Setting Win Limitations

[Alan Mendelson]

You are the one who has completely missed the point. It doesn't matter how quickly he goes through them. It only matters as to how often each one of them is used. You stated that Singer claims the total number is 5%. Hence, he will apply a special play about once every 20 hands on average. This is not rocket science.

I realize now what the problem is here.

First, you misread my original question which was: if there are 1700 plays, and he makes special plays perhaps only 5% of the time, how many thousands of hands of video poker would he have to see before each "special play" was made?

What I was looking for was how many hands it would take for each and every one of his "special plays" to be played? Can you still answer the question? Because whether or not you can answer this question gets to the heart of the debate over Singer's strategy.

You can't answer the question because you cannot determine when Singer will utilize a special play in the first place. The truth is none of us know this except for Rob himself.

Singer has only told us about the special plays but he hasn't told us when he makes them. Oh, he says he makes his special plays to reach a win goal or when he needs a big win, but these are not specific answers that can be tested or examined. This is, quite frankly, why we can't (at this point) make an accurate analysis of his special plays and his entire system. There are too many blanks for us to try to figure it out.

What we do know is this:

He says he follows conventional strategy 95% of the time. We do not know how much of his overall wins come from that conventional play. We also do not know how much of his overall wins come from the special plays.

Arc, you can analyze his special plays up the gazoo for the next hundred years and your analysis will tell you the same thing that Rob Singer has been telling us: his special plays always have a lower expected value than the conventional or "optimal" play. What you can't tell us is Singer's return (actual wins) on conventional versus special plays, and what you can't tell us is what triggers the use of special plays.

His figure of using special plays 5% is akin to saying a royal will appear one in 40,000 hands. In fact, he might use his special plays 30% of the time in one year or only 1% in another year. And that is the same as hitting three royals in 40,000 hands or hitting zero royals in 200,000 hands.

Frankly, Arc, instead of arguing what you supposedly found about the return of Singer's special plays, you should be asking Singer for more specifics of his use of his strategy. Honestly, there isn't enough information available yet to analyze Rob's system. And that really is the bottom line here.

And the more I find out about Rob's system and his success the more questions I have. He might surprise us and we might find out that his special plays are not the big factor in his success, but rather his conventional strategy, money management, progressions, and loss limit disciplines are what drove his success. On the other hand, we might find out that he has made notations on his W2Gs that indicate what the special play was that landed the big win.

There is no need to call anyone a liar or confused or misguided. Instead, you should be asking for more information. On the other hand, if your mind is already made up there's nothing left to discuss.

[Lucky(St)Louis]

Well, once again I'm "treated" to a repeat of various threads on various boards.
Arcimedes.....I compliment you on your IBM career, bowling career, and your VP "career".
Frank, your career in VP progressives is documented, though I'm sure you intend to extend your legacy.
Alan, wtg for your interesting, meaningful career that has likely touched many, many individuals across many varied areas of interest.
And to Rob, my "former" AZ friend, and now my nomadic friend to whom I only wish demonstrable peace, thanks also.

Me, just dealing with the LF's 38 year old son moving into our place.

[Frank Kneeland]

Frank, your career in VP progressives is documented, though I'm sure you intend to extend your legacy.

I certainly hope not. I have done my time, made my money and I'd like out ASAP.

I may be getting into comedy writing or problem gambling research...of course they are basically the same thing.

The toga party was amazing...three chicks gave up the digits. Out of 88 party goers I was the only one in genuine goth armor. Night all, got armor burn.

~FK

[Alan Mendelson]

The toga party was amazing...three chicks gave up the digits.

~FK

Here's a multiple choice question for our learned video poker pros.

"gave up the digits" means:

a. Revealed their player card PIN numbers so Frank could use their free play
b. Revealed security codes so Frank could use their credit lines
c. Revealed their phone numbers
d. Revealed their ring fingers after removing their white cotton slot gloves
e. None of the above

[arcimede$]

I realize now what the problem is here.

First, you misread my original question which was: if there are 1700 plays, and he makes special plays perhaps only 5% of the time, how many thousands of hands of video poker would he have to see before each "special play" was made?

What I was looking for was how many hands it would take for each and every one of his "special plays" to be played? Can you still answer the question? Because whether or not you can answer this question gets to the heart of the debate over Singer's strategy.

