Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 130

Thread: Rob Singer sent me a trip report.

  1. #21
    Rob has sent me several emails saying that win goals determine when special plays are used. This makes no sense to me. I always thought the use of special plays was to improve the chance of winning certain hands and adding win goals to the equation challenges the basic concept. And again it means Rob's strategy can only be followed by Rob.

  2. #22
    I love Rob. I really do, but some other posters have pointed out in the past that Rob's reports of large winnings seem to curiously follow other folks' reports of large winnings like night follows day -- almost in a cause-and-effect fashion that defies logical non-quantum explanation.

    If Rob does have some quantum effects working for him, I suggest he send my friend AV some danish and coffee comps. But congrats to Rob for the win.

  3. #23
    Rob continues to send me emails telling me that my analysis is all wrong. Rob is no longer banned. He can now reply himself.

    In the meantime I want to say this:

    If Rob can use a conventional play and not a special play when he is already in the hole by ten thousand dollars, why can't he use the conventional play from the start when a big, conventional play win (such as four of a kind plus the kicker) would give him more than what he determines to be the win goal amount?

    Also, I want to publicly congratulate Rob on his exceptional track record playing video poker in 2013. This is a direct quote from his email to me:

    "Follow what I say. It has made me nearly $100k in VERY limited play this year, as well as several hundred thousand in years past."

    So: it seems that when Rob has been posting nothing but big wins, he really has had nothing but big wins. He's da man.

  4. #24
    I just had another email exchange with Rob. I think he's upset that I am not giving him credit for this play being a "special play."

    Rob sent this to me:

    "Nothing's changed Alan, not even you're inability to comprehend."

    And I wrote back to Rob:

    If you had simply said "this was one of those times when I put aside my special plays and made the conventional play -- because I only use special plays 5% of the time" -- there would be no controversy.

    Instead you tried to make this a special play. And that just makes you look foolish. YOU CAN'T TAKE CREDIT FOR EVERYTHING that turns out right. And that's what you're trying to do. PUT YOUR EGO ASIDE AND JUST SAY "I played the conventional way this time and it worked."

  5. #25
    OK Alan, let da man clear this up. I'm not addressing the boo birds or the blinded critics or offer apologies for winning--just more education on how to consistently win if you enjoy playing video poker.

    Alan is confused, and by him making solo comments I've been trying to clear that confusion up in e-mails. So he did the efficient, smart thing by asking me to explain it here.

    The explanation is very simple: holding the A333 was the optimal hold, AND IT WAS NOT A SPECIAL PLAY. And I have said that from the start, although I can see how it might wrongly be construed as being a SPECIAL PLAY. Special plays are only plays that deviate from optimal strategy. The reason I sent this hand to him is because it's an infrequent but excellent example of when I would use the optimal play over an expected special play.

    Had hitting four 3's without the kicker (a $10,000 winner) allowed me to make at least a $1000 profit, I would have made the special play and held only the three 3's. But in this case, with hitting four 3's only allowing me to be up $705, making a SPECIAL PLAY hold is eliminated. Therefore, the optimal hold won out.

    BTW, the $49k number was my overall trip win. Two other ARTT sessions similar to this one were played-- all to success.

  6. #26
    Pretty soon we'll be hearing from Rob about big wins on cruise ships.

  7. #27
    When Robbie "retired" he claimed he was no longer going to bet at high levels. Now, add that to the lie about always doing what he says he's going to do and this entire thread is just one huge belly laugh. You have to believe Robbie lied earlier to believe he is telling the truth now.

  8. #28
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Rob will not be returning. I am closing this thread.
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Rob is no longer banned. He can now reply himself.
    And, the fickle finger of fate award goes to ....

  9. #29
    I'm just glad Rob's back. Alan anointed me the resident troll and slur master in his absence, and I can tell you -- it's like trying to take over for Batman. Heavy is the head that wears the cowl.

  10. #30
    First of all, I am glad that Rob cleared this up and posted himself. It is not a special play. The conventional video poker wisdom gets the credit. That makes me wonder if maybe there is no reason to ever use special plays since when you get lucky, you might as well get lucky and get the big wins with the kickers?

  11. #31
    No doubt arci is terribly jealous and not particularly happy over this thread--esp. after I mashed him elsewhere recently --but he & Spock made one point that deserves attention. Why am I playing at above $2 when upon retiring I said I was NOT going to do it?

    Think back....how many people have made comments like "if he wins so much then why doesn't he play every day" or "he wins so much he should be playing high limits all the time"? Well, my first issue was time. We're not in Nevada or other trustworthy locations all the time or even much of the time any more. We travel a lot, I won't play at or even go into Indian casinos as a rule, and I don't much care to play long sessions over and over again. So I've slowly adopted shorter, higher limit playing sessions and have done so well this year that I'll likely file as a professional gambler once again, if it's advantageous for our situation.

  12. #32
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    First of all, I am glad that Rob cleared this up and posted himself. It is not a special play. The conventional video poker wisdom gets the credit. That makes me wonder if maybe there is no reason to ever use special plays since when you get lucky, you might as well get lucky and get the big wins with the kickers?
    No. I haven't really played tdbp until this year and it is NOT an enjoyable game...esp. at high levels. The special plays have been far more valuable as a winning tool for my strategies for a long time. This picture and the lessons about the special play concept is just a follow-up to some of the large wins I put in the paper in years past.

  13. #33
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    The special plays have been far more valuable as a winning tool for my strategies for a long time.
    Unfortunately, Rob, this time your strategy got you into a $10,000 hole and it took a conventional play to get you out of the hole. Even you recognize that a special play would not have gotten you out of your $10,000 hole and given you a $1,000 win goal.

    Perhaps we can say that "special plays" work early in a session before you are in a big hole. But once you are in a big hole, you must play conventional strategy (at least in holding kickers when appropriate) to dig you out of the hole. That is, afterall, what you did here.

  14. #34
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Had hitting four 3's without the kicker (a $10,000 winner) allowed me to make at least a $1000 profit, I would have made the special play and held only the three 3's. But in this case, with hitting four 3's only allowing me to be up $705, making a SPECIAL PLAY hold is eliminated. Therefore, the optimal hold won out.
    So, if a $10,000 winner would have netted you $1000 you use the special play but if it's only $995 you use the conventional play?

    Was $10,000 your stop loss limit?

  15. #35
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Unfortunately, Rob, this time your strategy got you into a $10,000 hole and it took a conventional play to get you out of the hole. Even you recognize that a special play would not have gotten you out of your $10,000 hole and given you a $1,000 win goal.

    Perhaps we can say that "special plays" work early in a session before you are in a big hole. But once you are in a big hole, you must play conventional strategy (at least in holding kickers when appropriate) to dig you out of the hole. That is, afterall, what you did here.
    Alan, you're once again stuck on a "big" amount, just as you usually are whenever I mention my $33k loss one time, or using a $57,200 bankroll to win a minimum of "just" $2500. Open your mind a bit--these sound like big amounts to some, but I wouldn't be messing with them if losing any of it were devastating to me.

    How many people can post a pic of their $50,000 vp win? Start thinking in those relative terms. Yes, I used a conventional play to get it, and I'm glad you've finally realized that it was not one of my special plays. You do know that most of my holds actually are conventional, right? But you keep forgetting, if I had just another $295 on the screen when the hand was dealt, I would have made the special play of holding just the 3's. Why? Because nothing trumps a win goal, and that would have gotten me to exactly +$1000.

    BTW, they paid me in five stacks. I put all of it into my wife's purse and left--tipping nobody. And guess what? We all lived thru it.
    Last edited by Rob.Singer; 12-23-2013 at 06:13 PM.

  16. #36
    Gee Rob Singer... I didn't know this was a screen name for Bill Gates.

    By the way, what was your stop loss limit? I think a2a3dseddie asked an important question so we can understand just what is "relative" to you.

  17. #37
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Gee Rob Singer... I didn't know this was a screen name for Bill Gates.

    By the way, what was your stop loss limit? I think a2a3dseddie asked an important question so we can understand just what is "relative" to you.
    I already answered that: $30,000. In other words, no cashouts in 3 sessions, with no other winning sessions. Total failure. It's never happened.

  18. #38
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    I already answered that: $30,000. In other words, no cashouts in 3 sessions, with no other winning sessions. Total failure. It's never happened.
    Refresh my memory: what happened when you had that session and you lost $33,000 ??? Wasn't that session loss the equivalent of about one-third of a year's income?

  19. #39
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Refresh my memory: what happened when you had that session and you lost $33,000 ??? Wasn't that session loss the equivalent of about one-third of a year's income?
    This was ARTT Alan, with a session bankroll requirement of $10k. That loss? It came in an SPS session, where the session bankroll is$57,200. And BTW, I ended that year +$65k.

  20. #40
    Hey Alan, did you ever get those tax returns that Robbie said he sent in for?

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
  •