Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 123

Thread: Frank Kneeland on Rob Singer?

  1. #1
    Will we ever see the report? Is there an update?

  2. #2
    Looks like Frank is getting close based on his LVA post. Of course, I already know the answer so it's not going to be much of a surprise. The math is the math and Frank will tell you exactly what I've told you many times over. Of course, there will be side issues that he will focus most of his time discussing. But, they will have little to do with expected return.

  3. #3
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    Looks like Frank is getting close based on his LVA post. Of course, I already know the answer so it's not going to be much of a surprise. The math is the math and Frank will tell you exactly what I've told you many times over. Of course, there will be side issues that he will focus most of his time discussing. But, they will have little to do with expected return.
    Frank sent me an email indicating that he was writing his report.

    Arc, I'm afraid the "math" has never been an issue, because even Rob admitted from the start that he does not dispute "the math" and plays by "the math" about 95% of the time.

    His examples posted here on our site (see http://alanbestbuys.com/id194.html) even concedes that his "special plays" have a lesser expectation than what proper play, or what "the math" says to do, has.

    I do not expect Frank to make a report on whether or not Rob's system will make you a "winner" or if it will make you a "loser." Honestly, I don't know what he's going to report to us.

    From his many posts since accepting the task of reviewing Rob's system, Frank has been more concerned with stopping gambling addiction. It wouldn't surprise me if his report continues on that path, using Rob's system as a means to curtail gambling addition.

    And it wouldn't surprise me if the opponents of the Singer system will not get any support by what Frank says.

    So, we'll see. The countdown is on.
    Last edited by Alan Mendelson; 10-18-2011 at 05:53 PM.

  4. #4
    Once again you are confused, Alan. As I told you before Singer continually disputes the math. You just have your eyes closed. Doesn't look like you will be opening them soon either.

  5. #5
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    Once again you are confused, Alan. As I told you before Singer continually disputes the math. You just have your eyes closed. Doesn't look like you will be opening them soon either.
    What Singer has said about the math is clear here on my website, in the videos and in the text. You just won't give up, Arc.

    Edited to add: I invite you to once again revisit this page http://alanbestbuys.com/id194.html, read the text and listen to the interview, and no where does Rob Singer dispute the math of the game. NO WHERE.
    Last edited by Alan Mendelson; 10-18-2011 at 09:04 PM.

  6. #6
    Alan, why do you limit yourself to what is on your website? I've given you several references to places where Singer disputes the math in one form or another. The fact you have chosen to ignore them says a lot about your motivations.

  7. #7
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    Alan, why do you limit yourself to what is on your website? I've given you several references to places where Singer disputes the math in one form or another. The fact you have chosen to ignore them says a lot about your motivations.
    You raised a valid question, and you are entitled to an answer:

    I can only report what Rob said to me, and what he said in our videos and interviews in person and on the phone and through emails. The Internet is filled with libelous statements, fictitious statements, misstatements. And when it came time for me to interview Rob about his system, I wanted to be sure exactly what his system was, and so I asked him specific questions and got specific, concrete answers, definitive answers.

    I interviewed the man in the flesh, and his words were captured on high definition video, and his own description that "the math" offers a greater return than his "special plays" came from him.

    I think what you should be saying, Arc, is this: Rob ignores "the math play" to take long shots. You would be correct saying this, I would agree with you, and so would Rob.

    But to say that he "disputes the math" is absolutely wrong. He ignores the math plays in certain situations, he does not dispute the math.

  8. #8
    Alan, you are of course right in that I do not dispute the math. Arci has his own agenda as always, and it's obvious the pressure he's under these days is showing. He seems to look for comfort by creating controversy that he can argue about for the sake of arguing.

    For those who've paid attention, and you have, they'd understand I've said that while the math is pure, and assuming the machines are 100% random - which I don't believe they are but did prepare my strategy as IF they are - it is because humans are playing the game and not robots, that does not allow AP's or anyone else to play according to how the books play it all out in words. For support to this and as told to me by several local casino managers while writing for Gaming Today and published as such, in their own words, all those lucrative-sounding promotions that just keep rolling out non-stop are primarily targeting the AP's who'll always bring in more money than normal to take their shots against the math. You can ask Bob Dancer about that and why it is he has to keep working, for additional support.

    In the meantime, good job getting arci back on. He's a load of fun, isn't he!

    I almost forgot--on the Frank (a fair & truthful critic) & myself discussions, I'm sure he knows how some people who are already irritated that he's even talking to me, will both use criticizms either way and spin whatever he says however they choose to. In other words, arci will find yet another way to ease his self-induced agony up there no matter what. And you know what else? Dancer and all his aliases on all the vp and Wizard of Odds forums will continue to duck debating me just as he wanted no part of betting me while I played in front of him and ran for cover when he had the chance to accept my challenge of proof-of-winning. Criticizing from afar and from behind a keyboard, as we've seen, are my critics best moves.
    Last edited by Rob.Singer; 10-19-2011 at 10:01 AM.

  9. #9
    "assuming the machines are 100% random - which I don't believe they are "

    Perfect example of not accepting the math. The math only applies when the games are random. So, if Singer does not believe the games are random then he doesn't accept the math.

    "but did prepare my strategy as IF they are "

    Which means he doesn't have a clue about the math. I already demonstrated in a previous thread that his system DOES NOT do what he claims it does, that is, his special plays do not lead to more session wins.

    Alan, too bad you never read that thread, you might have learned something.

  10. #10
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    "assuming the machines are 100% random - which I don't believe they are "

    Perfect example of not accepting the math. The math only applies when the games are random. So, if Singer does not believe the games are random then he doesn't accept the math.

    "but did prepare my strategy as IF they are "

    Which means he doesn't have a clue about the math. I already demonstrated in a previous thread that his system DOES NOT do what he claims it does, that is, his special plays do not lead to more session wins.

    Alan, too bad you never read that thread, you might have learned something.
    Again, you raise a good question. In particular you wrote: "his special plays do not lead to more session wins." Rob says he has won nearly a million dollars over a ten year period. Since he is playing negative expectation games (primarily 8/5 bonus) how do you account for his profits if not for "getting lucky" and his special plays? Or, are you saying he didn't win?

    Another point you made is: "his special plays do not lead to more session wins." Well, is the objective here to make more session wins or to have a bigger net win? If I recall, Arc, you posted on the LVA site that you win something like 3 out of ten sessions, yet you are a net winner? Personally, I don't doubt that Rob is more likely a winner on more sessions because of his betting progressions. And, Arc, I think you also agree that a betting progression can make you a winner with or without Rob's system.

    You see, Arc, I am not an advocate for either side here. I understand -- and actually play -- following what the math says to play. But I also can appreciate how violating the "math driven plays" (my term) can combine with a little luck to give you a win.

    I appreciate that, but I don't necessarily follow it.

    Let me again call your attention to how Rob justifies his special plays.

    In one of the video taped interviews he did with me he said "if you give yourself more opportunity for that big winner to come you're going to have higher odds of hitting that winner" (at 01:28) and "I did a risk analysis for every one of these special plays" (at 2:04).

    You can watch that interview again (first video on the page) at http://alanbestbuys.com/id194.html

    Now, while I have not seen the actual studies that Rob did, it does make sense to me that if you give yourself the chance for the big win, you have a greater chance of getting the big win. If you hold AAAKK in 7/5 bonus, you will never draw the case ace for the quad jackpot. And that is one of Rob's special plays because he says a full house in 7/5 bonus isn't big enough to give up the chance for the quad aces. Yet, he says, in 8/5 bonus he would hold AAAKK.

    Yeah, he violates the math, he ignores the math driven plays, but he is giving himself the chance for a big win. And holding the full house will never give you quad aces. You have to appreciate his thought process even if you don't follow it.
    Last edited by Alan Mendelson; 10-19-2011 at 08:26 PM.

  11. #11
    Alan, when someone as anal as arci is driven by an agenda, you will never receive comprehensible input. His odd rambling reply to my post confirms that.

    Just earlier tonight @ Terribles was another example of how special plays that deviate from the math are not only the smart play at times--they're the right play. On $2 ACES BP I was dealt unsuited AJQ with a 2 and 3. All the AP's would religiously hold the JQ, but I never do. The Ace happened to be with the letter "E" in the 4th position and I held it, but it really didn't matter where it was placed because I always hold only the Ace in that situation. Moments later I was looking at 7AAAA and in order for $8000. So what would an AP like arci be staring at? Maybe a pair of Q's for 10 bucks, because he would never give either a royal or the Aces to be the final hand here.

    See how brillliant these AP's are, esp. when they're criticizing what I do? And you wonder why arci gets so frustrated on these forums?

  12. #12
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Again, you raise a good question. In particular you wrote: "his special plays do not lead to more session wins." Rob says he has won nearly a million dollars over a ten year period. Since he is playing negative expectation games (primarily 8/5 bonus) how do you account for his profits if not for "getting lucky" and his special plays? Or, are you saying he didn't win?
    I doubt he has won anything close to what he claims. He probably started off winning which would not be unusual given the high variance of his system. He started bragging it up and when the losses started coming he just couldn't admit his failure. Look at him now ... he claimed he was retiring from gambling but now is gambling away in that mecca Pahrump. He has told so many lies why would anyone believe anything he says.

    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Another point you made is: "his special plays do not lead to more session wins." Well, is the objective here to make more session wins or to have a bigger net win?
    Alan, the point is he CLAIMS they lead to more session wins while I demonstrated they do not. So, you're OK that his claims are a lie?

    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    If I recall, Arc, you posted on the LVA site that you win something like 3 out of ten sessions, yet you are a net winner? Personally, I don't doubt that Rob is more likely a winner on more sessions because of his betting progressions. And, Arc, I think you also agree that a betting progression can make you a winner with or without Rob's system.
    Overall I win a little over 40% of my sessions. Singer should win 70-80% using a progression. I stated many times there is nothing wrong with a progression if a person can handle the different denoms. The problem is not the progression, it is the lies that he repeats over and over again. 1) A person can win using negative return games by using his approach and 2) A person can not win playing standard optimal strategy on positive games and 3) His special plays improve a persons chances of winning. Of course, he also spews more lies like the 5th card flip-over, the hot/cold machines, the NGC in cahoots with casinos, 3 mathematicians blessing his system and so on. Lies on top of lies on top of lies just so he can claim he's a VP bigwig and extract a few comps/CB from using other people's playing cards while teaching them nonsense.

    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    You see, Arc, I am not an advocate for either side here. I understand -- and actually play -- following what the math says to play. But I also can appreciate how violating the "math driven plays" (my term) can combine with a little luck to give you a win.
    Bwah hahaha hahaha hahaha

    Any hold can lead to a win. Everyone has seen situations where IF they had held another set of cards they would have done better with the cards that were drawn. However, they is NO system that can take advantage of that because you can't foresee what cards are going to come up in a random machine. Only suckers fall for that nonsense. That is what Singer counts on. Frank tried to explain this to you in many ways. You still don't understand.

    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Let me again call your attention to how Rob justifies his special plays.

    In one of the video taped interviews he did with me he said "if you give yourself more opportunity for that big winner to come you're going to have higher odds of hitting that winner" (at 01:28) and "I did a risk analysis for every one of these special plays" (at 2:04).
    Oh yes, the magic elixir of special plays. Has he shown you his risk analysis? Didn't think so. It's all another lie told right to your face. Why are you such an easy mark? There is no risk analysis and I've shown you his special plays do the exact opposite of what he claims in most cases. Sorry to be so blunt but there's no nice way to tell you you've been suckered. I've provided you a factual description of why his special plays fail. I explained the math very simply if you take the time to study it. Yet, here you are once again claiming his special plays do something they don't do. Absolutely mind-boggling.

  13. #13
    Look Arc, Bob Dancer never showed me his tax returns when I went to his seminar at a north Vegas casino about five years ago and he said his video poker income for the previous year was $250,000 with half of it coming from wins on $25 triple play DW ($375 per push of the button) and half coming from cash back money. But I believed him then and I believe him now.

    You wrote: "Alan, the point is he CLAIMS they lead to more session wins while I demonstrated they do not. So, you're OK that his claims are a lie?"

    In all honestly, how can you demonstrate what he claims are a lie? Computer simulations are just that, simulations. They cannot replicate what actually happened in the real world. The "math" says his system fails, until his system gets one of the big wins.

    I've now played more than 140,000 hands since my last royal. I play according to the math. I break up dealt straights and flushes when I have four to the royal. I hold 3 to the royal when I am dealt a fourth flush card, I still haven't hit in more than 140,000 hands. As Rob says, it's a matter of luck, isn't it? So why not give luck a better chance to work?

    No one says you have to play Rob's way (I don't). But I still think the idea should be available to those who want to try it. Maybe you can't prove it works, and maybe you can't disprove his claims either.

    He'll tell you luck was on his side with his special plays. I think that's a reasonable statement. So what's the problem? He got lucky.

  14. #14
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Look Arc, Bob Dancer never showed me his tax returns when I went to his seminar at a north Vegas casino about five years ago and he said his video poker income for the previous year was $250,000 with half of it coming from wins on $25 triple play DW ($375 per push of the button) and half coming from cash back money. But I believed him then and I believe him now.
    So what, this has nothing to do with Dancer.

