Discussing Rob Singers Systems

[slingshot]

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?

Yes, I played a quarter machine with $30 free-play and it was gone in a few hands because hitting the draw on this machine meant 25 credits-ouch! In this situation, I would take the flush because two wrongs don't make a right, and I would breathe a sigh of relief that I made a good profit without throwing my whole session away. And it certainly fullfils the qualifications of a win goal.

[Alan Mendelson]

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.

I like this response, Arc.

[Rob.Singer]

Except that he's only half right. While Alan's story is incomplete in important facts because he wouldn't know everything surrounding such an incident, someone who brings $500 into a casino to play vp is not someone who has the required more-than-$1.1million in gambling-only resources an AP would need to be playing the $100 machine...nor the $171k I would need to be playing the thing. In fact, no intelligent AP has that kind of gambling bankroll, and the only ones who ever play at that level are those foolish enough to do as Dancer and his ex did when they got lucky (which was, ironically & based on his ensuing battle with those machines along with their eventual "marital-bliss" outcome, a very unlucky day, indeed) : take ill-advised pot shots. If AP's did have that much to gamble then they'd be putting it to much better use than into a casino game. It was a mistake to play the hand, so ANY winner--even a push--would be a blessing. Tossing a flush to go for a royal is an irresponsible move.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, interesting response. I would suggest to you that most people who go to a casino to play VP show up with maybe $200 to 500 or maybe even less. So I really wonder how many players could even use your strategy with any success?

[slingshot]

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?

I have one final thought and then I'm through. You believe in win goals and all of Rob's strategies are based on a certain win goal for that session. The only problem I see is having the discipline to keep up with where you're at in the session. And it's up to you on the decisions as long as the win goal's reached-IMH0. For instance, if I'm playing artt, and I've just progressed to the next denom and an Aces high full house appears-I can reach my win goal WHICHEVER way I choose. The three A's alone will get me back to the lowest denom and a chance to hit a quad. The full house, OTOH, may reach my win goal for the session.

[Alan Mendelson]

slingshot there is nothing wrong with what you just wrote, but the question is this: can Rob's system make you draw winning hands? The answer of course is no. So it comes down to luck.

Next question: does conventional strategy make you draw winning hands? Again, the answer is no. It also comes down to luck.

All this debate about Singer vs Dancer or whatever you want to call it, and it all comes down to luck.

[Rob.Singer]

slingshot there is nothing wrong with what you just wrote, but the question is this: can Rob's system make you draw winning hands? The answer of course is no. So it comes down to luck.

Next question: does conventional strategy make you draw winning hands? Again, the answer is no. It also comes down to luck.

All this debate about Singer vs Dancer or whatever you want to call it, and it all comes down to luck.

You're absolutely right Alan. 100%, and my play strategies all depend on that, just as EVERY player's choice of strategy always depends on luck if they are to go home a winner that day. And it is the reason why, via ALL of my special plays that deviate from optimal strategy, that I have won so consistently and so often. My strategies all give that luck a higher opportunity of appearing. It is such a simple concept for all but the most ignorant of critics. Claiming the negative EV-increasing special plays reduce the # of hands played in a session, is nothing but a desperate attempt at minimalizing their value in any single session by trying to explain their effect within an infinite number of hands--a massive technical error in its own right. Further, the hands I utilize for my special plays are the hands a player WANTS to see dealt, and the math that these blind critics try to hide behind clearly shows a negative relationship between the # of times such opportunities appear vs. the supposed # of hands "gained" by playing optimal strategy only....and all vs. how often theese hands are used to attempt to hit session-ending winners. And while irrelevant when looking at all this over the theoretical "long-term", this holds true in mathematical terms and values even then.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob while I understand the concept behind your special plays, and I actually follow some of the 3-ace special plays, I just can't understand how changing denominations also takes advantage of "luck"? What if the "luck" comes when you are starting out at lower denominations?

When I've hit those 25-cent royals I wondered what if I were at $1 or $2 on those same machines? (By the way, on the Aces and Faces machine with the royal I got recently the same royal cards showed at the higher denominations on the machine.)

If you are going for "luck" why not go for the lucky hits at a denomination you are comfortable with rather than starting out "low"?

In other words, why would a guy like Rob Singer with a $171,000 bankroll bother with $1 video poker? Why not start at $10 or $25? Why not play $1 video poker on 50-play machines ($250 per play) or why not play 25-cent video poker on 50-play machines ($62.50 per play)??

[redietz]

Alan's getting trickier with his questions, both regarding language and logical implications. Watch out, Rob! He's either hired a consultant or has been eating his blueberries.

Rob, I'd take the fifth on the question above. No answer is gonna sound good.

Now, I don't play negative expectation games, so I can't play the games Alan mentioned because there are no positive games like that. Rob, unfortunately, because he can play any negative game (ostensibly successfully) has no out here unless he suggests the multi-play machines are more prone to cold streaks or something.

[Rob.Singer]

Rob while I understand the concept behind your special plays, and I actually follow some of the 3-ace special plays, I just can't understand how changing denominations also takes advantage of "luck"? What if the "luck" comes when you are starting out at lower denominations?

When I've hit those 25-cent royals I wondered what if I were at $1 or $2 on those same machines? (By the way, on the Aces and Faces machine with the royal I got recently the same royal cards showed at the higher denominations on the machine.)

If you are going for "luck" why not go for the lucky hits at a denomination you are comfortable with rather than starting out "low"?

In other words, why would a guy like Rob Singer with a $171,000 bankroll bother with $1 video poker? Why not start at $10 or $25? Why not play $1 video poker on 50-play machines ($250 per play) or why not play 25-cent video poker on 50-play machines ($62.50 per play)??

It's simple to explain. The reason most players lose when playing vp is because they have no strategy other than to play at a single denomination single-play, 10-play, 50-play or whatever (and I HAVE published a strategy for 5-play, which is the only multi-play capable of being beaten with a "reasonable" bankroll on a consistent basis) hoping to get lucky...which is very similar to what AP's do. I learned from my mistakes, and understood that because you get more losing hands than winners and that almost every session required a fairly large to large hit in order to leave a winner, a structured step-up in denominations & game volatility was the ONLY way to accomplish that on a consistent basis. Therein lies the reason for the comparatively large bankroll also--which you have trouble getting your hands around. Nothing is without risk, and in my strategy the risk of losing is very, very small when compared to the risk AP's and strategy-lacking players have.

Winning something on my lowest denomination, aka, getting a lucky hit at this low level, is something I always hope for. If it doesn't send me home - which is very rare when it does at an initial level - then it serves just as important a purpose: it reduces the size of the hit required at a higher level in order to leave with my minimum win goal. I've had at least five-one dollar royals playing SPS, and the last thing I thought or worried about was how great it would have bee to hit the royal on a higher denom. Every winning hand serves an important purpose in this strategy. And greed or worry or what-ifs have no place in it.

[redietz]

Rob, while I appreciate the monologue above, and think I understood it, I'm going to save Alan the friction here and point out that you didn't address Alan's questions at all. Where in those paragraphs above is the rationale for you not playing multi-machines or starting at higher stakes? If your various strategies are five-step or six-step, couldn't you just start at higher denominations with today's multi-machines and go from there? If the bankroll requirements are too massive, couldn't you just form a team of your students and pool resources?

Are you suggesting that somehow five-play and ten-play and 25-play are fundamentally different games even when they have the same pay tables?

These are questions any good journalist would ask, so it's nice to see Alan put on his journalist fedora and get the ball rolling.

[Rob.Singer]

Rob, while I appreciate the monologue above, and think I understood it, I'm going to save Alan the friction here and point out that you didn't address Alan's questions at all. Where in those paragraphs above is the rationale for you not playing multi-machines or starting at higher stakes? If your various strategies are five-step or six-step, couldn't you just start at higher denominations with today's multi-machines and go from there? If the bankroll requirements are too massive, couldn't you just form a team of your students and pool resources?

Are you suggesting that somehow five-play and ten-play and 25-play are fundamentally different games even when they have the same pay tables?

