An Open email to me about Rob Singer and the debate on this and the LVA Forums

What is the relevance your question about the percentage of session wins Arcimede$?

I know someone who lost and lost and lost gambling at casinos, until one day he bet $2 on a $1 Wheel of Fortune slot and hit for $4+ million.

Arc, you yourself said you win only 30% of your sessions and you claim to have a long term net win. And I would venture a guess that had I quit at the moment when I was ahead in each session play, I could claim a 100% session win rate... but few of us know when the wins will stop coming so we keep playing till we lose more sessions than we do win.

So the bottom line for me is that saying you've won 70% of your sessions is just as believable as saying you only won one session out of 400 or 30% of your sessions. I'm more interested in the bottom line.

And from Rob's "system" it seems to me we would all have better bottom lines if we set a win goal and stuck to it.

Now, regarding the claim of winning 70% of the higher denomination sessions let me mention this: hitting quads once on a $25 machine goes a long way to wiping out all of the losses you've had playing $1 and $5 video poker. And I've never read anything that says you are less likely to hit quads on higher denomination machines.

With that said, I can easily understand how someone like Singer could move up to a $25, score one big hit that wipes out his previous losses for that session and score his win goal of $2500 -- and leave. Remember, Rob is playing games that can deliver 600 coins for a quad. So let him break up one full house to get one quad paying 600 $25 coins and he scores quite a nice payoff.

Alan, try to understand this point. Singer states that in one out of four times his lucky big winner ends his session (obviously because he has reached his win goal). He also states that the big winners come infrequently. What's infrequent about one out of 4 times? If this were true, why doesn't he make his special plays way way way more often than he does? He stated he uses 95% of correct math play. That makes no sense, he's way more succesful on taking the long shots at high denominations. He should start taking the long shots from the get go...........especially because they seem to bring him succes every one out of four times. And his main goal is to reach his win goal. He could do it every time within a few hands with the amount of luck he claims to have. It is a statistical "world wonder" to hit these big winners every one out of four times. That's the issue, whatever other argument you or Singer might want to bring to the table.

"What is the relevance your question about the percentage of session wins Arcimede$? "

The relevance is simple. No one wins 70% of their sessions. So, without any doubt you know the person is lying if they claim to win 70%. If they are lying about one thing then you can pretty much assume anything else they say is questionable.

Remember we're not talking about the entire progression. We are talking about one denomination. That is equivalent to any normal session played by you, me or anyone. Also, he cannot be just slightly ahead, he would have to recoup all of his previous losses. And, as he progresses through the session, it includes everything lost up until that point in the session being played.

If you can't understand how ridiculous such a claim is then it's not surprising you will believe the rest of the nonsense Singer spreads. Think about your own experiences, that should tell you what he claims is impossible.

"Now, regarding the claim of winning 70% of the higher denomination sessions let me mention this: hitting quads once on a $25 machine goes a long way to wiping out all of the losses you've had playing $1 and $5 video poker. And I've never read anything that says you are less likely to hit quads on higher denomination machines."

No, not less likely, but not more likely either. I would venture he'd hit a quad about once every 3 sessions ... and some of those would be at the end of that level and would not recoup previous losses so he'd need another quad to claim a win. That's why the 70% number is ridiculous.

Just to add to my point. A single level in SPS is 400 coins. That's 80 hands plus whatever winners are generated. However, he pulls out wins for FHs so those don't help. He's running at a return of 60-70%. That would mean about 150-200 hands. A quad hits no better than once in every 400 hands and that requires tossing all the two pair which would then reduce the total number of hands played substantially.

This is nothing but the application of simple logic.

Vegas_Lover you're asking me to answer for Singer, and I can't. He has to answer your questions. But let's make a couple of assumptions or observations:

1. Refer to Special Play #13 where he broke up three queens to get a $100,000 royal. He said he's been presented that choice only twice in his life playing video poker. He chose to take the long shot once and hit the royal. And he took the "shot" because he needed a royal or else he never would have climbed out of his hole. OK, he got lucky after a lot of bad luck. That's what it was.