    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    You wrote: "Alan, the point is he CLAIMS they lead to more session wins while I demonstrated they do not. So, you're OK that his claims are a lie?"

    In all honestly, how can you demonstrate what he claims are a lie? Computer simulations are just that, simulations. They cannot replicate what actually happened in the real world. The "math" says his system fails, until his system gets one of the big wins.
    I did not do a simulation. I demonstrated that mathematically most of his special plays do the exact opposite of what he claims. Unless you claim 1+1 is something other than 2, you are wrong. Maybe you should read what I did instead of responding with strawman nonsense.

    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    I've now played more than 140,000 hands since my last royal. I play according to the math. I break up dealt straights and flushes when I have four to the royal. I hold 3 to the royal when I am dealt a fourth flush card, I still haven't hit in more than 140,000 hands. As Rob says, it's a matter of luck, isn't it? So why not give luck a better chance to work?
    Once again you propose strawman nonsense. This is not about Singer's system vs. standard play overall. This is whether a special play really does lead to more wins. In other words, his special plays DO NOT give luck a better chance to work.
    Last edited by arcimede$; 10-20-2011 at 02:07 PM.

  15. #15
    Arc let me end this by saying something that even Rob will agree with: mathematically ALL of the special plays will fail. Thanks.

  16. #16
    Once again you fail to grasp the main point. I'm not talking about the expected return of the special play. I'm talking about the claim that the special play will "give luck a chance to work". That is, it will lead to more wins that allow the player to reach their win goal and leave. What I demonstrated is that most of the special plays do the exact opposite. They lead to fewer big wins.

  17. #17
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    his special plays DO NOT give luck a better chance to work.
    If his special play (holding a lone ace when the AP move is to drop it) concludes with drawing AAA for quad aces, I would have to say that his special play DID give luck a better chance. If you drop that ace, luck has ZERO chance. I don't agree with Singer's overall philosophy, but once in a blue moon, his "blind squirrel" tactics just might come through.

  18. #18
    Originally Posted by Vegas Vic View Post
    If his special play (holding a lone ace when the AP move is to drop it) concludes with drawing AAA for quad aces, I would have to say that his special play DID give luck a better chance. If you drop that ace, luck has ZERO chance. I don't agree with Singer's overall philosophy, but once in a blue moon, his "blind squirrel" tactics just might come through.
    Your view is correct only if you limit yourself to looking at one one hand and ignoring what happens when you miss. However, the stated goal of the special plays is to improve your chances of reaching a specified win goal. It never says anything about a single hand. If you cost yourself additional play by making a poor choice of holds then those lost hands decrease your chances of reaching the win goal. One has to weigh the overall impact of the one approach with the other. With most of the special plays the player actually decreases their chance of hitting the win goal.

    For example, assume you have a 75% chance winning (reaching a win goal) using optimal strategy and a 5 level progression. With Singer's strategy variations including his special plays that number is less than 75%. So, instead of giving luck a chance, he's giving up expected return AND giving luck less chance. A complete failure.
    Last edited by arcimede$; 10-20-2011 at 07:05 PM.

  19. #19
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    Your view is correct only if you limit yourself to looking at one one hand and ignoring what happens when you miss. However, the stated goal of the special plays is to improve your chances of reaching a specified win goal. It never says anything about a single hand. If you cost yourself additional play by making a poor choice of holds then those lost hands decrease your chances of reaching the win goal. One has to weigh the overall impact of the one approach with the other. With most of the special plays the player actually decreases their chance of hitting the win goal.

    For example, assume you have a 75% chance winning (reaching a win goal) using optimal strategy and a 5 level progression. With Singer's strategy variations including his special plays that number is less than 75%. So, instead of giving luck a chance, he giving up expected return AND giving luck less chance. A complete failure.
    This is something that Rob has not made clear -- in his books, in my conversations with him, in the interviews we did: when does he make his special plays and when does the follow the math that 95% of the time? Rob should comment about Arc's post.

  20. #20
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    This is something that Rob has not made clear -- in his books, in my conversations with him, in the interviews we did: when does he make his special plays and when does the follow the math that 95% of the time? Rob should comment about Arc's post.
    Of course he hasn't. He made it all up to begin with. There was no risk analysis, there were no mathematicains that validated his system and, most likely, his claims of winning are bogus. He's taking advantage of folks who do not have the mathematical skills to analyze his system. And, while he will respond to this, he will not provide anything of value. It will just be more of the same nonsense.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Posting Permissions

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