New Rob Singer Article about pay tables and video poker

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob just sent me a new article. I'm afraid there isn't anything new here: http://alanbestbuys.com/id362.html It's about winning or losing on video poker pay tables that are not positive. Missing from the article would be some actual points of his strategy which would be interesting even if you don't agree.

Rob says you can win on a negative paytable -- so tell how you did it.

[arcimede$]

Same old BS. Why do you bother, Alan?

[Alan Mendelson]

It is the same old story, and I told Rob that. And he said he is going to come up with something "different" and something "current."

While I am not calling his stuff "BS" the fact is, it's the same stuff he's been talking about for years and years. And I told him that I will publish new articles -- and not a rehash of everything he has said before.

[Vegas Vic]

It is the same old story, and I told Rob that. And he said he is going to come up with something "different" and something "current."

While I am not calling his stuff "BS" the fact is, it's the same stuff he's been talking about for years and years. And I told him that I will publish new articles -- and not a rehash of everything he has said before.

Like the Four Tops sang in '65, "It's the same old song."

[redietz]

Someone please explain what the Monty Hall Problem has to do with Rob's video poker strategy. I'm not sure what the point is, or if there is one.

[redietz]

"Simply put, the EV of a game played any given day is entirely irrelevant to the outcome."

Good to know. Let's keep it a secret from the casinos. Mum's the word.

[Alan Mendelson]

I don't know what Monty Hall has to do with video poker. But Rob's comment that "Simply put, the EV of a game played any given day is entirely irrelevant to the outcome" is not entirely correct. I get his point however. He is saying that the stated Expected Value of a game is not necessarily what will be your result -- and we all know this. I play a 99.2% game and I don't think I ever completed a session or a day or a weekend or a year with a return of 99.2%. Indeed I have had sessions when I hit a royal and had a return of 1,000% on my bankroll, and then -- like this year -- I've been playing a 99.2% game and I have a big negative return. Very big negative return.

Rob should be more careful how he writes things since there are lots of people who want to pick apart every word he writes.

[redietz]

"Entirely irrelevant" is the editorial problem. The only reason we, the forum readers, suspect Rob's being unclear as opposed to "entirely wrong" is because he has stated something like this dozens of times, but never so boldly, blatantly, or wrongly.

Rob should be more careful about how he writes things because somebody might be trying to actually understand him.

[arcimede$]

Alan, when you publish garbage that contradicts basic mathematics it does reflect on you. I hope you know that.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, I think it's pretty clear that these are Rob's opinions and not mine. And I am not exactly sure it's garbage either, though he doesn't play the way I do or the way you do.

[Rob.Singer]

"Simply put, the EV of a game played any given day is entirely irrelevant to the outcome."

Good to know. Let's keep it a secret from the casinos. Mum's the word.

Here's another way to understand it. If I went into a session with a stop-win & loss goal to play only BP, even if the EV was under 100%, I'd be favored to win. Basically, no one ever hits EV spot on, obviously. EV is in fact entirely irrelevant in any given session of play.

[Dan Druff]

Rob, that's totally incorrect.

You are never favored to win when playing -EV games. Ever.

There is no way around that.

The only "merit" to your plays is for someone who either:

1) Plays only to hit big hands, and wants to maximize them (but they still will lose more overall using these strategies)
-or-
2) Will only play VP until they hit their first royal, and then will quit the game forever. But your strategies here are only an edge because hitting the royal will prevent them from playing FURTHER -EV hands if they hit it and quit it forever. If the person plans to play again, your strategies will again lose the person more money in the long run.

Or, simply put:

Rob's strategies increase the chance of a big win session, but increases the chances of having a losing session even more than that.

[Rob.Singer]

Dan, you're far off base and I'll explain why. My strategy wins close to 85% of my sessions. Most people who know the details of how I play and the comparatively low % of bankroll win goal I use, agree with that. And it's not always big hand wins that do it. Four 6's hit at the right time or several FH's or other small winners can do it. And overall, if you need to tie all of my sessions together just because you believe that to be right, those sessions with the truly big winners do greatly overcome the 15% to 20% session losers--which are rarely if ever a total session bankroll loss.

[arcimede$]

Arc, I think it's pretty clear that these are Rob's opinions and not mine. And I am not exactly sure it's garbage either, though he doesn't play the way I do or the way you do.

Still reflects on you. it demonstrates you are NOT savvy enough to know when you are being scammed. It sullies your brand.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc I also allow you to criticize me.

[Rob.Singer]

Let's see if arci can support how you are being scammed Alan. Lord knows, he has plenty of time to back up his silly claims these days....If you thought he was jealous of me & hated me before, you ain't seen nothin' yet!

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob please drop it. Arc please drop it.

[arcimede$]

Arc I also allow you to criticize me.

Since my criticisms are supported by basic math you should take them to heart.