You can't answer the question because you cannot determine when Singer will utilize a special play in the first place. The truth is none of us know this except for Rob himself.

Singer has only told us about the special plays but he hasn't told us when he makes them. Oh, he says he makes his special plays to reach a win goal or when he needs a big win, but these are not specific answers that can be tested or examined. This is, quite frankly, why we can't (at this point) make an accurate analysis of his special plays and his entire system. There are too many blanks for us to try to figure it out.

What we do know is this:

He says he follows conventional strategy 95% of the time. We do not know how much of his overall wins come from that conventional play. We also do not know how much of his overall wins come from the special plays.

Arc, you can analyze his special plays up the gazoo for the next hundred years and your analysis will tell you the same thing that Rob Singer has been telling us: his special plays always have a lower expected value than the conventional or "optimal" play. What you can't tell us is Singer's return (actual wins) on conventional versus special plays, and what you can't tell us is what triggers the use of special plays.

His figure of using special plays 5% is akin to saying a royal will appear one in 40,000 hands. In fact, he might use his special plays 30% of the time in one year or only 1% in another year. And that is the same as hitting three royals in 40,000 hands or hitting zero royals in 200,000 hands.

Frankly, Arc, instead of arguing what you supposedly found about the return of Singer's special plays, you should be asking Singer for more specifics of his use of his strategy. Honestly, there isn't enough information available yet to analyze Rob's system. And that really is the bottom line here.

And the more I find out about Rob's system and his success the more questions I have. He might surprise us and we might find out that his special plays are not the big factor in his success, but rather his conventional strategy, money management, progressions, and loss limit disciplines are what drove his success. On the other hand, we might find out that he has made notations on his W2Gs that indicate what the special play was that landed the big win.

There is no need to call anyone a liar or confused or misguided. Instead, you should be asking for more information. On the other hand, if your mind is already made up there's nothing left to discuss.

Alan, once again you have fallen for the old magic elixir con. That's all the special plays represent. You need the magic elixir or you won't gain the benefits of whatever is being sold. The answer to your question is still the same. IT DOESN'T MATTER when or how often the special plays are used. They all REDUCE the return. This is grade school math, Alan. Simple addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. X<Y where X represents your expectation with special plays and Y represents your expectation with optimal strategy.

As for my mind "being made up" ... well duh. All I have to do is apply the math. The real question is why wouldn't any reasonably intelligent persons mind be made up.

Do you question your bank statement? Do you hope it will come out higher next month than it should be by adding deposits and subtracting withdrawals? Essentially, that is exactly what you are doing when you believe applying special plays will lead to higher return. It is just as silly and just as easy to demonstrate ... which I done for you many times. How long are you going to ignore the facts?

Finally, you repeat this nonsense: "What you can't tell us is Singer's return (actual wins) on conventional versus special plays, and what you can't tell us is what triggers the use of special plays."

No, but why would anyone care. No one is going to repeat Singer's play. You continue to harp on the past when it is totally and completely meaningless. Frank has told you this many times. There is no magic elixir. Look at my simulations ... they tell you what you can expect in the future. Nothing else has any predictive power whatsoever, especially Singer's claims. The simulations show that you could win with Singer's system (of course, you could win by randomly hitting buttons as well), but they also show that the majority of people who adopt such a system will lose exactly as the math predicts.

PS. Remember to tap the screen 3 times right below the card you need and chant arcimedes 3 times. It's always worked in the past.

[Lucky(St)Louis]

I certainly hope not. I have done my time, made my money and I'd like out ASAP.

I may be getting into comedy writing or problem gambling research...of course they are basically the same thing.

The toga party was amazing...three chicks gave up the digits. Out of 88 party goers I was the only one in genuine goth armor. Night all, got armor burn.

~FK

Frank the sentence was supposed to be "Frank, your career in VP progressives is documented, though I'm sure you intend to extend your legacy in other areas".

That's what I read when I wrote it anyway.

[Frank Kneeland]

Believe it or not I believe I can provide a post which has the potential to clear up this debate once and for all. I'm working on it now.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arcimedes, once again has reminded us of the following:

"IT DOESN'T MATTER when or how often the special plays are used. They all REDUCE the return. This is grade school math, Alan. Simple addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. X<Y where X represents your expectation with special plays and Y represents your expectation with optimal strategy."


