Here is a link to Rob's own manuscript about his Single-Play Stategy:
http://www.alanbestbuys.com/id261.html
After reading it, please post your comments in this thread. Thank you.
Printable View
Here is a link to Rob's own manuscript about his Single-Play Stategy:
http://www.alanbestbuys.com/id261.html
After reading it, please post your comments in this thread. Thank you.
A touch confusing, I will have to reread it.
It's confusing because it is not explained. More importantly what is missing is the "why" of his strategy. Why do you start at $1 games? Why do you bank soft profits? Why do you change games? Why do you change denominations? Why do you change denominations after playing certain number of credits?Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfoot66
And then I would like to see some guidance on win goals and loss limits. If you are following this strategy, how do you know you are running according to plan and how do you know when you are behind?
Of course the biggest problem for me, personally, is that Rob has detailed a plan here involving a bankroll I will never have as a recreational player.
Singer: " the math predicted that while losing two straight sessions without a cash out was remotely possible (1.4%) it was near impossible to lose three straight in that manner (.0035%)."
This is pure nonsense and not backed up by a single computation. It is, of course, dependent on the pay table of the games being played and not computable without specifying those pay tables. One needs not go any further to know that Singer has no clue about mathematics and those numbers are only there to fool the math challenged.
So, the bigger question is why would Singer choose to lie right up front? Puts it all into perspective.
Singer: " I'll identify one of my most commonly used special plays now--which is used in every game I play but SDBP and I'll explain why shortly. For example, you're dealt 7d 5c 8c Qd Jc or 2h Qd 4h 6s Jh. The optimal hold for both cases is the offsuit JQ, but that's not what I do. In both instances, I hold just the Q. Why?"
Because you were missing when the working neurons were passed out?
Singer continues: "Because my strategy takes penalty cards to the next level. Both examples have the J matched up with two other similarly suited cards, while in one case the Q has one similarly suited card and in the other case it has none. So, because of the situation where optimal play disregards this situation"
Singer worries about a couple of flush penalties and ignores the fact keeping the queen reduces the number of possible straights significantly. There's actually a reason why the best play is QJ and that is because the average return of all the winners is higher. All penalty situations are all considered in the calculation of the best hold, even the flush penalties. It appears Singer does not even understand how optimal play holds are computed. This is the person who claims to have a better approach.
Absolutely hilarious.
Ok, I said I wouldn't post anymore, but because you were nice enough to post this....It's only confusing because you just don't READ! Even the very beginning of his article says it can start at any denom. Thus,,at quarters the mini goal would be $10 instead of $40 for a soft pool. You change games because-and I know you hate this-not only is it part of his pre-thought out strategy, but also because hot and cold cycles change with different games and the increase in volatility allows for a chance at a session-ending win. All you are doing is keeping record of your losses, building a soft pool which will NEVER be spent, and increasing in denom. so that when a good hit does come you are able to recover some or all of your losses or possibly the session-ending big win. So, instead of continuously increasing denominations without thought like the Martingale system, you are going back to a lower denom whenever possible and restarting. The number of credits for each denomination is nothing other that his rtt strategy. So, ok I'm just answering and don't need all your bull about how Rob has me deluded.
slingshot, what you wrote might be true, but to be honest I wish Rob spelled it out. Perhaps he would like to rewrite his strategy with some more details?
If this is supposed to be his guide to the SPS all of the bases should be covered. There is no question that Rob's system is very complicated. I have never read any video poker book that ever talked about changing games and changing denominations up and down as part of some soft profit banking of wins. Do you see why this screams for more clarity and explanation?
I'm not criticizing Rob's system here. What I am criticizing is that as a document describing his system it is lacking the details to make someone who reads it understand what the heck it's all about.
Put yourself in the shoes of someone who never heard of Rob Singer before. Do you think they could read Rob's article and know what the heck he's talking about? This doesn't mean that Rob's system can't work, it only means there is not enough information to explain how it does work.
As a comparison let's talk about a book about "influencing" or controlling dice. It tells you that the objective is to keep the dice on axis, to minimize the rotation and bounce of the dice, to minimize the faces of the dice that will show when the dice come to rest. The book would also tell you how to train your muscle memory to duplicate this type of controlled throw. It's a complicated subject but the different points are spelled out and explained.
Now, Rob also has a complicated subject here but I am afraid he doesn't explain enough. He might also want to present the math supporting his concepts of banking soft profits, moving to higher denominations, why he is changing games, etc.
