Rob Singer sent me a trip report.

[Rob.Singer]

Rob I have a direct question about this particular hand: dealt three 3s with an ace. Why didn't you use your "special play" strategy and hold only the trip 3s while rationalizing that you then had two chances to draw the quad 3 plus you still could draw one of the three additional aces in the deck or one of the four 2s in the deck (a total of 7 kickers)???

In retrospect you might have played the correct strategy but your "special play strategy" still would have held up for this hand. Why did you divert from it??? I would like you to explain that in detail -- why the diversion from the Singer strategy?

What you did was in effect give yourself one chance to draw the one card for the big win, while the "special play" would have given you two chances to draw at least the quad card plus 7 remaining kickers. I think this is an inconsistency and you should explain it.

Please see the video I did with you about this exact "special play" which is #16 here: http://alanbestbuys.com/id195.html

If you remember, I play most hands optimally. And as I've explained twice, I did not for for the four threes (aka, a SPECIAL play that deviates from optimal strategy) simply because four 3's would not have allowed me to attain my $1000 win goal. And if you remember in our special play discussions, no special play ever depends on getting a kicker in a kicker game, even though there's always a chance of getting it. Again, I did not divert from my strategy. You keep saying that because what I'm telling you just won't sink in for some reason. I followed the rules of the strategy to the letter for the game I was playing.

No, I do not change the mathematical odds in my favor. Those always belong to the house, whether the game is 93% or 104%. For the amount of time a player plays any machine on any visit, the casino always has the advantage. Redietz said it best when he said that I negate the house advantage with my method of play. No casino wants or expects any player to walk after getting ahead for the visit. I've figured out the optimal way of getting ahead a small amount compared to the bankroll I use, and then I walk. Procedural advantage: (by a WIDE margin) - Singer.

[Rob.Singer]

Rob thanks for the detailed response. But I want to draw particular attention to this comment you made:

Say you go to a casino with $2500 and want to win $500 while planning to only play dollars. How successful do you think you'd be? Now go in with $15,000, keep that same $500 goal, and use a structured strategy that climbs in denomination as you lose (aka, chasing losses to you). See a better chance? Of course....a MUCH better chance.

Rob: get real. You're asking me to walk into a casino with $15K ?? That's problem number one: never in my life would I walk into a casino with $15K nor would I set up a credit line for that much, nor would I play that much... and to win $500 with a $15K potential investment which is a return of 3.33% ??? Rob, do you consider this to be a smart thing to do?

Of course I do! Read what I said: sometimes I win a LOT of money. Most times I win a small amount. It adds up. You don't see it because it's not you. But I consider consistent winning BECAUSE I take a large bankroll in, as well worth the risk.

[Alan Mendelson]

While quad 3s without a kicker would not have given you the money to make up your $10K deficit AND given you a win goal, your special play of just going for the quads (and dropping the kicker) would have given you a much stronger chance of making a sizeable win which could have paid down nearly all of your loss at this point.

You were taking a 1/47 shot -- plain and simple. For a player who prides himself on taking a walk when he has a profit, putting it all on the line for a 1/47 shot seems out of character.

In fact, just getting the quad threes (dropping the kicker) would have paid you $10,000 which pretty much would put you back to even.

So here's the tale of the tape:

Rob Singer gambled on a one card draw to wipe out a ten thousand dollar deficit instead of taking a two-card draw to wipe out a ten thousand dollar deficit.

And what if you didn't hit the miracle card? Where would you be now? I'll tell you where: right where the casinos wanted you to be drawing, drawing for a 1/47 jackpot card and in the hole by ten grand.

[Rob.Singer]

First Alan, I was up over $9k from the two prior sessions, so poor Rob would not have been right where the casino wanted him had he missed that 3 and eventually lost the $10k session.

Next, my strategies are not specifically designed to make the hold-- be it optimal or a SPECIAL play--that gets me "closer to a win goal". Sometimes they do, but it is only because I made the special play that was meant to hit a big winner and when the optimal hold would hit a small winner at best. And why do you persist on this 1 in 47 thing or that "RS gambled and got lucky". It's all a gamble and it's mostly luck for every player who hits something. 1in 47 or 2 in 47 is meaningless inasmuch as which hold follows the strategy's absolute requirement to hit the session- ending win goal. And since that hold was the optimal play this time and for one of the very infrequent times, it wasn't even a struggle to choose.

[Alan Mendelson]

First Alan, I was up over $9k from the two prior sessions,

Of course I should have known. You never lose, you always come through with the wins when you need them, and you always make the right decision about your system because only you know it.

[Rob.Singer]

Of course I should have known. You never lose, you always come through with the wins when you need them, and you always make the right decision about your system because only you know it.

Not the wisest choice of words. What you should have said is the truth....that I said twice before in this thread that I was up around $9k prior to playing a third and final session. You're getting after me for having and following a winning strategy that you don't really understand, and it's almost like you want me to apologize for all my winning this year when others lose or depend on their ginormous over-valuation skills on their year-end gifts from the GGWU. It's fine if you don't like it and if you don't care to believe me. Like I said, none of that affects or changes the good fortune I've experienced or the joy we have over it around here. The problem I DO have is now you got that moron mickeycrimm going with messages to me. I hope you reconsider next time. You do know that he's an alcoholic with violent tendencies that he spews in his messages, right?

BTW, as for your comment that I never lose....remember when I posted about my HUGE losing streak lady year where I just couldn't hit a quad to save my arse? Yes that was the last time I've left a casino a loser, but why don't you remember these things? Is it age-related?

[Alan Mendelson]

You're getting after me for having and following a winning strategy that you don't really understand,

You're absolutely right: I don't understand. And I don't think anyone else can understand it either. Sure we can understand the basics such as what is a special play, as well as win goals and loss limits... but it's the application of those ideas which are impossible to follow.

For example, you are up $9,000 on previous sessions, but you return to the casino to play a third session and then find yourself $10,000 in the hole? Is that Rob Singer telling us that? Rob Singer who historically would take the money and run? And the same Rob Singer who would belittle others for being addicts if they did the same thing?

Sorry, Rob. I can't understand. And I don't want to rehash the special play thing anymore because that horse has been beaten beyond the point of death.

[Rob.Singer]

But Alan, I've always pegged you as someone who had the ability to understand the method more than any others I've discussed it with. And I still believe that...if you would only clear your mind of all the incorrect assumptions you have about it and just LISTEN. It is not difficult and is not something "only Rob" can understand.

Now for the third tiresome time about the three sessions. Remember I told you I went in to play THREE sessions period? Because I had Cindy and friends with me and they wanted to watch and have some drinks for a fun time for the evening? I told you this time my only goal was to restart whenever I attained at least a $1000 win goal, and to play three sessions no matter what happened. Remember that? And to further clear your wanton misconceptions, this type of thing is what I mean by saying I'm retired from professional play. Had I not been, I'd have set an overall walk goal of $1500.

If you read these things then you won't confuse yourself so much. Or just ask, without the crazy assumptions or assertions that seem to never have a basis in the strategy's facts.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, I understand your basic principles. I understand special plays and win loss goals, but it is how you mix them all together that whizzes way over my head.

To be honest, you don't have a "system" or "method" or "strategy" that others can properly apply. That doesn't mean it hasn't worked for you and it doesn't mean it can't work for others. But you can't expect anyone else to believe it, follow it, or understand it, because there are too many variables inside the head of Rob Singer.

Every other video poker strategy guide is specific, in part because it doesn't have an many variables as your system has.

The bottom line, I'm afraid, is that you can't be critical of those who don't embrace your system. Your system can't be embraced -- there is just too much for anyone to put their arms around it. I say that figuratively and literally.

[arcimede$]

My son-in-law stopped it arci. Ask mickeycrimm on WoV if he has the capabilities. In fact....ask yourself.

Sure he did. I suspect there's a little too much separation of duties at the IRS. It would almost assuredly violate privacy regulations.

[arcimede$]

IIRC, at one time Robbie stated he would NEVER keep a kicker with 3 aces. His logic was it cut his chances of winning in half. Now, maybe I'm remembering wrong, but that seems to go against what Robbie is stating here. If his decision is based on cutting the chances of a big winner in half then it would apply equally to threes.

EDIT: Found it:

[Alan Mendelson]

Sure he did. I suspect there's a little too much separation of duties at the IRS. It would almost assuredly violate privacy regulations.

I wonder if this is a violation of IRS rules and regulations and if someone might lose their job?

[arcimede$]

Well, there is no doubt now that Singer is lying. He claims:

1) He always does what he says.
2) He would "never" hold a kicker with 3 threes in TDB.

Hence, the picture he provided was not a hand Singer was playing. I can hardly wait for the .... but, but, but.

[Alan Mendelson]

In fact, Arc, if you listen to what he said in the video he address a situation exactly like the one in question here. I am just too confused by what he says and what he means. This is why his system, method, way of playing is too complicated for anyone to follow.

Again look and carefully listen to what is said in Special Play #16 here: http://alanbestbuys.com/id195.html

[arcimede$]

Alan, I linked to the video above. His use of the word "never" says it all. Once again he has been caught in a outright fabrication.

[Rob.Singer]

I can see arci's again been wounded by me...and I like it! How long will he keep trying to find a reason to ease his troubled mind that I didn't really hit this horrifying winner! But alas, once again he's caught in his own trap. He knows why but Alan doesn't, so I'll break the bad news right now.

The video is very, very clear, and once again I'd like to thank arci for searching for it, posting it, and then giving education an opportunity to come to the forefront of video poker mastering. These videos ALL explain what I do in the course of making SPECIAL PLAYS ONLY....and why. And when I say that I would "NEVER" hold a kicker in performing a special play, that's exactly what I meant. Never. Was holding A333 ever identified as a SPECIAL PLAY HOLD? Nope. Just as I've been saying from my first post on. Better you think before posting arci. I expect more out of someone who prides themself on knowing more than everyone else. You also need to brush up on your math too.

Arci, for a geek you sure must have a lot of other, more pressing issues on your mind right now in order to slip this baldly. You see what I mean by those "consequences" yet? Sorry Charlie...

I was so excited about another arci toe-stubbing that I missed his IRS ramble. Keep worrying about it!

[Rob.Singer]

In fact, Arc, if you listen to what he said in the video he address a situation exactly like the one in question here. I am just too confused by what he says and what he means. This is why his system, method, way of playing is too complicated for anyone to follow.

Again look and carefully listen to what is said in Special Play #16 here: http://alanbestbuys.com/id195.html

Alan, I'm happy you posted that SPECIAL PLAY reminder also. I would NEVER hold a kicker with three Aces in TDBP just as I said. It would always be the special play hold of three Aces only, because four Aces would ALWAYS allow me to attain a win goal.

Next.

[Rob.Singer]

Rob, I understand your basic principles. I understand special plays and win loss goals, but it is how you mix them all together that whizzes way over my head.

To be honest, you don't have a "system" or "method" or "strategy" that others can properly apply. That doesn't mean it hasn't worked for you and it doesn't mean it can't work for others. But you can't expect anyone else to believe it, follow it, or understand it, because there are too many variables inside the head of Rob Singer.

Every other video poker strategy guide is specific, in part because it doesn't have an many variables as your system has.

The bottom line, I'm afraid, is that you can't be critical of those who don't embrace your system. Your system can't be embraced -- there is just too much for anyone to put their arms around it. I say that figuratively and literally.

Alan, your assumptions are so wrong. If I sat with you at a machine for just 2 hours, I guarantee you would come away with an understanding and full appreciation of my approach. Continuing to "argue" it here is pointless. And look at what it did to poor arci. Here he was, all excited and exuberant that he thought he finally found a real error, when he simply forgot that the videos only discuss special play utilization. Poor fellow. Doesn't he have ENUF problems without this humiliation?

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, I'm happy you posted that SPECIAL PLAY reminder also. I would NEVER hold a kicker with three Aces in TDBP just as I said. It would always be the special play hold of three Aces only, because four Aces would ALWAYS allow me to attain a win goal.

Next.

Rob, Special Play #16 is what you should be looking at. It is not the one with three aces which is play #15.

Alan, your assumptions are so wrong. If I sat with you at a machine for just 2 hours, I guarantee you would come away with an understanding and full appreciation of my approach. Continuing to "argue" it here is pointless. And look at what it did to poor arci. Here he was, all excited and exuberant that he thought he finally found a real error, when he simply forgot that the videos only discuss special play utilization. Poor fellow. Doesn't he have ENUF problems without this humiliation?

And I'm sorry, but I agree with Arc. Look again at Special Play #16. Those are your words unedited.

[Rob.Singer]

Rob, Special Play #16 is what you should be looking at. It is not the one with three aces which is play #15.



And I'm sorry, but I agree with Arc. Look again at Special Play #16. Those are your words unedited.

That's right Alan, because #15 talks about Aces and what the rules are for SPECIAL PLAYS-- not conventional plays. But #16 refers to deuces, and it clearly explains that NO SPECIAL PLAY would ever hold the kicker. Just remind yourself that everything about these videos is only referring to what a SPECIAL PLAY hold is. Holding trips = SPECIAL PLAY. Holding the kicker with trips = CONVENTIONAL PLAY. Get it? In my $50k hand, how many times does it take you to understand that the hold I made was NOT a SPECIAL PLAY. Do you understand yet? And do you understand the reason WHY I chose to make the conventional play yet? It might help if you read my initial post and the one last night again explaining why I made the optimal hold and not the SPECIAL PLAY hold of just the three 3's.

Arci has an agenda that's always falling apart. You have a reading problem.