Gee Arc, you really aren't listening... or reading.

For the umpteenth time NO ONE including Singer is disputing the math. Rob even acknowledges that his special plays have less expected return than the conventional plays.

But we still don't know if it is the luck of his special plays hitting (and it is Rob who says it is luck and not skill which is behind his system) or if the majority of his wins came from the 95% of the time when he uses the conventional math plays in his game.

What you are writing over and over and over again Arc is noise. It is insignificant. And that is not because what you are writing is not true. What you are writing IS TRUE but it might not be relevant to what the Singer system is.

Arc, I suggest you sit back and wait until all of us have more info on all of Rob's system. And info on all of Rob's wins. Unfortunately, we might never get it or even get the information to prove or disprove his system.

But in the meantime you are arguing a point about the math of video poker that even Rob will not dispute.

[arcimede$]

Gee Arc, you really aren't listening... or reading.

For the umpteenth time NO ONE including Singer is disputing the math. Rob even acknowledges that his special plays have less expected return than the conventional plays.

But we still don't know if it is the luck of his special plays hitting (and it is Rob who says it is luck and not skill which is behind his system) or if the majority of his wins came from the 95% of the time when he uses the conventional math plays in his game.

Sorry Alan, but it is you who refuses to accept reality. I understand perfectly what you are saying. What you don't seem to realize is that you are saying the equivalent of 2+2 might= 5. All you need is some magic elixir and you get an extra bonus out of the "+" sign.

Of course, that is complete nonsense as are your continued claims that the math doesn't cover Singer's special plays. You never answered my question about your bank account. Do you expect it to be different than the deposits and withdrawals? You can't answer the question because it precisely demonstrates that there is nothing mystical going on when something can be completely defined by the math. Singer is taking advantage of you. Your lack of math skills have led you to believe in fairy tales.

What you are writing over and over and over again Arc is noise. It is insignificant. And that is not because what you are writing is not true. What you are writing IS TRUE but it might not be relevant to what the Singer system is.

Arc, I suggest you sit back and wait until all of us have more info on all of Rob's system. And info on all of Rob's wins. Unfortunately, we might never get it or even get the information to prove or disprove his system.

There is no more information. We already have ALL the information we need. How many times do I have to repeat this simple fact. You are simply in denial. You have closed your eyes to the facts and for some crazy reason are looking for something magical. It does not exist. The math completely covers everything. The only variable is randomness and that has nothing to do with Singer. It's why you are going through 100+K hands without a RF. It's why anyone can win on any given day. However, it is not useful in any way, shape or form. You can't control it ... and, if you can't control it you can't count on it.

You realize this is why Singer has gone off on so many tangents in the past. His claims that the NGC has secret contracts with casinos, his claims of programmed hot/cold cycles, his claims of non-random 5th card flip-overs, etc. etc.. All these lies and more are there because even Singer realizes that a truly random machine cannot be controlled and all of his claims go in the toilet without the ability to control randomness. So far he hasn't had to resort to those lies with you because you haven't figured out his system can't work as he claims with a random game.

But in the meantime you are arguing a point about the math of video poker that even Rob will not dispute.

Of course he disputes it. He does it every time he claims his system is better than optimal play. He does it every time he claims a special play will improve a persons chances of winning. He does it when he claims the return of a game doesn't matter. He does with his hold/cold cycles. He does it with his 5th card flip-overs. He constantly disputes it. Open your eyes, Alan.

[Alan Mendelson]

Okay, Arc we finally have come to the point of Singer's entire strategy (as best as I can tell).

Here's what you said: "What you don't seem to realize is that you are saying the equivalent of 2+2 might= 5."

I don't dispute that 2+2=4 nor will Singer.

Instead Arc, think of Rob's strategy this way: you drop the 2+2 to try for 3+3 or better.

[Frank Kneeland]

Okay, Arc we finally have come to the point of Singer's entire strategy (as best as I can tell).

Here's what you said: "What you don't seem to realize is that you are saying the equivalent of 2+2 might= 5."

I don't dispute that 2+2=4 nor will Singer.

Instead Arc, think of Rob's strategy this way: you drop the 2+2 to try for 3+3 or better.

I'm still working on my long reply which I believe will clear up most of this misunderstanding.

Here's a quick point: You have really gotten of tangent with this last one Alan. If we are going with the 2+2 = 4 metaphor, the "2+2" part would symbolize the cards one is dealt. These are not alterable by you.

You can fiddle with the part to the right of the equal sign, but not the part to the left. Kapish?

The equation is "2+2 =" Your only say in the issue is how you solve it. One answer is correct, the rest are...

In math there can be only one correct answer to equations with known variables, and here those variables (the cards you are dealt) are not alterable.

You cannot change 2+2 to 3+3 you can only get the solution to "2+2 =" right or wrong.

Math is an exact science of black and whites with no gray area required or tolerated. You're applying the old there's more than one way to skin a cat logic to a situation where, there is more than one way, but only one BEST WAY to defrock our fine feline friend.

~FK

[arcimede$]

Okay, Arc we finally have come to the point of Singer's entire strategy (as best as I can tell).

Here's what you said: "What you don't seem to realize is that you are saying the equivalent of 2+2 might= 5."

I don't dispute that 2+2=4 nor will Singer.

Instead Arc, think of Rob's strategy this way: you drop the 2+2 to try for 3+3 or better.

Sorry Alan, 3+3 is still math and the math tells you the answer is 6. It is not 7 or greater as it would need to for Singer's system to provide any advantage. I guess you didn't realize that 2+2 was really an analogy. With 3+3 you just changed the analogy but it still holds exactly the same as 2+2. The analogy is just a simple way of explaining that the math tells you everything you need to know. There is nothing else. There is no magic math. When you play VP you are making deposits and withdrawals. The randomness just varies the amount of those transactions. There is no way to overcome the mathematics. It DEFINES what you are doing. So, you may wish and hope and pray all you want. It is nothing more than praying to a Sun god or fire god. It is pure superstition. You might as well start dancing around chanting something.

I guess you will continue to ignore facts and hold on to the fantasy of the magical elixir. I've wondered in the past why people will ignore the truth when it is presented to them time and again. Now that I've seen an example I still don't understand it. I can only guess it has to do with ego. You are resisting admitting you made a mistake even though you were made aware of it months ago. You're not the first nor will you be the last to be conned.

[Alan Mendelson]

Frank, Im sorry. You are mixing "math" with Singer's goals. I think you should ask him about this yourself.

Singer is willing to forego small wins for the chance of big wins.

Hence my comment -- he will drop 2+2 to get 3+3.

For a real example look at Special play #2 on http://alanbestbuys.com/id194.html I think this one clearly defines what Singer is trying to do with "special plays." He wants to maximize the wins forgoing the smaller payoffs.

I'm not saying it's the right thing to do. In fact, I don't do it. But that's part of Rob's system.

Again, you are trying to defend basic math, and there is no disputing the math. Rob says, in effect, screw the math and try for something better.

Look I'm not saying he's right. I'm just explaining what it is he's trying to do.

Arc: give it up. "Reporting" is not being "conned."

But the censorship you advocate is what's really scary.

[Frank Kneeland]

Frank, Im sorry. You are mixing "math" with Singer's goals. I think you should ask him about this yourself.

Singer is willing to forego small wins for the chance of big wins.

Hence my comment -- he will drop 2+2 to get 3+3.

For a real example look at Special play #2 on http://alanbestbuys.com/id194.html I think this one clearly defines what Singer is trying to do with "special plays." He wants to maximize the wins forgoing the smaller payoffs.

I'm not saying it's the right thing to do. In fact, I don't do it. But that's part of Rob's system.

Again, you are trying to defend basic math, and there is no disputing the math. Rob says, in effect, screw the math and try for something better.

Look I'm not saying he's right. I'm just explaining what it is he's trying to do.

Arc: give it up. "Reporting" is not being "conned."

But the censorship you advocate is what's really scary.

Then we can resolve this with a simple question: Do you think that math does or does not have the ability to tell you what the best play is for a a given hand?

If yes, then how can not doing the best thing ever be better? That would be doublethink (holding two mutually exclusive ideas to be true ~George Orwell).

If you don't believe math to be the final arbitrator in disputes over mathematical concepts, then what do you believe has the final word?

~FK

[arcimede$]

Frank, Im sorry. You are mixing "math" with Singer's goals. I think you should ask him about this yourself.

Singer is willing to forego small wins for the chance of big wins.

Hence my comment -- he will drop 2+2 to get 3+3.

For a real example look at Special play #2 on http://alanbestbuys.com/id194.html I think this one clearly defines what Singer is trying to do with "special plays." He wants to maximize the wins forgoing the smaller payoffs.

I'm not saying it's the right thing to do. In fact, I don't do it. But that's part of Rob's system.

Again, you are trying to defend basic math, and there is no disputing the math. Rob says, in effect, screw the math and try for something better.

Look I'm not saying he's right. I'm just explaining what it is he's trying to do.

Arc: give it up. "Reporting" is not being "conned."

But the censorship you advocate is what's really scary.

It's not censorship because that relates only to opinions, not facts. You can't change mathematical facts, Alan. Get used to it. As long as you continue to claim Singer's approach can make a difference you are claiming 2+2 can equal 3 by some magical actions. Like I said, you might as well claim chanting will make a difference. The simple fact you keep denying this truth demonstrates you have been conned. Or, do you think putting up a web page that states 2+2 = 3 is worthwhile reporting?

[Alan Mendelson]

Then we can resolve this with a simple question: Do you think that math does or does not have the ability to tell you what the best play is for a a given hand?

If yes, then how can not doing the best thing ever be better? That would be doublethink (holding two mutually exclusive ideas to be true ~George Orwell).

If you don't believe math to be the final arbitrator in disputes over mathematical concepts, then what do you believe has the final word?

~FK

Frank, Ive said it a hundred times now: I follow the math.

But putting my own beliefs aside, I have reported on Rob Singer's strategy and system.

Is that something you can't understand?

Let me say it one more time: reporters can report on subjects they don't like, they don't agree with, and they don't believe in. It is what reporters do.

And you know what Frank: defense attorneys defend murderers and con artists and rapists. And that is what attorneys do.
And doctors will care for prisoners on death row too.

Professionals, whether they are doctors or lawyers or journalists will do their jobs. Please don't confuse doing their work professionally and what they believe in.

[Frank Kneeland]

Frank, Ive said it a hundred times now: I follow the math.

But putting my own beliefs aside, I have reported on Rob Singer's strategy and system.

Is that something you can't understand?

Let me say it one more time: reporters can report on subjects they don't like, they don't agree with, and they don't believe in. It is what reporters do.

And you know what Frank: defense attorneys defend murderers and con artists and rapists. And that is what attorneys do.
And doctors will care for prisoners on death row too.

Professionals, whether they are doctors or lawyers or journalists will do their jobs. Please don't confuse doing their work professionally and what they believe in.

OK then.......

[Alan Mendelson]

It's not censorship because that relates only to opinions, not facts. You can't change mathematical facts, Alan. Get used to it. As long as you continue to claim Singer's approach can make a difference you are claiming 2+2 can equal 3 by some magical actions. Like I said, you might as well claim chanting will make a difference. The simple fact you keep denying this truth demonstrates you have been conned. Or, do you think putting up a web page that states 2+2 = 3 is worthwhile reporting?

Gee, Arc, if a year ago I reported that there were some scientists who said you could travel faster than the speed of light, would you be saying the same thing you are saying now?

Take a look at this: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/2195...n-s-theory.htm

[arcimede$]

Gee, Arc, if a year ago I reported that there were some scientists who said you could travel faster than the speed of light, would you be saying the same thing you are saying now?

Take a look at this: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/2195...n-s-theory.htm

You really have no idea do you Alan? The claim that the speed of light is a limiting value is a theory. It is not mathematics. They are two different animals. You can never prove a theory, you can only disprove it. When something is described by math you can PROVE IT. In fact, math is built on proofs. All kinds of them. This is the point. You are treating a proven mathematical construct as if it was theory. That's why I've been telling you that your statements are nonsense. They truly are nonsense in every sense of the word.

So, I have no problem with the potential discovery of faster than light particles (in fact, I'm a skeptic of all kinds of well known theories). It will require refining the THEORY of relativity and many other parts of physics. It will not, however, change one single thing in mathematics.

[Alan Mendelson]

Well, Arc, it all comes down to one thing: Did Rob Singer win a million dollars and how did he do it? If he won a million dollars and he didn't follow "the math" that is a darn good story to tell and to hear about.

I guess you could say it's like "man bites dog."