Singer never mentioned the mythical hot-cold cycles in his write-up. You appear to be supporting Alan's comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
Let me just add this. Had I known about the SPS when I met Rob and did those two interviews with him in Vegas I also would have interviewed him about SPS. Using his article as a basic outline, there are many other questions that I could immediately come up with that would help to explain his system. Once again, I invite Rob to meet up in Vegas and do another video interview. But I also hope that he will forward more info that we can post online to more fully explain the system.
They're in his previous writings on the VPTruth site that he once had. This statement could be omitted since he has also stated that his strategy was developed only to overcome the ups and downs in play for that one time in progression that the machine does pay out. Sorry for allowing my own thinking to slip in.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Assuming that readers of "part two" have read "part one" in an instructional manual is not a good thing, especially if "part one" says "you must complete part one before attempting part two". I am one who has not seen any of his previous writings so an incomplete update now about his system is worthless.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
Raise your hand if you think anything Rob will post will be amenable to a mathematical analysis that "proves" his system works. Now those of you who think Rob's postings will be opaque to any mathematical analysis raise your hands.
Okay, let's hear the tally, folks. Post your thoughts here.
Look, Rob is promoting an art form, not a system. It will be detailed but incomplete. It has to be to keep the story rolling along.
There will be no final, complete system explanation.
I'm not sure Singer ever represented that the math justifies his system. Isn't the idea that he feels he can beat the math?
What Rob said, and this is on the record, is that according to the math of the game, his "special plays" are all at a disadvantage, yet when he gets lucky with a special play he can win a big hand that will allow him to reach a win goal.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
I don't recall any comments about "the math of the game" regarding his SPS.
Whether or not the math of the game even applies to his SPS may not matter. I think what we are looking for are some statistics or some figures showing that his SPS actually worked. These figures may not be equations. They might only be logs.
This is similar to our request for evidence that the vp machine he tested was found to be not random. Where are the figures, the logs, the print outs or records of that machine? We haven't seen anything.
I would like to see proof of the test machine results. You all may remember that Rob also disputes that the RNG is constantly in motion. Below is an excerpt from John Growchowski's column in the Chicago Sun Times last Friday:
"Random number generators on electronic gaming devices that include slots, video poker, video keno and other games run continuously, even when the game is not in use. They also run very fast. By the time one player leaves a game and another starts to play, the RNG has moved several thousand potential outcomes down the road.
Even if the original player had stayed put, he or she probably wouldn’t have won that same jackpot. Timing would have to be the same down to a small fraction of a second. Some of the most sophisticated RNGs have variable entry points to the algorithm that calculates the random numbers. Whether you hit “max bet,” “repeat bet,” or “bet one,” whether you push buttons or pull handles, and on video games where you touch the screen all can result in different outcomes."
We may never see proof of the test machine results. For a start, Rob did not conduct the tests in an appropriate manner. Secondly, the results he has really won't tell us anything because they are a print out and someone would have to enter the results into a computer and then run some sort of a study of the results. And most importantly, Rob doesnt have the machine anymore so even if he did have proof of a problem with the RNG we wouldnt be able to tell if he had a rogue machine, or the RNG was malfunctioning, or if this was a widespread problem. In other words, amateur detectives should not be working on complex problems with inadequate resources and improper reporting in their garages.
If his system is an art form, then it's true that art is in the eye of the beholder. He sees a masterpiece, while others see graffiti on bathroom stall walls.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I'm going to say this again: if Rob had written a book about how he beat the casinos playing his way, and how he won a million dollars, he would be a hero. But when he said he had a system for beating the casinos he opened himself up to criticism. Wouldn't we all be amazed if the guy had simply written a book that said "I know this sounds crazy, but here's how I won a million dollars playing video poker. Don't you try this, but it sure did work."
Rob should have written a book, just sharing his experiences. When he started to sell his system as "a sure bet" and when he started to bad mouth everybody who didn't agree with his perception of "the truth of VP" he became the center of attention (and not in a good way). He basically did this to himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
There's a big difference, an enormous and crucial difference, between "It sure did work" and "It does work."
Think about someone who won the lottery. Somehow nobody buys "this is how I won the lottery" as a legitimate system. But some people are willing to buy "this is how I won playing negative EV video poker" as a system.
