Singer Challenge

[redietz]

If anyone can find me saying what Rob attributes to me in Post #30 of the Grachowski thread, I will send them a check for a thousand dollars. In fact, if Alan wants to hold the checks, that's cool. And if more than one person can locate me saying what Rob attributed to me, I'll send multiple checks.

Rob needs to get his facts straight. I have said on many occasions that I do believe Rob has won what he claims to have won. This statement directly contradicts what Rob attributes to me, which is that someone playing a 99.99% game cannot win. People have won playing the lottery. The lottery is a negative expectation game. People have won playing 99.99% video poker. Video poker paying 99.99% is a negative expectation game.

I am relatively precise in what I say on this forum. Attributing statements to people who have not said them is lying. It's probably a bad idea for someone running a forum to allow people to attribute false statements to folks.

[Rob.Singer]

I agree that you are the most precise poster here, but I also believe you're talking symantics. No you have never mentioned 99.99% or any other numerics when discussing playing with or without an "edge" in vp. But you have consistently claimed that negative machines cannot be beaten over the long run without some type of extraordinary and unlikely luck, and I used 99.99% in the same context as I used 100.01% for a +EV experience.

[arcimede$]

This was an example of a typical Singer lie. No APer says they will win playing a 100.01% game. In fact, the math tells us a player would have a greater than 50% chance of losing. That is because VP is not really normally distributed. While a bell curve can be used it is not a perfect bell.

In addition, all APers would say the chances of winning at 100.01% and 99.99% are about equal. APers never make exact statements when it comes to playing VP. It is all about the probabilities. Only a total liar like Singer would make claims that are only meant to confuse the people with low math skills. Or, if he really believes it, it demonstrates yet again that Singer is a total doofus when it comes to math.

[Alan Mendelson]

No APer says they will win playing a 100.01% game. In fact, the math tells us a player would have a greater than 50% chance of losing. That is because VP is not really normally distributed. While a bell curve can be used it is not a perfect bell.

I AM SHOCKED !!! If what you say is true, then why don't you VP APers embrace win goals and loss limits to protect yourselves????

[arcimede$]

I AM SHOCKED !!! If what you say is true, then why don't you VP APers embrace win goals and loss limits to protect yourselves????

Because they cannot change your return over time. Random is random. Read what John told you yet again. If one has sufficient bankroll then playing should be governed by fatigue, etc. In addition, a true APer would never play a 100.01% game and expect to win. That is why I have mentioned "the edge" many times. The greater the edge the higher the probability of winning. The reason I have won year after year is I have played with a big edge. Hence, even when I have a bad year I still come out ahead.

[redietz]

I'm still waiting to write a check.

And I'm still waiting for Alan to address what I said regarding Rob.

It is curious that the forum moderator's first response had nothing to do with the gist of the thread.

[Rob.Singer]

Arci tries and tries, but notice how he never succeeds. Apparently he got what the 99.99% represented....but he whiffed on the 100.01%. Then it took him several paragraphs to try and make himself feel good about his "tested genius" reply.

[Rob.Singer]

I'm still waiting to write a check.

And I'm still waiting for Alan to address what I said regarding Rob.

It is curious that the forum moderator's first response had nothing to do with the gist of the thread.

Now that was certainly precise....as in a "precise" duck.

[redietz]

Rob, what the hell are you talking about?

Do I think your systems win going forward over a span of, say, 100 hours? No, I don't. Is there a way to test that by having you lay out all of your "special plays" and "timing for special plays" in advance and then have someone, say Arci, monitor you for 100 hours? No, I don't think that's likely to happen anytime soon. You are, after all, "retired." Of course, you could just get one of your numerous students to step forward and volunteer to do as you've taught them, and maybe Alan could tape the whole thing for 100 hours, and then we'd see the results. Somehow I doubt that's going to happen.

So what exactly is being ducked here and by whom?

If this is one of your really, really dumb attempts at roping someone into watching you play 10 "sessions" -- whatever they are -- sorry.

Just pony up one of your many well-trained students, and Alan can tape them playing 100 hours and we can witness what all the undeniability is about.

I mean, think about it, if we can demonstrate that this system works, we'll have revolutionized not just video poker theory, but gambling theory and probability theory, too. I'm on board for the attempt -- just to be part of history would be worth me putting some money towards the enterprise. Alan would become (more) famous -- the guy who terrorized the casino industry. Rob would get his own chapter in probability texts. Let's do it!!!

[Rob.Singer]

Now you're precisely irritated, and while I take great pleasure in doing that to arci, that is not anything close to what I'm trying to do here. There's no way I'm trying to prove anything by playing 10 sessions and having them witnessed. Whenever I've offered that, as you know, it was correctly assumed I would win at least 7 or more of them. That's why on Wizard's forum I added in a net win amount that had to be met at a minimum, still to no avail. My last hope was bet-free with Frank, only he abruptly shut down. And yes I am retired from that level of play, but if anyone ever wants to watch the master perform on pennies thru dollars with a win goal of $25 minimum each session (the same games with likely poorer paytables at exactly 100X less all around) and there can be a reasonable agreement on what would bring an AP to their knees, I would work it into my time somehow.

The more sessions I'd play SPS, the more net profit I'd make. I played around 300 of them, and I can only estimate that comes out to something like 900 hours maybe? I just don't see how you would expect my strategy to work up until a certain point in time. Every session is a lone event and is totally unrelated to time - or to any other factor having already occurred or that's yet to happen.

