Journalistic Responsibility Vis-a-Vis Unorthodox Claims

[redietz]

The closest analogy to whether Alan bears some responsibility for helping Mr. Argentino spread the wealth of his ideas would be found in medicine.

Would it be responsible to allow someone recommending a cancer cure or a diet that worked for him (and that presumably worked for a certain percentage of others) to make that case on a forum?

If the treatment or diet was outside the range of what was recommended by medical authorities, and had been statistically proven to be ineffective, then the anecdotal experiences of the person who was cured or had lost weight would not be considered "proof" of the efficacy of that treatment or diet.

Now while a journalist is certainly within his rights to report on the experiences of the promulgator of the treatment or diet, one would think he/she would also consult the medical profession and include those consultations in the body of the discussion.

[regnis]

Isn't that person Arci in that context?

[Alan Mendelson]

redietz, a good assessment. Please check and review my text and videos to see what I said and wrote not only about Rob's system but also what is considered conventional video poker strategy. I think you will see that I did my job properly.

[arcimede$]

Wrong Alan, doing it right would be actually checking to see if the claims were valid BEFORE reporting. Singer's claims have long been 100% invalidated. By just giving a voice to the person SELLING the claims you are not reporting. You are promoting.

[Vegas_lover]

Now Arci, this is where we disagree. The right way would have been to include a certified math professor to comment (included in the videos) on the strategy and the various situations that are being presented. Alan is not the right person to do so because is knowledge of math his very limited. In other words: let the professional comment about what is and what's not. Alan failed to consult a math professional and that's where he missed an important step in his report in my opinion (at least as a good reporter). I highly doubt any judge would hold Alan responsible for the gambling actions of forum readers who fell for Rob's stories.

But then again, in your country (unfortunately, because in many ways you live in a great country) people run to a court house for farting in the wrong direction. I know of no other country in the world where people spend so much money and time on (ridiculous) lawsuits.

[Alan Mendelson]

Just curious: does anyone give any credit to Rob for pointing out the "expected value" of his special plays vs. the expected value of the conventional play?

[arcimede$]

Alan, all cons have elements of truth intermixed with the lies. Now, you don't want to call Singer's system a con, but you clearly recognize that he does exactly the same thing as we see in other cons. Think about it.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, in all honesty, I have a problem understanding how you can say Singer "lies" about his system. What in particular are the "lies" you are referring to?

For example, do you think he is lying about the amount he won during his ten year run?
Do you think he is lying about the odds or expected value?
Do you think he is lying about the time he played or the amount of his bankroll?
What is the lie you refer to?

Keep in mind, I don't think he's lied to me about anything, and let me state a few things that I believe to be true:

1. I believe he really won nearly a million dollars over ten years. And frankly, I know other video poker players who play at the $10 and $25 levels who also average about $100k per year in profits. For his bankroll, Rob really didn't break the casinos with a yearly win of about $100k.

2. I believe he has stated the expected value of the conventional plays and his special plays.

3. I believe he keeps to his win goals, but we have already discussed how his loss limits are too extreme for me. I cannot even fathom the idea that he would risk $50,000+ just to have a $2,500 win goal. That makes no sense to me.

4. I believe when he tells me he plays "conventional strategy" 95% of the time and that his "special plays" actually are used 5% of the time.

Now, I am not interested in where Rob lived, or the size of his house, or if he lived in an apartment, or if he gave his house to his daughter, or anything else. Because I don't think any of that has anything to do with our discussion of video poker. I do believe he had two books published because I read them. I do believe he wrote for Gaming Today for several years and I can't imagine that the editor of GT would allow Rob to either lie or embellish any reports about his wins. And I do believe that Rob knows several of the slot directors at major hotels in Vegas because it was Rob who pulled the strings to allow us to shoot some of the videos in the high limit room of the Hard Rock.

Now, what are those alleged lies that I should be aware of?

[arcimede$]

Arc, in all honesty, I have a problem understanding how you can say Singer "lies" about his system. What in particular are the "lies" you are referring to?

