Testing Rob Singer's Theories

[redietz]

Alan has some free play and has suggested trying Rob singer's video poker play theories with his free play. Here's my idea:

Rob will give various sets of instructions for different denominations and various machines. Get his instructions, step by step, for the amount of free play you intend to use. Then print out those steps on paper and make a few copies.

Go exactly by Rob's instructions to you for the first go round. Record the results. When you get a second batch of free play, take the instructions Rob gave you, cut them up so that one step is on each piece of paper, then jumble them together in a hat, and draw out the instructions in an out-of-order sequence. Follow those instructions, and record your results. Then each time you get free play, put the pieces of paper back in the hat and redraw them out, making sure you have them in a different order. Record the results.

See if, over a span of 15 or 20 attempts, Rob's actual instructions outperform his instructions cut up and put in a different order.

Also, Part Two of the project could involve various forum members submitting their own methods of play and denomination switching and so on. Label each forum member's instructions, then follow them, then compare them to the Singer recommendations.

Not very scientific, but simulations seem to not convince some people of anything, so perhaps some real life testing and comparisons would be fun and enlightening.

[Alan Mendelson]

redietz if you alter Rob's instructions in any way then it is not a valid test of Rob's instructions or strategies -- period.

I am willing to test Rob's instructions with my $325 of free play (or less, if he says $200 works for a particular strategy).

But keep in mind I have had a range of results using conventional strategy. As I have posted, with $325 of free play (and that amount can also vary) I have "cashed out" from $200 to $400 in various sessions (not counting the two times in five years of play when I got really lucky and hit $4,000 royals).

If Rob's strategy also falls into the range of $200 to $400 then it is no better and no worse than the conventional strategy I've been using.

[redietz]

I'm not suggesting altering Rob's strategies as a test of his strategies. I'm suggesting testing random sequences of Rob's strategies AGAINST the suggested sequence of his strategies. If the random sequences perform as well as his sequenced strategies, then clearly the sequence of what he recommends doesn't matter. If we round up other contributors' strategies, and other people's strategies perform as well as his strategies, then clearly the strategies are nothing special. If, on the other hand, Rob's sequenced strategy outperforms a random sequence of his steps, then the sequence he recommends matters. And if his strategies outperform other people's recommended strategies, then we have indications that his strategies have real value.

This is very simple. I wonder why nobody suggested this before.

[Alan Mendelson]

Again, I don't think you can test particular sequences. If I recall, Rob uses not only changing denominations and games but also cashing out "soft profits" which I think negates testing any particular section or sequence.

If you test the special plays, for example, what is your standard? According to the math, they would all fail, wouldn't they? Yet, Rob says his special plays open the door to big wins that conventional plays don't give you.

I think the only valid test of Rob's system is to test his system to the letter by many players over many hands and then to compare with some standard play.

Rob, what would be a valid test of your system?

[synergistic]

I think what I don't get is how Rob knows his particular sequence(s) is(are) sound, given that he seems to deliberately avoid any statistical/mathematical grounds to support it(them.) I'm even willing to work on the assumption that I fully believe it's actually always worked out for him. What I can't seem to make myself believe is that his system can possibly do anything more than increase the chances of being a winner - I don't really think any system can actually overcome EV long term, despite luck allowing any system to be profitable in real life.

I should say here that plenty of "systems" that turn negative games into positive plays - but I think that's all based on casino response to your play, which is seemingly just gravy for Rob's systems.

[Alan Mendelson]

I reject all but a few of his special plays. I like the idea of holding only 3 aces and dropping the full house when you are deep in a hole and need AAAA to bail you out. I've actually done it -- ONCE -- and I got lucky and hit quad aces playing 8-5 Aces and Faces. But I did it that one time BECAUSE I was in a deep hole and NEEDED the quad aces desperately.

I never understood his other systems which is why I started this thread. I am willing to use my $325 of free play to try it out. As I've said before, my "personal expectation" for that $325 of free play is to walk out of the casino with somewhere between $200 and $400 in cash. If Rob's system(s) can get me the same thing I'd be perfectly happy with that. But I'll never know unless I try.

The other part of his strategy that I fully embrace is the use of win goals and loss limits. Yell at me all you want about win goals and loss limits not applying to positive expectation games -- but I will still use them because I don't believe there is any guarantee in anything including positive expectation games.

[Dan Druff]

I understand what Rob is trying to do.

Rob is saying that VP is a -EV game, and if you play it normally in the mathematically correct way, you will assure yourself a loss in the long run. While the mathematical optimal play will lose you the least over a large number of hands, you will still surely lose.

Instead, Rob wants to to shoot for the big payouts and play suboptimally overall, thus giving you a chance to come out an overall winner if you manage to get lucky.

Rob's strategies are an extension of VP tournament strategy. At a tournament, you will almost never win just grinding optimal play. Instead, you need to play with the highest chance of hitting huge hands, even if your overall EV drops. Basically tournament strategy tries to introduce the most variance possible, so this way you will win if you land on the extreme plus side of the variance.

Rob applies this thinking to cash play.

In one way, he's correct. If your goal is to play VP and win in the long term, you need to adjust to his strategies.

However, on average, people engaging in his strategies will LOSE more than someone playing mathematically optimal strategy. That is, if you had 1000 players using Rob's strategies and 1000 players using math strategies, and added up the wins and losses for all 1000 players on each side, over 1.000,000 hands each, the "math" players would come out with more money combined.

However, the math players would also all show losses (barring perhaps a few super-lucky ones), while Rob's players would have more individuals showing profit.

That's what everyone needs to understand.

On average, you will lose more playing like Rob, but the upside is that his strategies give you a higher chance to be ahead after a large number of hands if you get really lucky.

[Alan Mendelson]

Dan you summed it up well. The "vp tournament" analogy is also spot-on and has been mentioned. In fact, you would want to use his special plays in a tournament, just as Bob Dancer has suggested making long shot draws for a royal in a tournament.

[redietz]

I don't think the non-optimal holds for tournament strategy is much of a secret. I think the majority of people playing in vp tournaments use some special holds to try to hit the big hands.

I think the actual value to what Rob does lies in the subsidiary aspects -- namely, players may play fewer hands while playing negative games and may get categorized as wild and crazy players because of their denomination switching and playing less-than-optimal games, which may boost their comp ratings beyond what optimal players would get in offers. The better comp categorization may very well overcome the slight difference in return due to sub optimal play, which is really only a tenth of a percentage point at worst.

[Alan Mendelson]

But Rob does not use comps so why would he care about a better comp rating?

Besides, video poker "comps" are based on a combination of total coin-in and the pay table. A player playing 8/5 Double Double Bonus will receive offers better than a player who plays 8/5 Bonus or 9/6 Jacks given the same amount of coin-in.

[Dan Druff]

I don't think the non-optimal holds for tournament strategy is much of a secret. I think the majority of people playing in vp tournaments use some special holds to try to hit the big hands.

I think the actual value to what Rob does lies in the subsidiary aspects -- namely, players may play fewer hands while playing negative games and may get categorized as wild and crazy players because of their denomination switching and playing less-than-optimal games, which may boost their comp ratings beyond what optimal players would get in offers. The better comp categorization may very well overcome the slight difference in return due to sub optimal play, which is really only a tenth of a percentage point at worst.

I don't believe VP machines or rewards programs can differentiate between an optimal VP player and a suboptimal one.

[Count Room]

Besides, video poker "comps" are based on a combination of total coin-in and the pay table. A player playing 8/5 Double Double Bonus will receive offers better than a player who plays 8/5 Bonus or 9/6 Jacks given the same amount of coin-in.

I can see where this may be true with you, Dan, and others playing a lot at Caesars properties, but other casino chains can treat this differently. I've had very good offers playing the best paytables in the casino (99.1-99.8%) so long as I play the higher denominations on the machines for at least a couple hours.

[redietz]

Let's be clear. First, what other people derive as a benefit from following Rob Singer's "strategies" may not be the same benefit(s) Rob Singer derives. Second, Rob publicly claiming he doesn't care about comps doesn't mean he won't or doesn't use his comps. He clearly enjoys using his comps on occasion, and has used them many times in the past.

As to the second part, video poker comps are not as crystal clear, hard-and-fast as you think, Alan. It's not all CET, first of all, and Rob's propensity to play wildly varying amounts in varying places undoubtedly lures marketing into taking risks with him, depending on the property.

[redietz]

It's not so much the suboptimal elements as the style of play, which is rare. The denomination swings are rare. The occasional monster loss undoubtedly stays in systems records forever and colors his profile.

[Alan Mendelson]

I can see where this may be true with you, Dan, and others playing a lot at Caesars properties, but other casino chains can treat this differently. I've had very good offers playing the best paytables in the casino (99.1-99.8%) so long as I play the higher denominations on the machines for at least a couple hours.

But this is exactly what I said:

video poker "comps" are based on a combination of total coin-in and the pay table. A player playing 8/5 Double Double Bonus will receive offers better than a player who plays 8/5 Bonus or 9/6 Jacks given the same amount of coin-in.

Comps on machines are pretty much the same wherever you play. If there are differences, it is with table play.

And if you look at some of Rob's "special plays" on my website you will see that there isn't a big difference in percentages from "optimal play" in many of the hands.

But Rob's strategy is a lot more than special plays. And that's not what I am interested in. I am interested in his strategy that involves changing games and denominations and banking "soft profits."

[Count Room]

But this is exactly what I said:



Comps on machines are pretty much the same wherever you play. If there are differences, it is with table play.

First off, Dan is right that how you play a game will not be recorded for comps or offers. Only the "theoretical loss" is factored in many places, and sometimes actual loss on any given session is used in the comp formulas for mailers as well. A couple of casinos I frequent do not make this distinction, so I try my best at the good paytables in light of that.

[Alan Mendelson]

sometimes actual loss on any given session is used in the comp formulas for mailers as well.

Good point.

But I don't think this has anything to do with the "effectiveness" or "winnability" of Rob Singer's strategies???

I don't play with any strategy for comps. I play to win, and whatever comps come along is the gravy.

So... getting back to the main question: how do we test Rob's strategies? And I would like to hear from Rob about what he would constitute to be a fair test?

I am willing to use my $325 of free play as part of a test, but first I would like to know how to play it so it can be part of a test. And this was my question in the other thread.

[RS__]

AAA vs FH....AAA is the proper play in DB, DDB, SDDB, and probably every other variants he plays [idk which he plays though]. This is no "special" play.

What I don't understand is why anyone would want to test Rob's system with real money. What I would love to know is the probability of failure and probability of success, and how much you lose (average?) on a failure and how much you win (average) on a successful trip. I have a feeling Rob either doesn't know the answer....or he knows the answer but won't say what it is because he knows it's a negative system...just like the martingale or any other progression/regression system.

[Alan Mendelson]

RS__ Rob says when you have AAA vs FH it is one of his special plays in 7/5 Bonus Poker. Please see #14 here: http://alanbestbuys.com/id194.html

In my case -- ONE TIME -- I used it in 8/5 because I was in a big hole. And the quad ace hit.

Regarding your comment about testing his system with "real money." You're right of course. You can test it on a computer program too.

But the special plays (you can see all the videos for his major special plays starting here: http://alanbestbuys.com/id194.html) are only PART of his strategies. They get all the attention because they are the easiest to understand.

I still want to give it a try using the free play -- but you're right -- I wouldn't want to take money out of my wallet to try and that's because I know that with $325 of free play I should be able to cash out $200 to $400.

I should add this: Rob did write an article (see: http://alanbestbuys.com/id261.html) about his system but it was for a starting bankroll in excess of $57,000 with a win goal of $2,500. What I have is a bankroll of $325 to try it.

[seemoreroyals]

Rob, you certainly have a lot to feed on when you check in and respond to your critics. I still don't understand why many of you view free play at the casino any different than you do your own money. Let's say you arrive at a casino with $500 free play and $500 cash for a total bankroll of $1000. I guess I look at my free play differently than most people do. In this example, the first thing I would do is run my free play through the machine or machines and launder it into real money. Once I have laundered all my free play I usually count up the tickets and go turn them into cash. The results would be the same if I had stuck 5 $100 bills in the machine instead of 5 $100 free play vouchers.

I usually play in $500 bankroll increments whether it be cash, free play, or a combination. It is nice when I have a session where the casino fronts all or part of my bankroll but my results are the same. The only difference is that either I win more money or lose less to the extent that my bankroll was provided to me by the casino via free play.

BTW, I value Rob's contributions here. It is certainly a lot more interesting when he is on here participating. I think deep down he is genuinely trying to help people get better results. I am going to give his system a try when we get to Tahoe in a couple of days. Don't know if I will use any of his special plays but I am going to do the 100 credits quarter BP, 150 credit fifty cent BP, 200 credit $1 BP, going back to quarters any time I lock in a $25 soft profit. I am skeptical that the results will be any different than the way I normally play but I guess we will see. If I get lucky and hit a royal or have a nice run of 4oak's or string a bunch of straights/flushes/full houses together I may play this way my whole trip. If not I will go back to the way I normally play.