An Open email to me about Rob Singer and the debate on this and the LVA Forums

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, it surprises me that it surprises you. What is there so hard to believe about the fact that NOBODY gets lucky 10 years in a row as soon as they're losing. The only logic explanation is that the majority of his wins come from AP-sessions, in other words, doing the exact same thing as AP-ers do. If that's the case, his "system" simply doesn't excist. The chances that he hits big winners on his "special plays" REGULARLY every year during a period of 10 years are smaller than winning State lottery. The fact that he states he wins just 100.000 a year makes you WANT to believe it even more because it sounds reasonable. IT'S NOT, IT'S BOGUS!!!

The clouds of confusion are still hovering over Vic. I've already stated that 1 out of 4 winning sessions are ended with a special play that converts. The rest of the wins are simple quad hits, multiple small winner hits, or a bigger win like a SF or four face cards/2's-4's etc.....and it's all because of the progression in denomination and game volatility. Very easy stuff to understan, and I am not luckier than anybody else.

[Rob.Singer]

What no one understands is that these "special plays" infrequently produce huge winners, but when they hit they are indeed huge. Not having kept specific track, I'd estimate they ended 1 out of every 4 sessions. Of similar importance is in how they also produced many smaller winners--some of which were not possible had I kept the "optimal hold".

Be careful you don't believe your own BS! In one out of 4 session where you were losing money (because otherwise you wouldn't be making your special plays), you applied long shots that actually made you a winner. That is statistically impossible! It's even impossible if you're really, really, really lucky. You really crack me up. This is close to being stand-up comedy......

Again you must be schooled: The special plays are utilized THROUGHOUT my play, whether I'm ahead, even, or behind. Now please tell me how much air just left your body.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, try to understand this point. Singer states that in one out of four times his lucky big winner ends his session (obviously because he has reached his win goal). He also states that the big winners come infrequently. What's infrequent about one out of 4 times? If this were true, why doesn't he make his special plays way way way more often than he does? He stated he uses 95% of correct math play. That makes no sense, he's way more succesful on taking the long shots at high denominations. He should start taking the long shots from the get go...........especially because they seem to bring him succes every one out of four times. And his main goal is to reach his win goal. He could do it every time within a few hands with the amount of luck he claims to have. It is a statistical "world wonder" to hit these big winners every one out of four times. That's the issue, whatever other argument you or Singer might want to bring to the table.

More education is necessary I see. Big winners come whether I'm making a special play or an optimal play. I simply give them more opportunity to appear than optimal-play only does. The big winners come more often on the lower denom's than the higher ones, for the simple reason that more hands get played on the lower end overall.

[Rob.Singer]

"What is the relevance your question about the percentage of session wins Arcimede$? "

The relevance is simple. No one wins 70% of their sessions. So, without any doubt you know the person is lying if they claim to win 70%. If they are lying about one thing then you can pretty much assume anything else they say is questionable.

Remember we're not talking about the entire progression. We are talking about one denomination. That is equivalent to any normal session played by you, me or anyone. Also, he cannot be just slightly ahead, he would have to recoup all of his previous losses. And, as he progresses through the session, it includes everything lost up until that point in the session being played.

If you can't understand how ridiculous such a claim is then it's not surprising you will believe the rest of the nonsense Singer spreads. Think about your own experiences, that should tell you what he claims is impossible.

"Now, regarding the claim of winning 70% of the higher denomination sessions let me mention this: hitting quads once on a $25 machine goes a long way to wiping out all of the losses you've had playing $1 and $5 video poker. And I've never read anything that says you are less likely to hit quads on higher denomination machines."

No, not less likely, but not more likely either. I would venture he'd hit a quad about once every 3 sessions ... and some of those would be at the end of that level and would not recoup previous losses so he'd need another quad to claim a win. That's why the 70% number is ridiculous.

What's funny here is how you're using 70% when it's closer to 85%! And now you're taking the opposite train and ignoring that sessions do end with the win goal attained without a huge winner.

Feel free to expose your confusion & envy further!

[Vegas_lover]

"Let me put it to you this way: I think the entire concept of Advantage Play with following the math is unlikely to make anyone a winner.

I believe in that statement until a certain extend. I think most people don't end up being a winner in the long run because of the human factor involved, not because of the math.

