Wasn't he supposed to post his strategy and proof that it worked by the end of October?
Printable View
Wasn't he supposed to post his strategy and proof that it worked by the end of October?
If I recall (and it's hard to keep track, by the way) he indicated that if not by the end of October then shortly afterwards -- say by the middle of November. Rob did post what he called his "SPS" but as many of us noted, what Rob wrote fails to adequately explain or justify the strategy including why he moves up in denominations.
The link to his text is listed at the bottom of the page here: http://www.alanbestbuys.com/id261.html
The discussion about it is here: http://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/showth...y-COMMENT-HERE Re-read it if you dare.
I expect to see his justifications for his system about the time we see a flock of pigs soaring overhead.
Don't give up hope, yet. Amazing things could happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...n-the-wing.jpg
I think Rob needs to pull back and re-think this "posting of strategy" stuff. The better percentage thing to do would be to work out a deal with Alan for another interview or series of interviews wherein he promises to explain piece by piece how he wins. Then the interviews could be posted, and people would pay attention to him and listen, while not doing any math analysis or simulation.
I think that's much more in Rob's best interests than a black-and-white academia-esque posting of hard facts and clear strategies.
While I was out mulching leaves...
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k...cv3g0c5si2.gif
IT'S ALL THERE! This is hilarious every time I see it. I'm an ole' country boy and I can figure that out. Prove it works? How could anyone do that without playing it? And if you're afraid, do as I do and start at nickels.. What's with you guys?
What is ironic here, is that even Rob concedes that his special plays do not have a mathematical advantage. In fact, he has publicly stated that they are at a mathematical disadvantage to conventional play. Rob attributes his success to a combination of factors that includes "luck."Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I don't know how luck can be quantified or explained. But I think he does owe us some other explanations to clear up the questions that popped up after we all read his SPS statement. I'm willing to wait and see what he has to say. But honestly, the guy is not under any pressure to post: he's not facing any book publication deadline, magazine or newspaper deadline.
In short, the "math" will never support him. The real question is how does he use "non math principles" (and I just pulled that phrase out of thin air) to explain how he won nearly a million dollars over ten years.
I've said this many times before: if Rob had simply said that he got lucky and beat the casinos for a million bucks and wrote about his exploits he would be a hero. But by calling it a system or method or program or whatever, he put a label on what he did which has opened him up to all sorts of challenges.
Yeah right. A proven liar is a reliable source. It's all BS, Alan. Once you finally accept that it will be easier for you to see reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Nope, he's only had 10 years to work out the details, let's not pressure him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Come on, I've explained "luck" to you before. It's simple variance at work. This is trivial statistics. Don't try to make it out as something else.
Bwah haha haha haha haha. Complete and total nonsense. VP is completely described by mathematics. There's nothing else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
That's right. He makes silly claims and tells one lie after another. What's not to like?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
The man is a complete phoney as anyone could see who has read your forum over the last few months.
Of course if they read everything you wrote, Arc, they could only come away thinking that he's a complete phoney.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
But is a phoney about winning a million dollars? Is he a phoney that everything he wrote in his newspaper column was a lie and never verified and can't be verified?
I don't think anyone is going to argue the "math" here. But no one ever said it was a claim about "the math." Rob's entire system is based on one main idea: to give yourself a chance to hit a big win and then pocket the win and leave. And the funny thing is casino players (not you or redietz of course) do this every day.
Nothing the man says can be trusted. Absolutely nothing. That should be the starting point of anyone with any common sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Nonsense, you argue with the math all the time. You usually start out with the words "no one argues with the math" and then you proceed to make arguments that really do conflict with simple math. Just because you claim you aren't arguing with the math doesn't make it so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Yes, and more of them don't. Once again you are back arguing with the math. Variance will always allow a few winners along with more losers playing negative games. That doesn't mean there's a system "to give yourself a chance to hit a big win" that changes the fundamental reality of VP. The machines don't know what system you are playing. It simply provides cards in a random manner that lead to well known frequencies of results. No system will change that fact. Repeating silly phrases that have no real meaning only makes you look stupid. If you want to look stupid that is your choice. If you don't, then quit arguing with the simple math.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You know, there may be a very complex, unbelievable explanation for the perspective Arci and I take in most things gambling. Is it possible, now brace yourselves, folks -- is it just in the realm of possibility (not probability, of course) that we might possibly, conceivably, perhaps KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING?
Did I just say that out loud!?! Good lord, what hubris!
I notice that both Arci and I are old-timers and have probably seen every nook and cranny of advantage play and pseudo-advantage play over the years. We may possibly (not probably, of course) have figured out how to see the forests for the trees (I know, a really old cliche, but we're old).
The world is math (doesn't anyone watch Big Bang?). Turning non-advantage play into advantage play with win goals and special plays is like turning wine into water -- it works really well as long as nobody actually witnesses you doing it.
I'm sorry guys, but saying things like I argue with the math is absolute BS. Nor does Singer argue the math. You guys are stuck on the idea. You just won't accept the fact that the only thing Singer says to do is to do something different than what the math says to do so that you can beat the expected return. That's all he says, and that's all he has ever said.
If you guys play a 99.5% return game, then over time you will get 99.5% return playing "by the math." But when you make different plays and different holds you will either do better or worse. Singer says his way gives you a better return.
When will you guys suck it up and realize what he is saying? And... stop your BS.
"saying things like I argue with the math is absolute BS"Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
"do something different than what the math says to do so that you can beat the expected return"
Totally hilarious. Alan claims he doesn't dispute the math and then proceeds to dispute it in the same paragraph.
And then does it again in the next paragraph. Sorry Alan, you are totally clueless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
We are the ones who realize exactly what he is saying and simply pointing out it is nonsense. That you repeat that nonsense and claim it is valid only makes you look stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Arc, let me see if I can turn this into a "coin flip" example for you.
The math says that over time, a "fair coin" will show 50 heads and 50 tails. We know that the coin will not flip heads-tails-heads-tails over time. We know that there will be a distribution of heads and a distribution of tails but that over the long term the number of heads and tails will even out.
What Singer is basically saying is this: after a run of heads, or a run of tails, and you are ahead on a bet of heads or tails, you cash out your win.
He is not saying that the coin will show heads for the long term, and he is not saying that the distribution will not be even over the long term. He is saying, play the "runs" that put you ahead. He looks for short term spurts.
