Well, hold on here. Before we come down on Singer for possibly changing his tune, let's give him a chance to post here himself. Maybe he has changed his strategy? Or maybe we have a case of "Internet telephone" with the message getting changed going through the web. Rob... please explain.
Here's classic Singer from 2008:
" This year I worked very hard
to make $192,000 from the machines and I did it with a combination of bankroll,
knowing expert play and when to deviate from it, understanding how
pre-programmed patterns affect future hand outcomes, how to detect a cold cycle
so I could change machines, and knowing that goals have to be set and adhered to
in order to be a consistent winner. "
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/message/5710
Folks like you - who find it impossible to stay away from the machines
(like your friend Dick, for example, and the Queen & lover, Dancer, and
all the rest of the true addicts on vpFREE who either live in Nv. or go
to those stupid Indian casinos every week) systematically reject the
idea of leaving when ahead because your gambling problems ..... there is no substitute for the
delight of a 4-1/2 hour drive after taking casino money, ie, attaining
the goal."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/message/5384
Oh yeah, here's Singer claiming the math is worthless:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/message/5333
There's a ton more where this stuff came from. If Singer is saying something different today then it's all BS. He's working you guys and laughing at you.
I was going to declare this particular misunderstanding resolved, but I just noticed that you may have imparted additional meaning to what I meant.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I said that the word "Illogical" does not automatically imply the word "wrong", it does not exclude it either. They way you said it, "when you say something is "illogical" it is not wrong", is too strong to the other direction. All derivations are possible.
Logical + Right
Logical + Wrong
Illogical + Right
Illogical + Wrong
Logic tends to fail in situations involving emotional decisions. It is also of no use when personal preference is in play. For instance, I'm not sure there is any logical way to decide what your favorite food is. It is what it is. In other situations logic is the best tool for the job and it is widely accepted that thinking logically is your best bet for making good decisions.
Alan, I know you asked me to come on earlier to explain, but we're in the middle of a whole bunch of things here getting ready to launch off as full-timers in the RV. Healthy lives = healthy futures, if you know what I mean. I've also been staying away due to my ongoing discussions with Frank, and I know he isn't interested in how my name habitually draws in arci and his constant drone of self-confidence building assertions and envy-driven lies. Funny how aggressions are worked out when facing strugglesBut I've read the main point you & Frank are discussing about my play "sessions" and this explanation hopefully brings you two together on it.
The first thing I noticed is you're both not really talking about anything different, but for some reason you slip by each other in your posts. A session for me includes all of the following: the withdrawal of $17,200 from an Az. bank; the drive only to Nevada to play; checking into a Nv. hotel for the duration; starting at $1 BP and continuing up thru $100 machines (inc. withdrawing $40,000 from a local bank at that point) at one or a combination of casinos over the course of from 1 minute to however long it takes to complete a "session" (even if I have to take breaks for meals/sleep, etc.); and finally, the immediate departure from Nv. to my home upon attaining either my win or loss goal.
The win or loss goal: I have a $2500 minimum win goal. Once that minimum win is reached, I'm done for the session and I leave for home immediately. What's the loss goal that will send me home? That's variable, and cannot be determined until the final credit on the $100 machine is played thru. In theory I can lose the entire $57,200, but that has never happened (largest loss ever was ~$34k). Because of all the cashouts into "soft profit" along the way, a losing session can be anywhere from a $5 loss to a $57,200 loss. Or, I can win <$2500 and if I complete my trek thru the 2400 credits, I go home. Strangely, this has never happened, as all winning sessions have seen at least +$2500.
I think this is where the confusion is. You've seen what I do to the letter. However, after a session ends (about 85% have been wins) I can (but never have) start another session right away, in an hour, a day, or whenever. Techincally it makes no difference when I do, but a big part of my strategy includes the mostly celebratory drives home to enjoy the fruits of my labor with my family. I played about 40 times a year the first 5 or 6 years then it tailed off as I developed several new, more enjoyable strategies for the mix. I think where Alan gets away from my strict Single-Play Strategy procedure is when I've talked to him about playing multiple sessions in a weekend or on a visit, because I'm there for a required extended period for whatever reasons outside gambling. But whenever this has occurred, I was ONLY talking about playing my much faster and less stressful/lower denominational RTT & ARTT strategies.
Why arci put up those forum quotes from me as part of this is a mystery, but they hold true today as much as they did in their day. I mean, look at Dancer. I've said I admired his dedication and work ethic many times, but working well into retirement years is not exactly what a successful person does unless they have to. And then....look at poor Dick.
One last point: Alan, I once did a year-long test when I was an AP where I wrote down the frequency of being ahead on a single denomination at any time during play at a given machine and the result was around 90% of the time. That ranged from getting ahead on the very first hand to a few hands or a dozen or more hands in, to after hours of play and finally getting ahead. Of course, more sessions ended up losers than not, but it's part of where I got an idea to develop something that could take advantage of such a situation as much as possible.
Final note tonight: Since we'll be taking off in a few weeks all my e-mail addresses will terminate Sept. 1st. My new one is rob.singer1111@yahoo.com and it's active now.
Last edited by Rob.Singer; 08-19-2011 at 01:22 AM.
Thank you Rob for taking the time to explain to Alan what I had been trying to tell him. I wanted to go on record that my entire discussion on the logic of "quitting when you are ahead" or "leaving when you are ahead" was not directly connected to your system or you in anyway. Somewhere along the line everyone assumed that I was talking directly about your system and I wasn't. It happens that you have a similar concept of win goals (similar, not the same) incorporated into your system, but it was not my intention to involve you or your system in this discussion. And as you have now stated, your decision to go home after reaching your goal is a choice based on preference and not necessarily part of your system. For some reason, when I told him this it was disputed.
I would also like to go on record that I think going home after a win is a perfectly good idea in this scenario. It does not have to be logical, and it does not have to be justified. I'm for anything that gets people out of casinos. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clearer. I got caught up in picking apart the thought process and forgot to mention (enough) that I agreed with the conclusion. Sometimes people make the right decisions for the wrong reasons. and others should leave well enough alone.
Other times people do the wrong things for the right reasons, like me starting this thread. Sorry!
The reason I put up quotes from Singer was simple. To put to bed the question of whether he believes going home after reaching a win-goal was what he has always claimed. Obviously it was and still is. Also note that he used this factor to claim people who did not leave were addicts. Pure nonsense, but that has been his claims for years.
Also note his claims about hot/cold machines, etc. More nonsense. Once you see all the BS he presents it becomes obvious that everything he says is BS ... with a few truths mixed in for good measure. Sorry if that is difficult for some to understand. It is completely obvious to those of us who have dealt with hm for years.
Another example was his claims of winning 70% of his level play at $10 and $25. At any individual level you are playing the equivalent of a single session. To win at that level requires at least a 50% profit (actually more in all cases). For anyone to win at single play 70% of the time is either monstrously lucky or a lie. I'd put the odds at less than .1%. So, you have a person spouting BS, that has been caught at many other lies and brags that he is the best player in the world .... hmmmm, not too hard to figure out what is going on.
Here's more example of Singer's claims. A few years ago he stated his record is 22-8 at the $25 level. Yet he claimed to have only gone above that level 3 times. He also claimed to have lost at the $10 level only 22 times, yet somehow he played at the $25 level 30 times.
These are a couple of the lies that Singer has been caught at while bragging about his results. The list of lies is almost endless. The only logical conclusion is almost every ones of his claims is a lie.
I numbered the only two statements you made that I'd like to comment on.Originally Posted by arcimede$
In reply to 1: I am being offered two divergent view-points your's and Rob's, however the topic at hand is what Rob means and or meant. This leaves me with two choices for who to believe. The person who's words are in dispute, or the opinions of a listener who is telling me what he thinks someone meant by what they said. In these kinds of situations the choice is usually clear. To add to this you have made a statement that you feel Rob is still saying that going home after a win goal is part of his system, when I read the same thing you did and interpreted it exactly opposite.
You are also accounting for only one possible explanation to inaccuracies in things Mr. Singer has said in the past, and that was that he is or was lying. I have misspoke myself so many times, and had people think I was lying or misrepresenting something, when the truth was I was tired and just got it wrong, or remembered something incorrectly until reminded. By offering only one possible solution to a situation that could have multiple explanations you have made a case against yourself for bias. If I was your attorney and defending you in court, I would not put you on the stand. You may be 100% right about everything, but the way you are presenting the information is helping the prosecution.
The more you keep posting negative comments about Singer the more it is helping his case. I'm assuming that is not your intent, so I thought I would point out to you that this is the net result of your efforts. You may wish to rethink your modus operandi.
In reply to 2: You know it really shouldn't be that hard to figure out what's going on here, if I didn't have nearly daily posts from you undermining my efforts, and oddly your own agenda. I really wish you'd step back and let me resume my task of trying to do an impartial analysis of the Singer system, but you seen dead set on muddying the waters and making my job harder than it already was.
And then we have the issue that you have refused to engage in private communication with me, whereas I have an active and friendly dialogue ongoing with your counterpart. This again serves to make you look like the unreasonable one. If you have something to say, email me privately and we can discuss it in a less emotional environment.
As this entire thread I started should make patently clear, I am on the side on math and logic as I believe you are yourself. I'm beginning to feel that old saying, "with friends like you..."
Stop "helping".
P.S. You'll be happy to know that I just watched a documentary on Isac Newton entitled the Dark Heretic. One thing I got out of it is that you can't dismiss things a person says based on whether or not they are nice and you like them. Apparently when he wasn't pushing forward the bounds of science he got off reading about Nuns being tortured. It was a really good show. I recommend it to all parties. In closing, I would like to say that it of course possible for some who is biased to still be right, but when they are obviously (or perceived that way) it only serves to bring into question the veracity of their comments.
Last edited by Frank Kneeland; 08-19-2011 at 10:01 AM.
Bingo!
Remember, you're reading the words of a troubled stalker driven mad with envy, who comments on my play strategy without understand half of what you do thru our discussions--and he's ducked out of meeting with me several times while you have not. He's been all over the forums making up scenarios about his "knowledge" of the strategy and its denominational play for years, and you'll see his frustration grow by leaps & bounds when he realizes his audience isn't buying the nonsense.
Last edited by Rob.Singer; 08-19-2011 at 11:21 AM.
I just have one question please, Rob. Is "leaving" when you reach your win goal of $2500 part of your system or not part of your system?
I was under the impression that your system was dependent on taking a good sized win and leaving because no one is a "long term player" and no one can hope to get the long term results that even full pay or positive expectation machines are supposed to have.
Have I been wrong this entire time?
Yes, leaving as soon as I hit my session's/trip's win goal is as much a part of my play strategy as leaving as soon as I hit my loss goal, the amount of bankroll I use, utilizing special plays that deviate from optimal strategy, only playing it in Nevada is--or any of the other parts are.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Your 2nd para. doesn't seem any different than the first, only it includes the use of the term "long-term". The reason I developed the strategy was because I do not believe in long-term strategy being a viable concept for any entity but the casinos.
I don't see where you are wrong, unless I'm missing something.
Thank you for confirming. Best wishes for your new move!!
Frank, I'm sorry if you think presenting facts is undermining your efforts. I have nothing to hide and I will state my opinion for anyone to read. Personal communications is not required. If you want to ask me a question ... then ask it.
The rest of your comment has nothing to do with anything I have stated. All facts, all verifiable. I believe you are looking for something that does not exist. Validity in Singer's approach. You will never find it because it is nothing but a scam. If making that clear helps his case then so be it, however, I suspect pointing out all his lies does not help his case. And, someone who thinks it does has a strange way of thinking.
Don't stop to look at any windmills on your way.
"troubled stalker driven mad with envy" ... Nice projection there and thank you for providing some more lies for everyone to examine. I can show references to where Singer agreed to meet with me and then backed out. I'd suggest he can't do the same.Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
As for my knowledge of Rob's strategy ... it's based on what he specified on freevpfree. I can also show you the posts where he did it. So, if my knowledge is poor then it's because Rob must have lied. Everything I know about his strategy is based on his own words. Now, go back and read what Singer stated above. Obviously, it is all a bunch of lies.
Bingo!
Waa-waa-waa....poor baby won't sleep tonight because he ran into yet another person who won't believe his lies.
Since you're hanging around your flat now, how about responding to the analysis I did of your system previously. I looked at several of your special plays starting here:Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
http://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/showth...A-Forums/page9
Point out where I made any mistakes since you claim I don't understand your system.
I just want to point out that I am yet to understand and know ALL about Rob's system. We did have Rob explain some of his key examples of "special plays" and those examples with the videos are here on the site for everyone to see.
I've asked Rob to do more videos to explain his betting strategy including his process of increasing the denomination of play, and I also think a full discussion of his decision to leave when he reaches his win goal is also in order.
By the way, for everyone who is not familiar with Rob's win goal of $2,500 -- that is based on the dollar level that he plays at. If you were to play at lower denominations you would adjust your win goal accordingly. And that is what I would like to ask Rob about-- what, for example, would be the win goal of someone who starts at 25-cent video poker? Rob has said he starts at $1 VP and moves up.
Also, is his strategy applicable to players at the 5-cent denominations? I realize that the pay tables at lower denominations (including 25-cent at some casinos) are not favorable but this is also something I would like Rob to comment on.
Perhaps we might discover that when pay tables are very poor that his strategy/system just can't work?
Yup, we're just about outta here and will hit the road on the 2nd. Maybe you and the missus could join us for a few months of hiking, walking, shopping, seeing shows, dining out, and general life-enjoyment since we're both healthy because I learned not to spend my life inside casinos nor drag my wife in when I did?Originally Posted by arcimede$
Arci, you think you know my strategy but you really have no clue. You have little insight as to the details that change holds around in every game and in every denomination. If you didn't choose to be afraid to show up and meet me those time perhaps you might input posts based on educated knowledge rather than guesses. Just like the story of your life, you kinda missed the boat on it.
A bigger issue here is, well, why are you even involved in what these guys are discussing? I understand the boredom, the lonliness and the despair. But everybody has things to deal with, and your curse came about because of your compulsion to spend every dying moment of what remains to your life, on video poker.
Alan: You are correct in that a strategy that includes 1c/2c/5c/10c/25c/$1 would perform just as my denominations have performed--with a possible slight change in amount of time needed to attain the win goal of $25 because of possible lower paytables at those denominations. But I have not ever done anything with any other denominational spread.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I've played 6/5 BP, 7/5 DDB, 7/5 SDBP etc. and again, paytables make little to no difference in how my strategy will perform. I always look for and play the best possible tables where I am staying/playing, but the foremost determinant is always just that: where I am staying.
OK. While I was snoozing there have been a lot of posts. I'm going in order. The reason you and Arci are getting confused is that you are looking at what Rob has been saying and I am going deeper and asking him questions about his reasoning behind what he has been saying. It is true that he has said that he leaves after reaching his win goal. It is true he has said that he feels this is a good idea. I also think that this is good advice in this situation.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I am calling his betting progression "his system". It is based on various levels of internal logic and reasoning that I cannot refute or confirm at this time.
His suggestion to leave after reaching a win goal is just that, a suggestion and not directly included under the same umbrella of thought that his system is lounging.
Look at it like this: I detailed how my team played progressives in my book. Also, I have always advocated drinking a glass of red wine with meals. They are both things I have said, and they are both things I recommend. One is based on math, the other is second hand advice I picked up from doctors. They are related in the fact that they are both things I say to do. Both the sources of information, and the type of information they represent are completely different. Drinking wine with meals is not part of my system. In my case it is easy to spot the devision because some of the advice is on video poker and the other advice is dietary related.
With Rob it is harder to spot the devision between his advice and his system, because the two unrelated pieces of information are on the same subject.
When I asked him if one could do multiple "sessions" in a single casino visit he answered, "yes, but I choose not to".
Apparently, the reason why I'm the only one this is obvious to is because I always look at reasoning chains and don't stop at end result. You are all so focused on "what" has been said, no one is looking at "why".
To me "why" is the most important question.
~FK
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote