Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 130

Thread: Rob Singer sent me a trip report.

  1. #1
    I think the spirit world communicated with Rob Singer that he has been discussed here on the forum... and perhaps only by coincidence, Rob sent me a trip report from an excursion to Tunica. He hit a big winner. Is anyone surprised?

    But what is surprising is that Rob did not use a "special play" in an obvious "special play hand" at Triple Double Bonus. In fact, he followed conventional strategy and got lucky and won FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS on a $25 machine.

    He sent this to me to point out that he doesn't always use his special plays -- but we know that. He has said he uses special plays only 5% of the time. He explained to me that while he normally would use a "special play" in this hand, he had to go for the big win, apparently because he was down by about ten-thousand dollars. Getting quad threes without the kicker only would have brought him back to even, I figure.

    In this particular hand he was dealt trip 3s with an Ace kicker. The conventional play is to hold the kicker. The Singer "special play" is to hold on the 3s to maximize your chance for drawing the quad or case 3. But quad 3s wouldn't be enough... he had to get the quad with kicker.

    Rob said in his email to me:

    Alan: We went down to Tunica to meet up with some old friends from Houston. Good thing. Check this win that CET had to pay! I'm sending it to you so you may understand more about the Singer Special Plays. They don't all deviate from optimal strategy. Here's why:

    You'll notice this hand held A333--something you might think is a no-no in my special-play world. But not so. Notice the amount of cash on the machine: $50,705. This was an ARTT session, five levels, $1 thru $25 with a win goal of $1000. If just the three 3's were held and a 4th 3 was drawn, the $10,000 win would NOT have attained the win goal. But here, because of the overall Singer methodology, the opportunity for a session-ending win was there by making the OPTIMAL play, which is to hold the Ace kicker. You don't see many of these, but then again, you don't see many like me.

    You're probably asking yourself how this could be the hold when I advocate NEVER holding the kicker with 3 Aces in this game. Easy answer. Four Aces w/o a kicker will always attain my win goal. But the beauty of this particular hand is how the math does come into play along with all the other elements in my play strategies. It is the overall reason why negative EV games (and notice the "pitiful" 9/6 pay table on this "losing" game) consistently are beaten in my strategies. Here, to the tune of a $49,295 profit. AP's would claim any player was "losing X amount on every hand" on this game, thereby costing a fortune. HA!


    Photo below sent to me by Rob as it was sent.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by Alan Mendelson; 12-20-2013 at 12:57 AM.

  2. #2
    Nice win by Rob. Speaking of wins, it's been a while since you've posted photos of any VP wins. Last time I checked, it seemed that you were on a roll. How are you doing lately?

  3. #3
    Always like to see people win. Wonder if it will get into the realm of since Rob is not in the pic that it's not his jackpot or what not. At least someone won 50k so good for them. Think the paytable is like 98% but I know Rob said he never cared about the payback %. Well I'll probably never get the the point where I play 125 a hand so it;s interesting to see either way.

  4. #4
    What part of Nevada is Tunica in?

  5. #5
    We all know that Rob always follows his strategy. How do we know? He's told us so many, many times. Hence, the only possible answer is he was not playing this machine. He simply took a picture of someone's big winner.

  6. #6
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    He sent this to me to point out that he doesn't always use his special plays
    Nice try, but I'd guess the real reason he sent it is because he has a perverse need to always be in the limelight, and nobody would bite on this win over at WOV. It is also interesting that after previously stating he would only play at lower denominations the amounts keep rising higher and higher. Curious from someone who has repeatedly ridiculed others for doing the same, as well as claiming here that his days of playing high denominations were over. Sounds like addicted behavior to me.

    He explained to me that while he normally would use a "special play" in this hand, he had to go for the big win, apparently because he was down by about ten-thousand dollars.
    (Alan quoting Rob)
    If just the three 3's were held and a 4th 3 was drawn, the $10,000 win would NOT have attained the win goal.

    It is the overall reason why negative EV games (and notice the "pitiful" 9/6 pay table on this "losing" game) consistently are beaten in my strategies. Here, to the tune of a $49,295 profit.
    Lets take a closer look.

    He was down $10,000 and needed something more than the $10,000 win four 3's would have given him.

    The win was for $50,000, which he states netted him a $49,295 profit.

    If he was down $10,000 prior to that win wouldn't he have netted somewhere around $40,000?

    The win meter in the image shows a total of $50,705. This is irrelevant from the standpoint of how far down he was because we don't know how much he put in. However, it is relevant in that the $705 is the reverse amount from $50,000 he claimed was his net win.

    I'm must admit I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell ya that something doesn't seem quite right.

  7. #7
    So, Spock and Arci, are you saying you don't believe in Santa Claus?

    Obviously, Rob's "right living" put him on the list of those who've been nice and not naughty. Santa rewarded him. End of story.

  8. #8
    Rob sent me a correction about the "profit." He made a mistake in his initial report and indeed he was down about ten-grand so his actual profit on the session was $40,705, he says.

    Frankly, the dollar amount of the profit doesn't mean much to me. Either $40K or $50K it's a nice profit.

    More importantly I think Rob's report points out that his "system" is arbitrary and sometimes he will use special plays and sometimes he won't. And I've said this all along -- if there are so many choices in an arbitrary system how could anyone follow it or learn to play it correctly? The bottom line, it seems, is there is no "correct way" to play it. And Rob depends on luck just like every other video poker player who follows basic, conventional strategy.

  9. #9
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Rob sent me a correction about the "profit." He made a mistake in his initial report and indeed he was down about ten-grand so his actual profit on the session was $40,705, he says.

    Frankly, the dollar amount of the profit doesn't mean much to me. Either $40K or $50K it's a nice profit.

    More importantly I think Rob's report points out that his "system" is arbitrary and sometimes he will use special plays and sometimes he won't. And I've said this all along -- if there are so many choices in an arbitrary system how could anyone follow it or learn to play it correctly? The bottom line, it seems, is there is no "correct way" to play it. And Rob depends on luck just like every other video poker player who follows basic, conventional strategy.
    Does everyone really believe Rob hit this? I wonder what his loss limit was if he was just trying to win $1000.

    Why doesn't he play all the time? He never loses.

  10. #10
    He's not greedy. And for those who may wonder why Rob is almost never in the photos -- he has a tenuous relationship with the IRS and putting himself in photos could create problems.

    It's Christmas -- why so cynical?

  11. #11
    Redietz please explain how Rob appearing in the photos would have any effect on the IRS? This was obviously a W2G pay so the IRS knows he hit it.

  12. #12
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    He's not greedy. And for those who may wonder why Rob is almost never in the photos -- he has a tenuous relationship with the IRS and putting himself in photos could create problems.

    It's Christmas -- why so cynical?
    It's interesting you say that. I guess one of the people Rob had an axe to grind with on another forum claimed that Rob has a son-in-law that was a regional manager with the IRS that Rob had look into this guys personal finances and cause all kinds of tax troubles with. If Rob really had that clout, you figure taxes would be a non-issue. Oh well either way I guess it makes a good story. For me a 50k win is a 50k win no matter who hit it. Someone walked out of the casino happy.

  13. #13
    He got lucky. All of our jackpot hits are pure luck and we know it. The rest is just fodder for talk.

  14. #14
    Thanks for posting, Alan. As you may notice, it was all related to a win goal, but I believe this is the first time I've read of him doing this with special quads and answers a question I've had on my mind for years. Of course I was fairly sure I knew the answer but this verified it.

  15. #15
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
    I believe this is the first time I've read of him doing this with special quads and answers a question I've had on my mind for years. Of course I was fairly sure I knew the answer but this verified it.
    Well, please clue me in. What did Rob verify? The only thing I got out of it was that his strategy changes from hand to hand which in effect is moment to moment. So unless you have the mind of Rob Singer how can you possibly say you know or follow his strategy?

    I understand that Rob says he uses "special plays" only 5% of the time he plays... but he has also posted that he always makes the "special plays" when they show up, and now he talks about how he deliberately avoided using a special play. So slingshot, since you are a follower of Rob -- what did he verify?

  16. #16
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Well, please clue me in. What did Rob verify? The only thing I got out of it was that his strategy changes from hand to hand which in effect is moment to moment. So unless you have the mind of Rob Singer how can you possibly say you know or follow his strategy?

    I understand that Rob says he uses "special plays" only 5% of the time he plays... but he has also posted that he always makes the "special plays" when they show up, and now he talks about how he deliberately avoided using a special play. So slingshot, since you are a follower of Rob -- what did he verify?
    Sorry-I thought it was obvious and that he explained his choice. 4 threes on a $25 machine was "only" $10,000 and left him short of a win goal-being $10,000 behind. Going for the kicker by holding it was a play he normally never makes, but it would not only get his win goal but exceed it. Since this was a play he wrote about in his former articles as being unwise to make=I often wondered if he would do it if this far behind. So if anyone kept up with where they were in their play they would know exactly when or when not to use it. It's simple stuff, Alan.

  17. #17
    Rob also emailed me, and I am afraid that his thinking is backwards here.

    I can understand using a special play which results in a smaller win (special play: don't hold kickers to improve chance for quads) but here Rob isn't looking for a smaller win -- he is taking a higher risk option which is holding the kicker and reducing his chance for drawing the quad card.

    In explaining his special plays, he says he is going for the easier win (quad without kicker) because the smaller quad payoff would allow him to meet a win goal. But in the case now, he is so far underwater that his "special play strategy" would fail to bail him out.

    Now let's reverse it: if he never used a special play, and instead used a conventional play and hit a bigger payoff earlier in his session, he would never be in the position he found himself in here -- which was in the hole by ten grand.

    In other words, Rob just gave us a reason NEVER to use his special plays.

  18. #18
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Rob also emailed me, and I am afraid that his thinking is backwards here.

    I can understand using a special play which results in a smaller win (special play: don't hold kickers to improve chance for quads) but here Rob isn't looking for a smaller win -- he is taking a higher risk option which is holding the kicker and reducing his chance for drawing the quad card.

    In explaining his special plays, he says he is going for the easier win (quad without kicker) because the smaller quad payoff would allow him to meet a win goal. But in the case now, he is so far underwater that his "special play strategy" would fail to bail him out.

    Now let's reverse it: if he never used a special play, and instead used a conventional play and hit a bigger payoff earlier in his session, he would never be in the position he found himself in here -- which was in the hole by ten grand.

    In other words, Rob just gave us a reason NEVER to use his special plays.
    Alan, you're combining what actually happened with "what if". I don't get how you guys come up with all this stuff. A simple explanation is always met with the worst possible scenario to try to discredit the method. I'm outta here.

  19. #19
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
    Alan, you're combining what actually happened with "what if". I don't get how you guys come up with all this stuff. A simple explanation is always met with the worst possible scenario to try to discredit the method. I'm outta here.
    Unfortunately it's the "what if" that determines whether or not there is a strategy that can be followed or used. As I said initially, Rob's "strategy" has too many conditions, too many variables, too many options, too many choices to make it a system or strategy that anyone can actually follow or use.

    Rob essentially tells us that whatever he does was the right decision but we really can't go into his mind to determine how the right decision was arrived it. With conventional strategy we don't have those problems.

  20. #20
    Slingshot, why do you put so much faith into what Rob says? Why does anyone?

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
  •