Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 49

Thread: The Kicker Thread

  1. #1
    There's only one person qualified to talk about how the kickers in DDBP & TDBP, the only two games I've ever played that involve kickers, are treated by me....and that's, OMG, ME! So I've started this new thread to clear the way for questions, comments, criticisms, and even lies, because, as everyone knows, some people have a very difficult time handling the truth....esp. if they just had to wait in a long line at the pharmacy again.

    The Singer rules are simple and clear: A kicker NEVER is held in the performance of a special play. Period (please note: this is not the same "period" as Obama uses). And, in no case during any of my strategies will you ever see me hold a kicker with three Aces. Why? Because four Aces in either game and at any denomination, will ALWAYS attain either a mini-win (very infrequently) or overall win goal (very frequently).

    The game of TDBP is a game I never played in any of my strategies while playing professionally until retiring in May of 2009. Since then I added it into my ARTT strategy only, and I've played it maybe a dozen times at most. While I clearly explained Aces & kickers above, it's the kickers with quad 2's thru 4's that present a unique situation, esp. after posting my $50,000 hit.

    There is one single overriding task when playing my strategies, and that is attaining a win goal. Nothing is more important than getting it and leaving. Special plays that deviate from optimal strategy have played a fair role in session-ending wins over the years. So why did I hold the A kicker with three 3's? Simple--it was the optimal play that had the only chance of attaining my win goal, whereas the special play of holding only the three 3's did not.

    Is my video with Alan about kickers confusing? Yes. Why? Because I said I would never hold a kicker with four 2's as a special play in TDBP. Well, it is not a special play when as the optimal play, it will attain my win goal if successful. Yet, I did hold the kicker. It seems contradictory, I agree. But remember, I had never played that game in any of my goal-oriented strategies, I was thinking of the issue as what my rules are for DDBP (where small quads with kickers are only 800 credit wins) which I frequently played, and I wasn't aware of how holding the kicker with trips was the optimal play, let alone a potential 2000 credit winner, even though I had played the game recreationally now and then in the distant past.

    Clear yet?
    Last edited by Rob.Singer; 01-05-2014 at 11:29 PM.

  2. #2
    Thanks Rob. What's clear is that what you said in the video changed because now you say reaching a win goal is more important than your special play. Well, in almost all cases, playing conventional strategy could make everyone closer to reaching their win goal. So, why play the Singer way? I have to ask because ONLY YOU know the answer.

  3. #3
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Thanks Rob. What's clear is that what you said in the video changed because now you say reaching a win goal is more important than your special play. Well, in almost all cases, playing conventional strategy could make everyone closer to reaching their win goal. So, why play the Singer way? I have to ask because ONLY YOU know the answer.
    Read my fingertips: The special plays have accounted for many of my session-ending wins, without which I very likely could have lost my entire gambling bankroll at any point in my professional career.

    You never asked during the videos, but on my site for years, in my columns for years, and spoken on the radio & TV for years, has always been that nothing is more important to the Singer Play Strategies than win goals. Nothing ever changed. The video was simply focused on the point that holding kickers in kicker games is never a special play. That's why I sent you the picture of my unusual hold & win, to show you a kicker as the optimal hold--and not as a special play--actually worked. In that particular game, I've never held a kicker before, ever. In similar situations, I always made the special play hold of just the small trips, because if the quad hit, it would have been enough to attain my win goal. I posted one or two such wins on the jackpot thread last year.

  4. #4
    Actually Rob, I look at your last trip report this way (and forgive me for being blunt):

    The Singer method failed to reach your win goal and when you were deep in a hole you had to use the conventional/optimal play in order to win.

    Is that correct? Or did you make NO "special plays" the entire time you were there? And with no special plays previously made the Singer method was never used?

  5. #5
    I guess Obama and Singer are two peas in the same pod. Obama said you would "never" lose you insurance and Singer said he would "never" hold a kicker holding trips in TDB. Neither one of them lie very well.

  6. #6
    Rather than say lie, how about saying both of them were mistaken?

    In all fairness to Rob, he did say he uses "special plays" only 5% of the time, even though he has said he never holds a kicker. One could make the assumption that he was mistaken.

    To be honest, this revelation will not make history. Okay, Rob was mistaken in his statement that he never holds kickers. If we accept that I think this particular issue is closed.

    But if this particular issue is closed we still have the larger, overriding issue which is this: If only Rob knows what is best playing his methodology, what chance does anyone else have to follow his methodology. After all, until this new revelation about holding kickers I always thought Rob never holds kickers.

    And that brings us back to the original discussion: if you have a system or method of play that is so complicated that it can't all be written down for the common man to understand (and heaven knows Rob is not the common man) then can you really call it a workable system or method of play?

  7. #7
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Actually Rob, I look at your last trip report this way (and forgive me for being blunt):

    The Singer method failed to reach your win goal and when you were deep in a hole you had to use the conventional/optimal play in order to win.

    Is that correct? Or did you make NO "special plays" the entire time you were there? And with no special plays previously made the Singer method was never used?
    You keep trying Alan but you never get there. Sort of like arci as he keeps trying to talk himself out of my success as his heating bills keep piling up.

    Remember that I also won the first two sessions, and that one was the result of a special play? Now, think back to my estimate of making them about 5% of the time. So how many sessions did I play that night? Yes....THREE! So that's, um, THIRTY THREE PERCENT! And YIKES!...that's a wee bit better than 5%! And, not all special plays hit big when they hit. I think you'd be a good candidate for a student in my first public class.

    It's hardly as complicated as you keep insisting. If you can ever grasp onto the concept that win goals are the overriding factor in my strategies, it becomes very simple. Your videos show a majority of the main/basics ones that can end sessions. It's the smaller ones that make their living on hitting small winners that take time.
    Last edited by Rob.Singer; 01-07-2014 at 05:39 AM.

  8. #8
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Remember that I also won the first two sessions, and that one was the result of a special play? Now, think back to my estimate of making them about 5% of the time. So how many sessions did I play that night? Yes....THREE! So that's, um, THIRTY THREE PERCENT!
    Well, which is it Rob: do you use your special plays 5% of the time, or do you use your special plays 33% of the time?
    The way I just read what you wrote you WON 33% of your sessions ... but HOW MANY SPECIAL PLAYS were used in those sessions? Were they 5% of the hands played or 33% of the hands played? We don't know... and do you know?

    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    It's hardly as complicated as you keep insisting. If you can ever grasp onto the concept that win goals are the overriding factor in my strategies, it becomes very simple. Your videos show a majority of the main/basics ones that can end sessions. It's the smaller ones that make their living on hitting small winners that take time.
    Rob it is complicated. It's very complicated. It's so complicated that you lost me.
    If win goals are more important than special plays, and if special plays are used only 5% of the time, then why bother with special plays and why not just play conventional strategy and quit when you're ahead?

    Rob... you're undermining the importance of your own system.

  9. #9
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Rather than say lie, how about saying both of them were mistaken?

    In all fairness to Rob, he did say he uses "special plays" only 5% of the time, even though he has said he never holds a kicker. One could make the assumption that he was mistaken.

    To be honest, this revelation will not make history. Okay, Rob was mistaken in his statement that he never holds kickers. If we accept that I think this particular issue is closed.

    But if this particular issue is closed we still have the larger, overriding issue which is this: If only Rob knows what is best playing his methodology, what chance does anyone else have to follow his methodology. After all, until this new revelation about holding kickers I always thought Rob never holds kickers.

    And that brings us back to the original discussion: if you have a system or method of play that is so complicated that it can't all be written down for the common man to understand (and heaven knows Rob is not the common man) then can you really call it a workable system or method of play?
    Rob has clearly made many many "mistakes" discussing his own strategy. I wonder why you are still willing to accept them as mistakes? A mistake is reasonable, but mistake after mistake after mistake makes it something different in my book. Sounds more like "making it up as we go along".

  10. #10
    Originally Posted by Vegas_lover View Post
    Sounds more like "making it up as we go along".
    In effect, that's what it is. There are just too many variables within his "system" and then he has different systems, all with different initials.

    "Special Plays" are understandable -- and I accept that they are used only some of the time. Yet, Rob has made different statements sometimes saying special plays are ALWAYS used and recently that they are not used when the overriding concern is the win goal.

    In all fairness -- how do you teach that? How do you follow that?

    The playing conditions change with each hand and so do the "rules" of what Singer-advice changes with each hand.

    Now, there are some basic principles which are easy to follow and stand on their own:

    1. Win goals
    2. Loss Limits
    3. Holding aces and not holding kickers
    4. Holding trip aces in certain full house situations

    These seem to hold "solid." but there are too many variables for all the rest.

    But with that said, those "four" are pretty good on their own.

  11. #11
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    But with that said, those "four" are pretty good on their own.
    That being said, if these four are the only usp's to Singer's strategy I'm not impressed and I sure as hell don't believe that alone made him win consistantly on -EV games (as much as 1 million dollars until now). If it was this "simple" the casinos wouldn't have invested so much money into game development to the point where they make 100's of millions in revenue a year.

    So my conclusion, the fairy tale continues

  12. #12
    I think win goals and loss limits are very powerful. I think most players keep churning their dollars till nothing is left.

  13. #13
    Originally Posted by Vegas_lover View Post
    Rob has clearly made many many "mistakes" discussing his own strategy. I wonder why you are still willing to accept them as mistakes? A mistake is reasonable, but mistake after mistake after mistake makes it something different in my book. Sounds more like "making it up as we go along".
    Careful now Vegas_lover, or Rob's gonna chime in and belittle you, accuse you of being a jealous addict and question your intelligence.

  14. #14
    Don't you see, Rob? Everyone plays so they don't have to think whenever they're playing. I mean, if you keep up with where you are while you're playing you couldn't nimble up those fingers for the ultimate speed test in order to play the most hands so that the machines, being truly random, will catch up and pay those big wins. So a "special play" is needed to automatically guarantee a win and you play it ALL THE TIME and not when a win goal suggests the decision. You see, reasoning is just too confusing.

  15. #15
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
    Don't you see, Rob? Everyone plays so they don't have to think whenever they're playing. I mean, if you keep up with where you are while you're playing you couldn't nimble up those fingers for the ultimate speed test in order to play the most hands so that the machines, being truly random, will catch up and pay those big wins. So a "special play" is needed to automatically guarantee a win and you play it ALL THE TIME and not when a win goal suggests the decision. You see, reasoning is just too confusing.
    I have no idea what you are talking about here.

  16. #16
    Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie View Post
    I have no idea what you are talking about here.
    I know. All decisions are made on win goals and if you don't know where you are in the game, how can a clear decision be made? Many times while playing artt I have wanted to hold just A's instead of two-pair, but the two pair returns me to square one with a possibility of a small win goal-for one small example. (bonus poker). But if a full house wouldn't return me to square one, I hold the A's. So just playing without any idea of where you are usually means you are just casually poppin' the buttons..
    Not saying my play is comparable to Rob's....just that I make decisions based on win goals.

  17. #17
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
    Not saying my play is comparable to Rob's....just that I make decisions based on win goals.
    Unfortunately, from what you've posted here, you are not winning, you have some kind of a gambling problem, and your hero has reported that his recent big wins are because of phenomenal luck and not because of his system.

  18. #18
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Unfortunately, from what you've posted here, you are not winning, you have some kind of a gambling problem, and your hero has reported that his recent big wins are because of phenomenal luck and not because of his system.
    My last reply on this topic: ALL wins are because of luck.

  19. #19
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
    My last reply on this topic: ALL wins are because of luck.
    That is probably the most honest thing ever posted in a discussion about Rob Singer's strategy.

  20. #20
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    That is probably the most honest thing ever posted in a discussion about Rob Singer's strategy.
    See if you can twist this: every time YOU win it's because of good luck....and you lose overall. Ever think if you used some sort of strategy to go with that need you have to play so often that you might do better?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •