Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 132

Thread: Rob Singer has taken his act on the road again.

  1. #1
    http://www.gamblingforums.com/thread...66/#post-13218

    He milked this board to death, but the above one was DOA. It's the walking dead over there. Lol, another guy thought he was going to get rich with a gambling message board. He built it recently, put in a lot of work to hype it up, but nobody (except a hundred bots a day) came. Go figure.

    MrV speaks of a malignancy at the Wuz's. At least also it's contained. Bit-by-bit, cancers grow until all is too late. A few aging members with 1000's of useless posts in the final analysis, and a few new guys with 10's of posts of fluff. Some seem to be registered each day, to superficially add to the count. The Wiz, BBB, and a couple of other diehards flood the board with filler.

    LarryS thinks the Never Wuz is a Wiz; and the Wuz thinks he has something left to protect.

  2. #2
    Rob sounds like a reasonable, accredited dude until you ask him a question he doesn't want to answer. I've always wondered why Alan didn't simply ask him, in the videos, something like, "Do you really think you are the only person who has come up with this strategy? What would a group of professional mathematicians think?"


    Rob has trained hundreds. I guess they all lacked his discipline, or we'd have heard from them by now.


    P.S. I trained my cats how to handicap college football. They won't spill the beans.

  3. #3
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Rob has trained hundreds. I guess they all lacked his discipline, or we'd have heard from them by now.
    slingshot, regnis, coach belly... They all seem to be on his side. Have they made their $1 million yet?

  4. #4
    Rob's strategies work in answer to the question, "I want to play video poker in a few sessions, have the best chance to walk away with a nice sized profit, and don't mind if I give up a little EV in the quest to hit something big. Can you show me how to play in order to accomplish that?"

    His strategies would be a disaster for any kind of long term play.
    Check out my poker forum, and weekly internet radio show at http://pokerfraudalert.com

  5. #5
    Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Rob's strategies work in answer to the question, "I want to play video poker in a few sessions..."

    His strategies would be a disaster for any kind of long term play.
    How do you define a session?

    Is it a certain number of hands, or hours played?

    How many sessions is a few?

    How many sessions constitutes "long term play" ?

  6. #6
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post
    How do you define a session?

    Is it a certain number of hands, or hours played?

    How many sessions is a few?

    How many sessions constitutes "long term play" ?
    The answers to all these questions are cached in this forum.

  7. #7
    Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie View Post
    slingshot, regnis, coach belly... They all seem to be on his side. Have they made their $1 million yet?
    Bet I could do well. Anyone got $172,000 So I can give it a shot?

  8. #8
    5% profit is only a nice size if you start with a nice size bankroll.
    Take off that stupid mask you big baby.

  9. #9
    Dan, I am glad you wrote this because it really does sum up Rob's strategy:

    Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Rob's strategies work in answer to the question, "I want to play video poker in a few sessions, have the best chance to walk away with a nice sized profit, and don't mind if I give up a little EV in the quest to hit something big. Can you show me how to play in order to accomplish that?"
    But, I think this needs a little qualification:

    Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    His strategies would be a disaster for any kind of long term play.
    Isn't all long term play a strategy for disaster unless, of course, you are playing the "positive expectation games" that don't actually exist anymore?

  10. #10
    Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie View Post
    slingshot, regnis, coach belly... They all seem to be on his side. Have they made their $1 million yet?
    Slight correction eddie. I am a fan of Rob's disdain for the long term and positive EV as a certainty of winning. I am also a fan of his short term make a quick hit and leave philosophy.

    I have no idea if it will work for anyone else, or even if it really worked for him. But the fact that he questions the idea that long term beat your brains out play on a barely positive game is the road to riches is what draws me to him.

    And I will admit that after some run ins of my own with Arci about some simulations that I had done, other than when he talks about Arci's wife or health or personal things, I do like to see him agitate Arci.

    I am a craps and horse player. So no--I haven't made a million in VP. I have always stated that I am a long time loser in VP playing the best games available to me and standard play.
    Last edited by regnis; 04-19-2016 at 07:34 AM. Reason: more info

  11. #11
    When there's a reasonable discussion about my method of play then "my act" will usually appear.