People make mistakes, not following the perfect math play. Have a couple of beers and you'll make a mistake here and there and you're going to make errors that make you lose money. Then at the some point, a lot of people tend to risk a little more than the correct math play tells them to do, etc. When somebody is a devoted math player and applies the correct strategy it is very well possible to turn out a winner in the long run. In reality I believe most people won't because of "being human" and make "human errors". Start talking to the guy sitting next to you and start making mistakes, etc.

[Rob.Singer]

Singer is going to have to respond to what you wrote, Vegas_lover.

But I just have to comment on this that you wrote: "perfect play only brings you results IN THE LONG RUN." Wow, if that's the case, why do any of us bother? And what are the results that you get in the long run-- a one percent gain? Or is it a one-half percent gain?

Alan, every special play that I make has been thru a risk analysis to determine the potential give vs. the potential take, and overall, when performed in a short-term setting, the value is sky high compared to what it calculates out to if I were analyzing them over the theoretical "long-term". True believers like arci will never accept that because it doesn't fit into his very skewed view of the vp world, and even though he touts his abilities all over the Internet, he does not know how to do the math that went into analyzing short-term special plays. And there-in lies the reason why he chose to be a no-show twice when we set up meets to go over this. Now Frank is going to learn it instead.

[Rob.Singer]

Could there be a reason why Singer hasn't given you all the information yet? Is it possible his system is leaking from a hundred holes? For the sake of the argument, will you at least agree with me that there are several things he's claiming that appear highly unlikely?

Read through this entire thread again, even twice if needed. Can you honoustly say you are questioning Mr. Singer's statements just as much as you're questioning mine? Because it does not appear that way. You seem to be biased.......

I for one, do not mind at all you're reporting on Singer's system. If you want to do that, who am I to say you shouldn't? The fact that his system still hasn't been clearly explained until now could have a very valid reason........I'm one of the people who believe he can't fully explain his system because it is inconsistent, inacurate and simply incorrect.

Vic, Alan hasn't asked for a detailed instruction on my strategy and he probably wouldn't understand the math that went into it very much anyway. That's why Frank K. has stepped up to the plate. I've tried to get people like Dancer, Shackleford, Fezzik, arci, all of their math buddies and then some to debate me and/or review the strategy's development. They all start out like a house on fire, but when we get close they all run out the back door--instead preferring to be able to criticize blindly from afar than to have their vp world shaken by someone more intelligent at their game than they proclaim to be.

[Vegas_lover]

Not surprisingly, you're making statements about my strategy that are not true. I do not use the special plays only when I'm behind. I use them ALL the time whether ahead, even, or behind. Where are you getting your information from....or is it just more convenient to make these things up?

Alan,
Here you have your proof. Mr. Singer is so full of BULL ***** I'm surprised he can still breath. I now know why nobody can figure out his sytem. It changes every single day hahaha. WHAT A HOAX! He applies 95% math play and then all of a sudden he uses his "special plays" all the time?

[Rob.Singer]

"I reported on Singer's system because there have been claims made about it and no where has it been clearly explained. Frankly, it still hasn't been clearly explained. And maybe it can't be -- and perhaps that will be the bottom line."

Nice try. I have fully answered everything there is to answer about Singer's system. I have also provided 100% proof that he lies about his results or he the luckiest person on the face of the planet. You heard about his claims of a 5th card flip-over where he claimed something that happens 6% of the time was going at over 40%. More complete nonsense as was evidenced when he was asked to demonstrate.

Singer is a pathological liar. It's obvious to anyone who looks at his claims using common sense and mathematics. That you persist in denying what is right in front of your nose shows that you don't want to know the truth. So be it.

More name-calling and frustration from a very jealous person.

Everything all right at home??

[Vegas_lover]

Very easy stuff to understan, and I am not luckier than anybody else.

Vic? What is it called.......Singer paranoia? Isn't it hard to have to look over your shoulder everywhere you go? Where are all your supporters? Where are all the people you have teached? Oh yeah........they're in a casino right now, making a small fortune.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan,
Here you have your proof. Mr. Singer is so full of BULL ***** I'm surprised he can still breath. I now know why nobody can figure out his sytem. It changes every single day hahaha. WHAT A HOAX! He applies 95% math play and then all of a sudden he uses his "special plays" all the time?

Thank you for still being here, Vic. Either you're a very confused person or you're acting confused on purpose because your crazy theories and accusations are falling apart fast.

Let's see if you can grasp this: I use optimal play on ~95% of the hands I play, so about 5% of the hands are special plays. If I'm ahead I use them about 5% of the time; if I'm even I use them about 5% of the time; if I'm behind I use them about 5% of the time. I.E., they get used ALL THE TIME. Duh!!

