Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 123

Thread: Frank Kneeland on Rob Singer?

  1. #41
    Too bad for Rob that I already demonstrated that several special plays do not increase chances of winning. They were in this thread.

    http://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/showth...-Forums/page11

    Of course, that makes it obvious that Rob is lying right now. He even commented in the referenced thread. So, not only does he know his claims are lies, he continues to lie in order to cover it up.

  2. #42
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    Too bad for Rob that I already demonstrated that several special plays do not increase chances of winning. They were in this thread.

    http://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/showth...-Forums/page11

    Of course, that makes it obvious that Rob is lying right now. He even commented in the referenced thread. So, not only does he know his claims are lies, he continues to lie in order to cover it up.
    I don't recall Rob Singer ever saying that his special plays increase the chances of winning. In fact, in all of the Special Plays presented on this website, the statistics presented by Rob show that the Special Plays are at a disadvantage to the conventional plays. Rob is very upfront about this.

    It seems to me that the point that Rob is making is this: it's not that his Special Plays have a better chance of winning. It's just that when they do "click" or hit he will win more than what the "optimal hold" will win. Rob said his "system" is based on going for the big wins which are mostly quads and quad aces when the chance of getting those present themselves. And he says he deviates from the accepted "math plays" just 5% of the time.

    And what we haven't determined yet from Rob is when he will elect to make those Special Plays-- and when that "5% of the time" is that he does not follow the "math of the game"?

    Arcimedes, it seems to me that Rob's system is not a threat or even a challenge to the accepted math of the game. It seems to me that Rob's entire "system" is just a way to show which kinds of dealt hands a player might choose to work with to take a long shot. And when you take those long shots you might get lucky and you might not.

    It's actually the same playing conventional strategy by the "math". It doesn't really matter if I play the correct strategy or not because the random number generator might not cooperate when I make the "math play". For example, I could be dealt a flush with four to the royal 200 times and never get the royal card. (Didn't that happen to you, Arc?) You see, conventional strategy is also subject to a RNG just as Singer's strategy is.

    You need luck with the Singer strategy just as you need luck with the conventional strategy. I guess if you wanted to eliminate the "luck factor" then the next time you are dealt a flush with four to the royal you should just hold the dealt flush. That will eliminate the "luck factor" wouldn't it?

    We're all still waiting for Frank's report. I hope it is posted soon so we have something new to discuss.

  3. #43
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    Too bad for Rob that I already demonstrated that several special plays do not increase chances of winning. They were in this thread.

    http://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/showth...-Forums/page11

    Of course, that makes it obvious that Rob is lying right now. He even commented in the referenced thread. So, not only does he know his claims are lies, he continues to lie in order to cover it up.
    Once again arci shows how little knowledge he has when looking at risk analyses. The only thing he knows how to do, in-between the deserved struggles he brought upon himself up there as we all know, is to pretend any play is going to be faced an infinite number of times. He seems enthralled by FH's and apparently has so little money available to gamble with that he just couldn't separate himself from one in order to try for a session-ending winner. Oops, my goof. As an AP, he doesn't stop gambling until he either passes out at the machines, he goes broke, or an agonizing call comes in from home.

    When someone can't stop playing the machines then they are never going to recognize the reward advantage of a special play. His "demonstrations" are nothing more than a make-believe agenda that he follows out of compulsion.

    Alan, you're again correct and arci just doesn't like it. The plays are only a threat to the CASINOS because they don't like players to make them IF they are in conjunction with leaving when a win goal is attained. And as you've seen right here, AP's don't see them as a threat because so far, none of them understand or even WANT to understand them.

    When I make the special plays is determined by the game, the denomination, and where I'm at in my session and YTD win goal. They are not constant, and it's just another in a long line of facts that exposes the confusion and lack of knowledge displayed by arci. Here he wants everyone to believe in his by-the-math long-term analysis, when in reality he has less than 50% of the input needed in order to do anything close to an accurate review.