    I agree, what Dan said makes sense. However, he tends to discredit himself whenever he gets into the "long-term" part of the discussion. And I can't completely fault him: those who have not really put the right amount of thought into something they still don't understand will always automatically revert back to the original cookbook and true-believe it because that's the easiest way. I don't need to re-hash the same information about why he's wrong once again. If he were truly motivated to comprehend the details, then the fact that I've profited well over a million dollars since dropping my AP "state of mind" in late 1999 would make the statement "a short term session unrelated to any that have come before or that have yet to come" would be something very reasonable to him. But since he chooses not to do any learning or work on this, he prefers it being safer to disbelieve. I can't argue with whatever it is that makes him feel comfortable.

    Red, you've seen this before: no one plays exactly as I do so no one will be out there winning like I do. Everyone I've trained uses what they've learned to formulate their own method of play within their comfort zone. None of them are professionals and all they wanted is to have more enjoyment playing while losing less or winning for a change. Most of them tell me they're successful. Why would they tell anything to a critic like you.

    What remains astonishingly amazing to me is that people who believe they're intelligent when it comes to playing video poker, somehow choose to continually misrepresent what they espouse about my method. On the one hand, they nearly bulldoze their way into the discussion about how they firmly believe playing for a 5% win in a single session using tiny EV-reducing special plays that go for the session-ending big winners along with increases in denomination & game volatility, is entirely possible most of the time NO QUESTIONS ASKED. Yet it confuses me when these same people inexplicably proclaim that it has to be only a one-time-event! And here's where they choose fuzzy rather than clarity. "Please explain this".

    It's like they think the opportunity I have on that first "easy-money" session disintegrates somewhere somehow, without explanation--just as a demand or something. And then, whenever I slap some sense back into them about how their wavering belief system begins not to hold water, they R-E-A-C-H by claiming "the one big loss will wipe out all those little winners"....only to be scolded, taught, and reminded that there is such a thing as BIG WINNERS, and they happen far more often & are almost always larger than those big losers.

    If you can't understand this people, then at least educate yourselves on why it's stupid to be tipping on casino hand pays.
    Last edited by Rob.Singer; 04-19-2016 at 08:10 AM.

  12. #12
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Rob has trained hundreds. I guess they all lacked his discipline, or we'd have heard from them by now.
    And nobody paid him anything, or bought his books or articles.

  13. #13
    Originally Posted by Bill Yung View Post
    And nobody paid him anything, or bought his books or articles.
    And strangely everyone reveres the ones that DO charge! Seems like EVERYONE should be winning with all the info!

  14. #14
    It's like a question without an answer (or, conversely, an answer without a question). Something unto itself. However, what gives away the real thing is some sort of exertion.

    With all the corruption, theft, and "games" in the world - not to mention all the feel-good overcompensating charity stuff and talk shows, in turn - real discoveries are all we have. Best of all, the sort which can't be discovered by anyone another than oneself. (Far out there?)

    Anyway, let's hope Alan sticks around. Get my fix here. I find the brainwashing at the Wizard's almost unbearable at times. (It interferes with (ongoing) mojo or something. Actually explaining superstition, and making the imaginary real, isn't quite the same. Will head back there in another six months.)

  15. #15
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    When there's a reasonable discussion about my method of play then "my act" will usually appear.

    I agree, what Dan said makes sense. However, he tends to discredit himself whenever he gets into the "long-term" part of the discussion. And I can't completely fault him: those who have not really put the right amount of thought into something they still don't understand will always automatically revert back to the original cookbook and true-believe it because that's the easiest way. I don't need to re-hash the same information about why he's wrong once again. If he were truly motivated to comprehend the details, then the fact that I've profited well over a million dollars since dropping my AP "state of mind" in late 1999 would make the statement "a short term session unrelated to any that have come before or that have yet to come" would be something very reasonable to him. But since he chooses not to do any learning or work on this, he prefers it being safer to disbelieve. I can't argue with whatever it is that makes him feel comfortable.

    Red, you've seen this before: no one plays exactly as I do so no one will be out there winning like I do. Everyone I've trained uses what they've learned to formulate their own method of play within their comfort zone. None of them are professionals and all they wanted is to have more enjoyment playing while losing less or winning for a change. Most of them tell me they're successful. Why would they tell anything to a critic like you.

    What remains astonishingly amazing to me is that people who believe they're intelligent when it comes to playing video poker, somehow choose to continually misrepresent what they espouse about my method. On the one hand, they nearly bulldoze their way into the discussion about how they firmly believe playing for a 5% win in a single session using tiny EV-reducing special plays that go for the session-ending big winners along with increases in denomination & game volatility, is entirely possible most of the time NO QUESTIONS ASKED. Yet it confuses me when these same people inexplicably proclaim that it has to be only a one-time-event! And here's where they choose fuzzy rather than clarity. "Please explain this".

    It's like they think the opportunity I have on that first "easy-money" session disintegrates somewhere somehow, without explanation--just as a demand or something. And then, whenever I slap some sense back into them about how their wavering belief system begins not to hold water, they R-E-A-C-H by claiming "the one big loss will wipe out all those little winners"....only to be scolded, taught, and reminded that there is such a thing as BIG WINNERS, and they happen far more often & are almost always larger than those big losers.

    If you can't understand this people, then at least educate yourselves on why it's stupid to be tipping on casino hand pays.
    Rob, since you and only you (and presumably your hundreds of trainees) know exactly what to do when, nobody else is qualified to run simulations of your strategies. Do I have that right?

    Soooooo, have you or your trainees ever run simulations of your strategies? If so, what were your results? If you haven't run simulations, why haven't you?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

  16. #16
    I can answer that... AGAIN... for you redietz. The "math" and the "simulations" will show that Rob will lose. Rob even admits that the "math" will show his special plays will lose. But what the "math" and the "simulations" cannot figure is Rob getting out of his seat once he won some money.

  17. #17
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    I can answer that... AGAIN... for you redietz. The "math" and the "simulations" will show that Rob will lose. Rob even admits that the "math" will show his special plays will lose. But what the "math" and the "simulations" cannot figure is Rob getting out of his seat once he won some money.
    Actually, my simulations also included loss limits and win goals and still did not result in increasing the ER of the game. Sorry, nothing Singer pushes has any basis in fact. Aren't we still waiting for those promised analyses from the 3 mathematicians hidden away in a storage locker? The only thing anyone gets from the little man is lies and then more lies to cover up the previous ones.

  18. #18
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    Actually, my simulations also included loss limits and win goals and still did not result in increasing the ER of the game.
    Of course not, Arc. The expected return is based on the pay table. Anything else you are doing simply guesses at what Rob might do and what might happen as Rob plays.

    I am 1000% positive that Rob will NEVER claim he has a better ER than what the paytable says the ER is. I am 1000% positive that Rob only looks at one thing: how much cash he has when he leaves.

    Ironically this same sort of argument is going on over at the Wizard's forum over the game of craps. There is one member who says he can have better results with dice influencing, while another member says the "dice influencer" can't alter the odds of the game. And in fact, the DI cannot alter the odds of the game. The odds of the game are based on the combinations of two six-sided dice. But that doesn't mean the DI can't produce more winning combinations.

    What you seem to be missing is that sometimes the math does not apply to the result. DI does not change the odds in craps. And Rob's method does not change the ER in video poker.

  19. #19
    Robs system has well defined win goals and loss limits, that's not the problem. The wizard said he couldn't run a sim because of Robs claim that the machines aren't random.
    Take off that stupid mask you big baby.

  20. #20
    The return is based on frequency and payout. If you can influence the dice to land on 12 more frequently than 1/36, then the return/HE is now changed.

    If I play 9/6 JOB with proper strategy, the return is 99.54% (HE is 0.44%). But if I use some weird strategy or make any alterations to the strategy (i.e.: hold 3-card RF over a high pair), the return is no longer 99.54% and the HE is no longer 0.44%. Alan if you don't believe me, next time you're at Caesars or Bellagio, play 500 hands of 9/6 JOB or 8/5 BP, using your regular strategy. Then play 500 hands of the same game, but hold every single dealt card. Let us know if that changes your mind.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-16-2011, 07:34 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •