LUCK is almost EVERYTHING in Video Poker

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, I do not agree with your "special play" about holding only the three aces in a dealt full house in 7/5 Bonus Poker. However, I should note that Bob Dancer says he would only hold the three aces if he played 6/5 Bonus Poker.

But let me get back to my objection to your strategy.

As you mentioned the dealt full house pays $175 and I would not want to risk $175 for a 2.1% chance of winning $2,000. I think it's too much to risk for too little of a chance.

However, I once told how I was in a deep hole one session and I was dealt a full house with 3 aces playing 8/5 Bonus... and I broke up the full house and caught the quad aces. But I only did it once and never again. In that case I was risking $200 to win $2000 but I was more than $2,000 in the hole and it was "hit the quads" or go home. I know that when playing 8/5 Bonus you would hold the $200 full house.

[arcimede$]

As I've already stated I believe the 3 aces BP situation is one of the few cases where holding them will slightly increase your chances of hitting a win goal. It's all the rest that fail. Not surprising that Singer would choose it to obviate the discussion. How about breaking up 2-pair? He won't touch that one because it will always fail.

Also, did anyone else note all he did was his usual name calling when Spock pointed out the fact he had claimed one RF every 3500 hands? In no way did he provide any evidence to refute it. Now, why can't he simply provide that information if it existed? The fact he didn't provide anything to refute it is the key evidence to take away from this discussion.

That is what happens when liars are caught red-handed. Just like when Singer claimed he both lived and didn't live in Carefree; just like when Singer claimed he would bring in papers to support his system; just like why Singer could not provide any evidence he lived in a 4500+ sq foot home; just like the fact that Singer has NEVER provided any evidence that he has won anything let alone close to a million dollars.

When a person makes specific claims and never backs them up when asked the only possible conclusion is the person is not to be trusted.

[Spock]

Also, did anyone else note all he did was his usual name calling when Spock pointed out the fact he had claimed one RF every 3500 hands? In no way did he provide any evidence to refute it.

In all fairness, it would seem to me that the person making the original claim is responsible for producing evidence to back it up. For Rob to refute it he would need to know on what it is based. Since I suspect others might be interested as well, I've included it below.

In November of 2008 Rob did a podcast for the Gamblers Book Club:

http://gamblersbookclub.libsyn.com/e...hor-rob-singer

At the 38:16 mark he says:

"My method of play requires much more concentration then when I used to be an advantage optimal play player only. Then I used to play... I could play up to 1,400 hands per hour when I was like that and I used to time myself. I don't think I was accurate, because nobody could be accurate like that. But now I might play 500 hands an hour."

So 500 hands per hour is the benchmark, and he has restated it more than once since then. But even if that was doubled it would only be slightly less amazing.

In that same broadcast, at the 17:25 mark he says:

"This year I had a very unusually lucky year. I hit 4 royals, I played 25 hours total and I won directly from the machines a hundred and ninety two thousand dollars"

In early 2009 he said "...2008 saw my last hand of video poker played in late August (other than the free-play I get as I play "chase the freebies"..)" so it basically encompasses the entire year.

25 hours at 500 hands per hour would be 12,500 hands. 4 royals in 12,500 hands is one royal every 3,125 hands. An unusually lucky year to be sure.

Or is it?

Information about 2009 is scarce, with the only statement I know of being from August of that year: "Speaking of playing, mine has been on the puny side thus far this year. I believe I've played only 20 sessions and have won just under $11,000 while going 15-5. Of course, the majority of that came on a lucky hit on the $5 machine at M".

I have no idea what that "lucky hit" was, and I didn't include anything from 2009 because there is insufficient information.

While 2010 didn't seem to get much play from Rob, he did post more about his escapades.

In April of 2010 he wrote:

"I enter May 2010 ahead $24,500 for the year. I say lucky because I've been blessed with three $2 royals this year and I've not played more than 8 total hours"

8 hours at 500 hands per hour is 4,000 hands, 3 royals would equal one royal every 1,333 hands.

In August of 2010 he wrote:

"I've played a whole 5 hours in 2010 and most of it via the free-play route, but thanks to a very unusual four Royal Flushes (one on quarters and THREE on $2 machines) I've profited over $20,000"

(Clarification; there is no typo there, at least not on my part. The initial statement in April was "Not more than 8 hours", the second statement in August was "I've played a whole 5 hours". The only logical conclusion I can come to is that the VP testing machine in his garage also functioned as a time traveling device.)

5 hours at 500 hands per hour is 2,500 hands, 4 royals would equal one royal every 625 hands. But since this statement doesn't mesh with the other I'm going to be generous to Rob and use only the larger figure.

I didn't find any more statements about play in 2010, so we don't know if there was any more play at all, or if it was "not for profit" play so it didn't count.

In August of 2011 he began reporting his large hits on this forum, below are the royals:

8/29/11 $2
9/11/11 .50

On 10/11/11 he wrote:

"I don't play very often any more but I do have 2 royals ($1 & 50c) in Sept. in maybe 1000 hands."
(assuming the .50 was the same as the one he posted on 9/11, that still leaves an unaccounted for $1 royal, which I've included below)

10/11/11 $1
10/26/11 .25
4/7/12 $2
12/9/12 $2
12/19/12 $5
2/24/13 .25

He's repeated ad naseum that he only plays for 90 minutes every 10 days, "if that". There is about 18 months depicted above, which would come to about 54 sessions, (18 months x 30 days = 540 divided by playing every 10 days = 54).

At 500 hands per hour each session is 750 hands, so the total number of hands played would be 40,500. (750 x 54 = 40,500).

There were 8 reported royals, or one royal everyt 5,062.5 hands.

Over the course of the entire period the average comes to about one royal every 3,200 hands. So I was slightly off.

It should be noted that everything above is Rob's own statements; all I did was put the pieces together to make a larger picture. Even if the time/amount played or hands per hour is significantly modified it would still likely point to a rather remarkable record, one that has endured for a significant length of time.

[Vegas_lover]

Ok, who wants to make a bet Rob will come back with misterious new data that will contradict what Spock has just shared?

[arcimede$]

So Alan, you still believe Rob is being honest? BTW, I have nice ocean front property in Wyoming I can sell you at a steal.

[Alan Mendelson]

So he told a lie about how many hours he played video poker? That's horrible if he lied about how many hours played.

For comparison it took me, (I am estimating here, because I didn't actually count the number of hands), less than a thousand hands to hit two twenty-thou royals earlier this month. One was at Rincon on a Thursday night, and one was at Caesars on Saturday night.

About six months ago, my son hit four one-dollar royals at Caesars in less than twenty-four hours plus a one-dollar progressive at Gold Strike in Jean on the freeway on the ride up to Vegas.

But tsk tsk tsk if he fibbed about the number of hours played... even the number of royals won.

It really makes me wonder about those people over on LVA who report hitting thirty or forty royals a year.

[arcimede$]

The problem with your analysis, Alan, is this has been going on for over a decade. Spock just gave you the latest. However, it was no different before then. How do you think he reached the million dollars?

When a person continually gets caught in one lie after another (remember jatki) then why would you ever believe anything they say? Oh, that's right, you want to defend your decision to promote Singer's BS.

[Alan Mendelson]

I think you have certainly raised some good questions here about timing and hours played and frequency of royals.

Did I tell you the story about how I won the money for my wife's engagement ring? I was playing the $5 Bonus Progressive at Caesars in the Forum Casino. This was about ten years ago. I hit it for $24,000. While waiting for the payoff (it took a bit of time back then) I brought Shelley over to the machine and we played for about three minutes and during that time she hit quad aces on one of the machines, and I also hit quad aces. Then I got the $24,000 payoff and I went to play craps. At about 8-am I lost a ton of money playing craps and on the way up to the room I passed by the Jacks or Better progressive and I put in $200. And on the third play I hit that royal for a bit more than $21,000. I estimate I hit those two royals about 20 hands apart.

Yes, we have to look further into Rob's claims about the frequency of royals.

Oh, by the way, you remember how I was dealt a royal on a 50-play 5-cent machine at Mandalay Bay? Oh, that's another story.

[arcimede$]

Right, Alan. Are you ready to make me an offer on that nice Wyoming beach property.

If it walks like a duck and talks like duck ... then Alan will think it's an Eagle.

[Count Room]

I, myself, have hit royals almost back-to-back...just a few minutes apart.

Alan:

You can show us the lucky streak, but what about balancing it out with the time when you went 170,000 hands without any royal at all? I once went a half a million hands without a royal some years ago, and that was after I had a beautiful month with only about 30 hours of play and 6 royals.

The Poisson Distribution is a big factor here.

I think we need to face it that the Las Vegas forum would be a lot more boring without Rob being here, and I think there is an incentive for Alan to keep things exciting by keeping Rob around.

(Just....being neutral as usual!)

EDIT TO ADD: Think of it this way: Don't journalists relish exciting stories? Don't they bring in more television ratings and internet viewer traffic? What makes for a more exciting story than continuous conflict? If everybody agreed with each other it becomes a lot more dull and makes life harder for journalists.

[quahaug]

This Dancer person holds classes in the casinos, has a book titled "Video poker for WINNERS", and there's no implication that you too can be a winner? How naive must a person be to think Southpoint is so anxious to give away money that they have this expert come in and tell you how to rape them. Come on get real.

[quahaug]

Almost forgot. Does anybody know when the next card counting class at The M is. Oh there isn't one. Never mind.

[Rob.Singer]

This Dancer person holds classes in the casinos, has a book titled "Video poker for WINNERS", and there's no implication that you too can be a winner? How naive must a person be to think Southpoint is so anxious to give away money that they have this expert come in and tell you how to rape them. Come on get real.

You will see the "tested genius" reply with how all the people who go to Dancer's classes are stupid and incompetent and the casino knows this so they pay him to reel in the sheep. AP's of course, don't need education because they already know more than everybody else. Just like teenagers. And when Dancer gets paid 5 or 6 thousand dollars a year from various casinos to "teach", there's little doubt he includes that into his "winning formula" for the year.

[Alan Mendelson]

I attended one of Bob Dancer's seminars... it might have been as much as ten years ago at the Fiesta in North Vegas. I recall that the seminar was held off to the side of the casino in an alcove near the 9/6 Jacks or Better machines with a large photo of Bob Dancer at the top of each machine saying he endorsed these machines. Imagine that, he endorsed 9/6 Jacks or Better... a negative expectation machine. Of course I didn't know better back then... I didn't know better until I read about the importance of playing only positive expectation games here.

By the way, could someone explain why Dancer writes about these promotions he plays on negative expectation games? Could the gift cards and the cards really pay off more than what he might lose? Oh, never mind what he might lose. We've since learned he lost.

[Vegas_lover]

Your actions are becoming more and more questionable by the minute Alan. First you tell Arci he is close to being banned because he called Singer a scammer. Quahaug comes back and states that Dancer is running the real scam. You only give him a slap on the wrist and after that you join in to question everything Dancer does. What is this? Dancer is not here, and although I think he's an obnoxious, arrogant jerk, you should do yourself a favor and investigate the system you report about on your own website some more before you start to comment about Dancer's system.

First the whole discussion about Singer's strategy is about numbers and all of a sudden there's a 180 degree twist. Singer has tested a machine for hours and hours and has collected a storage room filled with data. All this data should have been produced about 6 months ago and as a reporter you don't put any effort into finding out if this data really excists or not. 1% can make the difference between a positive and negative game so yes, the numbers discussion is crucial!

You also don't question Rob about why all his machine testing, collecting data and doing detailed mathemathical research was so important to develop his strategy but when he throws around his numbers for years and years on forums and in his published articles and somebody shows his numbers aren't correct it was all just guessing. All of that means nothing to you. The true reporter in you does not become more critical and does not start to investigate other claims some more either? No, you like to shift your focus to Dancer. Great reporting!

[Alan Mendelson]

Your actions are becoming more and more questionable by the minute Alan. First you tell Arci he is close to being banned because he called Singer a scammer. Quahaug comes back and states that Dancer is running the real scam. You only give him a slap on the wrist and after that you join in to question everything Dancer does. What is this? Dancer is not here, and although I think he's an obnoxious, arrogant jerk, you would do yourself a favor to investigate the system you report about on your own website some more before you start to comment about Dancer's system.

Why do I find your comments ironic? Actually it's one of the funniest things I ever read.

[Vegas_lover]

Why do I find your comments ironic? Actually it's one of the funniest things I ever read.

Please enlighten me Alan. What is so ironic about them? What's so funny about them? Because you think I'm an obnoxious jerk? I am, maybe I'm closer to reality about your motives than you like?

[Alan Mendelson]

First the whole discussion about Singer's strategy is about numbers and all of a sudden there's a 180 degree twist. Singer has tested a machine for hours and hours and has collected a storage room filled with data. All this data should have been produced about 6 months ago and as a reporter you don't put any effort into finding out if this data really excists or not. 1% can make the difference between a positive and negative game so yes, the numbers discussion is crucial!

You also don't question Rob about why all his machine testing, collecting data and doing detailed mathemathical research was so important to develop his strategy but when he throws around his numbers for years and years on forums and in his published articles and somebody shows his numbers aren't correct it was all just guessing. All of that means nothing to you. The true reporter in you does not become more critical and does not start to investigate other claims some more either? No, you like to shift you focus to Dancer. Great reporting!

I see that you have amended your post to add two more paragraphs. Vegas_lover, my friend, I'm afraid you haven't been fair in your assessment. I challenged Rob from the start -- in the very first interview I did with him -- about machines not being random. That video you can see here and it is separate from the interviews about the special plays which was done during a second interview session:

http://alanbestbuys.com/id132.html The interview runs about 11:20 also please read the text that accompanies the interview in the article titled: ROB SINGER: THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL NAME IN VIDEO POKER

And also please read the two other articles that follow it.

Now some background: I first approached Rob to do an interview -- and he not only graciously agreed, but arranged that we could do the interview in the high limits room of the Hard Rock Casino -- because I was interested in his claims that machines are not 100% random. When I did that interview with him he told me about his "special plays." I had no idea what the special plays were prior to this. When I was back here in LA I did some more research about his special plays and realized that for the most part, there was very little information about what the special plays were and why Rob created them. So I asked him for the opportunity for a second interview, which we did at Caesars Palace, so that Rob could show and explain the basic special plays that he uses when he is not playing the "conventional style." And let me add he says he uses his special plays only 5% of the time.

I have always been a critic of his claim that the machines are not random -- and that is the supposed data in the storage unit. Like others I have been waiting for Rob to come up with the data, and in several posts here I even challenged that if he produced such data it would be worthless because of his testing methods and the data appears only on a print out and to be analyzed it would have to be put into a program. My biggest criticism is that Rob returned the machine so we have no way to even verify the data against the machine, and by returning the machine we lost the evidence of an error or something more sinister.

So when you say that I "don't question Rob" about the machine, the testing, the data and the research, you should go back in the forum and read what you missed. You missed a lot. You missed that I challenged Rob from the beginning.

Now, in all fairness to Rob, where I think he "has something" is his ideas about win goals and loss limts. I do not embrace his special plays with the exception of trip aces in triple double bonus, and you can read about that too.

But that, dear Vegas_lover is only one of his special plays and I would venture that most video poker players would probably do the same thing which is hold the three aces and not the kicker. And do you want to know why? Because in double double bonus you don't hold a kicker with three aces. Only in triple double bonus do you hold the kicker -- and most video poker players probably don't know that the conventional strategy is different with TDB.

I think you owe me an apology. I doubt you will, however.

[Alan Mendelson]

Please enlighten me Alan. What is so ironic about them? What's so funny about them? Because you think I'm an obnoxious jerk? I am, maybe I'm closer to reality about your motives than you like?

No I don't think you're an obnoxious jerk. You called Dancer an obnoxious, arrogant jerk. You didn't tell us you knew Dancer that well that you could call him an obnoxious, arrogant jerk.

Gee, when I met him, he came across as being a very pleasant, informative, intelligent fellow.

[Vegas_lover]

I haven't missed anything. I know you have questioned Rob about the data in the storage unit, I know you have been critical about some of his claims. I've read it all and I've watched all the videos. BUT I find it interesting (and questionable) investigative journalism is not high on your priority list. Because the way in which you question anything Rob says is marginal at best. You seem not to be interested in finding out the truth about his system at all. And since you're a reporter and have been a reporter for a long time, that raises red flags.

As I said I know I'm an obnoxious jerk when it comes to this subject and your approach. And no, you won't get an apology because I don't believe you're entitled to one. As soon as you show a different approach (more hands on) I will be the first to compliment you with it and apologize for being that obnoxious jerk.

In my opinion, you're doing a lousy job reporting about Singer's system as an objective, investigative reporter. What I've seen and read you haven't questioned Rob's screwy statements half as much as you did with Arci or Redietz. But at least their comments have been based on science (you know that funny little thing called math).