Rob Singer: New Commentary

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob Singer has sent me a new commentary, and you will find it on his commentary page on this website. Here is the link: http://alanbestbuys.com/id362.html

I post these without editing and without comment, but I invite comments here on the Forum.

I will start with the comments: just when this latest commentary (posted April 7) gets interesting it stops. I was waiting for more information, and a bit more "meat" to his argument. I hope he follows up with a "part 2" soon.

[odinoka]

Wonderful, thanks!

[redietz]

When evaluating what Rob Singer writes, one should consider sorting the material he presents along a continuum from subjective to objective. I happen to agree with Rob's tone and attitude regarding tipping, regarding what persona one should bring to a casino, some of his advice regarding credit (although not all), and many other pieces of good advice. His attitude towards hosts is a clear and healthy wake-up call, in my opinion. Now where the problem lies with his material is on the objective end of the continuum where he tries to bend the laws of probability by furnishing alternatives to optimal play. His personal experience and results, he argues, are a compelling reason to use stop losses and win goals and special plays, even if the math says these are all irrelevant. His Rube Goldberg instructions regarding how to play may have some benefits for many players that enable them to do better by slowing play on negative expectation machines and creating player profiles that lead to better comps than advantage play. That could certainly be true. However, to argue that his tinkering leads to mathematically better results for others than optimal play is kind of silly. Rob's life is a limited sample. He may indeed have outperformed "the math" with his Goldberg formulations in his life, although arcimedes did the math on the likelihood of that and it is unlikely. I prefer to believe Rob has had a run at the end of the bell curve, but has mistakenly attributed that run to his tinkering.

[Dan Druff]

I mostly agree with redietz above.

Regarding Rob's "special plays", he is actually correct in one way, in that if your goal is to hit a monster VP hand and quit, then modifying your play to hit more huge hands is correct, even at the expense of your mathematical expectation. This is why VP tournament strategy is different than VP cash strategy. In tournaments, you will NEVER win by simply grinding through flushes and full houses, so you are doing everything you can to hit royals.

The problem with a regular player making these adjustments is that the math will eventually catch up with them, as it's actually one long session. The machine doesn't know if you quit today and come back in two weeks. To the machine, today's play and your play two weeks from now is all one long session.

If I had a friend who approached me and said, "Todd, I want to play VP, but only until I hit my first royal, and then I'm quitting forever. Can you give me a good strategy?" In that case, I would direct him to Rob's post and tell him to play like Rob. For such a player, playing suboptimally and shooting for royals actually benefits him, because it saves him from playing further negative expectation hands if he hits one early and quits. However, this doesn't apply if the player is going to return at a later date and keep playing anyway.

The problem I have with Rob's strategies is that he's pitching them to regular VP players, not to occasional rec players who just want to increase their chance at hitting royals in the little play they're doing.

Regarding Rob's thoughts on casino hosts and tipping handpay employees, I mostly agree. I think that Rob's feelings on tipping are a bit extreme, but I have long held that tipping in Vegas has unfortunately morphed from something done out of superstition ("tip the dealer and get better luck/karma") to a way to exploit casino patrons into paying the salaries of various employees there.

I agree that it's fairly ridiculous that you have to tip on handpays because it's a service you didn't ask for (or even want), and is simply an administrative task required by the government.

I also agree that, with very few exceptions, hosts are not your friends, and are simply looking to get you into the casino and make commission from your play. There are indeed a few "good apple" hosts who really want to help people out as much as possible, but sadly they are usually finding themselves out of a job, as they "give away" too much and don't have enough to show for it. A few talented hosts are good enough at getting players into the casino that it counteracts the unjustified "favors" they do for players, but for the most part, hosts are giving you things with the intention of getting you back to the casino and losing more money.

[Alan Mendelson]

How can you argue against a stop loss? Even when you play a positive expectation game there is no guarantee you will win, and why keep throwing good money after bad on days when the cards just don't line up for you?

[redietz]

If you're playing with a proper bankroll for your game(s), they are irrelevant. Not going to debate stop loss strateegeries on positive expectation machines with anyone. If you find some mathematicians who believe stop losses have some substantive effect on return, let us know.

[Alan Mendelson]

Stop losses have more to do with how you feel about playing than math. I have plenty of money to play, but I don't want to go home losing too much. With a stop loss I set my limit on how much I want to risk losing for either entertainment, or how much I want to risk losing in an effort to win. The math cannot turn anyone's money into a winning session. A royal might come around once in 40,000 hands but that doesn't mean you will get one in 40,000 hands or 40-million hands.

But if you don't want to have a stop loss yourself, then knock yourself out.

Actually everyone does have a stop loss -- when there's no money or credit left. If that's your stop loss, I'm sorry.

