Originally Posted by arcimede$ View 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.
Let me ask you this: Why must his strategy be proven by the math of the game? In craps, for example, the math tells you not to make hardways bets. Yet, within the last year, there was a player who parlayed $25 on the hard-10 to a win in excess of $40,000. This was written about on the LVA forum, and it's also not that unusual for the game of craps.

I personally know a player who parlayed $1 on 12 to more than $27,000 as the 12 hit three times in a row.

Crazy bets can win, but you have to bet them to win.

What Singer has laid out for us is some "special plays" as he calls them where you might decide to go for the crazy bet. For example, when to hold the full house with aces in 7/5 bonus, and when just to hold the aces.

Arc, no matter what you write, I still haven't seen Rob's information about when he plays by the math 95% of the time and when he makes his special plays. This is something I asked for him to talk about in another video-taped interview.

The funny thing is, if Rob's strategy was titled "How to win a video poker tournament" it might be called brilliant. Because even Bob Dancer in his articles about winning a video poker tournament has talked about making unconventional plays to hit a royal.

All of this controversy over Rob's system may never have developed if two things had happened:

1. He did title his strategy "How to win a video poker tournament with off-beat and wild plays."

2. Instead of calling it a system that others could use, he wrote books that were titled: "How I beat the casinos at video poker by playing it my crazy way"