Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 257

Thread: Discussing Rob Singers Systems

  1. #41
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    So slingshot, do you have any proof (really, proof) that Rob's system makes you win?

    Now, I do want to say this: playing the system or methods taught by Dancer and Grochowski have not made me win.

    I haven't read much but this last post. Alan, this question is like asking the White House to show proof Obamacare is a good deal for the country. It can't be done, because no one knows enough about it even if he explained how he's been winning for an hour. Try asking arci to prove his supposed optimal play only has made him win. What you'll get is an obfuscation that talks about theory, and it would make people like Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton proud.

  2. #42
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Try asking arci to prove his supposed optimal play only has made him win. What you'll get is an obfuscation that talks about theory, and it would make people like Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton proud.
    No obfuscation, that is your gig. It's really very simple. With optimal play X>Y. It all boils down to simple mathematics.

  3. #43
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    I haven't read much but this last post. Alan, this question is like asking the White House to show proof Obamacare is a good deal for the country. It can't be done, because no one knows enough about it even if he explained how he's been winning for an hour. Try asking arci to prove his supposed optimal play only has made him win. What you'll get is an obfuscation that talks about theory, and it would make people like Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton proud.
    Actually, Rob, it would be interesting if any of your fervent followers told us that they were winning a lot of money. I never doubted that you won a million dollars, and I think you won a million dollars because you used discipline for win goals and loss limits (with some exceptions) and because you played at higher denominations. Is anybody else winning significant money?

  4. #44
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    No obfuscation, that is your gig. It's really very simple. With optimal play X>Y. It all boils down to simple mathematics.
    "Luck" isn't necessarily explained by mathematics. Look at lottery winners. Math can't explain or justify how they won.

  5. #45
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    "Luck" isn't necessarily explained by mathematics. Look at lottery winners. Math can't explain or justify how they won.
    Luck can work over short terms. That's what happens with lottery winners. Someone has to win eventually. However, for VP luck only holds for so long. That is why optimal play on positive machines works. Normal luck, that is a normal distribution of cards, is all that is required. To win on negative games or using non-optimal play requires a distribution of cards that yields a higher frequency of big winners. That is not a normal distribution and is not likely to occur very often.

  6. #46
    Sheesh--too much single malt. Arci is making sense to me.

  7. #47
    I would discount luck also except that video poker is played one hand at a time and that makes luck a very important factor in everyone's play even if you do believe in optimum strategies.

  8. #48
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Actually, Rob, it would be interesting if any of your fervent followers told us that they were winning a lot of money. I never doubted that you won a million dollars, and I think you won a million dollars because you used discipline for win goals and loss limits (with some exceptions) and because you played at higher denominations. Is anybody else winning significant money?
    I'm supposed to win big at quarters? C'mon. I'm hoping to have $2000 extra money in 3 months and will try a $1200 session. But how about this, Alan. Do you have the guts to try a 25/50c/$1/$2/$5 artt strategy for $2000 risked?

  9. #49
    A big win would be a percentage gain not dollar amount.

    I take $1500 to $5 Aces and Bonus.

  10. #50
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    I would discount luck also except that video poker is played one hand at a time and that makes luck a very important factor in everyone's play even if you do believe in optimum strategies.
    Alan, it is precisely because VP is a multi-hand game that reduces the affect of luck. I realize you don't like to discuss coin flips but do you really think a person could throw 100 straight heads? Do you believe a person could throw 60 heads out of hundred tosses?

    Because each event in a series of random events has an equal probability of happening one can measure the chances of these events happening. For example, the chances of hitting 60 or more heads in 100 tosses is about 2%. Hitting exactly 60 is much less. This demonstrates how difficult it is have a random distribution far away from normal ... and this was only 100 events. The same affect influences the cards you are dealt in VP. Over time a random deal will tend to give you all cards at an equal frequency. This is the basis of optimal play. The chances of having a frequency that yields more big winners drops as you play more hands just the frequency of hitting more heads than tails.

    So, the point of optimal play is whether you want to have a good chance of getting good results or a poor chance. The same holds for playing positive machines. Do you want a good chance of winning or a poor chance. Just as luck plays a role in coin flips it also plays a role in VP. However, over time that factor fades away and the primary factor becomes skill.

  11. #51
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    Alan, it is precisely because VP is a multi-hand game that reduces the affect of luck. I realize you don't like to discuss coin flips but do you really think a person could throw 100 straight heads?
    We have a basic difference of opinion here, Arc. Video poker is not a multi hand game. It is a one hand at a time game. The previous hand has no bearing on the next hand.

    In a multi hand game all of your hands combined would need to be totaled to determine a winner. For example, bowling. That is a multi hand game.

    In video poker a player could walk up to a machine, play one hand and hit two pair at Jacks or Better and be through with his session. This means your coin flip analogy is not valid.

    Instead, you have to think of each coin flip as being either heads or tails and there it is luck 100% of the time.

  12. #52
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    We have a basic difference of opinion here, Arc. Video poker is not a multi hand game. It is a one hand at a time game. The previous hand has no bearing on the next hand.
    That is a requirement for doing the statistical analysis I mentioned. I was simply referring to the fact that multiple hands are played.

    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    In a multi hand game all of your hands combined would need to be totaled to determine a winner. For example, bowling. That is a multi hand game.
    No, I was referring to multiple, independent events.

    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    In video poker a player could walk up to a machine, play one hand and hit two pair at Jacks or Better and be through with his session. This means your coin flip analogy is not valid.
    No, a person can flip a coin just once. And, we know there is a 50% chance they will see a head.

    However, the reason to consider multiple hands is because we want to understand our chances for being successful IF we decide to play multiple hands (which I think you will agree is the normal approach). How many times have you played just one hand?

    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Instead, you have to think of each coin flip as being either heads or tails and there it is luck 100% of the time.
    Nope, your confusion can only be caused by your desire to NOT understand reality. Google ... independent event probability ... and you will find every mathematician agrees with me. Literally 1000s of them (About 24,300,000 results (0.30 seconds) ). Everything I said is very basic.

  13. #53
    Arc, we've gone back and forth about mathematical probability. The reality is I don't care about the mathematical probability. I only care if I win or lose, and whether or not I put money in my pocket or have to take more out.

    So all of these discussions and points you make are truly "academic."

    I'd rather talk about reality, i.e., what can I do to win and keep the money I won? Unfortunately for all of the advocates of "math" this is where win goals and loss limits trump all of your equations, and even some of Rob's "special plays" can be viewed favorably in this context.

    Math analysis is great for math analysis, but I have to deal with video poker one hand at a time.

  14. #54
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Arc, we've gone back and forth about mathematical probability. The reality is I don't care about the mathematical probability. I only care if I win or lose, and whether or not I put money in my pocket or have to take more out.
    That is exactly what I am talking about. What gives a person the best chance to win. Since that is what you also care about then why do you resist understanding the proven factors that affect precisely those chances.

    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    So all of these discussions and points you make are truly "academic."
    Silly excuse to avoid the real issues. Why do you use optimal play strategies? They are also based on "academic" principles.

    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    I'd rather talk about reality, i.e., what can I do to win and keep the money I won? Unfortunately for all of the advocates of "math" this is where win goals and loss limits trump all of your equations, and even some of Rob's "special plays" can be viewed favorably in this context.
    No, you are trying to avoid reality. You want to ignore what you don't want to believe.

    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Math analysis is great for math analysis, but I have to deal with video poker one hand at a time.
    Does that mean you should ignore the factors that give you the best chance of winning? Clearly, you pick and choose what factors you want to accept and what factors you want to ignore. Otherwise, you would not use optimal play.

  15. #55
    I think you are arguing points that need not be argued.

    Yes, I play optimum strategy but I realize that luck is a great factor and playing the optimum strategy alone doesn't make you win.

    My only point here is that luck is a much greater factor in video poker. If luck weren't such a great factor, making all of the correct holds would always work. They don't and it's because we still need luck to complete the correct holds.

    And that's where some of Rob's special plays come in. Maybe you don't always make the "correct holds." Case in point: those triple aces with a kicker in triple double bonus.

  16. #56
    "Clearly, you pick and choose what factors you want to accept and what factors you want to ignore. Otherwise, you would not use optimal play."

    Amen.

    "The only parts of reality people won't accept are the ones with which they disagree." Old Wise Jungle Saying

  17. #57
    Good jungle saying Red. Better one tho is "ME TARZAN- YOU JANE"

  18. #58
    Well, in discussing Rob's system, I guess all previous posts have just about settled the fact that no one really wants to know about Rob's system.That's fine with me, though. I really think enough has already been posted about his system and that this thread probably needs to be closed. I do thank Alan for getting Rob's SPS posted and explanations with it. It was an interesting read and I hope someday to be able to play it.

  19. #59
    slingshot, one of the problems is that when you put all of the elements of Rob's system together ... and I mean all of the elements including when to use the special plays ... even Rob admits it's probably impossible to follow and do. Even the question of win goals and loss limits is enough to derail any attempt at understanding and following his system.

    But I would like to bring up the question of what is optimal play? And this really has nothing to do with Rob's system directly but more is a question of what is optimal. Here is the question:

    By accident you deposit your entire session bankroll of $500 into a $100 machine. (Don't say impossible, because I saw this happen once at Pechanga where a single $100 machine is in a row of $1 machines). You push the deal button and you are dealt a flush with four to the royal. Under the circumstances, do you make the optimal play of holding the four to the royal? Or, is holding the flush the optimal play in this situation?

  20. #60
    Alan, that is more a bankroll question which is part of optimal play. If your bankroll does not support playing at that level then the best choice would be to cash out the flush and go to a machine where your bankroll allows you to play where the words "over time" come into play. Optimal play is more than just making decisions on any given hand.

    Now, if your bankroll does support playing at that level then you should go ahead and hold the 4 royal cards.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •