I received the following email from one of our website visitors and he said it was OK that I post it here. I asked him to post it himself, but he said he had a problem doing that. I hope he can post himself in the future. But until the bug is fixed (Dan also had a similar problem) here is his message to me without any editing, including his signature and permission to repost this on other forums:

*************************************************

I thought my personal take on the whole debate might be of some use to you. Feel free to post on your site or whatever site you choose. I think I have some clear and reasonable points.

If I Were Rob Singer

by Bob Dietz

Let me say that I despise pseudonyms, so I request permission in the future to use real names. The Dancer/Singer debates are so interesting from a social psychology perspective that I intend to write a paper on the topic, so I also request access to any "showdown" that occurs.

First off, the math of the poster known as "Arcimedes" is unassailable. His logic is also sound unless one challenges the presumption that literally all video poker machines are random. That presumption will be the topic of my next email. For now, I'd like to address what I would argue if I were promoting Rob Singer.

Rob Singer's "method" will not outperform advantage player strategies so long as the players execute perfectly on positive machines that are random. In today's ever-tightening video poker environment, however, the reality is that most people who consider themselves "advantage players" actually lose money. I believe Bob Dancer would completely agree with this. I'd estimate 60% to 80% of self-defined advantage players lose money; I'd love to hear Dancer's estimate. This is a key factor -- let me repeat it. Most of the people who invest in Jean Scott's software or Dancer's books or software lose money. I am, admittedly, speculating (I have no comprehensive data), but I do not think anyone will disagree with me. While Arcimedes might chide me for speculating, I think he would also agree with me.

The oxymoronic angle to this is that, for the majority of self-defined "advantage players," and for the majority of people buying the commercial advantage-play practice materials, there is no advantage.

If this is true, then there are two reasons I think the "Singer method" may be better for most players than so-called advantage play. Singer advocates pop in/pop out, disciplined win-goal play. This undoubtedly results in less seat-time than advantage play. If most alleged advantage players lose, then less seat-time means smaller lifetime losses. The reduced number of hands should more than compensate for the miniscule percentage lost due to using "special plays" instead of optimal play.

Dancer reportedly has his "vp teaching" contracts renewed based on how much his students play. If they play more after his classes, Dancer is renewed. This puts Dancer in the "more hours" advocacy group while Singer is clearly in conflict with Dancer, as Singer advocates fewer hours. Singer is also in conflict with the casinos' wishes on that point, also. One can infer the obvious from the casinos' decision to tie Dancer to his students playing more.

In this era of tightening video poker, advantage players now regularly factor mailers and comps into calculating "return." The second argument for the Singer method over advantage play is that the kamikaze Singer style undoubtedly results in more host-comps and offers than the same coin-in generated by low-stakes grinding. I have no way to quantify this, but for most casinos the Singer method will get you more offers, especially starting out. There is a good chance this comps/offers X-factor could also more than counterbalance the miniscule percentage lost on "special plays" versus optimal play.

While I have no catalogue of the so-called "special plays," it is clear they occur rather rarely. The percentage degradation from using them may, for most players, be less than normal error degradation. In addition, since players play briefly using the "Singer method," one could expect overall fatigue error percentage to be reduced.

These are some of the starting points for promoting the "Singer method" over so-called advantage play. Arcimedes' arguments are all sound, but only for winning advantage players, who represent a very small percentage of all vp players. If you are losing, then reducing hands and hours helps -- hard to argue with that. Varying wagers wildly in a short time makes one look like an impulsive whack job, which unsurprisingly gets one better X-factor offers.

If anyone cares to refute my logic, or my assumptions, please do.

I am a cynical advantage player; I am ahead lifetime. I think the Singer method is, in a basic sense, Martingale. However, that does not mean it isn't the better choice for most players. And the tighter the vp gets, the better choice it may become vis-a-vis so-called advantage play. As vp tightens, the percentage of self-defined advantage players who actually win will continue to decline.

My next report will address the presumption of "unanimous randomness."

Sincerely,

Bob Dietz

P.S. I think the language and tone directed at you in the LVA forums was, in many instances, reprehensible. People, no matter how bright or morally fueled, really need to maintain some formality and degree of respect.