[redietz]

I'm ahead lifetime on video poker, although it's less than 5K. I'm ahead lifetime on all forms of gambling combined, so there's no need to feel sorry for me. If stop losses work for you, by all means use them.

The phrase, "even when you play a positive expectation game, there is no guarantee you'll win" is completely correct. It's also completely correct to say, "If you quit at a stop loss, there's no guarantee you wouldn't have hit back-to-back royals the next two hands." Both statements are completely 100% correct.

[Alan Mendelson]

I'm ahead lifetime on video poker, although it's less than 5K.

I think you said you're a 25-cent player, $1.25 a hand. Would you have a different view of using a stop-loss if you were a $5 player, $25 a hand?

[arcimede$]

Stop loss goals on a positive game will only stop gains (over time). You may "feel" good, but you will lose money. If that's your goal, then no one is going to stop you. Those of us who understand math will just chuckle.trip recently where I was

I had a trip recently where I was down $3K. Ended up winning $9K. End of story.

PS. Singer provides nothing but hostility to most discussions. His understanding of math is non-existent. As a result he brings nothing to the table in terms of gambling.

[spojoey]

Again...Rob is not here to defend himself.

[Alan Mendelson]

In order not to employ a stop loss you must believe the machines are not random and must give their theoretical return.

I believe the machines are random. I can't bank on anything including a positive pay table.

Your belief in positive pay tables bailing you out sounds like voodoo.

The most important math is how you count the money in your pocket.

[redietz]

Alan,

I just wanted to do you the service of pointing out that the line about "to not employ a stop loss, you must believe the machines aren't random" makes no sense.

I defer to arcimedes to expand on that, as I am 57 years old and I have only so many seconds of life left to me. But arci may be older, so maybe his aid will not be forthcoming.

If the most important math is how you count the money in your pocket, why in the name of the gods of odds do you play negative expectation games?

[arcimede$]

In order not to employ a stop loss you must believe the machines are not random and must give their theoretical return.

The two have nothing to do with each other. Life is one long session. When you stop makes no difference on any particular day. Only after the fact can you say you should have stopped. As I noted above, I was very happy I didn't stop after falling behind 3K. On other days I've lost more and would have been better off if I had stopped. The key is you never know and all you can do is "expect" your future results to meet the games's ER. That is why it makes no sense to stop with a positive ER.

I believe the machines are random. I can't bank on anything including a positive pay table.

Your belief in positive pay tables bailing you out sounds like voodoo. There's no way to know.

It's has nothing to do with "bailing you out". It is simply the best way to win. It's like taking a freeway instead of the back roads to make better time. There's no guarantee you will make better time but it's a lot more likely.

The most important math is how you count the money in your pocket.

No, the most important math is the one you use to determine when and where to play. After that it is out of your control.

[Alan Mendelson]

The problem for me is Arc's statement "life is one long session." I measure my sessions by day or trip or weekend. I can't consider my entire life as a session of VP. If you can then good for you.

[Vegas Vic]

That is why it makes no sense to stop with a positive ER.

This statement makes no sense. Given your belief that "life is one long session" (and by life, you mean gambling life), as long as one's play is made on exclusively positive ER games, the stop-and-go of playing VP (which is the reality of how we all play), is irrelevant. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the key to your approach has always been playing positive ER games. Therefore, the when and where does not matter.

[arcimede$]

This statement makes no sense. Given your belief that "life is one long session" (and by life, you mean gambling life), as long as one's play is made on exclusively positive ER games, the stop-and-go of playing VP (which is the reality of how we all play), is irrelevant. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the key to your approach has always been playing positive ER games. Therefore, the when and where does not matter.

I was referring to stop limits that Alan had mentioned. Hopefully, it makes more sense in that context.

[Alan Mendelson]

In order to believe in the mantra that you should continue to play positive ER machines, and there is no reason to have a stop loss, if in fact you continue to win on positive ER machines. I am sure there are others, besides me, who have lost playing positive ER machines. Just because a machine has a positive ER does not mean you will win on any hand, in any day, or even over the long term of your entire life. If you believe that you must win on an positive ER machine over any term including your life, you have drunk too much of that Jim Jones Kool-Aid.

[arcimede$]

No one says you "must win" on a positive machine. First of all, no one plays perfectly. Second, most positive machines have a very small edge. Finally, since results form a bell curve, there will always be a few folks who don't win. However, the larger the edge the greater the probability you will win. At some point the odds of losing become extremely small given enough play. When I was playing a half million hands a year with a 2% edge the chances of losing were less than 1%.

[Alan Mendelson]

Thanks Arc. Since there is no guarantee of winning as well as the other factors you point out there is no reason to dismiss the use of loss limits or win goals.