Setting Win Limitations

[Frank Kneeland]

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.

When I posted my comment to Arci I had the same intention I do for all my posts. To help him. Sometimes when one is too close to a problem, it is hard for them to see certain aspects of the situation like how their efforts are having an effect contrary to their intent.

You have made several inferences as to Arci's motives. I would recommend against this, as neither of us is qualified to make such judgments. Here are the facts as I see them:

1. Arci is very much against you and your system
2. His efforts to nay-say you are helping your case

In keeping with my help-people-achieve-their-goals-life-theme, here I am trying to help Arci nay-say you better. Currently, I believe his efforts to be sub-optimal.

[Frank Kneeland]

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.

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.

Rob you are going to confuse the poor boy. Can I reprint your email to me when I asked you about playing multiple "session" in a single trip?

Plus, I can already see avenues for additional confusion with the inclusion of additional phrases such as "play strategy" vs "system".

[arcimede$]

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?

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.

Bottom line ... he has nothing. He has no examples of where I don't understand his system nor can he specify where I avoided meeting him. In other words, he admits his statements were complete lies but repeats them. This is the Singer that Alan and Frank believe has been honest with them. LOL.

[Frank Kneeland]

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.

Yes, I'm sorry as well. But not for the same reasons. You have no idea what I'm doing, or why I'm doing it, and as it is not appropriate for public forum, you will continue to make your judgments on less than 10% of the full story...and apparently you are fine with that. Your attitude that if I have something to say, it should be said publicly, is going to severely hamper our communication, because I was raised by an English mother and don't consider a lot of things fit for public consumption.

I wish you well in all your endeavors. If you'd like to talk my email box is always open.

P.S. And BTW I happen to like windmills...you should see then in Holland and Netherlands with all the poppies.

[Rob.Singer]

Rob you are going to confuse the poor boy. Can I reprint your email to me when I asked you about playing multiple "session" in a single trip?

Plus, I can already see avenues for additional confusion with the inclusion of additional phrases such as "play strategy" vs "system".

Yes--whatever will help!

[arcimede$]

You have made several inferences as to Arci's motives. I would recommend against this, as neither of us is qualified to make such judgments. Here are the facts as I see them:

1. Arci is very much against you and your system
2. His efforts to nay-say you are helping your case

Frank, obviously you have not paid attention to my statements in the past. I have nothing against Rob's system. While overly complex and clearly meant to confuse people, a progression simply increases variance. It is his CLAIMS that are the problem. Since no betting system can change the return of a game, the system is meaningless to ones expectation. However, Singer CLAIMS his special plays improve his changes of winning. He CLAIMS playing lower ER games is of no consequence. He CLAIMS no one can win using optimal play strategies. etc.

How many times do I have to repeat this?

[Rob.Singer]

Bottom line ... he has nothing. He has no examples of where I don't understand his system nor can he specify where I avoided meeting him. In other words, he admits his statements were complete lies but repeats them. This is the Singer that Alan and Frank believe has been honest with them. LOL.

I guess you don't listen to Frank on here just like what I just read again on vp.com about you not believing him regarding the guy in the wheelchair. Did you get the hint here yet that you and your disruptions & lies are being asked to disappear? Or....do you just have (sniffle sniffle) nothing else to do?

[Alan Mendelson]

Frank, obviously you have not paid attention to my statements in the past. I have nothing against Rob's system. While overly complex and clearly meant to confuse people, a progression simply increases variance. It is his CLAIMS that are the problem. Since no betting system can change the return of a game, the system is meaningless to ones expectation. However, Singer CLAIMS his special plays improve his changes of winning. He CLAIMS playing lower ER games is of no consequence. He CLAIMS no one can win using optimal play strategies. etc.

How many times do I have to repeat this?

And indeed Arc, this is the essence of the discussion. As I understand (and I approached this as a journalist, without a horse in the race) Rob's feeling is that no one is a long term player and no one will see the long term results promised by the paytables. Hence, his strategy to maximize the chance (he calls luck) that by diverting from the (let me use the term) "conventional play" that you could get a big win that would put you ahead.

The real question is can this diversion from conventional play pay off and make you a winner?

Regarding the part of his system or strategy (I dont know what term to use now?) that when you have a profit and leave follows that it is better to leave with the money so you can play again another time -- because you will never win if you just keep playing.

And Rob, I hope I have that correct?

And Frank, I started this entire process of trying to find out about Rob's system/strategy because it had been discussed so much on the web, but no where could I find a full explanation about it. Even Rob's own books don't go into detail about, nor did his website. I was hoping to finally lay it out on my website for all to see and come to their own conclusions about it.

[Frank Kneeland]

Bottom line ... he has nothing. He has no examples of where I don't understand his system nor can he specify where I avoided meeting him. In other words, he admits his statements were complete lies but repeats them. This is the Singer that Alan and Frank believe has been honest with them. LOL.

I have never made any comments one way or the other as to the honesty of Singer's statements or the man. I have never called him lier. I have never called him a compulsive truth teller. I just don't make comments like that about anyone.

What worries me is that you are making comments about "what I believe" as though you were a better authority on the contents of my mind than I am. Not a good precedent to set.

Once again this hurts your case, and helps Rob.

Is that really your secret goal? To help make Rob's case for him by making the opposition seem unreasonable. If it is, it's working.

I would ask one favor. In the future please fell free to quote me as much as you like, but do not make inferences about what I believe, which in this case would be what you think I believe. And if you would like clarification on why I said something I said, email me and just ask. I am not a 2000 year dead profit who's original words have to be translated from Aramaic and then interpreted. I'm right here and only an email away.

[Frank Kneeland]

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.

The one I had in email wasn't as good as what you said back on page 8 when you first chimed in. It was apparently ignored. We also discussed this in person at the Silverton, but I don't have a transcript. You clearly state here, "I can (but never have) started another session right away." Alan seems to only hear you when you say something that agrees with his beliefs. He really wants to leave ahead and is apparently using the fact that "you said to" as a justification. I find this distressing. He is one of your biggest supporters and even he is taking you out of context. We all have a little "hearing what we want to" going on in our heads, but it is really important that we fight this natural human instinct.

Alan should not need another person to have said something to justify his desires. To Alan: if you want to leave after a big win, leave. It is not necessary for you to do so because "Rob said so". He has his own reasons for leaving, you are not him.

[Frank Kneeland]

Frank, obviously you have not paid attention to my statements in the past. I have nothing against Rob's system. While overly complex and clearly meant to confuse people, a progression simply increases variance. It is his CLAIMS that are the problem. Since no betting system can change the return of a game, the system is meaningless to ones expectation. However, Singer CLAIMS his special plays improve his changes of winning. He CLAIMS playing lower ER games is of no consequence. He CLAIMS no one can win using optimal play strategies. etc.

How many times do I have to repeat this?

Once will be sufficient. I'll incorporate this into my knowledge base. Thanks!

[arcimede$]

Yes, I'm sorry as well. But not for the same reasons. You have no idea what I'm doing, or why I'm doing it, and as it is not appropriate for public forum, you will continue to make your judgments on less than 10% of the full story...and apparently you are fine with that. Your attitude that if I have something to say, it should be said publicly, is going to severely hamper our communication, because I was raised by an English mother and don't consider a lot of things fit for public consumption.

Well, it's nice you admit you have ulterior motives. Can't say as I care one iota. Is it similar to asking questions on LVA, etc. where you already know the answer? Some might find that kind of activity arrogant without stating your goals ahead of time. But, maybe that's just me ... to each their own.

The problem here is I already know enough about Singer and his system to pass judgement. You can do whatever you wish, but don't expect me to stand around listening to you preach to me. Good grief.

[Frank Kneeland]

Regarding the part of his system or strategy (I dont know what term to use now?) that when you have a profit and leave follows that it is better to leave with the money so you can play again another time -- because you will never win if you just keep playing.

And now we have come full circle back to the entire point of this thread.

How is, "leaving with the money so you can play again another time" different from, "just keep playing". And how does it shield you from, "never wining if you just keep playing".

If you leave and play again another day, it is functionally the same as continuing to play. Rob was quite clear to me that he believes each hand to be an independent and unrelated event. Therefore the duration of time between hands is irrelevant. 1 second. 1 minute. 1 hour. 1 year. The longer you wait between plays the slower things will take their course. Nothing else changes.

This from a recent email with Rob: "OK. And this is always the #1 issue when I discuss my approach on forums. You know how any one hand is unrelated to any other? ~RS" Rob also said about 7 posts back that he occasionally breaks up "sessions" with rest or breaks. Guess you missed that.

If you want to prove to me that leaving after a win and going home to wait to play another day, is different from hitting a big win and pausing for 1 second between hands, you are going to have to tell me how the machine knows the difference and what magical effect you think a night under your own roof has on the big picture.

~FK

P.S. And once again I better state that I'm not against the practice. I'm only against people doing it for contrived reasons, which add to the self delusion already so rampant in casinos.

Go home because you want to. Not because you have convinced yourself that it has some magical effect on your play...or because it is part of someone else's strategy. Go home take a break, but if you ever return you never really left.

[arcimede$]

And indeed Arc, this is the essence of the discussion. As I understand (and I approached this as a journalist, without a horse in the race) Rob's feeling is that no one is a long term player and no one will see the long term results promised by the paytables. Hence, his strategy to maximize the chance (he calls luck) that by diverting from the (let me use the term) "conventional play" that you could get a big win that would put you ahead.

The real question is can this diversion from conventional play pay off and make you a winner?

