Big Point: Rob Singer Isn't real

[Alan Mendelson]

Exactly, and since he says there are literally hundreds of variations of these...even more foam and even less beer

I think when he means variations, he is talking about the cards presented and how you have to adjust the special plays. Thanks for giving him a fair chance to explain. Have another beer.

[Vegas_lover]

I think when he means variations, he is talking about the cards presented and how you have to adjust the special plays. Thanks for giving him a fair chance to explain. Have another beer.

I'm sorry Alan but I don't get your speech about Rob getting a fair chance. We have been discussing his strategy for over a year and this subject has been discussed a while ago as Vic brought up. Rob has had more than a few chances to explain everything but the only thing he has done is create more questions than answers. In other words, if you want to fill in the blanks, you don't create more blanks. He has had a zillion fair chances and I think it's disturbing you look at this in another way. Vic has a very valid point here but you still continue to defend Rob. It's about time he starts giving some real explanations instead of the usual "smoke".

[Alan Mendelson]

Quite the contrary, Vegas_lover. No one has asked him to explain anything. For example, I just raised the point about his variations. Instead of asking what the variations might be you immediately jumped to conclusions, didn't you.

What a bunch of closed-minded people... all six of you.

[Vegas_lover]

Quite the contrary, Vegas_lover. No one has asked him to explain anything. For example, I just raised the point about his variations. Instead of asking what the variations might be you immediately jumped to conclusions, didn't you.

What a bunch of closed-minded people... all six of you.

Maybe that's your main problem Alan? You seem to be on a cruisade to "save Rob" from all evil. Please show us where all six of us didn't ask Rob questions. I've read about the variations before and I've also read how Vic questioned Rob about this a while back. He's never made a real effort to answer all questions. You are biased Alan and it's showing. It's showing so obviously people question your integrity. And that's exactly why you get so much flack. Maybe you should go back and re-read everything that has been posted about his strategy during the last year.

This reply of yours is stunning. Sometimes I get the feeling you are clueless about what's going on here. Sorry if that pisses you off but you never fail no amaze me. Did you have a rough right or something?

[Alan Mendelson]

I am not going to waste any more time with this. I won't censor you... say what you wish. But Rob's videos on average have been viewed more than 3,000 times each. From now on, just consider Rob's content on this site for those who are interested in his system.

[regnis]

The amazing thing is that the 2 principals, Singer and Arci, have everyone else at each other's throats. I think that Singer did somewhere state that the special plays depend on so many circumstances that he can't easily explain or list them all. While that still may be BS, he has stated that he needs to show how and when in a live session. The special plays are such a small piece of his system--why do we dwell on that. It all goes back to the proof that he hasn't furnished and it seems too difficult to arrange a date or dates to video his playing the system in order to get the proof (or disprove it).

And just to reiterate for the millionth time, he never questions the math or says the math is wrong. He says he can win short term and that his special plays may help him to do so.

The best way to beat a long term negative game is to play short term. I just made that up but think about it.

[redietz]

Look, if "Rob Singer" -- not a real person -- has hundreds of variations of special plays, he either arrived at them by trial-and-error or via some logical/mathematical insight. Now there are problems with either explanation. If he arrived at them by trial-and-error, since they so rarely happen, it would take a phenomenal number of hands for him to be able to draw any conclusions. But if he did this, there should also be a catalogue of "failed special plays" that Rob considered, tried out, and rejected as failures. We don't seem to have heard about anything of the kind. We also have no provenance for his special plays -- how did he arrive at them without testing them over millions of hands? Did he run simulations? I don't think so.

In the second case, if he had some logical/math insight, then he and only he managed to figure out the special plays. He must have world class math aptitude or is a special kind of genius when it comes to analyzing these matters. This is possible; I don't reject it out of hand.

Another problem with the trial-and-error origin of special plays is that, even if Rob wanted to keep the majority of them secret, he has shown Alan a few. He could show us a couple of the failed ones, since there had to be some, and then we could compare them and understand what the difference is between the ones that work and the ones that fail. I suspect, however, we'll never see any of the special plays Rob rejected because they will be indistinguishable from the ones that allegedly work.

[Vegas_lover]

I think that Singer did somewhere state that the special plays depend on so many circumstances that he can't easily explain or list them all. While that still may be BS, he has stated that he needs to show how and when in a live session. The special plays are such a small piece of his system--why do we dwell on that.

The reason we dwell on that is because Singer claims his Special Plays make all the difference between optimal strategy and his strategy. His special plays, used at the right time, brought him all this VP fortune (together with win goals and loss limits). So his special plays are a key element of his strategy and even for him, it's impossible to simply list them? He needs to show you in a live session. Now that's a load of bull. Wanne know why? He only uses his special plays in 5% of the hands played and there's 100's of variations. How long should that live session be before he's had the chance to show them all?

If you really wanted to help people, learn them your ways to fortune, you would go out of your way to document detailed instructions.

[Vegas_lover]

I am not going to waste any more time with this.

I highly, highly doubt it!

[redietz]

I got a chuckle out of Alan's very clever writing. "Six of us" are closed-minded, but Rob's videos have been viewed 3000 times. Well, that settles it. Those special plays must work. Unless, of course, they don't.

Now comes the scary idea that Arci was warning folks about. Imagine if 3000 video poker players actually implemented the "Rob Singer" -- not a real person, mind you -- strategy. Uh oh, that has disaster written all over it.

I say, in case that's actually happened, we all pitch in and get Alan a Kevlar vest for his birthday, because there are going to be some perturbed individuals out there. When's that birthday, Alan?

[arcimede$]

The amazing thing is that the 2 principals, Singer and Arci, have everyone else at each other's throats. I think that Singer did somewhere state that the special plays depend on so many circumstances that he can't easily explain or list them all. While that still may be BS, he has stated that he needs to show how and when in a live session. The special plays are such a small piece of his system--why do we dwell on that.

When special plays are "such a small piece of his system" how can a "live session" be useful at all? He claims over 1700 special plays. The chances for anything but a small sample to come up during a live session are astronomical. So, what good is a live session? Answer ... none. However, a player who went through a live session claims Singer required the use of his own player's card during the session. So, Singer gets all the cashback, freeplay and offers from the result of multiple people going through a "live session". So we do know why Singer has these sessions and it has nothing to do with education.

It all goes back to the proof that he hasn't furnished and it seems too difficult to arrange a date or dates to video his playing the system in order to get the proof (or disprove it).

And just to reiterate for the millionth time, he never questions the math or says the math is wrong. He says he can win short term and that his special plays may help him to do so.

The best way to beat a long term negative game is to play short term. I just made that up but think about it.

Of course, this is all completely debunked by the link I provided to the mathematical proof that a progression cannot change the ER of a game. Sorry, you are just repeating nonsense. Saying something like "playing short term" is just gobbledegook. It is meaningless drivel. It is idiocy wrapped to make it look intelligent.

BTW, you may not be very good at math, but the simple fact is Reid's proof shows that Singer cannot have ANY supporting "proof that he hasn't furnished". It has to be a lie. You cannot prove two opposites to both be true.

[a2a3dseddie]

Alan,

In keeping with the theme of the title of this thread, I have a question for "Rob Singer". Actually this question is for Mr. Argentino, the creator of the "Rob Singer" persona. Have YOU Mr. Argentino the actual person, (not the invented "Rob Singer") actually banked a net profit of $1 million dollars playing VP using the systems and special plays discussed here using the "Rob Singer" persona? Are the special plays, and winning claims fabricated like the Rob Singer persona?

[a2a3dseddie]

Alan,

You've said that you believe:

1. Someone could win EVERY time they gamble.
2. Tight loss limits and pre-determined win goals could ensure a net profit.
3. You are ahead 85% of your sessions (doesn't this contradict #1?)

Once again... how can you ensure only you will have winning sessions and leave all the losing sessions to the other players to endure? As far as loss limits and win goals are concerned, When Rob said his win goal was only $2500 but he had a loss limit of $50,000, that sort of makes sense. Wouldn't he need that kind of bankroll to actually hit that $2500 win goal repeatedly?

The math breaks down when he says he has winning sessions 85% of the time. Does that mean he loses the whole $50,000 15% of the time? If so, that means over 100 sessions, he would have losses of $750,000, and wins of only $212,500. I know he said the wins far out-weigh the losses...

Anyways, I don't think you could set a win goal of $2500 and a loss limit of $2500-$5000 and reach that win goal very often. Let Arci run the numbers on that.

[Alan Mendelson]

Look, if "Rob Singer" -- not a real person -- has hundreds of variations of special plays, he either arrived at them by trial-and-error or via some logical/mathematical insight. Now there are problems with either explanation. If he arrived at them by trial-and-error, since they so rarely happen, it would take a phenomenal number of hands for him to be able to draw any conclusions. But if he did this, there should also be a catalogue of "failed special plays" that Rob considered, tried out, and rejected as failures. We don't seem to have heard about anything of the kind. We also have no provenance for his special plays -- how did he arrive at them without testing them over millions of hands? Did he run simulations? I don't think so.

In the second case, if he had some logical/math insight, then he and only he managed to figure out the special plays. He must have world class math aptitude or is a special kind of genius when it comes to analyzing these matters. This is possible; I don't reject it out of hand.

Another problem with the trial-and-error origin of special plays is that, even if Rob wanted to keep the majority of them secret, he has shown Alan a few. He could show us a couple of the failed ones, since there had to be some, and then we could compare them and understand what the difference is between the ones that work and the ones that fail. I suspect, however, we'll never see any of the special plays Rob rejected because they will be indistinguishable from the ones that allegedly work.

redietz asked an honest question, and I am going to offer what information I have. Maybe Rob will respond and do a better job... and I might not have the right answer anyway.

The special plays all have one goal and one goal only: if he gets lucky with them the special play "win" will allow him to reach his win goal and end the session. Rob told me if he is already winning there is no need to use a special play... he'll continue with conventional strategy which he uses, he says, 95% of the time.

How bad are the special plays? Well look at the videos. In some cases the expected return between a special play and the conventional play isn't that different. And while we're on the subject of expected returns... the expected return of some of the "holy positive expectation games" aren't that much different from the expected returns of the games that Singer says he has won on.

And redietz, Singer doesn't guarantee anything with a special play, and you know that. He has lost plenty, including a $50,000+ loss I blasted him for. He knows that the special plays are at a mathematical disadvantage which is why he uses them only 5% of the time. And I suggested he might actually use them less than 5% of the time!!

So when you ask about special plays that failed, I would think that they all failed at one time or another. But so have the conventional plays failed one time or another. Don't believe me? Ask Arc how many times he broke up a dealt flush because he had four to the royal (the conventional play) and he ended up with bubkes (junk in Yiddish).

I have made the conventional play of breaking up flushes and straights when dealt four to the royal probably 300 times in my life. I think once, when dealt a straight, it converted to a royal. So that means 299 out of 300 of those conventional plays failed.

I said this once before I think over on LVA: you all are making too much out of Rob's system. Every day in casinos I see players holding a high pair instead of two pair when the second pair is a low pair so they can get quads. Every day in casinos I see players breaking up full houses to just hold the aces. Sure they are making mathematically bad choices... but they are trying for big wins. Rob wants big wins too, he says, so he can make money and get out of the casino. And sometimes he makes big wins and sometimes he chases $50,000+ losses.

[Vegas_lover]

I am not going to waste any more time with this

Now this was the quickest change of heart ever . For somebody who's out of the game, you jump back into the game faster than lightning can strike. Not that I have a problem with it's just the ungrateful part of your job. Now Alan, please don't get worked up about it. Whe're just breaking down a VP strategy. It's not like this is one of the biggest deals in life.

[Alan Mendelson]

This is easy to answer:

1. Someone could win EVERY time they gamble.
2. Tight loss limits and pre-determined win goals could ensure a net profit.
3. You are ahead 85% of your sessions (doesn't this contradict #1?)

1, Yes, someone could win every time they gamble. I haven't. Neither has Rob Singer. But again, someone COULD win. That's all anyone said.
2. Nothing is "ensured." But having a loss limit keeps you from going in the hole. Having a win goal ensures that you don't give back all of your profit. Where does that mean you are ensured a net profit?
3. There was a brief period when I not only was ahead 100% of my sessions but I had two $20,000 royals under my belt. But since you got #1 wrong, I don't have to explain why #3 is irrelevant.

I have no idea what you mean by:

Once again... how can you ensure only you will have winning sessions and leave all the losing sessions to the other players to endure?

I don't. Where the heck did you get that from???

Here are some responses to your other unusual questions and statements:

As far as loss limits and win goals are concerned, When Rob said his win goal was only $2500 but he had a loss limit of $50,000, that sort of makes sense. Wouldn't he need that kind of bankroll to actually hit that $2500 win goal repeatedly?

Really? You never sat down at a machine and started winning? You had to go $50,000 in the hole first in order to win? Wow, what rotten luck you have.

And you'll have to ask Rob about this, because when I go to a casino my bankroll is peanuts compared to Rob's. Yet, I've sat down at a $5 aces and faces machine with $300 put in and I've hit quad aces and quads and even a royal or two.

The math breaks down when he says he has winning sessions 85% of the time. Does that mean he loses the whole $50,000 15% of the time? If so, that means over 100 sessions, he would have losses of $750,000, and wins of only $212,500. I know he said the wins far out-weigh the losses...

I hope Arc will respond to this one:

Anyways, I don't think you could set a win goal of $2500 and a loss limit of $2500-$5000 and reach that win goal very often. Let Arci run the numbers on that.

Oh... how about a coin flip? I think your chance of hitting a $2500 win goal with a loss limit of $2500 is exactly 50-50. That's better than the odds of hitting a winner on any video poker game, including one-eyed Jacks.

[a2a3dseddie]

This is easy to answer:



1, Yes, someone could win every time they gamble. I haven't. Neither has Rob Singer. But again, someone COULD win. That's all anyone said.
2. Nothing is "ensured." But having a loss limit keeps you from going in the hole. Having a win goal ensures that you don't give back all of your profit. Where does that mean you are ensured a net profit?
3. There was a brief period when I not only was ahead 100% of my sessions but I had two $20,000 royals under my belt. But since you got #1 wrong, I don't have to explain why #3 is irrelevant.

I have no idea what you mean by:



I don't. Where the heck did you get that from???

Here are some responses to your other unusual questions and statements:



Really? You never sat down at a machine and started winning? You had to go $50,000 in the hole first in order to win? Wow, what rotten luck you have.

And you'll have to ask Rob about this, because when I go to a casino my bankroll is peanuts compared to Rob's. Yet, I've sat down at a $5 aces and faces machine with $300 put in and I've hit quad aces and quads and even a royal or two.



I hope Arc will respond to this one:



Oh... how about a coin flip? I think your chance of hitting a $2500 win goal with a loss limit of $2500 is exactly 50-50. That's better than the odds of hitting a winner on any video poker game, including one-eyed Jacks.

Alan, I was talking about playing VP. If your win goal is $2500 and your loss limit is $2500, I don't think you'll be hitting that win goal very often.

You've said that at some point in time you've been ahead in 100% of your gambling sessions. Well, you are far luckier than I am. There are professional VP players, professional live poker players, professional sports / horse handicappers, and professional card counters. How many professional "money managers" (casino game gamblers not stock market investors) do you know?

[Alan Mendelson]

I agree with you about the win goal of $2500 with a loss limit of $2500, it's probably not realistic. I have a win goal of $500 when I have a bankroll of $2500. But often I keep playing beyond the win goal by raising my loss limit. If I had quit at my $500 win goal, without raising the "loss limit" (adjusting the win goal upwards), I would have missed my last two $20,000 royals... both of which came after I hit quad aces twice on the same machines before the royals.

[a2a3dseddie]

Alan, earlier when I wrote,

"Once again... how can you ensure only you will have winning sessions and leave all the losing sessions to the other players to endure?"

I've written this before, but maybe it's being misinterpreted. Let's say you have your own bona fide 9/6 JOB or 8/5 Bonus VP machine in your garage just like Rob Singer says he had. ONLY YOU will play it. Can you honestly say that you will have winning sessions every time you play your machine? Since this is a -EV machine, wouldn't it eventually clean you out if you continue to play it?

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, earlier when I wrote,

"Once again... how can you ensure only you will have winning sessions and leave all the losing sessions to the other players to endure?"

I've written this before, but maybe it's being misinterpreted. Let's say you have your own bona fide 9/6 JOB or 8/5 Bonus VP machine in your garage just like Rob Singer says he had. ONLY YOU will play it. Can you honestly say that you will have winning sessions every time you play your machine? Since this is a -EV machine, wouldn't it eventually clean you out if you continue to play it?

NO NO NO NO NO. No one ever said you WILL have winning sessions. The word is COULD. I don't know about you math guys, but WILL has a different meaning than COULD.