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

[arcimede$]

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?

Singer has no standard. He knows he has spent no time or effort to validate his system. Singer once claimed there were 3 mathematicians that had reviewed his system. Of course, they were all from foreign countries and could not be reached through the internet. It was an obvious lie and became a standing joke. It's similar to his other actions. His claims about hot/cold streaks, his claims about the 5th card repeats, his claims to have inside information from IGT, his claims that the NV gaming commission is in cahoots with casinos, etc. They all feed into the typical naive gambler paranoia. He feeds on the fears and superstitions that surround gambling.

As far as I can tell he developed his system for one reason. To try and make it appear he was some kind of VP expert. Singer is intensely jealous of any and all of the well known VP gurus. I think he wanted to be one of them but failed to get any recognition. He then went off on this anti-establishment route to see if he could gain recognition. I suspect his entire reason for developing his system was ego. Using it to garner free comps was likely just a side benefit.

You'll notice that if someone says nice things about him, Singer will praise the person, but make one negative comment and he will throw out tons of insults. Text book narcissistic behavior.

PS. I'm pretty sure Singer knows I have a degree in Math.

[Vegas_lover]

Well, Arci I won't pass judgement about his motives because I do not know the man well enough. You sure do know more about math than the average "kid from the block" so there he has two people with a math degree and we're both not qualified to do the math. That boggles the mind...I'm curious if Singer will come back to defend the mathimatical approach of his system. The cards are not in his favour in my opinion, until he proves us wrong. But I'm very curious about how he will accomplish that. Do you know if Frank Kneeland has a math degree?

[arcimede$]

Frank has never mentioned having a degree. He is known for managing a team of VP professionals that focus on progressive jackpots. There's no doubt he has a lot of experience in analyzing VP games/plays. Since the math we are talking about here is not very complicated it certainly doesn't take a math degree to understand. The key talent is problem solving. Being able to look at a situation and break it down and assess it. From what I've seen in his various posts I'd say Frank is skilled in this area.

I don't know if Frank's doing a complete analysis of Singer's system or not. I just did a cursory analysis of a couple of Singer's special plays and strategy elements. Since Singer's system broke down with only a cursory look, I find it hard to believe Frank would waste his time going much further than I did.

[Vegas_lover]

I believe you're right about that Arci. I guess we'll just have to wait and find out. IF Singer is right and his system proves to be a succes I will be the first one to admit I was wrong and I will be more than willing to promote his system to anybody who wants to know about it. I don't think it will happen though. Despite of Kneeland's obvious experience and knowledge about the subject I would still find it strange that a person withput a math degree would be more capable to do the analysis than somebody with the proper education on the subject. But of course, that only applies when Kneeland doesn't have a math degree. I agree with you that the math to analyse this system is pretty basic. But still, a large percentage of the people out there would not now where to start and how to make the calculations needed.

I guess we'll just have to see what happens.

[arcimede$]

I think the key skill to assess Singer's system is the knowledge of the details of VP. For example, I used the knowledge that 77% of the return in DBPP is below the quad level in my assessment. Most people would have no idea how to find this information. I used arithmetic in applying this fact to the problem, but just knowing arithmetic would not be enough.

I think Frank has the same level of knowledge that I have in this area.

[Vegas_lover]

I do want to make one final comment in general. Rob, Alan, I'm not particularly proud of the way this discussion evolved. Too many harsh words were said and too many insults were filling the air. This created a huge diversion from the issues at hand and I am not proud of my part. I've lost my temper at several moments and that usually isn't my style, for that I apologize. Although I do not believe in Rob's sytem I do appreciate the quest to find a system that gives the players better odds while playing the casino's.

[Alan Mendelson]

I do want to make one final comment in general. Rob, Alan, I'm not particularly proud of the way this discussion evolved. Too many harsh words were said and too many insults were filling the air. This created a huge diversion from the issues at hand and I am not proud of my part. I've lost my temper at several moments and that usually isn't my style, for that I apologize. Although I do not believe in Rob's sytem I do appreciate the quest to find a system that gives the players better odds while playing the casino's.

Thank you Vegas_Lover for posting this. This is one of the best posts we've had. I commend you for it. I also commend you for saying this: "Although I do not believe in Rob's sytem I do appreciate the quest to find a system that gives the players better odds while playing the casino's." Everyone should think carefully about what you wrote.

[Rob.Singer]

Thank you Vegas_Lover for posting this. This is one of the best posts we've had. I commend you for it. I also commend you for saying this: "Although I do not believe in Rob's sytem I do appreciate the quest to find a system that gives the players better odds while playing the casino's." Everyone should think carefully about what you wrote.