No, it cannot and that is as simple as it gets, Alan.

The math does not lie as I've told you dozens of times. Quitting while ahead is fine (especially if you are playing negative games) but it won't change a thing. As Frank has shown you, it is simply a feel good practice. You will approach the return of the games you play using the strategy you employ.

I realize you're just as unlikely to believe this now since you've chosen to ignore these facts in the past. You might as believe in Santa. You are using the same logic.

[arcimede$]

I have never made any comments one way or the other as to the honesty of Singer's statements or the man. I have never called him lier. I have never called him a compulsive truth teller. I just don't make comments like that about anyone.

What worries me is that you are making comments about "what I believe" as though you were a better authority on the contents of my mind than I am. Not a good precedent to set.

Nope, I've simply repeated things you've already stated previously.

Once again this hurts your case, and helps Rob.

I don't have a "case". I simply state facts. Now it appears you are "making comments about what I believe".

Is that really your secret goal? To help make Rob's case for him by making the opposition seem unreasonable. If it is, it's working.

What evidence do you have to support this conjecture?

I would ask one favor. In the future please fell free to quote me as much as you like, but do not make inferences about what I believe, which in this case would be what you think I believe. And if you would like clarification on why I said something I said, email me and just ask. I am not a 2000 year dead profit who's original words have to be translated from Aramaic and then interpreted. I'm right here and only an email away.

I think I can understand the things you have written. Maybe you need to go back and look at what you have written. But hey, feel free to point out where I have stated you wrote something that you haven't previously written.

[Rob.Singer]

Well here he is again, trying to make non-believers believe he's a know-it-all and getting hot under the collar because people smarter than him aren't buying his BS.

Arci, keep it up--please! All you're doing is exposing yourself further and burying yourself with every post. (Oops!--maybe I shouldn't have used the word "bury"

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, would you please, once and for all, set ME straight about your win goal and your decision to leave the casino.

Frank, I'm just trying to report -- I am not trying to see things in a way that fits my belief.

Back to Rob-- do you leave when you hit your win goal or do you stick around to play another session on that same trip?

I ask this because of Frank's comment... and have you told him that you remain to play for another session in the same trip even after hitting your win goal?

The comment from Frank above:

If you leave and play again another day, it is functionally the same as continuing to play. Rob was quite clear to me that he believes each hand to be an independent and unrelated event. Therefore the duration of time between hands is irrelevant. 1 second. 1 minute. 1 hour. 1 year. The longer you wait between plays the slower things will take their course. Nothing else changes.

This from a recent email with Rob: "OK. And this is always the #1 issue when I discuss my approach on forums. You know how any one hand is unrelated to any other? ~RS" Rob also said about 7 posts back that he occasionally breaks up "sessions" with rest or breaks. Guess you missed that.

If you want to prove to me that leaving after a win and going home to wait to play another day, is different from hitting a big win and pausing for 1 second between hands, you are going to have to tell me how the machine knows the difference and what magical effect you think a night under your own roof has on the big picture.

~FK

[arcimede$]

Well here he is again, trying to make non-believers believe he's a know-it-all and getting hot under the collar because people smarter than him aren't buying his BS.

Arci, keep it up--please! All you're doing is exposing yourself further and burying yourself with every post. (Oops!--maybe I shouldn't have used the word "bury"

"hot under the collar" ... looks like another projection. Keep it up, it's humorous to see you sweat.

BTW, still waiting for you to list one example where I misunderstand your system. I know, I won't get a response. But, I just love to demonstrate you will lie about almost anything.

[Rob.Singer]

What was that word.....oh yeah--BURY! wink wink / Boo-hoo-hoo

I know I know, just like on Rex you're trying not to show any emotion over it. Me either--I just like getting under your skin a little more, that's all!

Now the example: I'll give you an easy one. Explain this important detail: There is a time when I will not go to the $100 machines after going thru the $25 games. Name it.

[Rob.Singer]

Rob, would you please, once and for all, set ME straight about your win goal and your decision to leave the casino.

Back to Rob-- do you leave when you hit your win goal or do you stick around to play another session on that same trip?

I ask this because of Frank's comment... and have you told him that you remain to play for another session in the same trip even after hitting your win goal?

Alan: If you're only talking about my Single-Play Strategy, no, I never have stuck around to play another session. If you're talking about RTT or ARTT--both of which Frank has no knowledge of and probably has never heard of)--where the win goals are anywhere from $100 to $1000, yes, I have many times played multiple sessions on the same trip.

The part about breaking up sessions for rests or meals, etc.: Yes, that applies to any of my strategies, and I will always pick up exactly where I left off when I get back to the machine.

Alan--Call me if you still have a question on this. I've got a lot to get done between the house and here and besides, now that Arci found a new person to hate in Frank and the fact that he has nothing left to do but be ridiculed for the foreseeable future, I'll let you guys have all the fun!