2. If he plays solid math 95% of the time does he really need to make many of his "special plays"? Couldn't he also reach his win goal of $2500 and leave without having to take the long shots? I think there is a good chance of him doing that especially for a player who says most of his action is at the $10/coin level.

3. His "special plays" are particular, calculated long shots that he doesn't use every day of the week -- as he explained it to me -- but only when he needs a long shot to come from behind when the accepted math that is mostly used hasn't gone his way. We all take a long shot once in a while, except for the most devoted of video poker players who accept what Singer calls the grind. I admit to the time I broke up a full house with three aces playing 8/5 Bonus -- and even that's a long shot Singer wouldn't make!!

4. I think Singer's "special plays" are more of a guideline of what are acceptable long shots, as opposed to a Bible of long shots that a player must take. What he still hasn't discussed is when he takes the long shots though he has indicated that it's when he is in a hole and must wipe out previous losses and reach a win goal.

The bottom line, as I see it, is that his "strategy" is not as outrageous or "criminal" as you "math guys" make it out to be.

As I wrote on that other forum... it's like a craps bettor who normally bets the inside numbers who will bet a horn on a hunch or after a shooter has thrown a horn. Sometimes long shots win.

1. Refer to Special Play #13 where he broke up three queens to get a $100,000 royal. He said he's been presented that choice only twice in his life playing video poker. He chose to take the long shot once and hit the royal. And he took the "shot" because he needed a royal or else he never would have climbed out of his hole. OK, he got lucky after a lot of bad luck. That's what it was.

Alan, you're sounding like a groupy!!! In my last post I already told you Singer is claiming that one out of four times he hits a big winner to wipe out his losses. That's 25%!!!!!!!!! With his math, we're not talking about long shots. This is the last time I will repeat this because if you do not WANT to understand any of this, there is no reason explaining any of this in words even a 16 year old high school kid should understand.

2. If he plays solid math 95% of the time does he really need to make many of his "special plays"? Couldn't he also reach his win goal of $2500 and leave without having to take the long shots? I think there is a good chance of him doing that especially for a player who says most of his action is at the $10/coin level.

He needs to play his special plays alot!!! You know why?? Because perfect play only brings you results IN THE LONG RUN. No short term succes is guaranteed when playing math play. Singer goes for the short time succes so he has no other choice than play his special plays often because most of the time he will behind as well. Now, for somebody who has put so much time into his system you do appear not to understand any of it. That surprises me big time because it isn't all that difficult as Mr. Singer wants us all to believe.

3. His "special plays" are particular, calculated long shots that he doesn't use every day of the week -- as he explained it to me -- but only when he needs a long shot to come from behind when the accepted math that is mostly used hasn't gone his way. We all take a long shot once in a while, except for the most devoted of video poker players who accept what Singer calls the grind. I admit to the time I broke up a full house with three aces playing 8/5 Bonus -- and even that's a long shot Singer wouldn't make!!

Yes we all take a long shot once in a while. But 99% percent of the times, that long shot doesn't pay out for us regular folks. What kind of magic powers does Mr. Singer have that make the long shots work for him every one out of four times? And as arci will confirm, AP-ers have more losing sessions than winning sessions. But the wins, in the long run, are big enough to erase the losses. Please read this again: IN THE LONG RUN. Since AP-ers will have losing sessions on a regular basis, Singer has to apply his "special plays" alot since he claims to be an AP-er 95% of the time. I truly hope you get and fully understand this....

4. I think Singer's "special plays" are more of a guideline of what are acceptable long shots, as opposed to a Bible of long shots that a player must take. What he still hasn't discussed is when he takes the long shots though he has indicated that it's when he is in a hole and must wipe out previous losses and reach a win goal.

Yes, he applies them when he is in a hole...........Think about this for a second.............And when he is in a hole, he makes his "special plays" (long shots) and he ends up hitting that long shot every 1 out of 4 times. THAT IS STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, ESPECIALLY FOR A PERIOD OF 10 YEARS. The chances are so small, you couldn't even see them through a microscope.....

The bottom line, as I see it, is that his "strategy" is not as outrageous or "criminal" as you "math guys" make it out to be.

The bottem line is, Alan, sorry for being rude, is that you have no clue of what you are talking about. To be honoust, I'm not even a math guy in the way you look at playing machines. I have a bachelor degree in math and statistics but I play slots. I don't even play table games or VP. I don't care about the math, I only take long hots while in a casino. I either lose, break even or win, just like the rest of us. When playing a slotmachine, I'm not interested in math. If I was, I would be playing VP because that's where the best paytables are. I play for fun, relaxation and the small chance of hitting a nice win...


Sometimes long shots win.

You are absolutely right about that. But one out of four times doesn't qualify as sometimes........Not in any language you're saying it.

Singer is going to have to respond to what you wrote, Vegas_lover.

But I just have to comment on this that you wrote: "perfect play only brings you results IN THE LONG RUN." Wow, if that's the case, why do any of us bother? And what are the results that you get in the long run-- a one percent gain? Or is it a one-half percent gain?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Singer is going to have to respond to what you wrote, Vegas_lover.

But I just have to comment on this that you wrote: "perfect play only brings you results IN THE LONG RUN." Wow, if that's the case, why do any of us bother? And what are the results that you get in the long run-- a one percent gain? Or is it a one-half percent gain?

---

I should have written that down differently, perfect play is more likely to give you a positive result in the long run and you can run into some short term results. BUT you can have a large number of losing sessions in a row before you encounter a big win that wipes your previous losses. Better?

What surprises me: everytime somebody challenges Mr. Singer's words you jump in to defend him en somehow "defend" his system. Then people ask you to answer some questions about what YOU are saying about Mr. Singer's system and the best response you can come up with is that Mr. Singer has to answer those questions. Can't you make an analysis yourself? Why do you participate in the discussion if you can't clarify your own comments?

I feel like there's nothing to gain in this discussion because your mind is made up and you don't want to hear what people have to say....

That's too bad because for a while I actually had the thought you were impartial. So really, is that the best you could do on your last post?????

I am not trying to defend Singer's system. I am just trying to present the information that Singer gave me so that the discussion here stays focused. There are points that I still don't understand, and there is information that Singer still hasn't given me and that is why Singer should be responding to you Vegas_Lover. I am not trying to defend Singer's system-- but I am trying to discuss Singer's system based on my understanding of it.

A lot of people don't like that I reported on Singer's system. I reported on Singer's system not because I believe in it or follow it -- and I don't believe in it and I certainly don't follow it. But I am curious about it.

I reported on Singer's system because there have been claims made about it and no where has it been clearly explained. Frankly, it still hasn't been clearly explained. And maybe it can't be -- and perhaps that will be the bottom line.

In the meantime, all of the responsible and civil discussion can take place here. So, for all of you who are critics of the Singer system -- fire away.

Could there be a reason why Singer hasn't given you all the information yet? Is it possible his system is leaking from a hundred holes? For the sake of the argument, will you at least agree with me that there are several things he's claiming that appear highly unlikely?

Read through this entire thread again, even twice if needed. Can you honoustly say you are questioning Mr. Singer's statements just as much as you're questioning mine? Because it does not appear that way. You seem to be biased.......

I for one, do not mind at all you're reporting on Singer's system. If you want to do that, who am I to say you shouldn't? The fact that his system still hasn't been clearly explained until now could have a very valid reason........I'm one of the people who believe he can't fully explain his system because it is inconsistent, inacurate and simply incorrect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vegas_lover

Could there be a reason why Singer hasn't given you all the information yet? Is it possible his system is leaking from a hundred holes? For the sake of the argument, will you at least agree with me that there are several things he's claiming that appear highly unlikely?

Read through this entire thread again, even twice if needed. Can you honoustly say you are questioning Mr. Singer's statements just as much as you're questioning mine? Because it does not appear that way. You seem to be biased.......

I for one, do not mind at all you're reporting on Singer's system. If you want to do that, who am I to say you shouldn't? The fact that his system still hasn't been clearly explained until now could have a very valid reason........I'm one of the people who believe he can't fully explain his system because it is inconsistent, inacurate and simply incorrect.

---

Thanks for posting Vegas_Lover.

I haven't been able to interview Singer about everything because I didn't know all the questions to ask. So far, we have had two video interviews and after each one more questions come up. We first talked about the randomness of VP machines and then we got into his special plays and in the next interview I want to talk to him about moving up in denomination and when to use the special plays. I am sure even more questions will come up. Books have been written about Video Poker and so far I've only presented about an hour of video taped interviews with Rob.

If I were biased I would simply delete anything that I didn't want here. Instead, I welcome all of the challenges and objections and comments by critics. Fire away.

When all of the info is out in public, everyone will be able to make their own decision. Until I presented Rob's special plays here there was never one location where you could find these to even know what he's talking about. So let's find out.

And if Frank Kneeland wants to discuss his findings in an interview, I will put the full, unedited interview here on www.AlanBestBuys.com and I will put it on YouTube.com for everyone to see and share on their websites and forums as well.

Alan,

What you're doing now is exactly the reason why I think you're biased. I asked you to at least acknowledge that several of Mr. Singer's claims appear to be highly unlikely. You seem reluctant to do that even with all the critics you have heard.......

I think I'm going to step out of this discussion. I've said all there is to say. Good luck with your upcoming interviews with Mr. Singer. I doubt they will clear things up....I have no doubt Mr. Singer will come back and respond with more inacurate and inconsistent statements, just to have the last word.

This discussion will never end. You will never get al the details and Mr. Singer will never be able to share all the details of his system in a manner it makes sense..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vegas_lover

Alan,

What you're doing now is exactly the reason why I think you're biased. I asked you to at least acknowledge that several of Mr. Singer's claims appear to be highly unlikely. You seem reluctant to do that even with all the critics you have heard.......

I think I'm going to step out of this discussion. I've said all there is to say. Good luck with your upcoming interviews with Mr. Singer. I doubt they will clear things up....I have no doubt Mr. Singer will come back and respond with more inacurate and inconsistent statements, just to have the last word.

This discussion will never end. You will never get al the details and Mr. Singer will never be able to share all the details of his system in a manner it makes sense..

---

Let me put it to you this way: I think the entire concept of Advantage Play with following the math is unlikely to make anyone a winner. And if you bothered to read my commentary, you will already see that I am skeptical of many of the things that Mr. Singer does as well. But that doesn't mean we can't discuss Advantage Play or what Mr. Singer does.

In fact, Vegas_Lover I would appreciate your comments about my articles on this website about Advantage Play. You've openly commented on my comments about Mr. Singer, but you've made no comments about my articles about Advantage Play. Is that your bias?

No, no bias here, I simply haven't read your AP articles. There's another problem with addressing articles that go into advantage play. As soon as you want to prove a point you need to bring in some difficult mathimatical formulas. Formulas the masses do not understand or do not interest them.

I do agree with you on one thing, I'm also sceptical about turning out a winner while playing for the long term result. I also believe the only way you will win in a casino is to not gamble or to hit a once in a lifetime mega jackpot. This applies only while playing machines...You can very well make a good living out of live poker games........but VP............I have my doubts.

Good luck with your research........out.

"I reported on Singer's system because there have been claims made about it and no where has it been clearly explained. Frankly, it still hasn't been clearly explained. And maybe it can't be -- and perhaps that will be the bottom line."

Nice try. I have fully answered everything there is to answer about Singer's system. I have also provided 100% proof that he lies about his results or he the luckiest person on the face of the planet. You heard about his claims of a 5th card flip-over where he claimed something that happens 6% of the time was going at over 40%. More complete nonsense as was evidenced when he was asked to demonstrate.

Singer is a pathological liar. It's obvious to anyone who looks at his claims using common sense and mathematics. That you persist in denying what is right in front of your nose shows that you don't want to know the truth. So be it.

"Let me put it to you this way: I think the entire concept of Advantage Play with following the math is unlikely to make anyone a winner."

What a completely laughable statement. i know many people who are winners. Yes, I'm one of them but I know many folks that make a LOT more money than I do. Of course, they put in more time or play at higher denominations. That is fine, but to say no one can win ... HILARIOUS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

"Let me put it to you this way: I think the entire concept of Advantage Play with following the math is unlikely to make anyone a winner."

What a completely laughable statement. i know many people who are winners. Yes, I'm one of them but I know many folks that make a LOT more money than I do. Of course, they put in more time or play at higher denominations. That is fine, but to say no one can win ... HILARIOUS.

---

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you misread my post. I did not say "no one can win." I said "is unlikely to make anyone a winner."

I also know about Singer's statements about the mysterious "fifth card flipovers." I interviewed him about it. But Singer maintains his strategy was developed based on the fundamental that all VP machines are in fact random. Rob should comment some more about this.

You also said "I have fully answered everything there is to answer about Singer's system." Well, I'm sure you have. But I will suggest that you might not have heard everything and don't know everything. Rob told me that twice he invited you to meet with him so he could demonstrate his system, and both times the meeting did not take place. Care to comment?

"I have also provided 100% proof that he lies about his results or he the luckiest person on the face of the planet." Well, which is it? Has he lied or is he the luckiest person the planet?

Please, can we keep the personal attacks out and just focus on the facts or lack of facts? Thanks.

"Rob told me that twice he invited you to meet with him so he could demonstrate his system, and both times the meeting did not take place. Care to comment?"

I told Singer more than once when I played at Sam's Town and he could stop by anytime. In addition, once I agreed to show him my tax return to prove I was a winner and I stated he could meet me as I put the tax return in mhy mailbox to remove all doubt. He said he would and then backed out. As I've already noted, Singer is a pathological liar.

As for his system, he already explained it to me online. One doesn't have to know every time Singer would make a special play to understand the system. EVERY special play is a loser in the long run.

What you don't understand, Alan, is VP is truly a simple game to analyze mathematically. I understand his denominations, his multiple level progression, his pocketing of wins over 40 credits, his strategy to return to a previous level when he does hit a big winner. I simulated the system as he described it and the results are EXACTLY what one would expect from a random game of independent events. In fact, if I would have got anything other than the expected ER it would have meant my program was in error. I gave you the mathematical proof that NO BETTING SYSTEM can change the expected return.

So, there really is nothing Singer could provide to improve my knowledge of his system. In fact, if there was he has had 7 years to provide those details and has provided nothing. It's not like he hasn't typed several thousand posts attacking me and every other APer. How hard would it have been to spend 1/1000 that time detailing his strategy? The fact he's never done that should tell you volumes.

Finally, I've stated more than once that I have no problem with people playing progressions. If you understand the trade-offs they will generate more session wins. If that is important to a person and they can handle playing significantly varied denominations it's perfectly fine. The problem I've always stated is Singer's claims that AP doesn't work but playing a progression is better even playing negative games AND making even poorer plays (special plays) is the key. Pure nonsense.

Singer wrote:

"Dan was totally unprepared for the challenge he made, then he danced around in circles both in silence and in stunning reality after I cleaned it up for him. He doesn't have the money to either play at or be engaged in a bet at the levels I'm able to. That's why I've asked him--and put out a plea multiple times for him to gather all his AP-friends who he knows win like crazy playing at their mythical advantage--to get his financial act together and come back with something he can handle."

Alan, you could never host a AP related thread on this board as you offered as Singer will immediately denigrate any posts with the same drivel as I quoted above.

To be clear, on June 30th I did respond to Singer's post on another thread on this board. Please show where I "danced around" being responsive. Other than periodically being without internet access and at times being able to access this board from my netbook, I've always responded quickly and decisively. It's Rob that's been MIA for the past 10 days on this issue.

Funny that AP's have a "mystical advantage" but Rob totally defies the odds and has the world's biggest horseshoe firmly implanted in his rectum and we should just believe him at fact value. Which do you think is more believable?

Arci should know by now that despite his best efforts to respond logically to all the silly questions asked about "special plays", win goals, etc. that the persons raising the questions really don't want the truth. They want someone to support their illogical beliefs.

The bottom line is that Rob has an offer on the table to win up to $30K of my money which is essentially doubling what he would win from the casino. I estimated that this should take 30 hours of play. Despite those who are mathematically challenged, this is a $1K/hr. potential win rate and yet Rob obviously doesn't think this is lucrative enough for him. Really??? Who do you believe? I know it's a stretch but think about it logically. You have a guy who claims a 80% win rate, someone who "can easily beat a bad paytable", and someone who wins just shy of $100K a year playing on average 43 sessions. Why would you ever retire from doing this? Yeah Rob, I know, you don't need the money. Once again folks, what does logic tell you? Who do you believe? Not sure how long one of Rob's sessions are but assuming they're a typical conventional workday long, who wouldn't want a job that you only have to work 43 days a year (the equivalent of 2 months of Monday-Friday conventional gig stuff) to make $100K?

I couldn't care either way if this "challenge" happens or not although I would like to win some of Rob's money and obviously believe I can or I wouldn't have made the offer. I'm not trying to beat a dead horse and even beating Rob out of money wouldn't do anything to disprove his system. I've already turned the page on this because as Vegas Lover commented on the thread "it's not going to happen". I'm obviously not surprised.

Vegas Lover and Arci, despite your tenacity in trying to explain the obvious, you must both realize that you're wasting your time. People don't want the truth. They want some magic formula or system to defy the odds and make money hand over fist.

Final question....Where are all the Singer supporters? You know, any one of those 500 people whom he has claimed to train with his system. How come you don't see any of these people supporting his claims? If his system makes consistent money year over year, why aren't any of these 500 here lauding him and his system? Now Rob, don't do what I think you'll do and create yet another online character and try to provide a testimonial as we'll see right through that. I'm here in Vegas over 60% of the time; surely he must have some local here that's coining money. I'd love to meet that person face to face, buy them lunch and hear independently as to what and how they're doing. Unfortunately, I don't think that's going to happen but once again, I'm not surprised.

I don't have to fall back on the math to discredit Rob. I believe he does a good job of this every time he makes one of his inane posts. Every AP who follows "the math" is an addicted liar yet a guy who can defy the math is a consistent winner.....does this sound LOGICAL to you?

Dan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vegas_lover

Alan,

You're missing the point I'm trying to make. The chance of winning big by breaking up a hand which you shouldn't break up according to AP, or math if you will, is VERY and I mean VERY small. Now, according to Singer's "system" he does these break ups when he's behind, HE HAS ALREADY LOST!!! He has stated very clearly that he uses AP for 95% of the times. That means, that when he's behind, he starts taking long shots. Long shots with a VERY small chance of winning big. And hoopla, as a white bunny out of a black hat, he hits luck continiously over ten years and ends up winning millions..............Right......... There's really nothing more to it than this.

Throwing in win goals and loss limits is just a way to make this thing look like a "system". Now, all people out there already have a loss limit: bancruptcy! Most people just don't have a win goal and when they win they just continue to play too long. And in the end they just lost again. That's what makes casino's rich.

---

Not surprisingly, you're making statements about my strategy that are not true. I do not use the special plays only when I'm behind. I use them ALL the time whether ahead, even, or behind. Where are you getting your information from....or is it just more convenient to make these things up?