And you can have short term spurts in anything and everything including "special plays," "win goals," etc.
He doesn't challenge the "math" as you continue to argue. He simply says take advantage of the situations as they appear.
Now, you certainly need some luck to hit the "trends" or "runs" that will make you a winner. And Singer fully discloses that he got lucky. Okay, there is no mathematical proof that anyone will ever repeat what Rob did. His "method" can't be proven. The math will always be the math.
How can I put it in "math terms"?? How about this: of all the possible results, Rob played a certain subset of results, hit that subset, got lucky and cashed out while the going was good.
Now, do I think someone else might get equally lucky? I don't know. But I wouldn't say that he disagrees with the math.
I do know what your problem is, however. You reject the idea that anyone can play a limited amount of time and cash out a winner in a limited amount of time. As a long term player, you feel that someone must play the long term to see wins using a positive expectation game. Okay, if that works for you stick with it. But your criticisms of Singer for violating "math" are starting to be absolutely redundantly absurd. You can't be more wrong than you are. You are talking apples and oranges.
Alan, that only works if you NEVER play again. If a person is not quitting then the next time they play tell me what happens. Can they repeat this every time?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Guess what, over time it all evens out and those few wins you want to believe in disappear in the sea of losses.
Sorry, that is nothing but double-speak. You can't always "take advantage of the situations" because they don't always appear. That is the rub, and if you were listening to what you've been told by people who understand this issue you wouldn't be spewing such silly nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
That's right and that's what we've been telling you for years. As for Singer getting lucky ... I doubt that very much. I prefer to look at the rest of his claims, such as living in a big house, and now that we know they were all lies, make the appropriate logical conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
He has disagreed with the math many times. Get your head out of your a** and pay attention. He claims advantage players will lose while anyone who plays his system on negative machines will win. Pure idiocy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Give me a break. I've stated exactly that many, many times and TOLD you over and over again about the bell curve. Why do you repeat these lies?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
More lies. I've never said anything even close to that. Anyone can win in the short term playing any system. They just can't count on any particular approach leading to wins consistently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
What a load of BS. Alan, you getting tiresome again. I don't know why I try to educate you when you refuse to pay attention and continue to repeat the same idiotic claims over and over again. Stupid is as stupid does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Now that we're settled into our newest RV park in northern Nevada, I'll have some time to discuss my single-play strategy (SPS), other strategies I've developed, and answer any questions anyone may have about them or anything else I've written about in the past. In order to limit the nonsense and waste-of-time tactics we've come to know as commonplace on forums I've participated in over the years, I will not respond to any posts by arci. In case it hasn't been noticed :), he has unlimited down time he uses to just keep repeating the same hateful & jealous nonsense & lies, perpetuated by his continuous claims over the years that I am a drunk who chases skirts and lives off his wife who he made live in a small apt. while providing videos of someone else's houses in Phx. & Hawaii yada yada yada. My guess is he's done a lot more checking into my background than he's leading on about, only you won't hear the rest of the results. The fact that I've been happily married for 34 years to the same woman I've supposedly been putting thru this abuse, kinda puts all of his claims into perspective about who's lying to whom. Remember, he's sitting there in his self-created mecca of depression and guilt, with no patience for people like myself and Cindy who are actually fortunate & very mobile in our retirement years. But if anyone really wants to know the answer to some dumb criticism or lie he brings up, please ask. Ignoring him will drive him up a wall, and he'd never be here if he didn't expect me to return. Keep that in mind as you witness his uneasiness.
First off: I've sporadically read some of the other threads and in fact I've only read 3 or 4 posts on this one, and I asked jatki to stay out of the discussion or at least not to get into it with arci when he displays his neverending envy. I'm going to start with some general comments to what I've seen Alan write after I provided my single-play strategy. It appears he expected a bit more than what I said I would provide initially. What I said was I'd submit my SPS, ie., the processes used to play it. I never said I'd explain why I did this or why I did that, and instead agreed to answer any and all questions pertaining to the strategy when I returned. So Alan, rather than make it sound like I've short-changed you or your readers, please accept that I am doing what I said I would do in the order I said I would do it. Whether or not the strategy's procedure tells people why I do anything is not relevant to the steps identified in playing it, until now. As far as the math details that went into the development, the number one item in my life today is enjoying retirement with my wife. Our plans changed from staying in Pahrump to staying near Tahoe as well as on our going to Phoenix for the holidays and thus my trip to Casa Grande was postponed, because my children and grandchildren wanted to come up here and stay on the Lake for a week over Thanksgiving and that's what we're going to do. There'll be the usual lies and criticisms from those who have little or no family and/or live lonely or loner lives, but "I think I can handle" that. I did read a post by redietz that made some sense if Alan is interested, and I'll be happy to entertain it on his terms when I'm able.
Alan, you've asked why I don't simply play at the $10 level with a large bankroll in order to make at least $2500/session. That would be foolish. I would then be playing like any other regular or advantage player, doing nothing more than pounding away aimlessly at the same game hoping to accumulate as many points as possible so that I can hopefully, but not probably, end up ahead a per cent or two by day's end. You ask why bother playing at the lower denominations when, esp. at dollars, only a royal would allow me to quit and go home? And closely related to this, you ask what the purpose of the soft profit pool is?
Someone here said the soft profits can add up to the required $2500 minimum for me to quit and go home. That's correct and it has happened, but infrequently. It's significance lies in being there to either REDUCE the amount needed from a single winning hit to reach my $2500 win goal, or to ADD to the big winning hit which in turn produces a session win more or much more than the $2500 goal (which I showed in my example session I sent in). This all ties into why I play at the "lower levels" as you put it, and if you had followed my weekly column when I wrote for Gaming Today, you would have seen many instances of it at work. And BTW, good call on questioning whether GT would have purposely published known lies. In fact it was just the opposite--Chuck DiRocco (the paper's insightful publisher) came with me on one session, and most of my big $20,000+ winners were posted as well. His success was built on always telling the truth in what he published, and he did everything possible to relay all of it to his readers.
Alan you asked why I change denominations. It should be fairly obvious: the crude critics would say it's chasing losses, when in reality it is a changing pathway of opportunity based on results thus far. This is illustrated by how I not only go UP when nothing is hit, but DOWN when certain goals are met on the way to an overall win goal. But the reason I say crude is because those people just don't have the intelligence to first of all read the entire story, and most of all because their gambling IQ resides well below mine.
So this is a start. I'll have time to discuss anything valid on and off until about the 17th when my family arrives, then after they leave on the 27th. The only post I'll make during that time will be on my annual (just thought of that) football betting for one upcoming weekend. Last year everyone would have made money if they had copied my bet. I'll be giving everyone another chance at easy money this year too, so if you're smart you'll take advantage of it. And by taking advantage, I DON'T mean following Bob Dancer down the toilet of another balls-on sure-thing positive-play on slot machines of all things. Has he ever met a gaming machine he wasn't lured into playing?
Rob, glad to hear from you and best of luck to you and your family in retirement. I would only have one question-since I've read and reread the strategy so many times. I keep hearing math, math, math. It's great for space travel, economics, science, etc.... but when it comes to gambling, isn't it just a GUIDELINE instead of "etched in stone"? I actually feel silly asking the question, but it seems so obvious to me. Thanks.
sling--let's do a little math. Let's say Arci plays $1 VP 40 hours a week. If we assume 10 hands per minute, that's 600 per hour. But you go p and eat etc. and the math is easier at 500 hands per hour. So let's use 500. If Arci plays full time--40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year, that's 1 million hands per year. 5 coins per hand so he's got cash in of $5,000,000. He has the only positive game known to mankind--so give him a 1% positive return.
Arci makes $50,000 per year. Now, we know he isn't playing that many hours or hands---I am being generous. Yet he says he makes 6 figures every year. And besides the Royal, there really are no winners on his game of choice. And he has no cold streaks either--the math just magically comes out exact.
So how's that math looking to you. When I was a kid and we moved from the city to the suburbs we had to learn something called "the new math". I guess Arci is using some form of new math himself.
The point I hope I'm making is that not even considering the ebbs and flows--the hot and cold streaks--the whole idea of playing endlessly because the math says so is not realistic. So not to speak for Singer because he is more than able to do so, but his system recognizes that the long term grind is just that, and he uses changes in denomination, some variances in play, and win goals to achieve a better reuslt. That result cannot be proven mathematically, and there lies the issue.
Do you think the game of tic-tac-toe can be won by using a specific strategy? Why not? Could it be because every possible move in the game can be analyzed and an optimum strategy exists to counter any move you make? Guess what? VP is exactly the same just a little more complex. Every play in VP can be analyzed (and has) for any game. That is what expert play is all about.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
You should consider trying to understand what went on in this analysis. Every single possible dealt hand is played with every single possible draw. As each hand is played in 32 possible ways, the total amount of credits won by the various draws is added up. Then, those credits won are compared to the credits won by other possible holds. The one that achieves the highest number is then considered to be the expert play strategy. What math was used? Simple addition and then a comparison. This is about as simple as it gets.
Given this approach it then gets down to the question of whether any particular draw is more likely. If they are all random then why would anyone choose to choose an approach that generates fewer credits?
So, it all gets down to whether a VP machine is random or not. If you believe they aren't random then you would need to know how they differ from randomness in order to find a better strategy than expert play. If you believe they are random then the best plays have been computed using simple math.
This is all there is to it. There is no complex math going on. And, if you believe that simple addition is a "etched in stone" (that is, it always provides the same answer) then you should believe that expert play is simply the best approach you can take.
Far from the "only positive game known to mankind". If you start off being dishonest what can we expect from the rest of this comment? BTW, I play at about 700 hands/hour on the machines I play since they are quite slow. When I was in Las Vegas I could play over 1000 hands/hour. I believe Frank indicated previously he could play two machines at around 2000 hands/hour.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Wong again. I have never said I made 6 figures every year. I made 6 figures over 8 years and one of the reasons it is that low is because I don't play that much. I can only wonder why you choose to make things up.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
See how easy it is to believe something when you create a strawman to attack it. Now, maybe you consider sticking to the facts and see where you end up.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
No, it can be proven mathematically that his approach provides no benefit. It's all random and as such your results can be better or worse than average (the bell curve). But, no betting method can help you. Sorry if you don't like the truth (as it appears from your previous statements), but if you look at everything rationally you will realize that no system (Singer's or anyone elses) will make a difference in a games' ER over time.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Arc wrote: I believe Frank indicated previously he could play two machines at around 2000 hands/hour.
I think Frank said he was able to play only the "older, slow machines" two at a time. The new, modern machines were fast enough that he played one at a time.
Arc also wrote, in regards to Singer: it can be proven mathematically that his approach provides no benefit.
This is absolutely true, and Rob even notes this in the explanation of his special plays. They do not provide the expected return that the conventional plays offer. However, when Rob gets lucky and his special plays happen to hit, he is able to reach a win goal and stop playing. There you go Arc. I said it again for the seven hundredth time and it still doesn't get through, does it?
Alan, I posed a question to you earlier that I'll repeat here and maybe if Rob would would be so kind and respond to it as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
We are all in agreement that the theoretical hold / EV on every machine (positive or negative) inside of the casinos is a value based upon the billions or trillions of hands /spins that the RNG generates for that machine. Agreed? Well what makes you think that ANYONE could selectively play their 'short-term' number of hands within those trillions of hands and only play the ones that put you consistently ahead? Especially on the negative EV machines? You and Rob aren't arguing math? Then you and Rob are arguing that you can be luckier than everyone else. If this can be achieved by using ESP to detect hot and cold cycles, recognizing which machines are not random, quitting while you''re ahead or not tipping the cocktail waitress I'm all ears...
I don't have ESP and I don't think Rob does either, but you pretty much stated it correctly right there. The expected return is based on "long term play" and if you play millions and gazillions of hands you will, in the end, get what the expected return says you will get. After all, that's what the math says.Quote:
Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie
The problem is do you play enough hands to actually see the long term?
So, if you don't play enough hands to see the long term, and if you happen to hit the right hands at the right time and get lucky, you will come out ahead of the expected return.
Or, if you don't play enough hands to see the long term, and you don't hit enough winning hands, you will come out behind of the expected return.
Rob in his books explains this as getting "lucky," and don't you agree it is a matter of luck? Unless of course you are sitting there for millions and millions of hands. Our friend Arc says he can play something like 1,000 hands per hour. Wow! I probably play 400-500 hands per hour, and I don't play as often as he does. I don't think I play 10% of the time that he does. The long term for me... and for probably 99.9% of video poker players... is a long, long, long way away.
A simple example of the significance of this is being dealt 4 to the royal. In the long run you will get the royal card 1 out of 47 times. Some people get lucky and make the four card royal more often. And then I know players who have never had a royal in their life.
I sure wish I had ESP for all of those 4 card royals that involved a flush or a straight or a high pair that I broke up trying to get the royal that "missed." If I had ESP and knew the royal card was not coming, I would have gladly kept those straights and flushes and paying pairs that I gave up and I would have more money today.
Your problem is you stop there implying that it will make a difference. You never say when he doesn't hit the special play that he loses faster and plays less hands. You also never mention that playing fewer hands reduces his chances of hitting a win goal. Why are you selective, Alan? Some people would call it dishonest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
The bottom line is the special plays overall actually do reduce ones ability "to reach a win goal and stop playing". Overall they do the opposite of what you stated. Why do you choose to ignore the facts and repeat these lies when you've been told over and over again that you are wrong?
Maybe if you actually take the time to consider the facts you won't have to repeat this nonsense a 701st time.
Okay, you just said it for me, and I agree. If the special plays don't hit you can lose faster, and play fewer hands. And playing fewer hands could in fact lessen your chances for hitting big winners.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
It's said.
Life, like video poker, overall is a series of applied mathematical probabilities. But when you take a much closer look at it INDIVIDUALLY, you find that it is much more likely you will find yourself in an outlying area of possibilities. As such, good fortune is required in order to succeed at anything at any time. That is why my strategy was developed with luck being a factor. And although AP's will argue fruitlessly against this truth, they get nowhere without the same type of lucky hits I require in order to win and/or in order to attain anywhere near the tiny win % they so depend upon. The difference is, of course, all the other factors I utilize in order to maximize opportunity.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
And there's more. Ask arci how that Indian casino in Minn. can allow him to just walk in, sit down at those mystical machines, year after year after year and do nothing but win win win, and he'll tell you how he's been outsmarting them (there's that self-tested genius again....) by somehow knowing exactly when the big winners are coming so he can pull his slot card out before the draw. Then, with even more magical powers, they just so happen to have the type of 20-year-old slot club where he KNOWS (yes, just like Bob Dancer and his "inside information" on the South Point slots) that pulling slot cards before the draw erases the hand from memory :). Better still, these blind Indians never ever bother to watch this occur via camera or the floor in over 12 years of his constant play & winning! Yes, add all that up and you really DO see how well it does work.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
In regards to Frank's speed, that is what he also told me in person. I take it with a grain of salt though. I once tested my own speed when the Reserve in Henderson opened and they had all their machines set to super high speed (and all bartops had all full-pay game like FPDW, 10/7DB, and 10/6DDB right thru dollars except on FPDW). I played one hour @ 1400 hph and I had no idea how many mistakes I made--JUST LIKE EVERYONE WHO PLAYS FAST. And I can attest that it is impossible to play any faster than I played. When I worked for the Government out of college, during the training phase I tested faster than all but one other person (a female) in short-term eye-hand coordination, and I tested faster than her in the long run (3 hours). It is also a myth that anyone can play faster with any meaningful accuracy on two machines. These "pros" only go around saying that to build their brand. It is complete and utter baloney.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I've always said I am no more or less lucky than anyone else who plays. The infrequent times my special plays hit do not make me any luckier--it's simply that I gave good luck a higher probability of occuring. If it occurs within the overall structure of the "outside the box" part of my strategy, it is simply a part of the overall game.Quote:
Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie
Your question about my sitting at the machines for short-term bursts that also happen to be in the middle of I guess winning streaks? Irrelevant. I've sat thru good as well as bad streaks and most of the time still prevailed in my win goal. Why? That's what the increase in denominations, the higher volatility games, and the increase in the number of credits played at the higher volatility games is for. Where some clueless AP might be sitting at a single denomination machine banging away at the same boring game for 6 long hours and hits Aces twice while losing, the first time I hit Aces is usually more than enough to go home with my win goal. So you see, even if my machine was in some bad streak at the time and if I chose to stay at it, it has never been overly difficult to beat them. Then there of course are the good streaks and those speak for themselves.
Your point about the + or - EV of the games is also meaningless. I've proven that my strategy can beat any paytable, consistently.
Rob, I think if you said "I've proven that I can leave a winner regardless of any paytable" that it might be more palatable to the math guys who think the paytable is the end-all of video poker. Even Arc concedes you can win on negative paytables. So just say "using my strategy I have won on negative paytables" and you might undo that knot in their stomachs. Saying you "can beat any paytable" makes them fall back on their adherence to paytable math.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Yes that is stated more elegantly, but that knot in their stomach turns into an ulcer when they read "consistently". But it is true that the strategy is a consistent winner on negative EV games, and for redietz, anyone else who I would train to play exactly the same way as I, will also win consistently.
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c1...ic14/shrug.gifWhere's the proof? Simply saying this ad nauseam is not proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Thank-you for taking the time to reply Rob. I have a few more questions for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
1. Can your proven unbeatable strategies be adopted and applied to non-video poker games such as the Megabucks slot machines?
2. Are you really teaching and training people for free? You aren't charging a training fee, trying to get others to use your player's card or get people to buy your book? You're really doing all of this because you're really a nice guy?
3. Is "Rob Singer" just a "pen name" or persona you invented? Does that mean some of the details you write about are fictious?
Vic, what would you like for proof that I've won? Are you asking for the same type of proof AP's like redietz, Dancer & arci have provided?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Vic
Yes, we've become accustomed to your unending series of lies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
It's always humorous when Singer jumps up and down thinking he's smart only to get smacked down yet again. One of the reasons those machines are slow is because they allow a double on every hand (can't be turned off). All it takes is pulling the card before declining the double and the result is lost. You just have to laugh .... at Robbie the clown.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Doesn't take inside information as almost anyone with a couple of working neurons could figure out. All it takes is getting a copy of ones win/loss statement. So simple a cave man could do it ... what's your problem? Are you really this clueless? And to think that some people will actually listen to this person who couldn't think himself out of a paper bag.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Have you ever been in a casino. The ploppies like yourself are constantly pulling and reinserting their cards. The fact you weren't aware of this says a lot about you. Have you ever been in a casino and actually gambled? If casinos spent their time looking at every gambler who pulled there card they'd be too busy to do anything else. Bugs Bunny's creators must have had Singer in mind when they came up with this line ... "what a maroon".Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
1. No.Quote:
Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie
2. Good question to ask. I have always trained people at machines & given advice over the phone/in person/& via e-mail @ no charge--ever. I have also enjoyed giving away my books to the extent my publisher allowed me to. And no, contrary to common lies, I have never required any of my hundreds of students to use my player's card anywhere at any time, and I have in fact taken many of them out to dinner--some more than once.
