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

[arcimede$]

Alan, have you ever asked Singer why he pockets wins over 40 credits? For example, look at the 9/5 TBPP example. A win of 45 credits for a FH would allow 9 more hands to be played. That provides (9/420) a 2% chance of hitting a quad. That is 8 times more often than his special play above. If a strategy is supposed to generate wins and go home then pocketing these wins is 180° opposite of what you should do. In fact, this one play alone likely reduces the chances of going home a winner by more than ALL the special plays combined help to produce a winner.

This is trivial math. Anyone who claims to have done a "risk analysis" is blowing wind up your ... you know what.

This is actually worse than I mentioned here. In addition to the 9 hands lost directly by pocketing the FH, additional hands are lost by the winners generated while playing the original 9 hands.

Assuming the 77% return for below quad payouts that means 3.85 credits are generated by each hand or almost 35 credits on the first iteration, then those 35 credits yield 27 credits ... 21 ... 16 ... 11 ... 8 ... 5 ... 3. Overall it comes out to over 25 additional hands. So, replacing 9 with 25 yields (25/420) a 6% added quad opportunity which is over 20 times the effect of the special play.

[Alan Mendelson]

Once again Rob you're a day late and a dollar short. Alan already mentioned this and it turns out #34 is the relevant special play.

One does wonder how dedicated you are to your own strategy when clicking on 10/6 DDB takes a person to 9/5 DBPP. Did you ever check it out? I suppose you're going to blame Alan for this screw up.

We have special plays for three games on that same page. I thought the text clearly defined which game "special plays" were being presented. So, blame the goof on me.

[arcimede$]

Now let's look at special play #27 where Rob holds a single ACE OVER 3SF (456). The chances of hitting the SF are 3/1081 (.278%) while the chances of hitting quad aces are 44/178365 (.025%). That's right, the chances of hitting the SF are over 10 times the chances of hitting quad aces.

Since a SF returns 500 credits in this game it is almost as good as low quads at 600 credits and not that far from aces at 1200. He gives up 1.15 credits on average to give himself a REDUCED chance of going home a winner. Of course, these credits then reduce the number of hands played which also works against the stated goal of winning quickly.

Tell me again about the "risk analysis". It's more than obvious from the few items I've already addressed that absolutely no thinking about winning quickly went into the special plays and overall strategy.

[arcimede$]

We have special plays for three games on that same page. I thought the text clearly defined which game "special plays" were being presented. So, blame the goof on me.

Alan, there's a function in HTML that allows you to specify a place in a page to start. You should update the links to include the offset. Easy fix.

[arcimede$]

This is too much fun. On to special play #30. Holding trip deuces instead of a dealt FH. Well, since the FH is pulled immediately we already know from above that reduces the quad opportunity by 6%. The trip deuces hits once every 23.5 times or 4.3% of the time.

Oops, if instead of pocketing the FH he went ahead and played the credits he would INCREASE his opportunity to go home a quick winner. One almost has to wonder if any of the special plays are helpful in attaining the stated goal.

[arcimede$]

This is too much fun. On to special play #30. Holding trip deuces instead of a dealt FH. Well, since the FH is pulled immediately we already know from above that reduces the quad opportunity by 6%. The trip deuces hits once every 23.5 times or 4.3% of the time.

Oops, if instead of pocketing the FH he went ahead and played the credits he would INCREASE his opportunity to go home a quick winner. One almost has to wonder if any of the special plays are helpful in attaining the stated goal.

[arcimede$]

Another fallacy in Singer's approach to winning quickly is playing any hands of BP. He plays 100 credits of BP and then 300 credits of a high variance game. Clearly, the high variance games offer more chances at big winners. That's what makes them high variance. So, why would one choose to play a lower variance game that just happens to be the worst paytable of the bunch. Pretty much defies the special play logic completely.

With that said it is also clear that playing the lower variance BP will provide more hands. Will these more hands provide any additional help at reaching the win goal? Even at the $10 denomination the quad aces are only worth $4000 and $3200 has already been invested so it is unlikely to achieve a win goal even including pocketed wins. That means the only way to reach that goal is through a RF at all levels below $25.

