Bob Yodeler -- Lifetime Video Poker Winner

[redietz]

Something just occurred to me. Rob says that all "advantage video poker players" are losers.

I'm ahead lifetime playing video poker. I've never hit a jackpot over $1000. Yet I'm ahead after 25 years. Now admittedly, I play just 40-50 hours a year, but I imagine it probably counts for something in the grand scheme of things that I'm ahead.

So the question I have for forum readers is: should I claim to be an advantage player who is ahead, or should I concoct some reason that I'm ahead? I'm thinking I wear special blue shirts that pick up on the vibe of the machines and massage them into winners. Or maybe I could become a spokesperson for those copper bracelets or wrist wrap thingies. You know, "I win with copper," or something like that. I could conceivably sell a lot of shirts or copper.

I would hate to claim to be an advantage player and thereby blow another hole in Rob's theories about advantage players. So maybe copper is the way to go.

Let me know your thoughts.

[coach belly]

should I claim to be an advantage player who is ahead

You've already claimed plenty that you haven't bothered to verify...you and mickey crimm both.

Somebody like arcimede$ would just say..."either prove it or you are lying".

So why ask forum members what they think? Claim whatever you want...just like you've always done.

[arcimede$]

Somebody like arcimede$ would just say..."either prove it or you are lying".

Nope. More silly lies. Neither Mickey or Red have claimed they can overcome well known mathematics. They have nothing to prove. Singer is the only one making exceptional claims. With exceptional claims comes a need to provide proof. Now, run back into whatever hole you crawled out of. Your lying is getting silly.

[Alan Mendelson]

I'm ahead lifetime playing video poker. I've never hit a jackpot over $1000. Yet I'm ahead after 25 years. Now admittedly, I play just 40-50 hours a year, but I imagine it probably counts for something in the grand scheme of things that I'm ahead.

Because you only play 40-50 hours a year, and you are ahead in your lifetime, you might have unknowingly PROVED one of Rob Singer's strategies: quitting when ahead.

[Alan Mendelson]

Nope. More silly lies. Neither Mickey or Red have claimed they can overcome well known mathematics. They have nothing to prove. Singer is the only one making exceptional claims. With exceptional claims comes a need to provide proof. Now, run back into whatever hole you crawled out of. Your lying is getting silly.

I'm not sure your conclusion is correct here. I don't think Rob said he "overcomes" mathematics. His explains his "special plays" always in reference to mathematics and notes that his "special plays" are at a theoretical disadvantage. What makes Rob's strategies different is that he quits when ahead, and uses special plays trying to get the "big wins." Watch the videos and read the text: they give the math of conventional strategy and the math disadvantage that his special plays have.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan you've got that entirely right. I'm not beating mathematics or even the machines, which naturally are based 100% on mathematics only (assuming they are never biased, which is interesting but I've always identified my winning AND MY PLAY STRATEGY as being based only on randomness from the machines).

My winning is first a matter of having good luck, and because of my increasing denomination & game volatility along with using strategic special plays, good luck has both more opportunity to appear as well as more meaning when it appears. Couple that with a strict, structured strategy that is totally bound by win & loss goals using a large session bankroll to realize a relatively simple 5% win, and the term "quitting when ahead" can easily lead critics down the wrong path of thinking I'm destroying their sacred mathematics.

[redietz]

You've already claimed plenty that you haven't bothered to verify...you and mickey crimm both.

Somebody like arcimede$ would just say..."either prove it or you are lying".

So why ask forum members what they think? Claim whatever you want...just like you've always done.

Help me out here, coach. What exactly have I claimed? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Rob.Singer]

I think he's saying "prove yourself" a lifetime vp winner. But this thought may be going out on a limb.

[redietz]

Let's let coach tell me what I've claimed. As to the video poker, yeah, I'm ahead -- enough for a used car. If anybody wants to set up a polygraph challenge, I'm cool with that. Are you, Rob? And no fair with the non-professional/professional/non-professional weirdness. Let's see who's ahead lifetime (as in full lifetime) with a polygraph. It'll make great tv.

[Rob.Singer]

Red, all that fascination with the polygraph being the end-all in winning vs. losing truth is on the same inconclusive, nonsense level that "AP's" give when you ask them to prove they win: "why....The MATH says I should!"

The only way to prove any particular system "works" in a positive way is to witness the player play for several months every day, as it pertains to the so-called AP--and for at least 10 sessions when it comes to my strategy. This is what you're facing when it comes to winning or losing.

[RS__]

Alan you've got that entirely right. I'm not beating mathematics or even the machines, which naturally are based 100% on mathematics only (assuming they are never biased, which is interesting but I've always identified my winning AND MY PLAY STRATEGY as being based only on randomness from the machines).

My winning is first a matter of having good luck, and because of my increasing denomination & game volatility along with using strategic special plays, good luck has both more opportunity to appear as well as more meaning when it appears. Couple that with a strict, structured strategy that is totally bound by win & loss goals using a large session bankroll to realize a relatively simple 5% win, and the term "quitting when ahead" can easily lead critics down the wrong path of thinking I'm destroying their sacred mathematics.

Interesting.

[coach belly]

Let's let coach tell me what I've claimed.

You've claimed to be a winning gambler...overall...lifetime.

Care to prove it via tax forms...like arcimede$?

Do we need a challenge?

[redietz]

A polygraph challenge certainly seems like it would be good television. Alan could film Rob and myself getting all wired up. Seems like a reasonable challenge.

[coach belly]

A polygraph challenge certainly seems like it would be good television. Alan could film Rob and myself getting all wired up. Seems like a reasonable challenge.

Rob already has made a bunch of videos with Alan.

Send a link to yours...whatever is out there...with or without Alan.

[redietz]

We've gone over this, coach. A link to my what? Not everybody gets on forums and blabs, blabs, blabs. Not everybody uses their own websites as infomercials. For the record, I'm a humble sports writer.

[coach belly]

We've gone over this, coach. A link to my what? Not everybody gets on forums and blabs, blabs, blabs. Not everybody uses their own websites as infomercials. For the record, I'm a humble sports writer.

You have over 1950 posts on this forum alone...no shortage of blabbing from you I see, and I'll bet this isn't your first rodeo.

Send a link to your sports writings...let's see if you are what you claim.

[Dan Druff]

An actual AP who plays enough (to overcome variance) and properly analyzes each spot WILL end up winning.

The APs who end up losing are either underbankrolled, playing too little to beat variance, or believing they have an edge when they really don't.

As I've said before, Rob's special plays are good advice for the one-time video poker player who wants to increase his odds of a big win, at the expense of a little overall EV.

In summary:

Mathematical plays: Grinds out hands at the lowest possible theoretical loss, but will usually result in a loss after a lot of hands played.

Rob's plays: Will lose MORE on average than the math plays, but will increase your chances of having a lucky win.

In short, Rob's plays are increasing variance at the expense of expected return.

The problem here is that Rob claims to have used his plays consistently for 10 years, and made a million dollars doing so. I can't see how such luck could hold up, as Rob's strategies in long term VP play will end up with a WORSE loss than the math plays, since you get closer and closer to expectation with more hands played.

[redietz]

To be honest, Rob Singer is why I have 1950 posts on this forum. He fits the classic profile of paranormal claimants, and I find the way people react to him fascinating. If you plug in "clairvoyant" or "telepath" for "non-math-based video poker winner," you realize it's all the same process. His claims, his personality, the reaction to criticism, even the self-promoting use of phrases like "the critics," it's just all textbook. It's beautiful stuff. We all "want to believe." Unfortunately, the storyline gets so messy and contradictory (two RVs and all that), that it's getting a little threadbare in spots.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob already has made a bunch of videos with Alan.

Send a link to yours...whatever is out there...with or without Alan.

My videos with Rob do not prove he's won anything. They only explain his strategies.

[Alan Mendelson]

Redietz what's your secret that made you a lifetime video poker winner? If you bought a used car playing 25-cent video poker, why couldn't Rob buy an RV playing $5, $10, $25 video poker? "Inquiring minds want to know."