Evaluating Rob Singer's System

A lot has been written on the LVA Forum and here about Frank Kneeland's "evaluation" of Rob Singer's video poker system. A lot has been written by critics of Rob, by Frank, by me and by others who may or may not have a "side" already taken.

So far all the talk and crosstalk has been about the psychology of gambling, the perception of how we see things, cognitive disorders, math theory, video poker strategy, casino strategy to take our money, gaming history, and a host of other topics.

But so far what is missing is someone asking and telling us how Rob Singer won (net profit) nearly a million dollars over ten years playing video poker.

That's the evaluation I want to see.

If it was luck, then tell me it's luck. It if is his bankroll management, then tell me that. If it is because he quits each session after reaching a win goal, then tell me that. If it is because he mostly plays "full pay" machines with the best pay tables, then tell me that. If it is because his "special plays" can sometimes hit then tell me that.

And if it is all a lie, then tell me that.

I want to see an evaluation of Rob Singer's System when I look at an evaluation of Rob Singer's system. I really don't care if his system violates principles of psychology or principles of math.

The guy took a million dollars to the bank. What I want to know is can I do it too?

Probably not.

People make short term killings all the time. I can recommend some good probability DVDs, if you like. One thing I learned is that random walks are much more random that what my mortal perceptions and expectations feel they should be. Even 10,000 trials of something can yield some very unusual results. And because Singer's method goes to high stakes, the variance goes way up. It is, indeed, short-term.

I'm banned from LVA, so feel free to paste and post this to get feedback.

Here's something (I was a journalism major at one point) we can both relate to. Consider that there may have been 100 Rob Singers out there, all using his method. After a fair number of years, 99 of them have lost. We are left with the one who won. Now Rob truthfully reports that he's won, and he truthfully reports how he's won. But does the fact that he won validate his method? Should you emulate the 1 in 99 Rob Singers who won?

The problem is a reporting bias. The 99 Rob Singers who lost are not in public view, they are not successful, they are not posting on internet boards explaining their success. Academic journals like to publish positive (or negative) results. They don't like non-results, as in nothing happened. So there's a reporting bias built in to what articles appear. This looks very much like a reporting bias.

Having said that, I feel 95% of vp players may benefit from aspects of Rob's method, especially as it relates to discipline and locus of control. And this could spill over into other aspects of their lives, as Rob has said.

If there were 100 RS's out there, at least 90% of them would be winning around the same as I have. I see on LVA the morons are saying how super super complicated I made the strategy so I could "con" others into handing over their points or money or whatever to me during training sessions. None of that's ever happened, but don'tell arci or he'll have to quickly make something else up!

Alan, I wouldn't't count on Frank ever getting to know anything about my play strategy, because he knows it can't be proven out mathematically, he only operates on theories, and past experience has no meaning to him in ANY facet of life. So what's the point to whatever he's doing? All I can guess is he's getting something out of it somewhere somehow in addition to the massive amounts of forum attention in more RS record-setting threads, and he loves to psycho-analyze others. I'm the flavor of the decade in video poker, so he's going for the gold.

I did offer to play my strategy with him present on 1c/2c/5c/10c/25c/$1--which is exactly 100x less than how I played professionally (& the win goal would be $25/session with a bankroll of $572) but for some reason he didn't want to. Then he said we could do it on some trainer but that was never brought up again.

I read where he's looking at writing a small book on me. Good thing he's not doing it on the real me (Argentino). Now THAT book would go well into the tens of thousands.

How much time has he spent talking to you about your "method" or "system" of play? How "deep" did your discussion get? Using what information is he making his "evaluation" or analysis? Can he make an evaluation without actually watching you play to see when you make your "special plays" or when you bank wins or move up in denomination, or can it all be determined by discussion? In other words, are you getting a fair evaluation?

Personally, I am amazed how certain posters on the LVA Forum continue to bring up the same incorrect information, and Internet rumor, and quote it as "fact."

It's really sad. Do these people also vote for president and congress? LOL

No time at all discussing the strategy. He did spend a lot of time on the special plays, but most of it was him trying to convince me that they are worthless since they are -ev plays. He of course got nowhere with that because I have experience with their success and I know a lot more about them and when to use them than he or anyone else.

The more I think about it the more I believe these AP's really do fear actually seeing my strategy in action. Look at how the AP crowd from LVA made fools of themselves in my famous published challanges in Gaming Today. We know arcimedes ran away at the last minute several times, but that was because he has no real money and he's all about lying on the Internet. And even the revered Wizard of Odds Mike Shackleford and several of his math hack genius friends on his forum, refused to accept my challenge of witnessed play. These of course were all at my original strategy denominations. Their only reason has to be not wanting their sacred "by the math only" theoretical worlds to come tumbling down before their very eyes in the face of reality. I really don't know what will come of a report about me without the famous strategy being detailed, examined, and played.

A few points to add now that I've had the chance to read the latest never-ending thread about me on LVA :)

You see how my RS-obsessed friend arcimedes has finally read my strategy now that it's right before his eyes, and he was forced to if he wanted to make up more lies about me that he thinks anyone there cares about. You also see how he now portrays himself as the forum expert on it in my absence--only all he really does is lie about & misrepresent it, probably because of how much he dislikes me (edited by moderator). And of course, it REALLY doesn't help when he has to read about how happy & healthy my wife is as we thoroughly enjoy early retirement years while he's faced with daily misery and having to sneak out to casinos every week for something to do.

However, that boredom allows him all kinds of time to pretend he knows SPS. He does understand the concept, but notice how in every example & post how he always presents the most improbable outcome in order to claim a win is hopeless. On $10 SDBP for example, he claims how a $2500 quad won't do much or get me to a lower level, but doesn't want anyone to think about the J's, K's, or Q's ($6000), 2's, 3's, or 4's ($4000), the SF ($4000), Aces ($8000), or the $40,000 Royal--of which I've had 4.

Alan, there are some special plays that I make whenever they appear and some only at certain "stuck" points in the strategy. But you are correct about arci's lie in that they do not and have not caused losing and they in fact have led to over $200,000 in profit--about half of it of course on that $25 RF--a direct result of a variable special play.

Btw, yesterday in the mail I got an offer from South Point of all places. I used to play there often and I've had more than my share of good luck there (like when playing $25 TBP+ and dealt 3s5s6s I drew the 2s4s for $12,500. But I haven't even been in there in well over a year and I stopped playing heavy long before that. Yet the offer was in letter form from a host I've never had contact with, and it was for a dinner for two @ Michaels plus $2000 in freeplay. Wynn also sent me 2 nights in a Tower suite, so we're going in Dec. - staying there and going to the movies at SP.

As I've mentioned on a number of occasions, one of the side benefits of using the Singer method with its bouncing big progressions is that, when tracked, you appear to be impulsive and a bit of a whacko. Your profile will therefore lead to better offers and comps than the same coin-in played a different way. You clearly do not profile as an advantage player, so the offers will cater to you.

Probably true, becaue I get offers even the two-million-hands-a-year crowd act jealous of. But when I began playing my strategy I already expected I'd be getting overly lucrative because I know how casino marketing dept. computers react to even a little play at the highest levels.

Redietz, your comment to my original post above when I asked if I can win a million dollars too playing like Rob was "Probably not. People make short term killings all the time."

Is ten years of play a short term killing? Does a combination of short term killings (individual sessions) validate Rob's "win goal strategy"?

Seems like this is the same circular argument, doesn't it?

Rob: yes, you are correct about how some, limited, play at high level machines will prompt big offers from marketing departments. Harrahs is famous for using this, and many players discovered that when they went to the high limit slots and bet one or two coins at the $100 level that the Harrahs computer marked them as "high rollers that were lost to a diversion." These potential high rollers or big fish were then targeted for more generous offers to get them back.

If you did play at the higher levels just a few times you very well could have been marked for these "get em back" promotions.

I'm not a math whiz, but it seems to me that when you upscale the betting, the results of the highest denomination hands outweigh the lower denoms by such a large margin that the number of hands played as a total is largely irrelevant. What matters is the number played (and the results) at the high denoms. Since these are relatively few in number, the game comes down to these (relatively few in number) results. High variance.

My strategy made a point of having the last two progression ratios be greater than 2:1--esp. the final one. While the greatest % of money was made at the $10 level, for the amount of play on $25 and even a lot less overall play was done on the $100 games, just as expected, they generated the highest rate of profit proportionately.