For example, do you think he is lying about the amount he won during his ten year run?
Do you think he is lying about the odds or expected value?
Do you think he is lying about the time he played or the amount of his bankroll?
What is the lie you refer to?

I think he lies about all of the above. Specifically, he makes these invalid claims:

1) A person can win every day playing negative machines.
2) A person playing positive situations using expert play will lose unless they get lucky.
3) A progression gives a person a chance to get lucky (the progression does nothing, people get will get lucky no more often playing a progression than any other method of play).
4) His special plays increase the chances of hitting win goals (only a couple actually do that).

I really don't care about all his lies about his own results or life. They are obvious but don't affect other people. Your beliefs that he is not lying given all the evidence that he constantly lies is interesting. I suspect it has to do with your what you want to believe rather than logic.

[Alan Mendelson]

Here's my opinion about these four items;

1. Yes, I think a person can win every day. But Singer did not win every day. One time he even went fifty thousand in the hole chasing his losses.

2. I think it takes luck to win even if you are on a positive expectation game. I don't think a positive expectation game works like an ATM with a pin.

3. I think what Rob said about progressions was this: by moving up in denomination you give yourself a chance to hit a win that would pay off a bigger amount that will wipe out your previous losses. I never liked his idea about moving up in denominations, but then, I can understand how it works. You lose a hundred dollars at twenty-five cent video poker and then you jump up to five-dollar video poker and hit a straight and you just won back your hundred bucks... or something like that.

4. Yeah, I have to agree with him that some of his special plays could help him get a jackpot and reach a win goal, but the special plays could also miss and he could lose. Let's use the example of the full house with three aces in seven five bonus... do you really want to risk 175 to win two-thousand? I don't.

[arcimede$]

Alan, what a load of nonsense. Now you are claiming a a person can win every day also. Good grief, that would mean you are disagreeing with all the mathematicians in the world. On what basis have you decided to invent your own math? The rest of your responses are no better. They violate well known basic mathematical principles. Like I said before, you don't want to know the truth. You just want to defend your decision to promote Singer's lies.

Stupid is as stupid does. Now here's the facts.

1) No one can win every time playing negative VP. The probability starts out no better than 75% even with a 5 level progression on slightly negative games. Now, what is the chances of winning 10 straight sessions? (.75)**10 = .056. Only a 1 in 20 chance ... now what do you think it is for 100? Every day? Not even close.

2) Wrong again. All is takes is a normal distribution of hands. That has nothing to do with "luck". Your answer once again is beyond rational. You obviously know nothing of the math and yet you made a statement that started "I think" and then made ridiculous assertions. Amazing.

3) Yes, you will increase your sessions wins with a progression. But you pay for it by larger losses when you do lose. But that was not the point of my statement. Singer claims his system gives you a better chance to get lucky. That is pure nonsense as every hand is independent. The machine knows nothing of past results and hence there is no way for it to reward a person who has increased denomination. The bottom line is that over time your return at every level in the progression will approach the ER of the game and hence the progression provides no advantage whatsoever. A person who claims it does is lying.

4) Anyone that believes the special plays provide any advantage cannot do simple mathematics. Why did you NEVER read my mathematical evidence that most of the special plays actually reduce the chances of hitting win goals? With a reduced chance of hitting win goals along with a lower return, why would anyone believe Singer's claims? Why do you allow those claims which have been shown to be wrong appear on your web site?

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc this is your problem. You are forgetting that video poker is run by a random number generator. And if I can use economic terms, because I don't the correct math terms, you are looking the macro-economic picture and not the micro-economic picture.

You are overlooking that all casino players are not the same. Some will win and some will lose.

You cannot say everyone will lose, because if everyone lost, no one would gamble.