Alan, when arci gets up as he does every day at the same time like clockwork, he's gonna go thru the same 'ol boring daily routine and immediately jump on the computer looking for an argument to occupy his time. He isn't going to take too kindly to what you said here even though they are truly significant words of wisdom. He'll take this personally, and quickly shift into damage control claiming you don't know what you're talking about and how you purposely took what the other guy said wrong just to enhance your own agenda. In other words, it is a stain against a True Believer.

[Alan Mendelson]

As I wrote in the other thread maybe it's time for everyone to sit out until there is actual information to post so that we have something substantial to discuss. Frank Kneeland said in a post tonight on the LVA Forum that he won't be able to look at your system Rob for several more weeks. Well, perhaps we should all take a collective "time out" until he can tell us what he found from his analysis.

I don't want to cut off the discussion about facts and information, but I think we can stop playing "can you top this" with insults, attacks, smears, etc. I think we've heard all the negatives.

But what I would think would be entertaining are new ideas about how to beat the casinos. Please not a rehash of math and comps and cashback, but does anyone really have something that's new???

And the funny thing is, I'm going to guess there isn't!!

[arcimede$]

As I wrote in the other thread maybe it's time for everyone to sit out until there is actual information to post so that we have something substantial to discuss. Frank Kneeland said in a post tonight on the LVA Forum that he won't be able to look at your system Rob for several more weeks. Well, perhaps we should all take a collective "time out" until he can tell us what he found from his analysis.

Funny, I thought I had provided you with some interesting analysis. You know ... "actual information". I'm curious what you expect from Frank that hasn't already been provided. If you didn't understand my analysis then shouldn't you be asking questions until you do understand. Since you haven't asked any questions I can only assume you understood what was posted. If that is the case, then what additional information do you need?

It is perfectly clear that Singer has misrepresented his system. You're like people that still support the war in Afghanistan. Nothing is going to change, time to cut your losses.

Alan, maybe you should pick a special play to be analyzed and it can be discussed. If you don't like the ones I did pick another one. For example, #26 where JJ is selected over suited JT97. Singer claimed JJ had a better chance of hitting. But this is easily refuted. The chances of hitting a quad holding JJ is 1:360 as I've noted before. The odds of hitting the SF are 1:47. Yes that's right, 7.7 times more often. The JJ pays 600 coins and the SF pays 400 coins so either of them could yield a winning session. Since the math play produces about 3000 credits in big winners to the 600 for holding JJ it's pretty clear that the math play will yield many more winning sessions.

How much evidence do you need, Alan?

[arcimede$]

Alan, I keep looking for a special play that will yield more winning sessions as advertised by Singer. So, I thought #24 looked good. Singer holds a single ace over suited TJ. So, what are the potenetial session ending results. Holding the ace you have quad aces, kings and queens, a RF and an ace low SF. One of those happens 1:3716. Holding the JT you have quad jacks, a RF and 3 SFs. One of those happens 1:3243. Looks like I failed again.

[arcimede$]

One last try before I go out to play golf. This one has to work. Holding a single Q over unsuited KQ. You hit the quads the same as in the Ace example plus you get one more SF (1:3640). In the KQ example you only have quad ks and Qs. which is 1:8108.

Phew, I finally found a special play that does what it advertises. And, the cost isn't too high at just over a tenth of a credit. Even though this happens a lot ... well, maybe we should think a little more about the cost. Remember you are giving up .12 credits 3639 times for every hit. That is almost 437 credits. Hmmmmm, maybe it's not such a good play after all.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, thank you for your analysis. Now, I think what we are all waiting for is Rob to reply with some actual numbers to back up his decision/strategy/play.

[arcimede$]

Arc, thank you for your analysis. Now, I think what we are all waiting for is Rob to reply with some actual numbers to back up his decision/strategy/play.

Don't hold your breath. If he had the ability to respond to my first couple of items he would have done so by now. I doubt I've put more than an hour into all the items I analyzed, so were not talking a big effort here.

I think the last item I analyzed is pretty interesting because I finally found one special play that did hit a big winner more often than the math play. However, when you consider what it costs and the few number of times the decision is even called for, it's unlikely a "short term" player would run into it enough to make a difference. In other words, it's a complete waste of effort.

[redietz]

Well, it looks as though there is a break in the action. This thread provides evidence for why I find the Singer debates so fascinating in terms of social psychology. Not so interesting in terms of math.