Why do I do all this on my dime? Am I simply a nice guy? I certainly hope people see me as that, but that was not top on my list. What I intended was to,show the vp community that a professional player who actually wins has zero need to take money from other players for helping them out to the extent possible. Since I've always won as I said I did, that's how I made my money.
3. RS is my pen name, like all or at least most authors use. Off hand I can honestly say the details are provided over the years are truthful, although I have spun a few minor points at times. Nothing of importance for here, however.
What do you mean by "consistently"? You, yourself, have written about sessions where you have lost $35,000. Here's where we have to be more exact. Are you talking about annually, as presented on your tax return? If so, you should say that. The claim of "consistently" makes it seem that each and every time you sit down at a machine you come away a winner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Alan, this is just Singer being dishonest again. When a person plays a progression with a low win goal they will have more session wins as I've mentioned many times. Of course, those extra session wins are all offset by the big losses like the $35K one you keep mentioning. The net result is his system provides no monetary advantage. When he says "wins consistently" that is to trick the suckers out there into believing they can actually win money with his system. And, if they complain after the losses mount he can always come back and say he didn't claim they would win money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
As I've always told you, it's a scam.
By consistently I mean on a consistent basis, meaning in this instance at an 85% success rate. Annually, yes, that does mean each and every year. I always maintained winning about 85 out of every 100 sessions played, and as I've explained, there were some large losers, but in addition to the many $2500 - $4000 winning sessions, there were more and larger wins than most of the larger losses. For instance, thru the years I had in addition to the $35k loss, about 3 or 4 other losses between $10k and $20k. These were very easily offset and rendered irrelevant by about a dozen $5 royals, two at $10, one at $25, and a $50k AAAA2 on $25 ddbp at your hangout--Caesars. Not to mention all the $10k thru $15k hits. These wins were not full amount net, but they were huge nonetheless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
[QUOTE=arcimede$;8157]
Wong again. I have never said I made 6 figures every year. I made 6 figures over 8 years and one of the reasons it is that low is because I don't play that much. I can only wonder why you choose to make things up.
[QUOTE=regnis;8201]So you only play a little yet you manage to achieve or even beat the long term expected return. You ARE luckier than you claim Singer must be.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Thanks-I had to read it about 6 times and THINK a little about all you've written to realize it was what you've said before-with a life application.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I've never said I beat the long term expected return. I've made money, there's a difference. Overall I've been below the ER but had a big enough edge to still make a profit.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Please explain this, if you could. If you have an edge of, let's say, one half of 1% from a combination of the payback on the game's paytable plus cashback, etc., and you've managed to win about $100,000 over eight years, just how much money have you cycled through? And based on your rate of hands played/hour, how much time did you have to devote to playing to attain that?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
You never reported hitting some mega progressive so I am guessing that you won your money through a constant stream of playing your small but positive edge. Is that right?
Alan--Arci wants to have it both ways. When I calculated the number of hands playing 40 hours per week, and generously gave him a 1% return, and that only came out to $50,000, he said he doesn't play that much. So how does he achieve this great windfall that he claims to have made by only playing for short periods of time on a game that has no big winners other than the Royal.
And how can he espouse the merits of long term play by the math when he says he doesn't play for long periods?
Sheesh---Rob should be licking his chops on this one.
Regnis I've taken him to the woodshed over this misrepresentation time after time. You have to understand, arci is just another of those losing APers as I was only had no problem admitting as much, and he has been....for years. Then when he first got wind of me, my message, and how I've been able to win, well....losing players who think they have it all figured out just get irritated as hell reading about the success of another that they've never been able to attain. So his response? Just keep quoting math books as if his play is just another page, call me a liar on anything & everything, and expect the masses to believe everything he says. Only problem is, he occasionally gets caught by people like you, me, jatki, et al. And you see the result: what goes around comes around, and in such a righteous way. His life today is more of a punishment than anything else, for all the needless lies and disruptions he's caused throughout the years. Be prepared to be accused of being me.
I rarely played with an edge of only .5%. For example, when I played at Tuscany I played a game called Double Bonus Plus. The return was 99.8%. I played almost exclusively on 10x points days which provided 1% cashback. The freeplay was .7% making the overall return around 101.5% or and edge of 1.5%. I played with bigger edges, like 2.5% at Sam's Town and around 1.6% at SouthPoint. I played a few closer to 1% like at Fiesta unless the progressives got real high but that was about the average.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I mentioned most of this before, I'm always somewhat amazed that you can ignore so much.
That's right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I always get a chuckle out of the strawman nonsense that people make up. You make up some numbers and then claim I can't possibly have won so much using your imaginary numbers. This is getting quite tiresome. Maybe you should ask before making a fool out of yourself again.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
You'd think he'd learn. After making a fool out of himself last time with his silly claims, he comes right back and doubles down on it and sure enough, now he's a double fool.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
There's that massive ego again. No one cares if you've won or lost. The going odds are you lost big time and you have that bankruptcy to prove it. Now we know you lived in a tiny little little apartment while claiming you were making $100K a year and your wife more than that. Bwah haha haha hahaQuote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Yes, Singer once again proves to everyone concerned that he will jump on any lie and repeat it. Stupid is as stupid does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
It's not that I ignore it, it's just that it is "ancient history" and these "deals" no longer exist. Today, South Point has about the best video poker available in Vegas and it doesn't come close to anything like you mentioned. I even spoke to the marketing department there and they told me that even for players on par with 7-Stars with Caesars that free play offers would rarely top FIFTY DOLLARS per day -- which is far less than what I get at Rincon. (Caesars only gives free play offers for special dates, and lately I was reduced to $850-$1,000 per visit, while I used to get $2,500 per visit.)Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
The point is that the landscape is changing, and I am trying to figure out where or what is the best play today for someone trying to be an "AP" and except for your one-eyed jacks machine in Minnesota there doesn't seem to be a "best play" anywhere left.
Yes, it is old news, but the question was how did I win $100K. These were the games I played. I'm no longer playing in Vegas so it really doesn't matter what's available there. However, Frank indicated there were still plays and Dancer seems to be still playing quite a bit. So, my guess is there are still some good plays. Of course, you can always play FPDW in several places for a small profit.
If there are "good plays" left, Dancer would be better off writing about those instead of telling us how much he lost chasing cars or slot jackpots.
No, I'm afraid the "good plays" no longer exist. Even Rincon which used to be the "jewel" of video poker play has decimated the game. Pala, which is near Rincon does have $1 DDB progressives at 9/5 and while Pechanga (the biggest casino in the Western US and bigger than anything in Vegas) has full pay games, it has no progressives to give players an edge -- and its full pay games are not positive games.
I'm afraid that the door has pretty much closed on advantage VP play.
Alan, you do realize the smart gamblers aren't going to be advertising the good plays. You didn't see me talking about the good plays I mentioned here when I was playing them.
It's not about smart gamblers not advertising them. You can't keep these things a secret in the world of the Internet and with all of the gambling websites that exist today. Five and ten years ago the world was different.
Today it's all changed. When I went online and reported on this site that Harrah's Rincon reduced the paytables on its machines on the same day that it happened, within 24 hours people stopped going to play VP there and within four days, the paytables on most of the machines were restored. (9/6 jacks still has not been restored, and DDB remains at 8/5, but other games were restored and the non smoking games were brought up to the same paytables as the smoking games.)
If there were still "good plays" in Vegas, we would know about them. The "secret handshake crowd" could not dominate them.
Alan, it is well known that any so-called +EV plays and the perfection at which they're played, is one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetuated upon the video poker-playing community. Just think of what kind of problem gambler it took for Bob Dancer to pretend to create, via some secret inside information known only between him and the South Point, something supposedly at "positive EV" out of a slot machine! In fact, he was so roped into this gambling session that he was willing to put his phoney reputation on the line, and he did a darn good job at that. But this is how these AP's act--dignity left the equation long ago.
Once again Singer shows us that mathematics is not his strong suit. I would guess he's whipping up and new brew of "luck" potion to get him through the winter.
I can see a few people around here lining up for a few shots. Some people will believe just about anything.
I don't understand what you mean by the comment about Singer and mathematics. Does it relate the the post immediately above, or something else?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
ANYHOW, after going over Rob's strategy-which BTW is more detailed than on his former site-I feel much more comfortable with the RTT and the ARTT strategies. For one, I won't have to save up for 2400 credits over a period of time. And these strategies are much more fun and relaxing while still giving a good chance to win in a shorter period of time so I can get outta there.
Interesting use of language by Rob. Technically, he is correct in that he has always "consistently won." I estimate he will win 80% of his sessions. That is, by definition, "consistent winning." Anyone who trains with him should also "win consistently."
Now, will anyone who trains under him generate an overall net win? Not on negative EV machines.
I think Rob is trickier than some people think -- Alan, you should appreciate the subtlety and legal correctness of his claims, while realizing that he hasn't said he will win in any net way, but that he HAS WON (historically) in a net way, which may indeed be true. And he WILL WIN CONSISTENTLY (in the future) but not NET.
Rob's a smart guy.
I understand you guys WANT it to be that winning very consistently with a high Net Win on -EV machines cannot happen, and I understand WHY you want it to be that way. But to me it is a moot point, because I've already done it for over 10 years. And as the only true expert on the strategy, I've also already said that almost everyone who wanted to play it exactly as written will also be a consistent Net Winner.
Where you're stuck is in the untrue and illogical simplified position that says play positive games and you should win, but play negative games and you WILL lose. I'll say it again, you all know you can win on a -EV machine today; then why can't you comprehend that it can happen tomorrow, the next day, and the next day etc. too? When you play vp, you are not taking a math test out of a prepared book. If it were intended to be that way, then we'd all be choosing perfect robots to go into the casinos to play the games for us.
Yeah, and you lived in a 4500 sqft house. We now know that was a lie, so why would anyone believe any of your claims? You are a typical narcissist that psychologically requires people to idolize you, so you make things up. It's all very, every simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Why is it you have a high probability of losing on a negative machine? Why would anyone with any knowledge of math ask such a stupid question? It's called randomness. When dealing with a random distribution of results there will be a bell curve of possible outcomes. The more negative the ER the further that bell curve moves away from a winning result. Also, the more hands that are played the more the bell curve narrows moving more and more results out of winning territory. There is no debate about this from anyone familiar with mathematics. If anyone doubts this go to your local University and ask. Only someone selling a scam would try and fool people into believing it's not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Arc, I have a couple of questions based on your last post. First, you said this:
My first question is just how high is that probability? I am sure it has something to do with the amount of negative return. Well, 8/5 Bonus Poker pays 99.17% doesn't it? Add in 0.25% for free play and cash back and comps so just how negative is that? But even just at 99.17% how negative is that? Heck, it's a damn good "shot" compared to many other bets, and it doesn't seem to be so horrible either.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Let's move on to the next thing you wrote:
I'm not defending Rob here, but even you can concede that in the scheme of themes, he might have been one lucky SOB who was blessed by "random" and made him the million dollar winner on negative games.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Let's move on. Next you said:
Well, this is again what I pointed out before. Bonus Poker at 99.17% really isn't that "negative" in the world of casino games. And Rob preaches not to play so many hands, and to quit when you reach a win goal, and even you concede that he can be ahead at some point, so his system seems to support your thought when you wrote "the more hands that are played the more the bell curve narrows moving more and more results out of winning territory,"doesn't it? Rob's entire strategy seems to be based on not playing so many hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
For an observer it seems that you are spinning all of these mathematical principles and jargon just to say the guy can't win, when in fact even you concede and understand that people can win on negative games. So why don't you just say this:
It's better to play a positive expectation game to have a better chance of winning.
Why can't you say that instead of attacking him for having a system or strategy that just might provide a win when players get lucky and stop playing before they get unlucky?
Oh, I didn't want to get into the argument that people playing positive expectation games can lose -- but we all know that is possible as well.
I know that what Rob says makes you cringe because it "violates the math" but reasonable people can accept that gambling is gambling and anything can happen -- including winning on negative expectation games. Even you say it's possible, but you say it's not probable. Well, make up your mind. In the world of casino gambling, when you sit down at the machine, possible and probable are kind of blurry in definition.
I used the term "random distribution" and there may be a few folks who don't understand what this means. If a machine is truly random then every card has an equal chance of appearing on each and every hand. Over time this means that all cards will appear an equal number of times. As a result of this, we can compute the percentages for certain deals, things like 2 pair, 3 of a kind, 4 to a flush, etc. In addition, we can also compute the percentages for specific draws, things like filling out a quad from holding a pair or 3 of a kind.
Hence, we can determine with a pretty good confidence exactly what kind of results a person will see over time. Then, by applying the pay table values to these hands we can compute an expected return (ER). There is nothing here that takes a lot of insight to understand. It's very similar to coin flips or rolls of dice. There are just more possibilities. Why would anyone expect they will see more tails than heads in an honest coin flip?
So, when Singer claims "you all know you can win on a -EV machine today; then why can't you comprehend that it can happen tomorrow, the next day, and the next day etc. too?", the answer is quite easy. It would require a person getting dealt hands that generate more good paying results every single time. They would need to be dealt more good paying hands like 3 of a kinds, etc. and they would need to fill them out more often than other folks and they would need to do this every time they play. Why would that occur? Just because they leave at some specific time?
Does anyone believe they could flip more tails than heads if they quit at some specific time one day and start flipping again the next day? Why would they flip more tails each and every day? Think about it, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There is simply no way a person can FORCE a machine to deal them better cards or cause a coin to come up tails rather than heads.
So what does this say about a person who claims that it can be done? Either they are stupid or they are intentionally trying to fool people. You can all decide which you want to believe.
I think proof from you in any legitimate form (other than your internet say-so) would be a start. If providing me with your book is a start, I'll gladly peruse it FWIW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Arc, I think all of us understand what "random" means as it applies to video poker games and results. But that doesn't mean you have to be playing forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Don't you agree that someone who decides to quit when showing a gain on the credit meter is more likely to come out ahead on a negative expectation machine than someone who keeps playing the negative expectation game till infinity? Well, Rob preaches to get up from the machine when the credit meter shows it's time to go. I can't fault him for saying that. You do?
I think you are starting to throw arguments at the guy and at what he says just for the sake of arguing. We've heard nothing new from you... or from Rob!!
So you guys don't see eye to eye. We agree. Ho hum.... Don't forget to vote.
No it's not horrible. But, it's not positive either and you often claim that people playing positive games can lose. You are correct but you appear to ignore that it's also possible for someone playing a slightly negative game to lose much more than the ER of the game. It's all a continuum. The better the return the better the chances of coming out ahead. A person playing a positive return game has a better chance of winning than a person playing a slightly negative game has a better chance than someone playing a highly negative game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Yes, as I've stated several time before there's a .03% chance he could be telling the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Yet, he plays year in and year out. I suspect he plays more than I do. Sorry, but while you might have a point for a single year, the longer he plays the less likely it is possible he is telling the truth. The hands keep adding up no matter when they are played.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Once again, I don't attack him for whatever he chooses to play or whatever system he plays. I couldn't care less. I simply point out that it is his claims that are wrong. Just like above where he says there's no reason a person can't win continually playing negative machines. And, his claims that APers all lose. Those claims are what I attack. I've told you this many, many times and yet here you are again misstating my position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
No, they are not "blurry". You do understand that it is "possible" to win power ball, right? You do understand that it is very "improbable", right? According to your statement above it should be easy to win. That is nonsense and you know it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Already voted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You claim you understand randomness and then you make a claim that shows you have no clue. You can't always get ahead in a session. Sometimes you will lose. Life is nothing but one long session and when you come back to play after quitting one session it's nothing but a continuation of your lifetime session. Only a person who quits FOREVER when they are ahead can claim quitting makes a difference.
Arc, I just read your responses. I don't misstate your positions. It's just that there is so much flowing from your keyboard that I can't mention everything everytime I write something.
I just think this whole thing is silly.
So far, no one has given me or shown me the magic bullet that will make me win at video poker. And the bottom line is, no one can. All of you -- Singer, Dancer, Arcimedes, etc -- have good ideas. But whether or not they'll work for me or for anyone else is all left up to chance.
Thank you, Arc. Voting is good. Vote early and vote often. Go ahead, vote again.
Arci-here's the problem with your "math". Math is just a basis for determining odds or expected returns. But reality of gambling is that we are searching for BRIEF deviations. We all know the 7 will come 1 out of 6 rolls. But there are hours, days, or even weeks where the sevens stay away and craps players have some fun. So we try to maximize profits during those runs. The odds are still the same--the math still says the seven will come 1 of 6.
Now let's go to your coin flip. 50-50. But let's do a series of 100 flips 100 times. How many times do you think the result will be 50-50? I'm sure you can even tell me accurately, with a standard deviation, how many times that will happen or what the odds are of 53-47, or 45-55, or whatever. But the facts are only a few will wind up 50-50. And therein lies the fallacy (for lack of a better term) of a system that only looks at the math unless millions of hands or flips or rolls are made.And please note I didn't say fallacy of the math--so don't go off on me on the math--no one here has ever questioned math. I said a system based solely on math.
You keep saying that Rob's special plays, because they are not mathematically correct, will cost him extra spins in the long run, and that is true. But as I've stated several times before, most of us play until a certain time on the clock or until we have hit a big win--we are not there forever and we will never see those extra spins (which by the way still have the same minimal chance to produce the big win that Rob is looking for to hit his win goal). So if a special play is used to try for the big win, it may cost 3/100ths of a spin and so 10 hours later of play, a whole spin. i would rather be home in bed with the big win or having reached my set time to leave than stay there pounding away because the math says in a billion spins I'll PROBABLY make a few bucks.
And by the way, my bookeeper here in the office has proven that 2 + 2=5 for years now!!!
Ho-hum....as I've already said, no matter how logical your argument, you're just feeding the troll and playing into the hands of someone who so desperately needs something to help occupy his time when you try to get thru to him. And don't for one second think that you haven't--and long ago at that. Remember where he's coming from....as a so-called vp "expert" who, like me when I was a foolish AP, could not and did not win. So it stands to reason how irritated and argumentative such a player would be when reading about how another AP woke up before he did and found great success doing something on his own. How frustrating it must be to someone so invested in the math to see another utilize math ALONG WITH the common sense side of gambling, actually do what he never could. And as if from a cruel tale, the successful person has a varied and enjoyable set of declining years whilst he has seen better days gone by in a great big puff.
So goes what goes around comes around in this life.....
I think we should all believe Rob because he says so.
