claim to be able to outperform optimal play going forward. If you want to wear a tutu and use a fibonacci series to time pauses between hands, that's great, too. People will be too dense to comprehend those strategies, also. It would be of no value to comprehend the strategies, from a money-making going forward sense, but so what? Designing complicated things that only you can do is a great hobby.
I use the position of the stars to rake my leaves into various size piles at night. People are too dense to comprehend my strategy, and I tell them that. Probably the same folks who can't grasp your special plays. Idiots!
You write like a gay man.
My strategy has always out-performed optimal play only.
Wise up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
LOL. You can't fool anybody, Rob. You used past tense there. So you still aren't making any claims to outperforming optimal play going forward. Good for you!!
Glad to see you are not making any outrageous, mathematically impossible claims by saying that your stuff outperforms optimal play going forward. You've wised up!
P.S. And Rob, you must have had a rough Saturday night. I cannot believe that you're announcing expertise on how gay men write. That can only mean one of two things -- (1) you read an awful lot of gay-man-written stuff on purpose or (2) well, you ain't as straight and narrow as one might presume. Using the wife for cover while you traverse the interstates looking for love in RV shower stalls? I will not tell a soul!
Do you realize how stupid this line is? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
"out-perform optimal strategy".
By definition, this is an impossibility. Just pure voodoo! Alternative math! Alternative reality!
Funny. I thought I heard Lenny Frome laughing.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJDo you realize how stupid this line is? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
"out-perform optimal strategy".
By definition, this is an impossibility. Just pure voodoo! Alternative math! Alternative reality!
Yep, Lenny was laughing....at YOUQuote:
Originally Posted by slingshotFunny. I thought I heard Lenny Frome laughing.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJDo you realize how stupid this line is? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
"out-perform optimal strategy".
By definition, this is an impossibility. Just pure voodoo! Alternative math! Alternative reality!