Therefore, the opportunity to hit a win-goal ($2500) producing result is extremely limited. It might permit a win that allows returning to a previous level but that is about it. It sure appears like playing BP reduces the chances of hitting a session ending winner. Oops.

[Rob.Singer]

That is where you go when you click on 10/6 DDB. It also states those are the plays for 10/6 DDB at the top of the page. So, that is where some unsuspecting person would be directed. I guess when you're dealing with something this exact then it really doesn't matter. Also, item 34 is the same play.

I suspect it would make a slight difference when playing 9/5 TDPP. You would hit the goal 8% more often. But remember, you only hit the quad .28% of the time so this is an improvement from .26% by playing optimal strategy. Do you really think reaching a goal .02% (2 out of 1000) more often is worth the cost? Every special play costs money.

Oh how you HATE to get caught being wrong! You already know this but irritating you, esp. when you're going thru sooo much, is a joy to behold. When you click on 10/6DDB you get items on the same page as TBP+, BUT THAT'S WHY EACH GROUP OF HANDS IS LABELED AS PERTINENT TO A CERTAIN GAME, GENIUS! On hand #28 read it and weep one more time: "And in the next group, Rob Singer's strategy for 9/5 Triple Bonus Poker Plus" which includes #'s 27-29.

And who is it that's talking about hand #34?

Gee, that was hard. Please come up with some more doozies!

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, there's a function in HTML that allows you to specify a place in a page to start. You should update the links to include the offset. Easy fix.

Now we get entertained as arci tries to scramble his way out of what he got himself into. And then notice how he's trying to "explain away" the strategy and special plays in order to redirect the conversation away from the lies he was caught telling.

If taking arci out to the woodshed didn't happen so many times on so many different forums over the years, I have to admit it would be a whole lot funnier than it is today.

God this is enjoyable!

[Rob.Singer]

Now let's look at special play #27 where Rob holds a single ACE OVER 3SF (456). The chances of hitting the SF are 3/1081 (.278%) while the chances of hitting quad aces are 44/178365 (.025%). That's right, the chances of hitting the SF are over 10 times the chances of hitting quad aces.

Since a SF returns 500 credits in this game it is almost as good as low quads at 600 credits and not that far from aces at 1200. He gives up 1.15 credits on average to give himself a REDUCED chance of going home a winner. Of course, these credits then reduce the number of hands played which also works against the stated goal of winning quickly.

Tell me again about the "risk analysis". It's more than obvious from the few items I've already addressed that absolutely no thinking about winning quickly went into the special plays and overall strategy.

One of the more prescious quotes of the day: "Since a SF returns 500 credits in this game it is almost as good as low quads at 600 credits and not that far from aces at 1200."

So tell us Mr. Math, just how far from 500 credits is 1200?? Oh I see, it's "almost as good". You don't do your own taxes do you??

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, the objections that Arcimede$ brought out here are no different than the objections other players would also bring up. So, some additional information from you justifying these plays would be appreciated by everyone.

[arcimede$]

Don't expect anything from Singer, Alan. You can see by the way he is "scrambling" that he knows I have demonstrated his strategy is a complete fraud. I have no problem with deviations from optimal play as long as it achieves a goal. After all, optimal strategy is just a goal oriented strategy itself. The goal is optimize one's ER.

In this case though the strategy itself as well as the special plays do not all work towards the stated goal of hitting quick winners. OTOH, the strategy does have enough aspects that would confuse someone without the mathematical expertise to do an analysis. The complexity could make it "look" like something reasonable. This is exactly what one would expect if the REAL GOAL is to entice those without the math experience into going through an "education session". The multitude of special plays gives Singer an out if he were ever challenged. He simply claims the person did not correctly use the special plays and might even convince them to go through another "education session".

As I've stated in the past, the entire system is a scam.

[Alan Mendelson]

It's one thing to say you don't agree with a "system" and to say a system won't work based on your research, or existing data or even "the math of the game," but you should be careful about labeling something a "fraud" or a "scam" unless you have proof that will stand up in court that it is a fraud or a scam. I'm asking you to reconsider your statement, Arcimede$.

[Vegas_lover]

One other factor I haven't mentioned is the amount lost as a result of unsuccessful special plays also puts the player in a bigger hole. That means whenever a quad is hit, the probability it will produce a winning session is reduced. I suspect this would completely negate the 1% when a special play would produce a winning session in DDB. It also would reduce the times any special play produces a winning session.

It is similar to the effect that pocketing wins has on the system. Although in this case it means bigger winners are required to cover for the losses acquired by the use of the special plays.

That was exactly the reason why I was starting to ask for specific numbers about his HPH, percentage of perfect play and number of special plays applied per hour/session. We're on the same page here...

[Vegas_lover]

Oh how you HATE to get caught being wrong! You already know this but irritating you, esp. when you're going thru sooo much, is a joy to behold. When you click on 10/6DDB you get items on the same page as TBP+, BUT THAT'S WHY EACH GROUP OF HANDS IS LABELED AS PERTINENT TO A CERTAIN GAME, GENIUS! On hand #28 read it and weep one more time: "And in the next group, Rob Singer's strategy for 9/5 Triple Bonus Poker Plus" which includes #'s 27-29.
And who is it that's talking about hand #34?
Gee, that was hard. Please come up with some more doozies!


Now we get entertained as arci tries to scramble his way out of what he got himself into. And then notice how he's trying to "explain away" the strategy and special plays in order to redirect the conversation away from the lies he was caught telling.
If taking arci out to the woodshed didn't happen so many times on so many different forums over the years, I have to admit it would be a whole lot funnier than it is today.


God this is enjoyable!
One of the more prescious quotes of the day: "Since a SF returns 500 credits in this game it is almost as good as low quads at 600 credits and not that far from aces at 1200."
So tell us Mr. Math, just how far from 500 credits is 1200?? Oh I see, it's "almost as good". You don't do your own taxes do you??


Alan, I see you earlier call for keeping the testosterone down helped a lot. See a pattern here??? I believe I said to you a couple of times: Arci has given you some honoust en correct math. He has been showing the math in Singer's system is incorrect and actually lowering his chances to turn out a winner. There were no personal attacks from Arci to Singer in these posts. And what is Singer's pattern of behaviour..........exactly..... throw around more mud and insults. That's why nobody can have an in dept conversation with him about his system....because sooner or later he is going to feel the heat and start a fight.....Did you also notice that Mr. Singer who claims to be a math genius did not correct Arci's math of the last couple of posts? His responses had little to nothing to do with the statements made by Arci. Doesn't that make you wonder??

He's also posting on your dime.....

[Rob.Singer]

Vegas_lover (Did I get it right?): There's no point in arguing with someone like arci who not only is personally biased....he just isn't qualified enough in applied mathematics to follow what I showed in my special play videos, or to interpret anything accurately enough in order to present a valid analysis here.

That's why I've embraced having a true professional look at my strategy. With his expertise also comes an upbeat personality, an open mind, and an attitude absent the hate, conflict and envy that you've seen presented here. In time you will see the absolute truth behind why the strategy is extremely profitable, and the special plays increase the value of certain holds over optimal play. The right guy has come along to actually do this, and therein lies the reason you see so much hatred towards me here. It had been on LVA but as soon as those threads shut down, my stalker had no choice but to bring it over here. One must wonder why someone in his position would continue on with what to him has to be an enormous, repititious waste of time. You now see just how much I'm inside the guy's head all the time.

[Alan Mendelson]

Again, Rob, please extend to Frank my invitation for him to present his findings here. And yes, I am pleased to meet him in Vegas to do a complete video interview with him that will be presented here -- unedited -- and that I will also post on YouTube so others can use it on their websites. He can also use it on his, of course.

[Vegas_lover]

Vegas_lover (Did I get it right?): There's no point in arguing with someone like arci who not only is personally biased....he just isn't qualified enough in applied mathematics to follow what I showed in my special play videos, or to interpret anything accurately enough in order to present a valid analysis here.

What is your mathematical background? Please do show evidence......I am schooled in math and statistics and I see a whole different thing than you do. I see Arci making valid points. You might not like them, but that doesn't make them untrue.

The right guy has come along to actually do this, and therein lies the reason you see so much hatred towards me here.

Nice try but you saying this makes me wonder if you are capable of seeing your own faults. Hatred towards you has nothing to do with Frank Kneeland researching your system. It has eveything to do with you constantly making an effort to insult people to the bone. You don't like me because I challenge your system and confront you with your own behaviour. Your response is to call all Dutch people arrogant idiotes, I am just plain jealous and after that the entire continent of Europe is just slow. The reason for you receiving so much hatred is you're very easy to hate with all the insults you make and constantly provocing anybody that challenges your system.

You constantly put blame on others while you are AT LEAST 50% to blame for all the s**t you get. The fact that you don't see or acknowledge that ruines the little bit of credibility you might have with us outsiders. You've been throwing insults at me from the beginning as well. At this point I'm not even going to discuss math with you because you haven't given straight answers and with every question I ask, you start your response with calling me a dumb ass. Now that's a waist of time. Even tough you might think you're inside my head now too, don't think too much of it. You're an easy target and as soon as I shut down my laptop you're not in my mind for one second.


It had been on LVA but as soon as those threads shut down, my stalker had no choice but to bring it over here. One must wonder why someone in his position would continue on with what to him has to be an enormous, repititious waste of time. You now see just how much I'm inside the guy's head all the time.

The two of you are like a bad marriage. You claim Arci stalks you but it doesn't matter on which vp or vegas forum you post, you always have to mention his name and other stupid AP-ers (as you call them) when being challenged about your system. The same goes for all the bad stuff you have to say about Bob Dancer at any opportunity you get. Again, Arci is just as much in your head as the other way around. BUT in my book, Arci makes a lot more sense because he at least does approach your system in a mathimatical way.

You have a very, very thick skull Rob. Your host on this forum has asked several times to lose the "colourful comments" and stop the insult. A number of your post have been edited more than once. Now, you tone down a little but your last post is just a repeat of a number of insults directed at Arci with a little "gift rapping".

[arcimede$]

Vegas_lover (Did I get it right?): There's no point in arguing with someone like arci who not only is personally biased....he just isn't qualified enough in applied mathematics to follow what I showed in my special play videos, or to interpret anything accurately enough in order to present a valid analysis here.

This should be all the evidence Alan needs to be convinced Singer has no clue about his own system. The fact is I didn't apply any complicated mathematics in my analysis. It was nothing but arithmetic. However, what makes the analysis a little complex is understanding when and how to apply the arithmetic.

Note that Singer claims I am not qualified yet provides no rebuttal logic at all. Why is that? Simple, he has none. That is why all his comments are personal attacks and bluffs.

When I called Singer's system a fraud it is a simple conclusion based on the evidence at hand. He has stated the goals of his system and the analysis shows his system is NOT targetted towards achieving those goals. The ONLY possible conclusion is the system is a fraud. You and others can determine for yourselves what that says about Singer himself.

As I've also stated before I'm not sure Singer has broken any laws. However, you really need to reconsider whether you want to continue to highlight his system given what you now know.

Alan, you are welcome to have anyone review my analysis. I provided it to you for free. You already have seen another degreed mathematician, vegas_lover, agree with what I have presented. Get a 3rd or 4th opinion if you like. It will not change one thing.

[Vegas_lover]

Note that Singer claims I am not qualified yet provides no rebuttal logic at all.

What wonders me is what does he know about you not being qualified to analyse his system that the rest of us don't know? Do you have some kind of personal background and does Singer know anything about your level of eduction? In other words what's Singer's standard for determing who's qualified to evaluate his system?

Alan, you are welcome to have anyone review my analysis. I provided it to you for free. You already have seen another degreed mathematician, vegas_lover, agree with what I have presented. Get a 3rd or 4th opinion if you like. It will not change one thing.

Rob, Alan, I'm afraid I have to agree with this statement...