LUCK is almost EVERYTHING in Video Poker

[arcimede$]

Thanks for posting guys. But where has Rob Singer ever said "the math" is not correct? We have done "battle" over this question many times. Rob has never denied the "math" of the game, and he has never told me anything that says the "math" of the game is not correct. He even cites the math correctly in discussing his special plays.

When he says you can get lucky every day. Pure nonsense. Not only that, but he claims mathematically valid approaches will lose and a person will ONLY win by following his approach (unless they get lucky).

Go back and read his first comment on this thread ... the game is all luck and no skill. That's what he said.

What he has told me is that if he plays the game differently and "gets lucky" he will win more. He has also said that if he "times" his exits from the game properly (his win goal system) he will win more. None of that violates "the math" of the game, unless you want to say that "luck" is not part of the math, and "leaving the game" is not part of the math? And if you do, I have no disagreement and I'm guessing Rob won't disagree either.

idiotic nonsense. It doesn't address the issue. His system provides ZERO advantage. In fact, his special plays, his claims that the pay tables don't matter and claims anyone can win on negative games is all meant to encourage people to try his system. His system is designed to lead to HUGE losses for people who don't understand them.

Alan, you are allowing him to influence others to lose HUGE sums of money. You are aiding and abetting his lies.

That brings us to the core question: did he win more and is it because he did get lucky? And that my friends sums up the whole enchilada, magillah, and story.

If you want to challenge Rob's math, challenge how he balances out his wins and losses, because that's the only math to challenge here guys.

The math is simple and I provided you the PROOF. It doesn't matter if Rob won or lost. It only matters that he claims people will do better using his approach than proven mathematical approaches ... that is a LIE. It is a PROVEN LIE. By continuing to spread these lies you are aiding and abetting.

[Alan Mendelson]

I can only report. You'll have to debate Rob.

[arcimede$]

Your saying that "reporting" the Nigerian scam would be perfectly fine. Hey, if anyone responds it their problem, not yours. Your perfectly innocent.

Disgusting.

[Alan Mendelson]

Your saying that "reporting" the Nigerian scam would be perfectly fine. Hey, if anyone responds it their problem, not yours. Your perfectly innocent.

Disgusting.

Let me ask you this, Arc, and all of the others who care to respond.

Suppose I was to do an interview with the leader of a Nigerian gang that was responsible for bilking American seniors out of millions of dollars with bogus emails about abandoned bank accounts in Nigerian banks, and lottery winnings waiting to be claimed, and suppose the purpose of my interview was to find out about how they operated -- would I be guilty of their crimes? Would I also be responsible for my readers or viewers for falling victim to their scheme? Would I be as guilty as the Nigerian scammers because I publicized what they did, and even how much money they claimed to have bilked Americans for?

[regnis]

When he says you can get lucky every day. Pure nonsense. Not only that, but he claims mathematically valid approaches will lose and a person will ONLY win by following his approach (unless they get lucky).

Go back and read his first comment on this thread ... the game is all luck and no skill. That's what he said.



idiotic nonsense. It doesn't address the issue. His system provides ZERO advantage. In fact, his special plays, his claims that the pay tables don't matter and claims anyone can win on negative games is all meant to encourage people to try his system. His system is designed to lead to HUGE losses for people who don't understand them.

Alan, you are allowing him to influence others to lose HUGE sums of money. You are aiding and abetting his lies.

The math is simple and I provided you the PROOF. It doesn't matter if Rob won or lost. It only matters that he claims people will do better using his approach than proven mathematical approaches ... that is a LIE. It is a PROVEN LIE. By continuing to spread these lies you are aiding and abetting.

You have not proven anything. All math tells you is that over a long term, your expected return is X. But you have also discussed, way too much, your bell curve. So you can tell us all that the expected return is X, but you can't prove that Singer didn't do what he says, as remote as that chance may or may not be. And you can't prove anything where there is an RNG--again--because that is only an expected return over the long term.

There would be no gambling at all if there weren't constant deviations from the expected return. We would all lose every time. So again, all you can do is tell us the ER--that does not prove anything else.

And Alan--the gambling police are on their way to get you for "aiding and abetting" all of us poor innocents that are being taken advantage of by Singer and have fallen prey to reading about his system. I myself am permanently scarred from reading about his wins and realizing that all the math I learned in school was a big fraud.

[redietz]

That's right, regnis, all of the math you learned in school was a big con. You summed it up beautifully.

[Alan Mendelson]

That's right, regnis, all of the math you learned in school was a big con. You summed it up beautifully.

redietz you caught it before I caught it. regnis made a mistake because even Rob wouldn't have said that. Nothing changes the math-- sorry regnis. It's just that Rob won on negative expectation games. His critics will just have to suck it up.

[Alan Mendelson]

So, now that we have discussed my collusion with the Nigerian lottery scammers, and the con of high school math, and why I should turn myself in to the FBI and return my Emmy, let's focus on Rob's claim:

For years I've been saying that the game of video poker is 95% luck and 5% skill

Would those of you who have me convicted of aiding and abetting the Nigerian crime lords please comment on what percentage of video poker you think is skill and what percentage is luck?

We have these discussions about live poker all the time, and I would like to compare notes.

[arcimede$]

Alan, you are changing the meaning of what I stated. Naturally, you would do that since you don't want to take responsibility for your actions. I said nothing about reporting from a "be careful" standpoint. I stated you reported from a "it may be true" standpoint telling people that they should try it if they think it might work for them. That is completely different ... and disgusting.

Regnis ... get a clue. Your comments are becoming increasingly silly while trying to support Singer. Why is that? Do you not understand mathematical proofs? Do you not understand that these are 100% verification of what I am saying? Do you really think giving a person maybe a 5% chance of winning is a good thing? Do you believe promoting a system where 95% of people who try it will lose (and many losses quite large) is moral? Are you working with Singer?

[Alan Mendelson]

I stated you reported from a "it may be true" standpoint telling people that they should try it if they think it might work for them. That is completely different ... and disgusting.

Let me take this one point at a time:

1. I believe it is true that Rob Singer won that much money over ten years. I believe that Rob Singer did win that money playing "his way" which included his special plays, his use of win goals and loss limits, his changing denominations. When you think about it, winning on average about $100,000 per year playing for the most part $10/coin video poker is not really a huge accomplishment. How much have you won Arc playing at the $1 level? You claim wins of five figures, don't you?

2. While I never advocated the "special plays" (and you can review the videos again to see that I don't, but simply am presenting his special plays for everyone to see and understand), I will agree that yes, it might also work for others. "Might" is the operative word here, Arc. I certainly think win goals and loss limits do work and are a very valuable tool.

But a few sub-points here:

A. With one exception, I don't use Rob's special plays, so how can you call me an advocate of his special plays? The only one I see value in is his play with three aces in triple double bonus when also dealt a kicker. His special play is to hold only the three aces to improve his chances of drawing the fourth ace. In my entire life, I've been faced with that option only once -- and I held only the three aces, dropped the kicker and my hand did not improve. So while I didn't make the conventional strategy play, it didn't make a difference in the end.

B. I do not use Rob's system of changing denominations.

C. I do not advocate, nor do I play, with any kind of "bankroll" that Rob has and I openly disputed his strategy when it involved losses exceeding $50,000 just to obtain a $2,500 session win goal.

3. And if you think that is disgusting that I presented Rob's strategy online, in one place, for the world to see -- instead of it being in bits and pieces; and if you think showing his special plays as I did online with Rob actually explaining them... well, suck it up and deal with it. Or leave.

[a2a3dseddie]

redietz you caught it before I caught it. regnis made a mistake because even Rob wouldn't have said that. Nothing changes the math-- sorry regnis. It's just that Rob won on negative expectation games. His critics will just have to suck it up.

Alan, I've posted this question before but it was lost in the ensuing melee. Is everyone just taking Rob's word for it that he won $1 million dollars? Is that a "net" profit of $1 million? By that I mean did he actually bank $1 million from VP play? He doesn't need to actually provide any evidence? I think you are right that providing IRS statements is the best way to prove that he declared $100,000 in gambling wins each year for 10 years.

Back to win goals and loss limits. Everyone agrees (except for regnis I guess who says math is a con ) that a negative EV machine will generate revenue for a casino and take all your money eventually. How can win goals and loss limits possibly ensure that you will make a net profit over time on these machines? How can you only have winning sessions on these machines, leaving all the losing sessions for the other players to suffer through? Sure, having these limits will make you a more "responsible" gambler, and you will definitely have those good feelings of "winning sessions" more often, but aren't your overall results added together what you really need to look at?

I know Rob always talks about "short term" play versus "long term" play. If he really won $1 million dollars playing his "short term" strategy, wouldn't he have run 10's of millions of dollars through these negative expectation machines to win that? At $5 to $50 a hand, that's close enough to "long term" for me. What do you estimate his EV was during his "professional" career? Did he squeeze out 102% from a 97% payback machine using his 5% skill or was it 95% luck? Are his special plays (which he has said he only uses 5% of the time) part of the 5% skill or the 95% luck of video poker?

[Alan Mendelson]

a2a3dseddie you ask a lot of valid questions that Rob should respond to. I don't think everyone can beat the casinos and come out ahead at negative expectation video poker. Afer all, the definition of a negative expectation game is that you should lose the more you play. It is the same at craps -- a negative expectation game.

Yet, there are people who win. Either they did something different or they got lucky. Rob talks about getting lucky, and improving your chances to get lucky.

The winners are the exception. I can tell you that in craps the people who do win also make the exception -- which is to quit when they are ahead after a hot roll. Hence came such things as the "five count" to eliminate most shooters who seven-out quickly. The five count system coupled with come bets, unlike dice control, is supported by the math, although there is no assurance that a shooter will 7-out on the count of six or seven or eight.

Rob has also had his losses. Remember our discussion about how he dropped $50-thou chasing his $2,500 win goal? His system is not perfect and I think it was a miracle that on a $25 bonus game when dealt three queens with three to the royal that he held the royal cards and drew the royal. I would never break up three queens -- he did. Would you?

One thing you have to applaud Rob for is this: the casinos have it all figured out, so you have to do something different to beat the casinos at their game. I don't agree with a lot of what Rob says, but I can't argue with win goals. I do argue with the idea of a $50,000+ loss limit to reach a $2,500 win goal which to me is absurd.

But I was never a defender or advocate of Rob's system. I just presented it. Some things I like, some things I don't. You'll never catch me breaking up three queens with three to the royal.

[quahaug]

Alan, you are changing the meaning of what I stated. Naturally, you would do that since you don't want to take responsibility for your actions. I said nothing about reporting from a "be careful" standpoint. I stated you reported from a "it may be true" standpoint telling people that they should try it if they think it might work for them. That is completely different ... and disgusting.

Regnis ... get a clue. Your comments are becoming increasingly silly while trying to support Singer. Why is that? Do you not understand mathematical proofs? Do you not understand that these are 100% verification of what I am saying? Do you really think giving a person maybe a 5% chance of winning is a good thing? Do you believe promoting a system where 95% of people who try it will lose (and many losses quite large) is moral? Are you working with Singer?

At least he's not charging for the privilege of losing huge sums like Dancer is. Thats truly a scam!

[regnis]

Come on guys--like Vegas Lover before me do you not get that the comment re my high school math being a fraud was cynicism. It is my attempt, as most of my posts are, to show how stupid this argument has become. I never said that the math is wrong, and I never supported Singer's system other than to point out that no-one has "PROVEN" anything. If you can't recognize the difference between expected return and an individual's results day to day and session to session then I give up. Because thousands of people every day deviate from the norm and either win, or win big, or lose, or lose big. Most days, we are nowhere near the expected return.

[arcimede$]

Yet, there are people who win. Either they did something different or they got lucky. Rob talks about getting lucky, and improving your chances to get lucky.

That's absolutely right, Alan. Singer claims you can improve "your chances to get lucky". This is IMPOSSIBLE. Anyone making that claim is lying and anyone who promotes a different method of play to "get lucky" is promoting a scam. There's no other way to look at this. The math is 100% definitive.

The winners are the exception.

However, Singer NEVER says this. He never says most people will lose with his system. In fact, he claims people can win every day. How is that not a scam?

I don't agree with a lot of what Rob says, but I can't argue with win goals.

However, you never point out that win goals do nothing to change the ER, but only reduce the overall gambling and hence losses.

But I was never a defender or advocate of Rob's system. I just presented it. Some things I like, some things I don't. You'll never catch me breaking up three queens with three to the royal.

Presenting a scam as if it is legit is, in fact, abetting the scam. It's no different than presenting the Nigerian scam as legit. Sorry Alan, you are guilty of promoting a worthless system to unwary readers. Shame on you.

[Alan Mendelson]

Most days, we are nowhere near the expected return.

You are so right. If you sit at a machine in a casino -- say it's a three reel slot machine with an expected return of 92%, or a 9/6 Jacks or Better machine with an expected return of 99.54% -- what is your real return?

I would suggest that for most players the real return is zero -- because they lost the money they brought to the casino for that day's play.

[arcimede$]

At least he's not charging for the privilege of losing huge sums like Dancer is. Thats truly a scam!

Total nonsense. Dancer only promotes people playing with a mathematical advantage. This is completely supported by the mathematics that is taught in every university in the world. How is that a scam? Why do you feel it necessary to lie?

[arcimede$]

"Most days, we are nowhere near the expected return."

You are so right. If you sit at a machine in a casino -- say it's a three reel slot machine with an expected return of 92%, or a 9/6 Jacks or Better machine with an expected return of 99.54% -- what is your real return?

I would suggest that for most players the real return is zero -- because they lost the money they brought to the casino for that day's play.

That's right, but that is not what Singer claims. He claims you can win EVERY DAY. How is that not a scam?

[regnis]

Arci--it may well be a scam. I'm just reiterating that telling me what the ER is doesn't prove that it is a scam. So you are going to need some real live proof which you guys have never been able to arrange and probably never will. And so this goes on and on and on............

[regnis]

Total nonsense. Dancer only promotes people playing with a mathematical advantage. This is completely supported by the mathematics that is taught in every university in the world. How is that a scam? Why do you feel it necessary to lie?

In Chicago, the only math being taught in school is how much to charge for a nickel bag.