Math is an illusion, after all. Just numbers. Human skill and ingenuity can overcome numbers all the time.
Just ask Caesars'.
Redietz you and Arc and everyone else who stands by the math are absolutely correct: you can't overcome the math over the long term. Every video poker book, video, website, primer, strategy card says the same thing. Specifically they say that based on the paytable, "over the long term with expert play" you will have XXX return on XXX game.
I agree with that. So does Rob Singer. In fact, Rob Singer admits he went into bankruptcy trying to fight that "long term math." So Rob started to play the way Grandmas and poor people play -- when they hit a winner they quit and run off to the buffet with their bucket. Except Rob wasn't playing with a bucket full of coins when he decided to quit and run after a win because he started with a bankroll of $50,000+ and he was willing to go all the way up to $100/coin machines to hit his win goal (as crazy as that seems to be to me).
Rob is merely restating what "recreational players" and "grandmas" have known for a long, long time: the casinos didn't get built with machines that could be beaten, or with any games that could be beaten. So when you get lucky, you take the money and run.
Hopefully, you will be able to take the money and run more often than you go bust. Rob tells us that system has worked for him. I also think that system might also work for me because if my memory is not selective and is accurate, I've been ahead at some point during my play more often than all the times I busted out. And maybe if I quit when I was ahead I would be showing a profit today for my casino play instead of losses.
The math says all of us will lose... except for Arcimede$ who has a magical one-eyed-jack game to play plus promotions and incentives the rest of us probably will never see for the rest of our lives. So Arc is lucky in a different way. Heaven gave him an edge playing video poker so he can continue to play his way.
The rest of us have to play like grandmas and poor people. When we see the money show up on the credit meter, we take the money and run or else we hope that as a consolation prize the next casino tower will be named after us.
By the way, did I tell you that my middle name is Octavius??
Edited to add:
Ironically if we were having a discussion about craps I would be saying the same thing as you, redietz and as Arc. I would be saying you can't beat the game of craps because the math won't let you. The casino has the edge on every play of the game. I would say and I do say, you can't beat the game of craps using any system or formula. But there are two ways to win at craps:
1. you can influence the dice and change the distribution of random results of two dice.
2. you can quit after a positive run, and return to the table when you hope to catch another run.
In craps the dealers and pros (including me) will tell you craps is an unbeatable game -- and the math says so. Yet many of us try hoping that lightning will strike or that some magician who can influence or control the dice will perform as rehearsed.
Such is casino gambling.
This could just possibly be your most informative post ever. So please, let us indeed add it up using the math:Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
1. I have created, with a combination of math and a master dose of that ingenuity, a methodology of beating the irreproachable mathematical edge held by the casinos over every gambler who challenges them.
2. That 4-team NFL parley bet I made up here in N. Nevada last winter--no casino would have ever expected I'd have won such a gamble, yet with a combination of football knowledge, common sense, & more of that ingenuity, I showed just what the human mind is capable of when the mathematical odds say something entirely different.
3. There is no way I wanted Obama to win re-election today, and the country was probably evenly split, as extraordinarily confusing as that may sound given this president's poor economic record, constant lying, and bevy of broken promises....yet that little voice in the back of my head kept telling me that it is a vastly different world than the one in which I was brought up, and more and more people feel that the Government should be taking care of them. My ingenuity recognized this, and tomorrow I'll be collecting on that bet too.
So you see redietz, life and the ability to prevail is based on more than just numbers and pure math. Yet so many people, AP's among them, continuously fall into the traps set by "the other sides" where they talk themselves into thinking they can beat that other side at their own game. But as they all soon discover, only ingenuity and human motivation & abilities can do what they wish they could do.
So, where are those papers you promised last month showing everyone the mathematical basis for your system? Did the dog eat them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Of course, as I predicted they have not materialized ... and they won't. They don't exist and all of your claims are nothing but lies. But hey, thanks for proving me right one more time.
Let's see if I understand this, despite losing overall at NFL bets you are claiming that one single day makes you smart? Bwah haha haha haha hahaQuote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
And, I also thought Obama was going to win based on the impetus he received from not quite Hurricane Sandy. And yes, I mentioned it to some friends. Of course, all the polls showed the jump as well making neither one of us very prophetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Where is that supporting evidence again, where is that 4500 sqft house, where is any evidence whatsoever that you won anything?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Yessiree, you done proved to everyone how you outsmarted those dumb casinos.
Not according to his own words just below as once again he claims AP's can't win. Sorry Alan but Singer is making a fool out of you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Yes, Alan ... and he also owns a 4500 sqft imaginary house. Have you always been this gullible?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Yes they did, but there were only a few games and it took knowledge/skill to take advantage of it. I have no idea why you would choose to include information like this that is factually incorrect. You only make yourself look foolish. It's almost like you think casinos don't remove people who pose a threat when even you have been asked to leave. Is your memory failing you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You mean like leaving with $2200 instead of $12,000? I think you might have some memory problems ... but you certainly have little to no logical capabilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
It has nothing to do with luck. It is just the application of simple mathematics and, unlike your claims above, these opportunities exist in more places than you think. You are just not motivated to find them. You are more than willing to lose money playing negative games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
We'd all like to hit the big wins. However, just because you try for the big hit does not mean you will hit it. And, in many cases the credits you lose going for the big win gives you fewer opportunities where you might have a better chance of hitting that big win. So, the truth is you are only cheating yourself and then telling the world how you think that is smart. Amazing.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
PS. You should nominate your bookie for a Nobel prize.
The "math" is like a prison-enchaining you to restricted thinking where there's only one "logical" way to do anything. The concepts contained in Rob's strategies allow freedom of thinking-like thinking "outside the box." Freedom like this cuts through the boredom, freshens the thinking process, keeps one mentally alert, and gives one sense of achievement. Just my thoughts.
Yes, the exact "thinking" that has made casinos billions. The idea that using popular phrases somehow changes the facts is about as silly as it gets. You can think outside the box all you want. In this case the box is air tight. All you will do is suffocate.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
Here's another box, only jump out of an airplane with a parachute. So, go ahead, think outside the box.
Exactly. Going for the big hit and bypassing even a push will be costly in most cases. Those pushes keep you in the seat for another spin. THAT next spin could be a winner (or even the elusive royal). Certain situations dictate going for the whole enchilada (such as being dealt a FH in DDB with 3 aces), but unstructured "special plays" are fraught with failure.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$