These are questions any good journalist would ask, so it's nice to see Alan put on his journalist fedora and get the ball rolling.

I actually did respond to and answer very clearly, each of Alan's questions/concerns. But I don't mind expanding the answers if it will help....and it should.

My SPS starting point already is $1 and it is a 6-level effort ending at the highest denomination of vp available: $100. And even if there were a $50 denomination available--and there is in limited locations--a 7-level or even a 6-level starting at $2, would not be quite as successful because SPS requires there be a final step-up ratio of 4:1.

I believe the next issue is why not play multi-play games? I answered that I have a five-play strategy that I've used about 8 times. But it is not what I would recommend because its session bankroll requires 2000 credits each at 25c/$1/$5/& $25 ($62,500), and there is no BP involved. It's all played on the advanced games, which for me is SDBP & TBP+. The good news is the overall minimum session win goal: $500, but I think in my 8 or so sessions of undefeated play, my avg. win was around $4000.

Now you ask, why is any multi-play game different than any other? Technically they aren't, as you so astutely identified. It's how the play is approached that makes five-play the only intelligent choice. What bankroll is required vs. the potential return? How often good deals come is a very important consideration, because good deals are the end-all in multi-play games. Will the bankroll be depleted too soon, thereby eliminating good deal opportunities? Are there enough draws in triple-play to justify using it in any for-profit strategy? No is the answer. I hope you're beginning to understand. Otherwise, I'll see if Wolfy Blitzer is available for clarity.

[slingshot]

I actually did respond to and answer very clearly, each of Alan's questions/concerns. But I don't mind expanding the answers if it will help....and it should.

My SPS starting point already is $1 and it is a 6-level effort ending at the highest denomination of vp available: $100. And even if there were a $50 denomination available--and there is in limited locations--a 7-level or even a 6-level starting at $2, would not be quite as successful because SPS requires there be a final step-up ratio of 4:1.

I believe the next issue is why not play multi-play games? I answered that I have a five-play strategy that I've used about 8 times. But it is not what I would recommend because its session bankroll requires 2000 credits each at 25c/$1/$5/& $25 ($62,500), and there is no BP involved. It's all played on the advanced games, which for me is SDBP & TBP+. The good news is the overall minimum session win goal: $500, but I think in my 8 or so sessions of undefeated play, my avg. win was around $4000.

Now you ask, why is any multi-play game different than any other? Technically they aren't, as you so astutely identified. It's how the play is approached that makes five-play the only intelligent choice. What bankroll is required vs. the potential return? How often good deals come is a very important consideration, because good deals are the end-all in multi-play games. Will the bankroll be depleted too soon, thereby eliminating good deal opportunities? Are there enough draws in triple-play to justify using it in any for-profit strategy? No is the answer. I hope you're beginning to understand. Otherwise, I'll see if Wolfy Blitzer is available for clarity.

Could this analogy be used on artt or rtt strategies? I mean, if I had $60k I would only have a bankroll of $1200 for dollars being my highest denom for each visit.

[Rob.Singer]

I don't understand the question sling.

[Alan Mendelson]

It's simple to explain. The reason most players lose when playing vp is because they have no strategy other than to play at a single denomination single-play, 10-play, 50-play or whatever

But I have a strategy Rob. The strategy is to keep to a strict loss limit so that my "fun trip" stays fun, and cash out when I reach a win goal, which I would deem appropriate. If I happen to be on a hot winning streak I will move my win goal higher.

Funny thing Rob, I just came back from Rincon. I went there on Sunday night for a guaranteed $300 of free play (it was a mystery free play and max was $5,000 but I just got the $300 minimum.) I played my $300 through once on $1 Aces and Faces and finished with $465. I had some nice hits.

So I took my $165 profit and went to the card craps game and bought in for $100. I cashed out at card craps for $173.

I went back to $1 Aces and Faces with only $70 in the machine, and in one of the first hands I drew quad 8s for $125. And I was off to the races.
When I cashed out tonight, I left with (drum roll please) $3373. I hit quad aces for $2 for an $800 payoff on the $2 machine, plus my original $70 on that machine was now showing $570 on the meter. (The $800 for the quad aces was paid out as a ticket.)

I violated one of your sacred rules, Rob. I took the $570 ticket from the Aces and Faces machine and went to the high limit room and put it in a $5 machine... and hit some more quads. That gave me my cash out for the night of $3373 and no W2Gs so no tipping on the evening.

So my strategy worked just fine, thank you. $300 of free play became a cash out of $3373 and $3100 was deposited in the bank.

[arcimede$]

To net out what Alan said, there are many times when win goals become win limits. Had he quit earlier it would have cost him several thousand dollars. Of course, this is exactly what I have been saying. No one know what the future will bring. Some times you will lose if you continue to play and sometimes you will win. No different than quitting at any other particular point in time.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, the method I use is to have a rising stop loss which can also be called a rising win goal. Actually, I could have kept playing even when I had $3300++ by raising my "stop loss" to perhaps $2,000... but I wanted to get home. Rincon has another free play offer for me today: either 300, 400 or 500 of free play depending on my luck of the draw. But I don't know if I will make it for this one.

doing the "math" on these free play adventures: gas is about $45. On Ace and Faces I think I will get back about 80% of the free play. So there is a potential of about $200 cash for me (minimum) plus additional comp credits which will mean more cash back, plus more Great Gift Wrap Up Points.

By the way, Sunday was a "multiplier day" at Rincon and I got 5X comps. I put on about $49 in comps from my play which will mean $245 in actual comp dollars will be in my account in about a week from now and that can be cashed in for about $200 of free play if I don't want to use the comp dollars.

My plan for August is just to use free play and see what I actually cash out for the month. So far I've cashed out more than $4,000 doing this just for the last few visits in July. (See my other thread about strategy for free play.)

[arcimede$]

Alan, freeplay is a key part of determining a person's pER. For example, if a weekly coin-in of $20,000 yields $200 of freeplay that will add 1% to the pER. If one understands the method used by a casinos to determine freeplay, one can maximize the freeplay received.

[Rob.Singer]

But I have a strategy Rob. The strategy is to keep to a strict loss limit so that my "fun trip" stays fun, and cash out when I reach a win goal, which I would deem appropriate. If I happen to be on a hot winning streak I will move my win goal higher.

Funny thing Rob, I just came back from Rincon. I went there on Sunday night for a guaranteed $300 of free play (it was a mystery free play and max was $5,000 but I just got the $300 minimum.) I played my $300 through once on $1 Aces and Faces and finished with $465. I had some nice hits.

So I took my $165 profit and went to the card craps game and bought in for $100. I cashed out at card craps for $173.

I went back to $1 Aces and Faces with only $70 in the machine, and in one of the first hands I drew quad 8s for $125. And I was off to the races.
When I cashed out tonight, I left with (drum roll please) $3373. I hit quad aces for $2 for an $800 payoff on the $2 machine, plus my original $70 on that machine was now showing $570 on the meter. (The $800 for the quad aces was paid out as a ticket.)

I violated one of your sacred rules, Rob. I took the $570 ticket from the Aces and Faces machine and went to the high limit room and put it in a $5 machine... and hit some more quads. That gave me my cash out for the night of $3373 and no W2Gs so no tipping on the evening.

So my strategy worked just fine, thank you. $300 of free play became a cash out of $3373 and $3100 was deposited in the bank.

Nothing wrong with doing the "I just can't stand the thought of having to stop the action" thing Alan....when it works in your favor, that is. And if it's a relatively new strategy for you then it just may be the ticket for you, since you seem to be doing well overall this year. I just don't see a strategy based on continued compulsive play after a modest or better profit, working out without extreme good fortune. It's doing exactly as the casino wants and hopes you will do, and they have a ton more experience at that game than you do.

[Alan Mendelson]

I just don't see a strategy based on continued compulsive play after a modest or better profit,

Rob, you seem to think that people who don't do things your way have a problem. You use words like "compulsive" and "addicted" too often when someone doesn't follow your strict advice or method. I suggest you take a deep breath before making such criticisms and using such negative terms.