[Alan Mendelson]

Redietz, I just looked at post #30 and I don't recall you saying those things, so Rob should not have attributed those comments to you directly. What would have been more appropriate is if he said the "AP community" would look at my wins as only being temporary and they would be lost back -- which they could be even for those who play positive expectation games.

Regarding Rob's overall system: I don't think there is anyone that I know of who could play it as Rob has explained it to me. I don't know anyone with the large starting bankroll, or who would/could follow his special plays, and I certainly don't know how to play the games he favors with the exception of Bonus. As I've said so many times Rob's system is really unique to Rob but there are basic parts of his "system" which can benefit others.

A few of his special plays really aren't that "off the wall" and you know I like win and loss goals. But I think I offered Rob an improvement on win/loss goals which is the added method of raising stop losses.

[slingshot]

Now you're precisely irritated, and while I take great pleasure in doing that to arci, that is not anything close to what I'm trying to do here. There's no way I'm trying to prove anything by playing 10 sessions and having them witnessed. Whenever I've offered that, as you know, it was correctly assumed I would win at least 7 or more of them. That's why on Wizard's forum I added in a net win amount that had to be met at a minimum, still to no avail. My last hope was bet-free with Frank, only he abruptly shut down. And yes I am retired from that level of play, but if anyone ever wants to watch the master perform on pennies thru dollars with a win goal of $25 minimum each session (the same games with likely poorer paytables at exactly 100X less all around) and there can be a reasonable agreement on what would bring an AP to their knees, I would work it into my time somehow.

The more sessions I'd play SPS, the more net profit I'd make. I played around 300 of them, and I can only estimate that comes out to something like 900 hours maybe? I just don't see how you would expect my strategy to work up until a certain point in time. Every session is a lone event and is totally unrelated to time - or to any other factor having already occurred or that's yet to happen.

I like these little snippets you throw in, Rob. So-if my thinking's correct, I could play SPS with the measley $15 free-play by starting out at nickels-but only playing 1 credit-the same as starting with pennies. The next level would be 2 credits, then a nickel,then dimes,etc.

[Rob.Singer]

Yes, and the only downside would be if a royal were hit without the machine,being fully loaded. However, since royals ARE NOT REQUIRED to consistently win on SPS, you need not be concerned.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, If you're talking about redietz saying there's no way to win on -EV machines "over time" then yes, he says that very consistently and all the time. Too bad he's wrong, and I would LOVE to show him how and why sometime.

But you are most probably right that no one known could or would be able to play SPS exactly as I do because of its complexities, the discipline and patience required, and the intelligence to understand the how & why about the entire approach. Redietz keeps on asking for my "students" to come on and explain their successes playing SPS, yet what I teach them is the basics so they may apply whatever they deem important to their game, and improve as they may. Then whenever a few have actually posted about having some sort of success with it, he either calls them a "sock puppet"--or he totally ignores them as he does slingshot and regnis. Not exactly very precise, right? But I am, as they say, the only one who can do it to 100% accuracy, so if anyone ever wants to see that happen, they better hurry while I'm still "young". Otherwise, all they'll ever have is their worrisome theory and assertions.

[arcimede$]

Since no one can ever do it right it gives Singer an "out" when they come back and tell him the system failed. You know, just like most cons. There's always a back door.

[Alan Mendelson]

I'll say it again: Rob's error was not giving his book the title: "How I Beat The Casinos For $1-Million Playing My Own Wacky Video Poker Style" and then he would be a folk hero and no one would complain.

[Rob.Singer]

I get it, but the reason I wrote the first book was to expose the fraud being perpetrated by AP's who sell it within the video poker community. Nothing was more important to me than doing that--not even becoming the very successful player that followed. I also, as you can tell by the pen name I chose, desired to get under the money-grubbing authors' skin, and that I surely did. And was I "gone in 60 seconds" as Skip Hughes & Dan Paymar boasted I'd be back then? Nope....and as a matter of fact and to rub salt into their burning wounds, I've managed not only to out-survive some of them in varying ways--I've shown how a life fully prepared to enter professional video poker-playing can and does lead to a rewarding life in retirement, devoid of any of the pitfalls we readily see that have infected those who've stuck around just a tad too long for their own good. In short, while these "AP's" continue to suffer thru their declining years, my family and I THRIVE. Why? It's called RESPECT for the wishes of one another from A to Z, and to put the wishes of your loved ones first, while rejecting the addictive tendencies of playing long-term optimal-play vp. It is as simple as that, and if these fools had listened to me years ago instead of whining over my every word, "WIFE" wouldn't be such a dirty word to them today.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, as I tell Arc... please avoid using words like "fraud" unless you have proof of a fraud. And you certainly have gotten under a lot of people's skin.

[Rob.Singer]

Rob, as I tell Arc... please avoid using words like "fraud" unless you have proof of a fraud. And you certainly have gotten under a lot of people's skin.

Of course I have the proof--it's called me, and hundreds of others who've been misled by these phonies for the sake of taking other people's money in order to keep on gambling. A fraud is someone who gains the confidence of others for the sole purpose of taking their money. I've never taken a dime from anyone for anything.

[Alan Mendelson]

A fraud is a criminal act. If you can't prove a criminal act don't accuse anyone of a fraud. This is what I told Arc and now I'm telling you. Stop.