Why try Rob Singer's strategy?

[RS__]

Why would I try Rob's strategies? What I'm doing already works and I make more money than I would playing Rob's strategies (with significantly-less/no risk). And there is absolutely nothing that backs up Rob's system. I mean, Rob hasn't even showed a single finding he has had when he came up with his strategy, and I suspect we will never get that information. Based on Rob's research (NOT HIS "RESULTS"), what is his average win, loss, and frequency of each? There's nothing to back this data up.

I know if I go to a casino and play X amount on Y machine and get Z back in FP/cash/etc., I can determine what my EV is, how frequently I'll end up a winner/loser and by how much.

I know if I put in X hours of BJ (card counting) how much I'm expected to make on average, how much I can lose and how much I can win and the probability of each.

I can do these things because it can be figured out using simple math or simulation. When looking at my results, they line up with the theoretical results (both in expected result ~= actual result, and frequency of wins/losses based on math line up with the theoretical figures).

It's obvious Rob has never done the proper research and figured out this kind of information for his system. Without doing that, you can't know if it's a winning strategy or not.

[redietz]

But RS -- Rob's the moral center of the universe, and he bets more than $20 or $30 a game. You should listen to him.

[Rob.Singer]

That's the whole point RS__. You readily dismiss something without any knowledge of it. You're simply going on the flawed information of a few of the jealous haters here because...I don't know, maybe you're too lazy to want to learn? And if you make MORE/session than I have using my play strategy (it averaged over $3100/session--both winning & losing) then I wanna know YOUR strategy!

Of course there's been the research and math done at the start, based on what you deem is more important than actual results: theory and probability. And naturally, any calculations done using -EV games won't be positive, but when the positive EV games are used those results are equally irrelevant because they just didn't meet my criteria for actual win %. The key is how and when I used the outside factors to increase probability--something regularly done in the research & development phase of some of the most important technological projects in corporate America. To explain all this in detail would require one of those face-to-face meets that even the Wizard's math geniuses feared. So I understand all the criticisms coming out of left field. It just makes no sense for a critic not to want to comprehend the whole thing before rendering it irrelevant.

[redietz]

After the Super Bowl, I will endeavor to do a Lettermanesque "Top 10 Reasons to Try Rob Singer's Strategy." Right now, I have to get this done. Stay tuned....

[Rob.Singer]

After the Super Bowl, I will endeavor to do a Lettermanesque "Top 10 Reasons to Try Rob Singer's Strategy." Right now, I have to get this done. Stay tuned....

Exactly what I mean when I say that you always divert and deflect the topic or the question, and the result is a post that offers essentially nothing.

[slingshot]

I hate to say this, but not being willing to at least go thru a session or two with Rob to prove or disprove is about the stupidest, most ignorant thing I've ever heard. I went thru an abbreviated session(approximately 1200 credits) of the single play strategy and saw for myself the hot and cold cycles before I ended up ahead with a soft session win. Only a bunch of morons would argue from ignorance. Put up or shut up!

[Alan Mendelson]

I have nothing against "trying" but is one abbreviated session proof?

[slingshot]

I have nothing against "trying" but is one abbreviated session proof?

That was the SP strategy, Alan. It's mentally challenging and I had been playing another strategy and had no idea this strategy was gonna be so time consuming. I played for an hour, watched an actual cold cycle for approximately 300 credits before it was over, hit 4 A's for a small win of $30 and that was starting at nickels and when I won, I had just finished the last 100 credits at 10c ddbp- which gives an idea of it's challenge.
Artt is more exciting to play and the wins can come more quickly and if you're lucky enough to see when to change machines if necessary, and the importance of special plays for the game you're playing it will become apparent that there's nothing "spoofy" about this strategy.
All that to say, I AT LEAST TRIED IT!

[quahaug]

The most important point is Rob's win goal of 5% of bankroll makes it very easy to prove success because you will win a high percentage of sessions. Tell someone you have a black jack strategy with a 5% win goal and with simple basic strategy you can prove it works most of the time. Sounds like someone could make a real killing on the ignorant if you packaged your "system" right.

[slingshot]

Well, Lady Gaga just said it's time for some FOOTBALL!!

[arcimede$]

The math of independent random events is well known and has been for decades if not centuries. Singer's claims are pure nonsense. You can try to put two pennies and two nickels in a box as many times as you want. It will always turn out to be 12 cents. Only fools would think otherwise.

[Alan Mendelson]

One problem I'm having is that Rob's strategy has so many facets I'd like to know which ones are being discussed. Are they all bad? Even the one that says play the best available pay tables?

[Rob.Singer]

There will never be any rationale comments or reasonable criticisms from anyone like arci, esp. when they've essentially seem to have given up on life---let alone playing video poker.

Oh wait!....arci said he gave up playing 3 years ago because Tonto removed his +EV machines. I guess the roof fell in after that

[arcimede$]

We all know that Singer is lying. He had a chance to produce his tax returns to prove he had won. He ran away. No one believes his lies any more.

Most reasonable people are still chuckling about his failure to produce a claimed analysis from those 3 seemingly mythical mathematicians a couple of year ago. Are those still tucked away in that mythical Arizona storage locker that you never visit but obviously must pay for every month. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Are you going to continue to dance this clown dance? Everyone with half a brain is laughing at you. Even mama belly is having trouble keeping up with your obvious lies. You might lose your biggest fan (outside of slingshit).

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc that was a cheap shot against another forum member. On Forum "Brand B" that would have drawn a suspension.

[Rob.Singer]

That's my fault Alan. He's rattled. Remember the chipping away process I utilize with this poor soul to near-perfection? It's truly the gift that keeps on giving!

[Alan Mendelson]

That's my fault Alan. He's rattled. Remember the chipping away process I utilize with this poor soul to near-perfection? It's truly the gift that keeps on giving!

Rob, please. STFU.

[RS__]

Funny how Alan keeps referring to WOV as "brand B". Insecure much?

[slingshot]

Arc that was a cheap shot against another forum member. On Forum "Brand B" that would have drawn a suspension.

It's fine, Alan. I kept checking back on the forum to see if anything had changed and found the whole cycle had started again. I shoulda stayed out and minded my own business. It's really silly, the more I think about it. I just miss some of the little tidbits of alternative "quickie" ways to the strategies- like playing 1,2,&5 credits on the $5 machines. I guess those days are gone. They shorten the playing time, sometimes.

[Alan Mendelson]

It is Brand B. It's narrowly focused, and caters to a smaller audience.