I will be humongously syrprised if Mr. Kneeland's analysis of the Singer method yields much beyond what's already been said. My only claim to math fame is playing intramural hoops for the Penn State math department grad team, but unless quantum mechanics from an alternate universe comes nto play, the Singer method will not outperform pure advantage play given identical coin-in.

None of that, however, addresses any of the questions of my orignal letter, which seems to have been hijacked. So let me pose some questions for arcimedes, vegas, and other APers. Since I'm also an advantage player, I'll speculate, too.

1) What percent of self-defined "advantage players" would you estimate are ahead lifetime?

2) What percent of people who invest in advantage-play software, books, and classes are ahead lifetime?

3) Out of all the video poker players in the US who have played more than 50,000 hands, how many are ahead? My estimate is a couple of thousand. Maybe fewer.

4) Does the existence of advantage-play software, books, and coaching contribute or detract from the casinos' bottom lines?

Advantage play has been in the public domain for quite a few years now. If people aren't using it, it's not because of Singer. It's simply because (1) people can't use pure advantage play (for whatever behavioral reasons) or (2) people don't want to use pure advantage play. It really is that simple.

Now, since the huge majority of players know of advantage play, but lose, isn't it conceivable (not likely, but conceivable) that the "Singer method" may actually benefit them compared to what they're currently doing? Less seat-time and more discipline usually helps players' bottom lines.

Players have been rejecting advantage play for years. There are reasons for this, which we can discuss another time. Consigning the Singer method to the pyre may be inappropriate.

The more interesting questions are still to come. Unless Mr. Kneeland has some startling revelations, what happens when the Singer method is revealed to have mathematical holes? How will Mr. Singer respond? For those sociologists in the audience (and arcimedes), I recommend reading "When Prophecy Fails" as a warm-up.

And for the APers, will you take a stab at, gulp, speculating regarding my questions? And are you willing to acknowledge that most video poker players have rejected pure advantage play for (what to them) are good reasons?

Alan -- you've done a great job moderating. On we go....

[arcimede$]

"1) What percent of self-defined "advantage players" would you estimate are ahead lifetime?"

This really depends on who you consider advantage players. If you assume it's someone who attended one Dancer class and gives it a quick shot, then the number is probably quite small. If you only consider those who put a concentrated effort and understand that 100.1% games are not an advantage, then it's probably closer to 80%.

"2) What percent of people who invest in advantage-play software, books, and classes are ahead lifetime?"

Not very many. Most people will not stick to it. All it will take is one losing streak and they will lose interest.

"3) Out of all the video poker players in the US who have played more than 50,000 hands, how many are ahead? My estimate is a couple of thousand. Maybe fewer."

There are millions of VP players. I wouldn't even try to estimate a number but I'd say the long term winners are probably <1% of the total.

"4) Does the existence of advantage-play software, books, and coaching contribute or detract from the casinos' bottom lines?"

Hard to say. First of all, very few VP players invest in those items hence they only apply to a few individuals. If you only look at that group then it's very likely that they will do better as a group and hence detract from the bottom line. For it work the other way you'd have to see this group play more VP than they otherwise would.

[arcimede$]

"Now, since the huge majority of players know of advantage play, but lose, isn't it conceivable (not likely, but conceivable) that the "Singer method" may actually benefit them compared to what they're currently doing? Less seat-time and more discipline usually helps players' bottom lines."

I don't think Singer's method will lead to less seat time. Remember, a progression leads to more sessions wins. IMO, it's more likely many players would be fooled into believing they can win with the method and actually play more. At least up until the time they hit a couple of bad losses. Even then, some might continue on for awhile.

In addition, discipline is not restricted to Singer's strategies. It applies to whatever technique a player might choose.

[Vegas_lover]

Thanks you for answering these questions Arci because I would really be on thin ice commenting on these questions because I'm not a VP-player. I'm not going to speculate (at this point) about Singer's reaction if Kneeland concludes that the system has mathimatical holes. I have an idea of how he will respond but I'll leave that up to him.

What does disappoint me is that Singer, who has been very dedicated to defending his system, has not responded yet to any of the math presented in this thread. All the "personal bickering" got swift replies, but the math somehow doesn't. I'm truly interested in his mathimatical approach of the development of his system.

[arcimede$]

What does disappoint me is that Singer, who has been very dedicated to defending his system, has not responded yet to any of the math presented in this thread. All the "personal bickering" got swift replies, but the math somehow doesn't. I'm truly interested in his mathimatical approach of the development of his system.

You've already seen the complete mathematical analysis that Singer used. Zero, zilch, nada, none (and maybe you can add some others).

[Vegas_lover]

Rob, your silence speaks volumes!!!