1. Can I guarantee that someone will win every time? No. Is it possible? Yes. Deal with it.
2. There is no normal distribution of anything when it comes to an individual player sitting at a vp machine with a random number generator. Deal with it.
3. The progression argument by Singer is not my cup of tea but even with a Martingale, without a limit you will eventually come out ahead. But I'm not going to debate this because I don't like the whole idea of it.
4. The special plays are at a mathematical disadvantage. I know that. You know that. Singer knows that. But if one happens to hit, Singer claims that's good for him and can help him meet his win goal and end his session. Unless you and I adopt his win goal per session strategy the special plays will always appear to us as being nonsensical.

Let's get to the bottom line: why does Singer's "stuff" appear on my website? Because I wanted to give him a fair hearing so everyone can see and judge for himself. Rob had a fair hearing and you judged and I did my job. And deal with that, too.

[redietz]

If you believe it is possible for someone to win every time, with those times numbering in the thousands, I salute your optimism. If you believe there is no random distribution of hands, that has serious implications for playing poker. Over time, then, Johnny Chan is wrong -- we do not all get the same hands. Again, I salute your optimism.

I heartily recommend a book called "The Optimism Bias."

[Vegas_lover]

Guys, why even bother anymore?

Maybe we should just leave Alan and Rob by themselves so they can talk to eachother every day and tell eachother how wonderful, smart and gifted they both are. They would both probably like this forum a lot more than they do now. We're all just standing in their way of having some fun, trouble free, forum interaction.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, I'll post here because it looks like that luck thread really got on the nerves of Spock so he questioned all my unimportant guesses about how many hands I played or how much time I played or whatever. Ha! If I didn't figure how to post pics of my wins, he'd be criticizing me for "hiding these phantom jackpots from everyone's sight" instead of worrying about how many phones and cameras a successful, MARRIED couple has! He must believe every retired couple is mired in the same misery as arci is. What kind of moron tries to keep track of his OWN stats--let alone someone else's? I see that weirdness driven by jealousy over the phenomenal results I've had since quitting pro play in May 2009. And arci....if he ever wanted to figure out the difference between Carefree and the Carefree Highway, his wife's meds would probably be more timely in their delivery.

The 7/5 FH example: I don't expect nor would I recommend holding the 3 Aces to anyone not playing my strategy--and only at the proper times as I explained. That 2.1% "chance" you mentioned--that's an incorrect number, but again, it doesn't matter WHAT it is. You don't have that many chances to be dealt 3 Aces in any session, and if you don't try you will never have the chance of hitting the big quad, as you said you found out for yourself on 8/5 BP. All the other long-term nonsense has zero to do with the one hand you're playing. And here's a suggestion: Don't think of your credits in terms of monetary amounts--they're only units of play--in a casino. Plus if you toss the small pair in the 8/5 $5 FH, you're floating $125 not $200.

[Rob.Singer]

Guys, why even bother anymore?

Maybe we should just leave Alan and Rob by themselves so they can talk to eachother every day and tell eachother how wonderful, smart and gifted they both are. They would both probably like this forum a lot more than they do now. We're all just standing in their way of having some fun, trouble free, forum interaction.

I see you're like the others, and are and have been all along, thoroughly disgusted with having to look at Alan's $5 jackpot wins.

As I've always written in my GT column MANY times--winners LOVE to hear about and see other people's wins & jackpots; Losers can't STAND even the thought of it. And nowhere is that more apparent than right here, with arci, Spock, and now VLover. They claim that's not the case, but their true colors show whenever they can't help themselves.

[Vegas_lover]

I see you're like the others, and are and have been all along, thoroughly disgusted with having to look at Alan's $5 jackpot wins.

As I've always written in my GT column MANY times--winners LOVE to hear about and see other people's wins & jackpots; Losers can't STAND even the thought of it. And nowhere is that more apparent than right here, with arci, Spock, and now VLover. They claim that's not the case, but their true colors show whenever they can't help themselves.

Whahahaha, this one is just hysterical. How you come up with this stuff is just mind blowing. My 7 year old son makes more sense most of the time. Let me tell it to you in a way even you should be able to comprehend: I don't believe a word that comes out of your mouth. You have been throwing around numbers for years and when somebody confronts you with all of your inconsistant numbers, all of a sudden "you were just guessing". Sounds really reliable. See the smoke? It's coming out of your rear end buddy boy

As far as Alan is concerned, I really, really hope he ends 2013 with a positive balance of at least 6-figures. You know, I do have a lot of respect for Alan even though I don't always show it. He does get a lot of crap from a number of us and it might seem unfair at some occasions. You on the other hand, deserve all the flack you get from some of us. You use the word Karma very lightly. If you really believed in karma, you wouldn't approach people the way you do. So in the end, I also hope that one day Alan will wake up and realize how foolish he was to deal with you.

[Vegas_lover]

I wanted to edit my last post to make something very clear to you Rob. But since that's not possible after an hour I'll just re-post the last (edited) paragraph of my previous post:

As far as Alan is concerned, I really, really hope he ends 2013 with a positive balance of at least 6-figures. You know, I do have a lot of respect for Alan even though I don't always show it. He does get a lot of crap from a number of us and it might seem unfair at some occasions. You on the other hand, deserve all the flack you get from some of us. You use the word karma very lightly. If you really believed in karma, you wouldn't approach people the way you do. So in the end, I also hope that one day Alan will wake up and realize how foolish he was to deal with you.

[a2a3dseddie]

Arc, in all honesty, I have a problem understanding how you can say Singer "lies" about his system. What in particular are the "lies" you are referring to?

For example, do you think he is lying about the amount he won during his ten year run?
Do you think he is lying about the odds or expected value?
Do you think he is lying about the time he played or the amount of his bankroll?
What is the lie you refer to?

Keep in mind, I don't think he's lied to me about anything, and let me state a few things that I believe to be true:

1. I believe he really won nearly a million dollars over ten years. And frankly, I know other video poker players who play at the $10 and $25 levels who also average about $100k per year in profits. For his bankroll, Rob really didn't break the casinos with a yearly win of about $100k.

2. I believe he has stated the expected value of the conventional plays and his special plays.

3. I believe he keeps to his win goals, but we have already discussed how his loss limits are too extreme for me. I cannot even fathom the idea that he would risk $50,000+ just to have a $2,500 win goal. That makes no sense to me.

4. I believe when he tells me he plays "conventional strategy" 95% of the time and that his "special plays" actually are used 5% of the time.

Now, I am not interested in where Rob lived, or the size of his house, or if he lived in an apartment, or if he gave his house to his daughter, or anything else. Because I don't think any of that has anything to do with our discussion of video poker. I do believe he had two books published because I read them. I do believe he wrote for Gaming Today for several years and I can't imagine that the editor of GT would allow Rob to either lie or embellish any reports about his wins. And I do believe that Rob knows several of the slot directors at major hotels in Vegas because it was Rob who pulled the strings to allow us to shoot some of the videos in the high limit room of the Hard Rock.

Now, what are those alleged lies that I should be aware of?

Alan, what makes you believe him? What proof has he provided you with? Are you just taking his word for it? Are you just stirring the pot to increase traffic on your site?

[arcimede$]

This projection by Singer says it all:

"winners LOVE to hear about and see other people's wins & jackpots; Losers can't STAND even the thought of it."

Think about it. Most people who post photos online lose. They do post their occasional winning photos and usually receive congratulations from others who also post their wins. Hence, we have losers congratulating winners all the time. Exactly the opposite of what Singer claimed. So, what makes him think losers hate winners? Because, ever since Singer was a "loser" he has hated all successful gamblers.

That's why he created his tower of lies. He is a failure in every sense. He imagines that APers lose and are envious of his mythical success. He lived in a small apartment while his wife supported him. He could no more afford to bet at the level he claimed than he could afford to own a 4500 sq foot home. He made it all up. His fantasies are basically laughed at by anyone with any sense whatsoever. Of course, suckers come along and fall for the lies every now and then. Right, Alan?

Singer's life ... a tragedy of failure.