LUCK is almost EVERYTHING in Video Poker

[regnis]

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

Thanks Red--now I can cancel my therapy.

[Alan Mendelson]

Okay, Arc, this is the last time I am going to respond to you about this. Because I am tired of going over the same things over and over again:

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.

Yes, Arc, Singer does suggest ways to improve your chances to get lucky. Such as holding only the three aces when dealt a full house in 7/5 bonus poker. You wouldn't do it, and I wouldn't do it, but it's true Arc -- if you only hold the three aces you have a chance to get lucky and draw the fourth ace. Yes, the math is 100% definite: if you hold the full house you will never get quad aces, and if you hold only the three aces you have a chance. That's what the math says. Deal with it, buster.

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?

People do win every day on negative expectation machines. I hit two $20,000 only two days apart, on back to back sessions, playing negative expectation video poker. I also hit quad aces four times in the same two sessions I hit the royals. Miracles, and accidents, happen. It's not a scam because Singer never made the promise in return for a payment of any kind. Scam is a legal term. A scam is a crime. He committed no crime. You on the other hand libel him every time you accuse him of a scam and you libel me when you accuse me of supporting or aiding this alleged scam. Stop it, and that's my final warning to you. I am not going to tolerate it anymore.

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

Are we really going to have to go over this again, Arc? How many friggin' times must you be told that win goals do not change the expected return of any machine or game. They only change the actual return -- what's in your pocket. Can win goals reduce overall gambling? Maybe, if you reach your win goal or loss limit. But if you keep playing and only have a narrow change in wins and losses you theoretically could be playing forever before you reach a win goal or a loss limit.

Sure win goals could keep you from additional play that might keep you from winning more. But it's a tradeoff that you accept for not giving the win amount back.

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.

I told you above and I am telling you again. Stop it. And I am going to go one step farther, which legal counsel advised me to take: One more libelous comment from you alleging a scam and you will be banned from this forum. I have an obligation not to allow libelous posts to appear. Your posts about a scam involving Singer and me are libelous. You have been given notice. And I will also ban anyone else who also makes a libelous comment here.

There is plenty of room for discussion without libel.

[Alan Mendelson]

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?

I want to comment here also. There is no justification here for accusing Bob Dancer of also running a scam. This is also a libelous statement. The issue is he lost money on some play that was supported by mathematics... but that is not a scam by any stretch.

Again, everyone has to be very careful about using the word scam. It is libelous without proof of a criminal act.

[arcimede$]

Okay, Arc, this is the last time I am going to respond to you about this. Because I am tired of going over the same things over and over again:

Then consider stopping ... instead you make excuses. Sad, very sad.

Yes, Arc, Singer does suggest ways to improve your chances to get lucky. Such as holding only the three aces when dealt a full house in 7/5 bonus poker. You wouldn't do it, and I wouldn't do it, but it's true Arc -- if you only hold the three aces you have a chance to get lucky and draw the fourth ace. Yes, the math is 100% definite: if you hold the full house you will never get quad aces, and if you hold only the three aces you have a chance. That's what the math says. Deal with it, buster.

I've informed you several times that the majority of his special plays do not give you increased chances at getting lucky. Why do you continue to ignore the evidence and repeat Singer's lies? What's in it for you?

People do win every day on negative expectation machines. I hit two $20,000 only two days apart, on back to back sessions, playing negative expectation video poker. I also hit quad aces four times in the same two sessions I hit the royals. Miracles, and accidents, happen.

That's not the point and you know it. Continuing to provide cover for Singer's lies with this irrelevant nonsense is dishonest. We're not talking a single sessions. We're talking about general claims that are completely false.

It's not a scam because Singer never made the promise in return for a payment of any kind. Scam is a legal term. A scam is a crime. He committed no crime. You on the other hand libel him every time you accuse him of a scam and you libel me when you accuse me of supporting or aiding this alleged scam. Stop it, and that's my final warning to you. I am not going to tolerate it anymore.

Scam is also a non-legal term to refer to claims that are not true. From the World Dictionary, "scam: 1.a stratagem for gain;" In Singer's case he has been trying to sell himself as a VP expert and professional when none of that is valid. It's only a legal scam if he directly profited from the people he dupes. Instead, the casinos are the ones that profit. Now, if it turned out that Singer had some kind of an arrangement with casinos, then the legal definition would apply. Are you sure he doesn't?

You wouldn't be so defensive if you thought there was nothing to the claims.

I told you above and I am telling you again. Stop it. And I am going to go one step farther, which legal counsel advised me to take: One more libelous comment from you alleging a scam and you will be banned from this forum. I have an obligation not to allow libelous posts to appear. Your posts about a scam involving Singer and me are libelous. You have been given notice. And I will also ban anyone else who also makes a libelous comment here.

There is plenty of room for discussion without libel.

Quit with the nonsense and do yourself a favor by deleting all the ridiculous Singer nonsense.

BTW, feel free to ban me at anytime. Please, please. You really think I care? The truth is you'd do yourself a bigger favor to ban both of us. Of course, you don't have the guts to admit you were wrong so I don't foresee that happening.

As it stands right now you have admitted you would rather promote Singer's lies than do the right and moral thing. You clearly don't want facts to be the heart of this forum. The only thing saving you right now is your forum is basically reader-less. Your actions are doing a good job of keeping it that way.

[Alan Mendelson]

So that's the bottom line, Arc? You want me to delete all of the ridiculous nonsense? Well, if I deleted all of the ridiculous nonsense how would anyone be able to see the ridiculous nonsense?

There are plenty of facts here, and we all need some ridiculous nonsense to keep us sane.

[Vegas_lover]

I want to comment here also. There is no justification here for accusing Bob Dancer of also running a scam. This is also a libelous statement.

Again, everyone has to be very careful about using the word scam. It is libelous without proof of a criminal act.

Is quahaug on notice now too? How about Singer for slander? He's dammaging your reputation calling you a gambling addict. How about me. I said you were mathimatically challenged.

Another one of your comments:
You want me to delete all of the ridiculous nonsense? Well, if I deleted all of the ridiculous nonsense how would anyone be able to see the ridiculous nonsense?

I don't think that's your main concern. I think the main issue is there wouldn't be much left. Sorry, this one was too obvious.

Next comment:
There are plenty of facts here, and we all need some ridiculous nonsense to keep us sane

Really? I guess we disagree about that (not the first time), besides the math dictating the basics of the VP game I haven't seen a lot of facts. I did see a lot of statements, claims and malarkey.

A very interesting comment:
but it's true Arc -- if you only hold the three aces you have a chance to get lucky and draw the fourth ace.

Very true, but does it IMPROVE your chances to get lucky compared to holding the original full house? If you don't get the fourth ace, think about the number of credits (hands) you've lost. Think about how lucky you could get on those credits/hands you just lost. Could you please show us the mathematical proof that dropping the full house will improve your chance to get lucky overall?

[Alan Mendelson]

How about me. I said you were mathimatically challenged.

While misspelled, this statement is true and therefore is not libelous.

A very interesting comment:
but it's true Arc -- if you only hold the three aces you have a chance to get lucky and draw the fourth ace.

Very true, but does it IMPROVE your chances to get lucky compared to holding the original full house? If you don't get the fourth ace, think about the number of credits (hands) you've lost. Think about how lucky you could get on those credits/hands you just lost. Could you please show us the mathematical proof that dropping the full house will improve your chance to get lucky overall?

I hold the full house.

[Vegas_lover]

While misspelled, this statement is true and therefore is not libelous.

There's a lot more I misspelled, want to continue in Dutch?

And how about quahaug? How about Singer? And how about responding to the rest of post #106? Not convenient?

[Vegas_lover]

I hold the full house.

Alan, when are you going to make an actual effort to answer the questions people ask you? I didn't ask you what you would do and you know it. Singer claims dropping the full house IMPROVES your chances to get lucky. Please show us exactly how this IMPROVES your chances to get lucky (and take the lost credits when you don't get the fourth ace into account).

[Spock]

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 believe there is no choice but to take his word for it as there doesn't appear to be anything else available that might be more conclusive. It is interesting that he has frequently stated that all AP's are lying, as are others who post images of their wins online, and even suggested that Alan lie about his gambling experiences in order to regain Rob's good graces, especially in light of his own record which is much farther removed from normal expectations than any others I've ever encountered.

If you process all the available information he's presented in the past 5 years, by his own accounts he's averaging one royal approximately every 3500 hands. That is just royals, and doesn't include other high paying hands such as aces or ACES$ or 2/3/4 with a kicker. We've also been beguiled by his recounting of wins that defy odds of nearly 9 million to 1 as well as numerous cases where mere minutes of play resulted in phenomenal returns.

Each individual has to make their own decision as to if they find that plausible.

Or you can pay him $25,000 to prove it.

[Vegas_lover]

I believe there is no choice but to take his word for it as there doesn't appear to be anything else available that might be more conclusive. It is interesting that he has frequently stated that all AP's are lying, as are others who post images of their wins online, and even suggested that Alan lie about his gambling experiences in order to regain Rob's good graces, especially in light of his own record which is much farther removed from normal expectations than any others I've ever encountered.

If you process all the available information he's presented in the past 5 years, by his own accounts he's averaging one royal approximately every 3500 hands. That is just royals, and doesn't include other high paying hands such as aces or ACES$ or 2/3/4 with a kicker. We've also been beguiled by his recounting of wins that defy odds of nearly 9 million to 1 as well as numerous cases where mere minutes of play resulted in phenomenal returns.

Each individual has to make their own decision as to if they find that plausible.

Or you can pay him $25,000 to prove it.

LOL, thumbs up

[redietz]

Beautiful post, Spock.

Let me add, however, that it's possible Rob gets a royal every 3,500 hands because God really, really likes him.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, when are you going to make an actual effort to answer the questions people ask you? I didn't ask you what you would do and you know it. Singer claims dropping the full house IMPROVES your chances to get lucky. Please show us exactly how this IMPROVES your chances to get lucky (and take the lost credits when you don't get the fourth ace into account).

I can't answer for Singer. But it certainly makes sense to me that his goal is to get quad aces and the way to do that is to drop the full house and hold only the aces to get his session winning jackpot. Do I do it? No.

While we are nitpicking here, how do I know you are really a Vegas Lover??

[Vegas_lover]

I can't answer for Singer. But it certainly makes sense to me that his goal is to get quad aces and the way to do that is to drop the full house and hold only the aces to get his session winning jackpot. Do I do it? No.

While we are nitpicking here, how do I know you are really a Vegas Lover??

Please educate me. Why are we nitpicking? Please share your knowledge?

How do you know I'm really a Vegas Lover? Pretty simple, you don't! Now was that so difficult? You see, I answer questions.

How about Quahaug? how about Singer? Are they on notice as well for making potentially libelous statements? You're still evading questions Alan.

It's obvious you don't like me, but that's not the point.

[Alan Mendelson]

Okay Vegas_lover let me make this clear to you and to everyone else:

LIBELOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. AS A WEBSITE OPERATOR I HAVE A LEGAL OBLIGATION NOT TO ALLOW LIBELOUS COMMENTS TO BE MADE ON THE SITE. THE LIBEL LAWS ARE SPECIFIC, AND WHILE COMMENTS MADE ABOUT PUBLIC FIGURES MAY BE PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION, THE LIBEL LAWS DO NOT ALLOW COMMENTS MADE WITH THE DESIRE AND INTENTION TO CAUSE HARM AND THEY MAY STILL CONSIDERED TO BE LIBEL.

Again, there is plenty of room for discussion and for even questioning statements without making libelous comments.

Vegas_lover, I like you. When you get to Vegas let me know and I'll buy you and your wife dinner.

[Vegas_lover]

Okay Vegas_lover let me make this clear to you and to everyone else:

LIBELOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. AS A WEBSITE OPERATOR I HAVE A LEGAL OBLIGATION NOT TO ALLOW LIBELOUS COMMENTS TO BE MADE ON THE SITE. THE LIBEL LAWS ARE SPECIFIC, AND WHILE COMMENTS MADE ABOUT PUBLIC FIGURES MAY BE PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION, THE LIBEL LAWS DO NOT ALLOW COMMENTS MADE WITH THE DESIRE AND INTENTION TO CAUSE HARM AND THEY MAY STILL CONSIDERED TO BE LIBEL.

Again, there is plenty of room for discussion and for even questioning statements without making libelous comments.

Vegas_lover, I like you. When you get to Vegas let me know and I'll buy you and your wife dinner.

Actually, if we met in Vegas I'm pretty much certain you would appreciate me, and I would probably appreciate you as well. But what was this? Am I on notice now? Please be specific? Tell me where my statements have been libelous and I'll contact my lawyer.

You told Arci very clearly he was very close to getting banned. Than quahaug made a similar remark about Bob Dancer. Singer has said a lot of things that could be libelous. Now, I've asked you at least 3 times if they're on notice as well. Why are you so reluctant to just answer that simple question. I DON'T GET IT, PLEASE EXPLAIN?

[Rob.Singer]

I believe there is no choice but to take his word for it as there doesn't appear to be anything else available that might be more conclusive. It is interesting that he has frequently stated that all AP's are lying, as are others who post images of their wins online, and even suggested that Alan lie about his gambling experiences in order to regain Rob's good graces, especially in light of his own record which is much farther removed from normal expectations than any others I've ever encountered.

If you process all the available information he's presented in the past 5 years, by his own accounts he's averaging one royal approximately every 3500 hands. That is just royals, and doesn't include other high paying hands such as aces or ACES$ or 2/3/4 with a kicker. We've also been beguiled by his recounting of wins that defy odds of nearly 9 million to 1 as well as numerous cases where mere minutes of play resulted in phenomenal returns.

Each individual has to make their own decision as to if they find that plausible.

Or you can pay him $25,000 to prove it.

It's so cute that I can still irritate a collection of self-proclaimed "geniuses" and jealous haters from atop mountains.

Eddie, that's $984,000 NET profit, and I only count money won directly from the machines. The slot club fluff is a dirty trick used by AP's to make it appear they've won at each year's end. And I am thoroughly convinced Dancer includes his entire video poker business into his claims of always being a "winner".

Spock, I thought you were some sort of thorough, deep thinker. Yet you revel in throwing out false assertions and assumptions about me, such as a royal every 3500 hands, when you have absolutely no clue as to how many hands I play. A tad careless perhaps?

[Rob.Singer]

Here's an exercise for anyone who chooses education over lies and envy, to work out and report back on.

The game is 7/5 BP. You're suddenly ultra-intelligent, and chose to play my single play strategy over 7 hours of boring, monotonous single denomination AP vp. You're on your 3rd level with no soft profits banked, and you're 70 credits into your 100 BP credits. You're dealt AAA55. Most people would hold this because it pays 35 credits--or $175 in this case. And I would've also, if the FH win would have gotten me to a session mini-win goal. But 70 credits in does not do that.

So I hold the Aces only, which gives me an opportunity for a $2000 win, and allows me to return to a lower denomination of BP to start over again--this time with soft profit banked.

Now, confused critics would complain that tossing the FH would give me LESS opportunity to reach a goal with four Aces, but not only are they technically wrong--they're mathematically wrong. And here's why. 3 Aces on the deal is a powerful hand in goal-oriented vp. Tossing the opportunity presented for a sure thing 4 more hands is just plain stupid. Would those 4 more hands be more or less likely to deal another four Aces opportunity?

Think about it, then try again.

[slingshot]

Here's an exercise for anyone who chooses education over lies and envy, to work out and report back on.

The game is 7/5 BP. You're suddenly ultra-intelligent, and chose to play my single play strategy over 7 hours of boring, monotonous single denomination AP vp. You're on your 3rd level with no soft profits banked, and you're 70 credits into your 100 BP credits. You're dealt AAA55. Most people would hold this because it pays 35 credits--or $175 in this case. And I would've also, if the FH win would have gotten me to a session mini-win goal. But 70 credits in does not do that.

So I hold the Aces only, which gives me an opportunity for a $2000 win, and allows me to return to a lower denomination of BP to start over again--this time with soft profit banked.

Now, confused critics would complain that tossing the FH would give me LESS opportunity to reach a goal with four Aces, but not only are they technically wrong--they're mathematically wrong. And here's why. 3 Aces on the deal is a powerful hand in goal-oriented vp. Tossing the opportunity presented for a sure thing 4 more hands is just plain stupid. Would those 4 more hands be more or less likely to deal another four Aces opportunity?

Think about it, then try again.

That is so easy to understand. I can't help but remember how many times full houses have only lengthened my LOSING sessions. My fondest memories are the swept hand, or the single card draw, or the so-called "special play" that sent me home. It's just plain ole' horse sense. And no, it's not some magic "move" that "makes" the machine give me a big winner=I know that's what's gonna be said. And no, it's not all the time-just when common sense says "hey, you can't make it back to even/steven with a full house or whatever-but here's the OPPORTUNITY to END the session and win." Sorry for the interruption, but there was a break in all the bullcrap and it got interesting.

[Alan Mendelson]

Vegas lover it was a generic statement for the Forum.