Rob Singer sent me a trip report.

[Rob.Singer]

One thing you're right about Alan is that the special play discussion, especially about kickers in any game with kickers, has been pounded to death and for some reason, you'll never understand it. I can't explain it any better either, so call it a day. As for arci, he'll do or say anything that'll help convince himself that the win is anyone's but mine. It's just way of coping with this. Hey, if he isn't successful making himself believe that, he'll say I "had to have lost" $51k...or, if I posted how I tried and DIDN'T hit it, he'd be flapping about how I "didn't do what I say" by "not making the SPECIAL hold that would have given a better chance for the quad...LIAR!". He should actually be congratulating me for making the optimal play because my win goal attainment dictated it.

Care to congratulate me arci? Care to? C'Mon--put some Christmas joy in that hospice up there. Gimmie some!

[Alan Mendelson]

I've never doubted your wins, Rob. But I think you have to make it clear how your overall system operates and is played. It's just too complicated to be followed. You can't sit with everyone at a machine for two or four hours. People will want to read what you do and see videos and all of the nuances that you have limits the ability for anyone to learn your system.

And because you can't explain the nuances, people might think you just got "lucky." And they will demand mathematical proof because there is so little other evidence showing how your system works.

[Rob.Singer]

OK Alan, I'm out of ideas and out of time for now. I think you at least know I held the kicker because of the overriding win goal rule, but maybe sending it to you wasn't the best idea because all it did was confuse you (and rattle poor arci, who's " spending less time on forums due to his reduced time playing vp"The things I do to that guy). I've successfully trained lots of players at the machines in 2 hours. Someday maybe you'll join them if we ever get the chance. Already two people from WoV contacted me and one of them even offered to PAY me, which of course I'd never accept.

Enjoy the holidays.

[regnis]

No offense to Alan or Arci--but this one does seem pretty clear. He needed the kicker to reach his goal or get even so the "Special Play" was not put into play. Just plain old regular optimum strategy and a very lucky draw. I assume had his loss to that point been less where the quad alone would have achieved his goal, then he would have tossed the kicker and gone with the Special Play.

Now--whether you choose to believe that that win was his--that's a different story. But the Special Play issue seems pretty clear to me.

[Alan Mendelson]

regnis there is no question he needed the kicker for the big win, and there is no question he got lucky. The issue is -- Rob has been on record (and you can see the video here) for not holding kickers. And now he is telling us -- and he has never said it before to me, or in any of the interviews -- that it is OK to hold the kicker.

My point is that his entire system and methodology has too many variables. The issue isn't whether or not he did it and held the kicker -- the issue is his "strategy" has too many variables to give anyone a chance to learn it and follow it.

Now, Rob says in two hours he can teach it to you. Frankly, I kind of doubt that too. I've certainly spent more than two hours with him just shooting the videos. We've also talked on the phone and spent literally hours here going back on the forth on this forum. And I still can't say I understand his system. And I've tried.

If Rob wants his system to be embraced, it has to be stated in such a way that we can get our arms around it. And we can't. You look at Special Play #16 and then you listen to Rob's explanation for holding the kicker and you wonder why it wasn't stated in #16 or how much of a loss he has to have to hold the kicker?

You see -- it becomes too complicated.

[slingshot]

Think WIN GOAL=W-I-N G-0-A-L. You are getting S-L-E-E-P-Y! W-I-N G-O-A-L ! At the count of 10 you will awaken and remember ONLY W-I-N G-O-A-L! `1,2,3........

[Alan Mendelson]

Think WIN GOAL=W-I-N G-0-A-L. You are getting S-L-E-E-P-Y! W-I-N G-O-A-L ! At the count of 10 you will awaken and remember ONLY W-I-N G-O-A-L! `1,2,3........

I hope you don't mind my asking, but as a follower of Rob's advice are you showing a profit for your play during 2013? Several times over the past year or so you indicated you had some problems with your gambling. Has that changed?

[slingshot]

I hope you don't mind my asking, but as a follower of Rob's advice are you showing a profit for your play during 2013? Several times over the past year or so you indicated you had some problems with your gambling. Has that changed?

No. The first part of the year has me on the minus side. And since I've been leaving when ahead, I haven't hit big enough to catch up-yet. But a plus $50 each trip is better that a -$300, although it is awful frustrating to not see the quads I used to see. Still, Idon't get why you can't see that a play is related to where you are in the session. I agree with what he says because it is so logical. I like it because it is VERSATILE. Each and every session is an entity and calls for flexibility of thinking and not some preset hold that's on some play card to be memorized. And if you get uncomfortable with the session, you can actually get up and walk away and not just stand there trying to "make" the machine cooperate. I think I know why no one likes his way of playing-it's easier to just bang at the keys than to keep up with where you are in a session and work with that info. And REMEMBER- no one's saying you won't lose-just that if you do hit it will be worth the time you spent keeping up.

[regnis]

I have gone lengths of time without a quad or other big winner that would have blown through Rob's bankroll had I used his system. But I am particularly unlucky in VP (recall 1 royal in 10 years---albeit 5 this year which is still too low). Rob, system or not, seems to be extremely lucky in that he gets all of these big wins. So then the question becomes "is he putting himself in position to make theses big wins (as he says)", or is he just that lucky?

If you believe that he hit all those jackpots then I believe he is just that lucky, system or not, and his system takes advantage of all that luck. Again, I would have blown through his bankroll in the lengthy streaks of no big hands that I often have. Last Friday, my buddy and I went 4 hours without any quad or other big win playing 25 cent (5 way) up to $5.00 ( 1-3 way). No system or bankroll would have saved us.

[Rob.Singer]

There's always the risk of running thru a session bankroll w/o quads and you may recall I had an unusually large drought earlier this year. But I was "lucky" because it was when I was not playing large. So when the quad finally came I instilled into my mind, as silly as it sounds, that my bad streak was over and I should be playing only dollars to $5 or more after that to see what happens. Well, I've posted what happened, and I certainly HAVE been more lucky than the avg. player since. But I NEVER was in the past. I simply gave good luck a better opportunity to appear, then took maximum advantage of every bit of it thru the use of strong discipline and an unwavering, superior playing system.

I don't play much, but always wonder what would happen if I did. My take is not to be greedy with these runs, which is why I've been climbing in denom. lately instead of sitting at machines for long hours many times. Don't play a lot? Then hit 'em hard when I do. That's also the beauty of not being a points or status-chaser. I control my play and how I do it. Most every player doesn't because they can't.

[Alan Mendelson]

and I certainly HAVE been more lucky than the avg. player since.

So, Rob... you seem to be saying that you just got lucky with your latest run? If that's the case, what's the point of following your advice? Luck is something that can't come from a book or a strategy or even from your systems. Luck comes because luck comes. So if luck is "the bottom line" there is no need to do what you say, is there?

[Rob.Singer]

I've been unusually lucky Alan. By all rights I should only be up no more than $45k using my strategies with standard luck.

[Alan Mendelson]

I've been unusually lucky Alan. By all rights I should only be up no more than $45k using my strategies with standard luck.

Up by $45K playing what denominations? (Since all wins are relative to the amount bet.)

[Vegas Vic]

Glad to see bringing Rob Singer back to this forum really improved the atmosphere around here and thank God he toned down considerably (sarcasm mode off). Haven't been around here for weeks because I've been to busy at work. I'm glad to see I didn't really miss anything worthwhile. Merry Christmas everybody, enjoy the next couple of months filled with Singer insults.

Nice post. I, too, have been busy, but for me it has been the completion of a 7 week remodel of 4 rooms in our house and the birth of our first grandchild. With only sporadic moments of lurking during that time, I jumped into the forum tonight to catch up AND I see Alan has transformed himself into an invertebrate. This particular thread has evolved into another childish cat fight (to no one's surprise) and underscores why this site will continue to be all foam and no beer.