[Rob.Singer]

I believe in that statement until a certain extend. I think most people don't end up being a winner in the long run because of the human factor involved, not because of the math.

People make mistakes, not following the perfect math play. Have a couple of beers and you'll make a mistake here and there and you're going to make errors that make you lose money. Then at the some point, a lot of people tend to risk a little more than the correct math play tells them to do, etc. When somebody is a devoted math player and applies the correct strategy it is very well possible to turn out a winner in the long run. In reality I believe most people won't because of "being human" and make "human errors". Start talking to the guy sitting next to you and start making mistakes, etc.

Except for arci of course. Even with massive personal problems, he still goes out to the casinos every week, like he has for years, and hands them a beating like no other. And these are the Indians he's serving their lunch to. So please be careful not to rattle him into tossing and turning all day long too.

[Rob.Singer]

Vic? What is it called.......Singer paranoia? Isn't it hard to have to look over your shoulder everywhere you go? Where are all your supporters? Where are all the people you have teached? Oh yeah........they're in a casino right now, making a small fortune.

Tell me you're not gonna come up with typos and spelling errors next.

You mean "trained". Don't know and don't care. And the supporters? You see them all the time. Only problem is, you folks are all so paranoid yourselves that you label all of them "RS" whenever they post. Reading the forums when that's happens is more entertainment than anyone expected....especially when I generate the most active threads ever in the history of vp forums!

[Vegas_lover]

Singer, first of all, why do you keep calling me Vic? I don't know any Vic. But than again, if it makes you feel good to call me Dick, or Charlie, or Ben, or Arci or Dan, go right ahead. DUH!!!!

Now, back to your special plays. You use them ALL the time. So all the time (5% of your hands, you do realize that is one out of 20 hands right?) you throw away a hand with a bigger win chance to hit another hand (that pays out more) but has a far smaller chance of hitting and 1 out of four times you end up being a winner..........

Whatever makes you high......More power to you. I'll just stick to my original statement. You're a fraud, nothing more nothing less.

[Vegas_lover]

And here we go again. The Singer strategy I've seen on several boards......commenting about arci's massive personal problems, telling people they're too stupid to understand his system, attacking me for spelling errors and typos. I'm a Dutch guy you idiot, want to try to continue this in Dutch??? Or could it be your Dutch isn't nearly as good as my English?

You might generate the most active threads but you end up being the one that's banned everywhere. Now, why would that be? You display such arrogance it's not worth giving you the attention you get once in a while. I said I was out of this one because there is no use and I will go back to that status. You go ahead and make the last insults, you would anyhow without me saying so...

To all the other people involved in this discussion, good luck with the next 15 pages of Malarkey uhhh I mean Singer.

Peter Jansen from the city of Breda, The Netherlands

[danfed]

Peter, I wonder what's going to happen when Frank Kneeland concludes that there's no merit to the Singer strategy in terms of ongoing positiive financial results. I'm guessing he'll be reclassified as just another "addicted" AP'ers who need to write books and consult with casinos to actually earn a living.

It's funny as hell to see what's happening on vpFree's board. Singer has been allowed to post there as long as he doesn't promote/comment on his system. If you never met this guy nor read his typical tirades, you'd actually think he's a nice guy based on what he writes there. He's calm, insightful and even witty. I can see through this as clear as day.....he's sucking up to Kneeland as being his last hope to convince that his system has merit.

Rob, having the most viewed post due to the reason that most people despise you isn't something that I'd be proud of. Peter does make a very sound point....where are your supporters and more importantly, those disciples who you have personally trained who are consistently making money with your system? You claim to have taught about 500 people. Presumably, if they follow your system, they should be able to replicate your results, right? So, there are 500 or so people walking around with the knowledge of how to make just less than $100K/yr. and to do this in about 43 sessions. Do I have all this correct? I hope so as I'm using your numbers that you've provided on this very board. I'd love to meet one or two of these people in the flesh.

Unlike you, I don't know of many AP'ers who claim to make $100K/yr. playing vp. They may be out there but not in the circles I run. If I could make $100K/yr. gambling, I'd like give up my primary gig. Then again, I'd probably play 86 sessions a year and earn $200K....I'm a bit more ambitious than most.

Not to harp on this but you claim to have a system that makes $100K/yr. and you're happy to share it for free and you've had 500 people already take you up on this offer. If this were possible, you'd have a vast majority of these 500 telling all of us non-believers how much they're making and with enough verification, others would be jumping on board this money making system and you'd be hearalded as the smartest gambler of all time.

Can you see why this doesn't pass the stink test with the overwhelming majority of people?

Alan, just had a thought that might cut thru the chase with the never ending debate. How about this....

I'm not sure if I have all the facts straight but this is what I recall. Rob says that he needs about $57-58K bankroll for his strategy. To get an unbiased review of his system, how about a little experiment? Designate someone to be the player. I might suggest Slappy but you might have someone else in mind. Rob escrows the required bankroll and you front the player an equivalent amount of actual bankroll. Under Rob's tutelage and perhaps even his direct supervision, the player plays the 40 or so sessions that Rob deems is necessary for his system to be financially successful. If the player wins, Rob gets the profit....the equivalent of him having a free employee out making money for him. If his system loses, your losses are reimbursed by the escrow amount. Where does this get good for you? Well, just think about it....you can cut an upfront promotion deal with Rob where you would actually produce his full system on video and sell it exclusively on your website. Rob makes money on these sales and you get a cut along with all the enhanced traffic to the website. You can even video some of the individual sessions and the player can even have a blog where he can post his daily experiences and results. Once again, unless I'm missing something, this has to be a win-win if Rob's system has merit. If it doesn't, perhaps we can finally put all the bickering to rest and Rob will have to concede that his system doesn't work.

Your thoughts?

Dan

[arcimede$]

What's funny here is how you're using 70% when it's closer to 85%! And now you're taking the opposite train and ignoring that sessions do end with the win goal attained without a huge winner.

Feel free to expose your confusion & envy further!

You are confused again, Robbie. In this case a session is the play at one level. You claimed you've won about 70% at the $10 and $25 levels. These are equivalent to any regular session played without a progression. Or, are you now claiming 85% wins at those levels? Even more hilarious.

[arcimede$]

Tell me you're not gonna come up with typos and spelling errors next.

You mean "trained". Don't know and don't care. And the supporters? You see them all the time. Only problem is, you folks are all so paranoid yourselves that you label all of them "RS" whenever they post. Reading the forums when that's happens is more entertainment than anyone expected....especially when I generate the most active threads ever in the history of vp forums!

You see, Alan, another lie right here. I've never seen a single person claim they use Singer's system to WIN. There will always be a few that don't want the math to be a valid approach as that would mean they have lost when they could have won. They don't want to think.

The key point is none of them claim to use Singer's approach. So, we now see he has added another lie to his massive total.

[Rob.Singer]

Singer, first of all, why do you keep calling me Vic? I don't know any Vic. But than again, if it makes you feel good to call me Dick, or Charlie, or Ben, or Arci or Dan, go right ahead. DUH!!!!

Now, back to your special plays. You use them ALL the time. So all the time (5% of your hands, you do realize that is one out of 20 hands right?) you throw away a hand with a bigger win chance to hit another hand (that pays out more) but has a far smaller chance of hitting and 1 out of four times you end up being a winner..........

Whatever makes you high......More power to you. I'll just stick to my original statement. You're a fraud, nothing more nothing less.

I write Vic because there's a Vic who makes the same convoluted, uneducated argements you do solely for the sake of argeument and born out of envy. The poster's name means nothing.

You have very little grasp of applied math. I use a special play one out of 20 times, but there is not a huge winner one out of 20times. If you weren't so overly consumed with my success you'd be capable of following the bouncing ball.

[Rob.Singer]

And here we go again. The Singer strategy I've seen on several boards......commenting about arci's massive personal problems, telling people they're too stupid to understand his system, attacking me for spelling errors and typos. I'm a Dutch guy you idiot, want to try to continue this in Dutch??? Or could it be your Dutch isn't nearly as good as my English?

You might generate the most active threads but you end up being the one that's banned everywhere. Now, why would that be? You display such arrogance it's not worth giving you the attention you get once in a while. I said I was out of this one because there is no use and I will go back to that status. You go ahead and make the last insults, you would anyhow without me saying so...

To all the other people involved in this discussion, good luck with the next 15 pages of Malarkey uhhh I mean Singer.

Peter Jansen from the city of Breda, The Netherlands

I've been to the Netherlands several dozen times and they're known for their impatience, easily having their feathers ruffled, and their arrogance. They also find it difficult to accept that which they are not qualified to understand. Ever heard of the word "Bingo!"?