Discussing Rob Singers Systems

I'd like to isolate the discussions about Rob Singer's systems to this thread. I think it is worthy of its own thread and will keep the discussion easier to follow.

I first interviewed Rob about his special plays and his believe about video poker machines not being random. At the time I had no idea about his RTT and ARTT systems for changing games and denominations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Alan, the primary denominations I use these days for RTT & ARTT are five-level 25c/50c/$1/$2/$5. You would do very well on either of these, and they are a lot more interesting to play than just pounding away. And while SPS was played by me at very hi denominations, it can be adjusted downward to make it compatible with anyone. But it is much more complex than either of the strategies I mentioned above. I can make a consistent winner out of anyone who has an excellent aptitude for the game.

---

I do believe that if you do have a large bankroll that you can chase your losses and move up in denomination to eventually hit a big win that will wipe out previous losses and give you a profit. I don't believe, however, that most casino visitors or casual players or recreational players, can afford to do this.

The following is for Rob, responding to various comments he made in another thread reacting to my criticism of this strategy:

Actually Rob, you have to take a step back and realize you are also an "AP" but its the Singer AP system that you're talking about. And I think you're crazy using a $173,000 bankroll and willing to chase losses to the tune of $53,000 just to have a win goal of $2500.

I think recreational players, who have a set bankroll, should play the best available pay tables, take their wins or cut their losses, and at the same time take advantage of all of the casino comps and slot club promotions, they can. I think they will have a more enjoyable time than playing your way.

But you and your followers are free to do whatever you like because it's your money.

Just believe me, I am very happy and content not chasing losses -- playing the amount that is comfortable -- and enjoying the wins when they come and not worrying about losing too much and having to move up to higher denominations to break even after digging myself into a hole.

And I think that's what you are suggesting: if you don't win big at smaller denominations, just move up in denomination to play catch up. I don't think that's how I want to enjoy a visit to a casino. I don't want that pressure when I play.

It's hardly pressure of any kind when you have the proper bankroll and follow a pre-determined strategy to the letter. Plus with a method that's been winning around 80%-85% of the time, going in knowing its history make playing it enormous fun.

You use "chasing losses by going up in denomination" the same flawed way critics have always claimed I use a "Martingale system". The strategy wasn't developed to chase losses, just as the strategy has zero relationship with the Martingale system. It was developed to systematically collect multiple small to large winners en route to attaining a minimum win goal.

I never mentioned Martingale, but your system does depend on moving up in denomination to make up for previous losses and to reach a win goal.

It has been mathematically proven that Singer's system provides no benefit. This has nothing to do with ideas or theories, it is a complete mathematical proof. Anyone who claims that people will do better using a negative progression like Singer's are lying. No ifs, ands, or buts.

I wouldn't call it a lie. I would just say I don't understand it?

To me, every hand you play involves luck, and the "luck factor" doesn't change if you are at a 25-cent denomination or a $25 denomination.

Now, the $2 level is my "comfort level" when there isn't significant free play involved. When there is a significant amount of free play I try at the $5 level. But I've also dropped back to the 25-cent (even have two royals this year at 25-cents) when I don't want to risk more than $40. (Both royals were hit with $40 in the the machine.)

Because all hands are random, there is a chance you might get all of your wins at lower levels and nothing to bank. And because all hands are random, you could keep on losing to the point where you dump $53,000 chasing. So I can't understand how anyone can follow any prescribed system for play -- which is why I think the best strategy is to play at your comfort level and leave it at that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I never mentioned Martingale, but your system does depend on moving up in denomination to make up for previous losses and to reach a win goal.

---

You also go DOWN in ARTT and restart-there is no continuous increase in denomination. Last week, while going down in denom, I missed on nickels but was dealt 4 A's on 10 cent BP. Not exactly what I wanted, but it was a win. It is fun to play, and sometimes the wins happen at the top denom. Who needs a big bankroll? It's $300 when quarters are the top denom, $600 for 50 cents, etc. And that's for playing 3 full sessions. Sometimes the big win happens the first session. For you guys with the dough, it's $6000 for $5 as the top denoms for 3 full sessions. So where's the $150+k that everyone's so hung up on?

Thanks for the comments, slingshot. What is your win goal playing with a $300 bankroll? And what does it cost you to travel to the casino for this session?

I haven't seen a 5-cent or 10-cent video poker machine in at least ten years.

The $173-thousand dollar bankroll figure comes from Rob. Perhaps he would like to clarify what the $173,000 bankroll is supposed to help follower's accomplish?

First Alan, I know you don't understand the strategy. Arci of course doesn't either, based on his continuing comments. But sling does...or at least he has a better handle on it than our resident "tested genius". And that's always been the problem with people taking swings at it with blindfolds on. They may not like it, they certainly cannot figure it out, so instead of becoming educated on it they choose to take the easy way out.

You continue to be fascinated with the large numbers part of SPS. You will never comprehend anything if you can't escape that. It's $171,600, but the important part is it's 3X a session bankroll--which is required to make it thru the times when two sessions are lost in a row, which never happened to me . Why do you keep saying there's a loss of $53000 by "chasing losses"? First, I've said many times that the largest loss in over 300 sessions was about $33k. ONE TIME. It takes bankroll to win money. Without the strategy and the bankroll, which gave me the ability to dig out of many holes, I would not have won so consistently. Adequate bankroll is how professionals play. You are not a pro and you don't really care if you lose. I care and always have, and unless & until you do start caring to the point that it motivates you to do your absolute best, this will never begin to make sense to you. Like I said, Frank, with all that intellect, couldn't handle it once I started explaining it in detail and practically begged him to let me show him how it worked on actual machines. So unless you truly want to discuss it more with the intention of understanding it in its entirety, we'll get next to nowhere.

I recall you discussing a loss of $53,000 in one session. But if you admit to losing $33,000 which is about 20% of your total bankroll and one-third of your average annual income when you won a million dollars, I am not going to debate it any more because that alone raises doubts about the efficiency of your system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Thanks for the comments, slingshot. What is your win goal playing with a $300 bankroll? And what does it cost you to travel to the casino for this session?

I haven't seen a 5-cent or 10-cent video poker machine in at least ten years.

The $173-thousand dollar bankroll figure comes from Rob. Perhaps he would like to clarify what the $173,000 bankroll is supposed to help follower's accomplish?

---

If I use the big van, it's $20 back and forth for gas-the car about $10. I wait till thursdays when I receive $20-25 free play from the casino. I head for the nickel machines which have 5-25 credit bets and start there. I have to mentally keep track with the dollar amount to play it once through. I have a $5-$10 win goal, depending on how the machine spits out the two pairs. My best session was, of course, a royal on ddbp and my most discouraging was starting and on the first hand at nickels receiving 4-5's. If the machine I happen to be on starts filling the flushes,straights, and full houses regularly, I play the full $100 on the session, which part is already free play. I hit 4 A's w/kicker on my most memorable one. Usually, it's just a smaller quad. On the 4 A's on BP I was referring to, the 2 pairs were quite regular-but I didn't feel I had enough time to decide on the hot or cold cycle or I would have bumped it to 25 credits for the rest of the game. I like it because you have to THINK and this keeps you mentally awake. Just recently, I have noted that whenever these machines are horrid, it's best to go home because it seems like the whole casino atmosphere is in the "take" mode. Don't know how to explain that, but if I have to fight to get a small quad, it's best to get outta there. Forgot to mention, I usually only play $100 of the $300 because if the machine is in what I consider a cold cycle, I switch machines and begin the strategy again, and there's only 3 of these machines. Now I don't wish to start anything-that's just my way of playing.

That's very interesting, slingshot. You covered it.

Just curious about your win goal. Do you ever raise your win goal to keep playing when you do hit something that takes you above your $10 goal? For example, a few winning combinations give you a $20 profit, do you know decide to risk another $5 (giving you a net profit of $15) or do you call it quits?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I recall you discussing a loss of $53,000 in one session. But if you admit to losing $33,000 which is about 20% of your total bankroll and one-third of your average annual income when you won a million dollars, I am not going to debate it any more because that alone raises doubts about the efficiency of your system.

---

No it was $33k which was my largest ever session loss. I've not lost $53k so that must be a mistake. $33k was a big loss for me, but $94k and $36k and $28k and $41k etc. were large WINS for me. I'm wondering why you don't put THOSE numbers into the same perspective. And again, none of those wins would have come to be without the large bankroll. So if you can ever get your sole focus off of the $33k loss--which was fully expeted to happen at least once along the way and at an even higher amount--you might begin to understand this better. Remember, this was not something I tried "on the fly" hoping it would work. It took two years to develop and has mathematically proven out prior for SHORT-TERM PLAY...and it has proven out at the machines in an even better fashion in over 10 years & 300+ sessions of actual play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

No it was $33k which was my largest ever session loss. I've not lost $53k so that must be a mistake. $33k was a big loss for me, but $94k and $36k and $28k and $41k etc. were large WINS for me. I'm wondering why you don't put THOSE numbers into the same perspective.

---

You ask why I don't put those big wins into the same perspective? Gee, Rob, do you realize you're sounding just like an advantage player? The same guys you comdemn!
I look at all casino gambling this way: every bet is money lost. There is no such thing as an expected win or a guaranteed win.

Now, I have to add Rob Singer to those who believe in "expected wins" and guaranteed wins.

This is why I look at casino gambling as entertainment -- not as an income producing venture.

Take a step back, Rob, you are really just like the APs only you preach "Singer Advantage Play" and not "conventional advantage play."

Believe it or not, Alan, there are people who have beaten the casinos. You seem to have a real problem with that. There is such a thing as an "expected win." Of course there is -- that's what sitting down at a table with the proper shoe count provides. There are no guaranteed winning sessions, but when you do the math, if your edge is sufficient, and your volume is sufficient, the odds of losing become very, very small.

You look at casino gambling as entertainment. Good for you. I don't. Arci doesn't. Rob doesn't. Dancer doesn't. You seem to want to promote casino entertainment. We don't find it terribly entertaining if we lose. We're out to slash and burn and bury them. That's our entertainment. And a very, very small percentage of us have actually done it and can do it going forward.

Do you have problems accepting the fact that people actually do win versus the house? You seem to think it's a myth of some kind.

Just to be factual ... a Martingale system also goes down in bets. As soon as the previous losses are recaptured by a winning hand the person starts again at the base bet. Oh yeah, just like Singer.

In addition, you can win more than your current bet in games like BJ by hitting a BJ. Oh yeah, just like Singer.

There is little new in Singer's system. It is truly a Martingale derivative. All Singer has done is put a little lipstick on the pig.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Just to be factual ... a Martingale system also goes down in bets. As soon as the previous losses are recaptured by a winning hand the person starts again at the base bet. Oh yeah, just like Singer.

In addition, you can win more than your current bet in games like BJ by hitting a BJ. Oh yeah, just like Singer.

There is little new in Singer's system. It is truly a Martingale derivative. All Singer has done is put a little lipstick on the pig.

---

Just gotta know. Why do you twist and pervert everything? Martingale KEEPS going up without a limit on the denomination if you're losing. ARTT and RTT have a certain number of denominations (4, 5, 6) to advance and a certain number of credits to play. The more I play these, the more PURE GENIUS I think they are. Not only that, the various win goals and deviations from "normal" play make it the most versatile strategy ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

That's very interesting, slingshot. You covered it.

Just curious about your win goal. Do you ever raise your win goal to keep playing when you do hit something that takes you above your $10 goal? For example, a few winning combinations give you a $20 profit, do you know decide to risk another $5 (giving you a net profit of $15) or do you call it quits?

---

I would be less than honest if I said I didn't louse things up by trying to be greedy. It's my biggest battle.
Almost forgot-yes, there are sessions where the win goal is the only consolation. Then, there are the times when the big wins come. That's the nature of the strategy and it takes patience-in the meantime, you simply add the small wins up until the good one comes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slingshot

Just gotta know. Why do you twist and pervert everything? Martingale KEEPS going up without a limit on the denomination if you're losing. ARTT and RTT have a certain number of denominations (4, 5, 6) to advance and a certain number of credits to play. The more I play these, the more PURE GENIUS I think they are. Not only that, the various win goals and deviations from "normal" play make it the most versatile strategy ever.

---

If there was no limit to continued increases in bets then a person with infinite wealth would always win using Martingale techniques. The problem with Martingale systems is you cannot keep increasing your bets due to either limited bankroll or house limits. Did you not know this was one of the main reasons behind limits on BJ tables?

Before gracing us with more of your silly nonsense you may want to educate yourself. It's no wonder you accept Singer's claims based on your comments.

So, tell us ... what is your profit from using the various Singer systems? Surely you must be way ahead using "the most versatile strategy ever".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Do you have problems accepting the fact that people actually do win versus the house? You seem to think it's a myth of some kind.

---

When and where did I ever say winning is a myth? I said you should expect to lose.

There is no such thing as an "expected win." There is a mathematical and theoretical expected return in casino games, but there is no "expected win." You cannot expect to win. You may win, but you can't expect to win. Unless the games aren't random???

Arci-for an otherwise intelligent man, you come off a boob every time you call Singer's system a Martingale. There is a very big difference--in the Martingale your win is only your initial bet--or, giving you your Blackjack--slightly more if you hit the BJ.

In Singer's system, there are small wins but there are huge wins at the higher level--way more than the initial bet and way more than the BJ. So please, drop the Martingale comparisons and stick to your strengths--the math--the math.

There are other reasons to attack his system, and you have certainly done so to excess, but please drop the martingale.