The concept of building a good forum seems to have been attempted with nothing but good intentions, but the resulting structure that is here now looks like this:

[Rob.Singer]

Up by $45K playing what denominations? (Since all wins are relative to the amount bet.)

Mostly 25c thru $2, but a little at up to the $10 level as you've seen in my photos.

[Alan Mendelson]

Up by $45K playing what denominations? (Since all wins are relative to the amount bet.)

Mostly 25c thru $2, but a little at up to the $10 level as you've seen in my photos.

Two observations:
1. I don't recall you posting any big wins or even royals at a level below $5.
2. Your big wins that you posted pictures came with wins at $5 and higher... the latest being $25.

This tells me what I have suspected all along: you are spinning your wheels at the lower levels. Now there is nothing wrong with spinning your wheels, but I still think that with your bankroll you should be playing at higher levels to begin with and stop wasting tire tread and gas below $5.

[Rob.Singer]

Wrong Alan. It's back to the same old attentiveness issue again. Go back to the thread on jackpots and you'll see pics at the dollar & $2 levels and even a 25c royal. And those are just the ones I felt like snapping at lower amounts, but there will always be far more losing hands at the lower levels overall than at the higher ones. It also points out something else you aren't getting: the progression almost always keeps the losses at the lower levels while waiting for that one bigger hit. If I were simply losing at the higher levels these jackpots would mean little more than just another hand in a series of many hands that produced little or no profit, you know, like APs or maybe even you go at it.

Here's another item to remember....and you need this since you keep trying to talk yourself into how playing lower levels first don't mean anything. Lots of times, say maybe around 20%, it's the ACCUMULATION of soft profits from the lower levels that make up the winning. That's why there's so many "cash outs" along the way. Case in point-- the two sessions I played prior to the +$40,705 session win, where one of those two wins never required me to play at $25. And remember, this was ARTT not SPS, where ARTT only uses 400 credits at the highest denomination, and SPS uses 400 credits at each of SIX denominations. In SPS, if I were to lose say 1600 credits with zero cashouts (zero cashout being very rare indeed but good for this exercise) at the $25 level before hitting four Aces on my first hand at $25 BP, I'd be down a whopping $40,125 at the time of the $10,000 hit. But instead, because and ONLY because of this unique winning strategy, I'm only down $7325, meaning I'm now up $2625, I've attained my session win goal, and the all-important go-home point. Now I don't know about you, but I like a $2600 profit over a $30,000 loss any time. And that's exactly how the majority of my wins have come over the years.

Make sense yet? I know I know, it would make you nervous putting that kind of cash into this type of thing. But that's you, not me, plus as I've told you so many times, this works at much lower denominations too. Professionals do things differently and I learned from that experience. You can't win if you don't play, and you usually can't win big if you don't play big.

[Vegas_lover]

Nice post. I, too, have been busy, but for me it has been the completion of a 7 week remodel of 4 rooms in our house and the birth of our first grandchild. With only sporadic moments of lurking during that time, I jumped into the forum tonight to catch up AND I see Alan has transformed himself into an invertebrate. This particular thread has evolved into another childish cat fight (to no one's surprise) and underscores why this site will continue to be all foam and no beer.

The concept of building a good forum seems to have been attempted with nothing but good intentions, but the resulting structure that is here now looks like this:

Ahh well, at least some individuals seem to enjoy the continueing saga

[Alan Mendelson]

there will always be far more losing hands at the lower levels overall than at the higher ones.

but Rob, THAT is my entire point.

for someone who claims he wants to limit his time in the casino, and to hit a win goal, why do you insist on playing at lower levels? Why not just sit down at a ten dollar machine, hit some full houses or maybe a quad (using your special plays which help you make quads) and leave?

And when you say you never got to the $25 level, I'm sure that means you did play at the $5 and $10 levels.

[Dan Druff]

Rob, casinos now all provide people with win-loss statements for the year at their request.

How about requesting these for all casinos you played significantly in 2013 and post them here?