I read through all this when I got back from San Diego last night but was too tired to comment. By the way I did stop in at Caesars Rincon but thought I'd never find it after driving those curves and little hills in my p/u on the way there. I sat at a little bar next to a restaurant and won $60 in 30 minutes and left. Holy Moly I won again on those losing machines that seem to be everywhere!
I know Rob's coming here for his input in early November but here's my take as his student. He taught me this strategy an Alan, you really can play it if you either want to do it in pennies through dollars, or as he told me, in variations starting at any denomination and ending at any denomination, but he said he only ran his numbers for the denominations and in between ratios that he plays. I did call him this morning after reading all the questions and comments you had. He said the expectation was for him to initially give you the strategy which is what was requested, that doesn't include backup math or expantions or why this and why that, just the strategy as played. He knows there'd be a lot of commentary and questions and he said he'd answer them one by one when he gets back on. I see why there's some confusion and even I have a question from what I read. Other than arc who seems to always have a hair on his butt agenda, it seems being critical of what he posted when that is spot on what he was asked to post, is premature. I'd also like to see the arrt system details and told him so because that is what I play most.
Redetz where did you get the thought that he sold this strategy or system to anyone? Have you seen me say he showed me it for free? He also told me if anyone would play exactly as he does then they would win as regularly and profitably as he does. He said any deviation that he did not analize is an unknown as far as he's concerned. That makes it pretty clear. Why all the what ifs.
I did not mean "sell" in the capitalist sense; I meant "sell" in the propaganda sense.
Does "sell" also include the "first Amendment, free speech" sense?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I doubt anyone would buy the book. First of all most people wouldn't believe it ... which is the where all the smart money would be.
Rob has every right to try to convince anyone, even website owners and journalists, that what he says is true, even if he knows it to be complete rubbish. He has every right to claim anything he likes. All propaganda is protected under free speech. It boils down to what he can sell (in the propaganda sense) to what audience. If the audience is sufficiently underinformed, gullible, or in need of a savior, he has every right to fool the little buggers.
And what about Bob Dancer's various claims about turning six thousand into a million dollars?
Last I checked Dancer was living in a nice house and driving some fancy cars. We now know that Singer's claims of owning a big house was a lie and we don't know about his car claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Both Dancer and Singer may be writing about the fictional adventures of fictional characters. It's clear, in addition, that Dancer's girlfriend actually won the big royal, not Dancer.
Well but they are married now and she was playing his strategy and with his money. The fact that she hit the button instead of Dancer is of little consequence.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Tell that to the guy who's wife ran off with the winning lottery ticket.
Bigfoot -- they are married now. But question -- how do you know whose money was used? Whose money was being used when is glossed over at most points in his book. In addition, it's not "his" strategy.
And there is the additional anecdote that, post-close-of-the-book, he gave back 40 or 50% of that money back to the same casino.
I know lots of people who live in nice houses and drive fancy cars including Bentleys and Ferraris... and they're all broke. How one "lives" is not a true indication of wealth.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
I play craps at Caesars with an elderly man who wears old black shoes, and a long black overcoat. He looks poor. Very poor. Unshaved, ungroomed. Except that he only plays with black chips ($100) and his average bet on the table is about two-thousand dollars, and his pockets are filled with black chips.
Sounds like it was Tyrone F. HorneighQuote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw5Ski9yB58
Once again you're confusing possibilities with probabilities. There are exceptions to most rules, one shouldn't live by those exceptions. In most cases if it walks like a duck ... I think you know the rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I have an example of where the probability = the possibility = the reality.
Arcimede$ is out to get Singer.
Wrong again, all I do is provide the facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
The facts will "get Singer" as long as the facts are indeed facts and not merely opinion. For all of the shortage of substantiation on Rob's side of the ledger, there's not a whole lot on your side either. Simply telling us that "(insert something pertaining to Rob)" appeared in a previous publication, on the internet years ago, or through some research you might have done, is not automatically providing a fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
They may not be facts that you have personally verified, that does not mean they are not facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Vic
Actually, the "facts" might have no bearing on the discussion. Frankly, what does it matter where he lives, what color house, what color RV, or what color shoes does he have as it pertains to his video poker strategy? It doesn't.
If you want to argue his personal finances being an issue, I can quickly come up with five arguments why his personal finances are unrelated to his video poker claims of success:
1. the bankruptcy happened before he started with his system
2. he chose to live modestly and bank his winnings
3. he hid the ownership of his homes in corporations or under the names of relatives
4. he does not need to own anything as a sign of wealth
5. that storage locker in New Mexico is loaded with cash that will be uncovered in the next episode of Storage Wars because he forgot to pay the rent on it just as he forgot to pay the rental fees on the "mail drop" address he had in Arizona
I don't think anyone is going to find the ''facts" on a document. Actually playing the machines is "fact". If nothing else, just think of the logic of it. If you keep up with your play, assuming you don't just bang away at the buttons, what's wrong with making a "special play" that breaks from the "correct" play if that play will cover the losses and come away with a profit? And how could you constantly do it without an increase in denomination? And why would you think that after success you could sit there and play on and on thinking that you can beat the machines any time you want?
Ever seen what goes on in a court in criminal trials? One heck of a lot of it establishing a pattern of behavior. If that pattern supports the criminal charges it is very likely the defendant will be found guilty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Alan, we all know you have a second house on fantasy island. However, the majority of people still believe if it waddles and quacks it's probably a duck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
What if the special play reduces your chances of "com(ing) away with a profit"? That just happens to be the case with most of Singer's special plays.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
As for "playing on" ... What makes you think you can return to a casino and "beat the machines any time you want"? Why would the situation change just because you leave and come back at another time?
Arci--again you look at this from a long term perspective. Singer, Longshot, myself, maybe Alan, understand that Singer wants to do something to make a big hit to recoup losses from earlier in a session. Although the special plays will have an expected loss in the long term compared to proper play, they are merely an attempt to make that big hit so as to go home a winner. The risk, overall, in an hour or two of play that day and that session is minimal in terms of dollars. It is not a question of math--it is an attempt, with full knowledge that mathematically it is wrong, to attain a goal that is unlikely to be attained by sitting there at the same denomination playing a negative expectation game for the one minute longer you would have been able to play had you not failed on the special play. And yes, you still have to be lucky and draw the right card, but you give up a little for the opportunity.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
The problem is most of the special plays DO NOT improve your chances of going home a winner. In fact, they decrease that opportunity.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
The progression itself provides the biggest opportunity to make a bigger hit. However, that comes with a huge cost that turns into huge losses when you don't recoup those initial losses.
Wrong, in most cases you give up some credits. Those credits give you a BETTER chance of hitting a big winner. Sorry, but you are simply believing Singer instead of checking out the reality of his claims. Is that smart?Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Sometimes is helps to consider the extreme cases. If you believe in special plays then why not go for a royal on every hand? In almost every case a RF will attain your win goal. What makes this a bad choice and some other special play a good choice?
Once you understand the answer to this question it should help you understand why most of the special plays don't help. It's pretty obvious that you would give up lots and lots of credits by going for the RF on every hand. It turns out the same is also true for the majority of Singer's special plays. It's just not as obvious and hence it appears they may make a difference. You really have to analyze each and every one to determine if the lost credits actually are more useful in reaching win goals than the one low probability special play.
Arc-I've been playing a few hours. I'm down $800. I'm leaving in about a half hour. I'm up in my denomination and want to get even. The opportunity is only going to arise once or twice if at all. So I'll give up a few credits to go for the long one. What have I really given up. Those few credits were not gonna help. The one or two extra spins--doubtful they would help. So you take one swing. Doubtful you will hit it anyway but at least you tried.
Now you would probably say that those few credits multiplied by 200 trips to the casino add up. But the reality is I don't cash out a few credits b4 I leave. I play them through as I'm sure most do.
I think you overstate what is being lost by this rare deviation from proper play.It would be different if it were a regular occurrence.
By the way--last night-down $800 and ready to leave. Upped the denom to $5.00--hit a straight flush and left with a profit.
I was bemoaning my lack of royals in another thread. Strange I had 5 straight flushes last night in 2 hours, 4 of them to the king.
I think I may be the only one in this discussion who's been trained at a machine by singer? I see a lot of conjecture about his system and here's what he told me in respect to thar issues being talked about. The first is the special plays, and one actually worked for me in a session before I went to Missouri. I was on triple bonuspoker plus and got dealt two threes with another small pair like sixes. I was told to always hold the threes in that game and this time two more came out for 600 credits and a walk out of the casino. I was on my top denomination dollars too which is the only denomination in aart that game is played too. I've done that type of special play many times and this is the first time it ever hit, but it has given me a lot of trips and two pairs and even fullhouses too. Its not like you lose if you hold them and not the two pairs. Which means I wasn't that far behind because I made that play by the time it hit if at all, and now I'll more than likly never be ever behind for good when it comes to being dealt similar hands. I see what arc's saying about it giving the player less credits to play and therefore hit a game ending winner, but thats a theory and Singer told me what it would really be like at the machines in that you don't automaticaly end up behind after time by making that play over and over, and when it does hit you're usually on the top denomination so you should never be behind because of making it. His special plays are just an overall smart idea because of this, irregardless of the theories put forth. Arc doesn't want to think in terms of leaving the casino a winner after such a win and how the win would not have a chance in hell of coming if it isn't played that way because ap's just continue playing until the lights go out no matter what hands pop up for them.
I saw a cute piece on the news last night that reminds me of arc's agenda with Singer on forums. We're seeing how no matter how many times info comes out about what Romney says and says he would do, that Obama people keep on picking out snippets to pick on and make the most unflattering characterizations about Romney's ethics and idealogy and life from that bit of info they possibly can, and all because they are unable to convincingly argue to facts. That's the same I see as arc is doing because he dislikes Singer as much as Obama people dislike Romney. Rob's strategy and ideas work, I know that now because I play it at real machines and not merely try to theorize about it from afar. Rob videoed his home(s) and apt. and had a lot of weekly wins (and even loss when they happened) info posted in his paper articles, and everything was explained. He doesn't collect fees from students or make them use his slot card. These things I know and have seen, and it makes sense when seen from above so to speak. Arc seems intelligent enough to understand sense, but his agenda gets in the way all the time. His only way out is to say i'm singer or say I'm posting for him which I said ended long ago. Take it from me arc, I do win using his system and I do always use as many of his special plays as I can remember, which is a reason why I do the winning. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed either, so if I can do it just think of how someone like you who claims he's smarter than the crowd, would do.
Regnis during my RF drought I had a high number of SFs and quad aces. Funny how that happens.
I agree with what you wrote about the Special Plays.
First of all, Singer's personal finances have nothing to do with whether his system(s) work or not.
Second, I'm sure most of the people can afford a vp simulator to check Rob's systems for themselves. If they do that, the systems won't work. In fact, Rob could easily program a simulator with the complete details of his system(s) and demonstrate the effectiveness. He doesn't do that. There's a reason he doesn't do that.
Red I liked your comparison about Singer and Dancer and the crocs. I personally am glad I took the Singer route. I'd much rather know about the crocs being there in advance and putting together a way to navigate through them than to do as Dancer does with his students, and not tell them they're there. Honesty vs deceit.
I don't know what a vp simulator is, but your statement that Rob's systems don't work is and I say this respectfully, an unsubstantiated lie. That's because I know it works from experience.
Why doesn't Rob program one of these things? I don't remember him as saying he was a programmer, maybe that's why. I think a bigger question would be why doesn't anyone who knows how to program such a thing contact him and ask to do it? Are there any progrmmers here who might want to do that? I myself would prefer, and I'm sure most people on either side of the aisle would prefer, to see the system at an actual machine. But every time he's offered to do that from what I've seen, people disappear. Could be because of the bets, but then again, if people are so sure he's wrong it should be a piece of cake, pie in the sky so to speak. Easy money, up until it leaves the theory realm and becomes reality. When the rubber hits the road the pros are the only ones left.
Redietz thanks for acknowledging that Singer's personal finances are not relevant to the debate about his system.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if his system could be tested? Unfortunately Singer says he uses Special Plays only 5 percent of the time and when he uses them is not defined. So how do you test that?
I thought he did define them. If a full house would win the mini-goals then go for it. If making the special play returns you to start-then go for it! He also stated that if you don't use the WHOLE method and stayed at one denomination, then it could be a lesson in futility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Rob only told me that he uses a special play 5 percent of the time and it will vary when it will be used. So that is something else Rob should clarify. This is why it is important for everything to be in one place so his system can be correctly evaluated. Otherwise we have the students telling us what the teacher says.
OK>I get what you're saying-I'll just hang back.
Alan I think Rob saying he uses the special plays and having a good representation of the main ones on your site is ok because if the description were put into the strategy page it would look too wordy and lengthy if he talked about the whys and whens and wheres of them.
An area I would like to see clarified is the 5% you talked about. It seems to me that if he considers the times he's holding only one high not suited card out of two of them because of the penalty he mentions, he'd be making special plays more than 5% of the time, right? Or is he only including the major plays that you have on your page here in that 5% figure he gave you?
You have fallen for the lie. The fact is those few credits may give you a better than than that wild swing. I realize it may not seem that way at first, that's why you have to analyze each situation. BTW, I remember hitting a jackpot that returned almost everything I had lost once ... I did it on my last 5 credits. So, it can happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Yes, it happens, just like my situation above. However, it doesn't happen very often in both situations. But, what if you have played more "special plays"? Maybe you wouldn't have had enough money to get that straight flush. Where would that have left you?Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
I see Rob is back commenting under jatki's name.Quote:
Originally Posted by jatki
Good grief ... now you're back wondering if 2+2 might equal 5 under the right circumstances. Da plane ... da plane ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Take a look at Special Play #13 on this page: http://www.alanbestbuys.com/id194.html This is an excellent example of how he makes a decision based on various circumstances about when and when not to make a special play. Listen to the comments, it only runs about two and a half minutes and it mentions the SPS.Quote:
Originally Posted by jatki
Very interesting Alan, thanks.
Arc I figured you out. You're the Joe Biden of the forum.
Jatki, this is Arc's favorite analogy when talking about Singer: 2+2=5. But Singer does not dispute the math. Singer only says that if you do something different you might get lucky and win more. Or, he says take a chance not on a bigger win, but on a smaller win and increase your chances for getting the smaller win.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Somehow Arc thinks that means 2+2=5. I just don't get why he keeps saying Singer doesn't follow the math.
To be clear Singer does not follow conventional strategy. His plays can and often due result in less than otpimal return or expected return, but when he connects he wins. And Singer makes these decisions because his goal for playing is different from those who follow conventional strategy. Conventional strategy has no time limit -- and it is played whether you play one hand or a billion hands. Singer is different. He plays only until a win goal is reached or a loss limit is reached.
Now, where Singer gets really controversial isn't anything to do with his special plays. In fact, a lot of VP players in casinos hold aces or one pair instead of two pair, etc. Where Singer really gets everyone in a tizzy is when he says part of the reason for his special plays is that its based on his experience about what cards are dealt from the RNG and his belief in hot and cold cycles, and fifth card flipovers, etc. It is that part of his strategy/system/method which makes the rest of his system open to attack.
The reality is in games like DDB when two pair pays the same as one pair, a lot of players will hold the single paying pair. For example, dealt QQ339 many players will hold the QQ to try for quads. Conventional strategy says hold the two pair for a better chance at a full house. But if you get lucky and hit the quads you could reach your win goal. I see players all the time at $5 DDB machines holding only the big paying pair -- and when they get the quads they pick up and leave with $1250.
And take a look at Special Play #30 here: http://alanbestbuys.com/id197.html I know that the "correct play" is to hold the full house, but it certainly is tempting to try for the quad deuces, isn't it?
Nope, he claims special plays help when they don't and he claims you will win on negative games. Both of these are contrary to the math. And that's just the beginning. Remember he also claims advantage players can't win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
When are you going to quit spewing this nonsense? You keep making the same claims even though this has been explained to you dozens of times. Why do you feel the need to twist the facts?
Please Arc. He makes no guarantee about his special plays. And he spells it right out on this website in his discussion of the special plays. He gives the expected value of the special plays vs the value of the conventional play and he is upfront and honest. The whole idea behind the special plays is the chance to get lucky, get a good winning hand, and leave. Your nonsense is saying that he guarantees. He guarantees nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Secondly he doesn't guarantee youll win on negative games. He says you can win on negative games and he has won on negative games. Is that nonsense? Of course it isn't. People win on negative games all the time. Only the "math guys" who only look at the long term math can't recognize that people can win on negative games.
And he never said advantage players can't win. He said the conditions for winning are hard. That you have to play the "long term" and few can. It his choice not to be a long term player, and that led to his system of taking the money and running when he gets lucky to win it.
And if I got this wrong, let Rob Singer himself come on here and tell me I got it wrong. If there is someone twisting the facts Arc, it's you.
As I've told you many times most of his special plays REDUCE the chances of getting lucky. They do the exact opposite of what he claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I asked him point blank if he thought players using his system on negative games would win over time. He said yes. Until he recants that position he is on record that his system can overcome the math. That's reality, Alan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You got it all wrong. He has claimed over and over again that advantages players can never reach the "long term". That is nonsense. You seem to forget I have been dealing with Singer for a lot longer than you. I've actually pinned him down on his claims, something that you have never done. That's why I know the facts and you can only twist them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I have to say, Alan, I think you are softening Rob's position in ways that make him more palatable, which is the job of a publicist. Really, the summary above is not of the tone or essence of most of Rob's posts and misrepresents him as much as it represents him.
I think Rob will have to come here and correct me himself if I have it wrong. But what I wrote is my understanding of Rob's position on these issues. If I reported them incorrectly, Rob should correct me.
As far as Arc's comments:
He wrote: As I've told you many times most of his special plays REDUCE the chances of getting lucky. They do the exact opposite of what he claims.
Well Arc, you're the first math guy who also doubled as a fortune teller. Now you are telling us about reducing the chance of getting lucky? I always thought luck was luck. Anyway, to answer your question, here's an example. If you hold a full house with three aces in 7/5 Bonus, you will never get lucky to draw quad aces as in Rob's special play.
Arc also wrote: I asked him point blank if he thought players using his system on negative games would win over time. He said yes. Until he recants that position he is on record that his system can overcome the math. That's reality, Alan.
Of course he says players using his system on negative games will win over time. That's the point of his system. The question is can he guarantee it because that seems to be the issue here? Well, can you guarantee that over time I will win playing positive games? You can't and therefore I think anyone playing Rob's system cannot be guaranteed that they will win either. I never heard the word "guarantee" from him. I think anyone who steps into a casino automatically has excluded the word guarantee from their vocabulary for everything.
And Arc's third point: He has claimed over and over again that advantages players can never reach the "long term". Yes, he has said something like that. So tell me Arc, what is the long term? Just how many hands, how many hours, do you have to sit there before you can proclaim-- I have been to the mountain top. I have seen the long term and I have touched it and held it in my hand. Oh, the long term is bright and it is warm and it is loving and it is wonderful. Oh, praise the long term because it is you and it is me and it is all around us just waiting to come into our arms, our minds and our hearts. Praise the long term. Hallelujah.
I can't be responsible for what he said to you, Arc.
One of the things I set out to do when I first heard about Rob, and read all of the comments about him (pro and con) was to meet him, interview him, and find out exactly what his position is. Specifically I wanted to find out about his belief that machines are not random and even rigged. That was the first interview I did with him. And quite frankly, I challenged his belief that the machines are not random and may in fact be rigged.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Next, was his "special plays." I asked him to prepare examples of them so everyone could see what they are. I had heard about the Special Plays but didn't know what they were. To be honest, I would use only a few in triple double bonus, and yes I once broke up a full house with three aces in bonus and drew the fourth ace -- but I would not try the majority of them.
I honestly think he's gotten a bad wrap because his position on various issues has been blown out of proportion many times. Perhaps it is his own fault because of things he said and things his supporters say. And then there are the critics who keep repeating the same misinformation until it is viewed as "fact."
My criticisms of Rob's strategy are well known: I can't understand how a guy who preaches discipline can chase losses. I don't agree that machines are rigged. I do think you should take advantage of casino promotions and players club benefits.
But Rob is no different from everyone else when he says he always plays the best pay tables that are available and he doesn't intentionally play on lesser paytables.
When you really listen to what he says with an open mind he's not as crazy as he is made out to be.
However, his personal attacks are not excusable.
No, but you are responsible for your own statements about him. You are the one claiming Singer hasn't made any statements that conflict with the math. I've shown you over and over again that he has done exactly that. So, you need to stop making claims that you can't back up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
The rest of your comment was your typical illogical nonsense.
Singer doesn't dispute the math. Singer just plays differently. I guess you call that a "conflict" with the math. Okay-- the way Singer plays conflicts with the math. So??
Singer plays differently. As I've said -- if we were at a craps table, the math guys would be betting the come with odds, and Singer would be betting the high and low. That's the difference between you and him. That doesn't make him disputing the math, but yes, he would be playing in conflict with what the math says to do. And that's his system.
We've gone around and around about this a thousand times. What do you want to do, burn him at the stake like a witch?
So ... first, quit saying he doesn't dispute the math. Second, admit he has claimed that his approach is superior to a math based approach. That is the problem. No one cares how Singer plays.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Really, Arc, you're like a kid in a playground having an argument over who has the better "slammer" in the game of "pogs." Yes, Singer plays differently than what the math of the game dictates. He says that in his special plays, and he does that. What's the big issue? Did he commit a crime? Is he a witch?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
The problem with a strict math-based approach is that over time you should get exactly what the math says you are going to get. So if you play a game that returns 99.54% you are going to get 99.54%. It's when you do things differently that you either win more or you win less. He says he won more doing things differently.
While no one cares how Singer plays,you certainly care a lot.
His information is here for all to see. Let everyone make up their own mind. If they see problems with his system they'll decide that for themselves. Me? I'll never chase losses the way he did. But I will hold only three aces when dealt AAA3K in TDB just as he does. And leaving when you reach a win goal would have put a lot of money in my pocket over the years.
Now please dismantle that pile of wood in your backyard. There will be no witch burning today.
Pure nonsense. Playing by the math does not eliminate variance. You have just as much of a chance to get lucky and gain a higher return as anyone else. The fact you would make such an ignorant statement is amazing. You need to do some remedial reading about video poker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Nope. What I care about is anyone presenting lies as facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Alan, the vast majority of people don't have the ability to assess any system. That's why making incorrect claims like you have done is not responsible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Gee this comes as a surprise after all this talk discussion about "expected returns." The way you made it sound, if there really is a long term, in the end there should be no variance, so if a game is supposed to return 99.54% then in the long term it will return 99.54%. You mean a 99.54% game won't return 99.54% in the long term? Then what the heck is "long term" all about??Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
You will have to discuss this directly with Rob, or perhaps Rob can respond. I only report what Rob told me. You seem to say he has said different things. Rob should clear it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Again, they're not my claims. Don't kill the messenger. I'm just trying to find a way to win. I've tried Dancer, I've tried Grochowski, and nothing has worked yet. I'm thinking about tarot cards but I'm not sure they will let me lay them out on the console in front of the video poker machine.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
That's right Alan. That's why I don't get why you start up the same discussion over and over again everytime your forum has been silent for a couple of days. A change of topic would be refreshing...You are sounding like a broken record about Singer's "strategy" just as much as Arci is about his view on the subject. Sorry for being a stick in the mud again....Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I dont think I was the one to start it this time. Look back a few posts. And this thread is to comment about Singer's SPS. So please ignore it if you're not interested.
Again, just because you say they are facts or that you claim to have verification that substantiates, neither is proof and all of what you say about Rob remains in the heresay category. Can you back up what you've been telling us about him? Inquiring minds want to know.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
One of the problems here is that Arci, and to a lesser extent myself and others, have experience with Rob stretching back through multiple forums and other venues back more than a decade. So what has been presented here is just a subset of the "Rob Singer" info. There have been other suspicious alternative identity promoters, sudden appearances of Rob followers at curious times, and so on. Some "Rob followers" have been caught in out-and-out lies and been banned from other forums -- surprise, surprise. Should everyone just stick to what Rob has said on this particular forum when discussing him?
Also, I fail to see the significant difference between saying, "you will win" with Rob's system and guaranteeing a win. There's no real difference. Rob's not saying that a certain small percentage of people will win with his system. He's saying that anyone/everyone can win on negative games with his system.
Post number 61 was the one where you started it again after your forum went silent for a little while. The first thing you did is refer to Arci's analogy (2 + 2 = 5). Did you think there wouldn't be a reply to that? So yes, you started it. If you don't like to be criticized on your own forum, don't be the number one poster....Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
This fight will never end. As Alan points out, if the math has to hold true we are all playing for the right to lose the % provided by the paybacks. So Singer has a plan to attempt to hit a big hand in rare occassions when Arci would not. The percentage long term is so negligible as to be meaningless. But it offers a slightly better chance to hit the big hand NOW, maybe at the risk of playing one or two less hands long term. Arci will say that those extra hands offer extra chances for the big hand. But there is no certainty that those couple extra hands will even be playable. So like Singer, I sometimes take the shot NOW, cause I want to go home or I need the big hit to get out. How that decision effects my long term results I'll never know because I will never attain "long term".
I don't dispute the math--I'm sure Arci's calculations are correct. But the math and my win goals and time frames don't always coexist.
I have asked Arci and any other math guys for some kind of plan to play the inferior games offered where I play. Other than "don't play", nothing has been suggested. So I guess they feel I have to lose because the games have poor paybacks. I'd rather try Singer's methods if that's the case.
This is very interesting, Vegas_lover. You reference post #61. Well, how about post # 57 ??Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas_lover