    But I still like how he can't get himself to comment on those $2 A-C-E-S I hit the other day. If he wasn't so jealous of everything Rob Singer then you can be sure he'd have been obsessed with analyzing the odds of hitting such a magnificant hand until the Minnesota cows came home!
    Last edited by Alan Mendelson; 10-24-2011 at 01:20 PM. Reason: personal comment removed

  4. #44
    Thank you for posting Rob. One of the important things you said in your post above is this:

    "When I make the special plays is determined by the game, the denomination, and where I'm at in my session and YTD win goal. They are not constant."

    This is actually, very important, because when you mention these variables (and we really don't know what they are) it really becomes impossible for anyone to give a proper analysis of your system.

    I've been asking this very question several times both here on this forum and on the LVA forum: when do you make the special plays and when do you stick with the conventional or optimal plays? You refer to the conventional plays as the optimal holds in your discussion of your strategy.

    So unless you told Frank how you determine when you choose to make your special plays no one can really follow your system or provide an analysis of it, or prove if it works or doesn't work. Did you explain this part of your system to Frank?

    As an example of why this is a major issue, I will mention here a special play mentioned earlier in this thread: the full house with three aces in 7/5 Bonus. Rob, your special play is to hold only the three aces but you would hold the full house when it allows you to reach one of your goals. (You always hold the full house in 8/5 bonus, however.)

    Rob, you and I have discussed doing another video on this point. Thanks.
    Last edited by Alan Mendelson; 10-24-2011 at 01:50 PM.

  5. #45
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    I don't recall Rob Singer ever saying that his special plays increase the chances of winning. In fact, in all of the Special Plays presented on this website, the statistics presented by Rob show that the Special Plays are at a disadvantage to the conventional plays. Rob is very upfront about this.
    The very last post by Singer contained this quote... "ALL of the special plays increase my chance of going home a winner. "

    I guess when you're in denial it affects your ability to read.

    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    It seems to me that the point that Rob is making is this: it's not that his Special Plays have a better chance of winning. It's just that when they do "click" or hit he will win more than what the "optimal hold" will win. Rob said his "system" is based on going for the big wins which are mostly quads and quad aces when the chance of getting those present themselves. And he says he deviates from the accepted "math plays" just 5% of the time.
    You're into word games now. Alan. I just said "increases chances of winning" and now you say " he will win more than what the "optimal hold" will win". If you can explain the difference in these two be my guest.

    Yeah, I know, you're right back into misunderstanding my point that I've already explained to you a dozen times. New day ... right back to making the same mistake. Sorry to ruin your day but we are talking about the exact same thing. In both cases we're talking about a single session. Nothing to do with long term or long term math. I'm looking a each special play and telling you that most of them will lead to FEWER winning sessions.

    So, when Rob tells you it's about taking chances, you should respond that most of his special plays fail to increase winning sessions so why would anyone take a chance that reduces their winning sessions? Think about it, Alan. Singer's special plays are doing the exact opposite of what he claims.

  6. #46
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    "When I make the special plays is determined by the game, the denomination, and where I'm at in my session and YTD win goal. They are not constant."

    This is actually, very important, because when you mention these variables (and we really don't know what they are) it really becomes impossible for anyone to give a proper analysis of your system.
    Singer doesn't want a "proper analysis" as that will make it obvious that it's all a bunch of lies. The fact is tossing a FH and holding 3 aces in 8/5 BP will win just as often as 7/5 BP. In both cases it is 2 out of every 47 tries. In both cases the hold of 3 aces will lead to more session wins than holding the FH. This is one of the few special plays that does lead to more session wins. Anf yet, Singer does not employ this hold in 8/5 BP.

    It's this kind of idiocy that makes it obvious that Singer has no clue about the true value of any of his special plays. He doesn't even understand when they might work.

    You should also be asking him for a real "risk analysis". He keeps claiming he's done them, where are they? Or, is it simply ... "duh, looks like it might work, dem aces sure are pretty".

  7. #47
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    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.
    Is it possible that the entire source of your dispute with Arci has to do with what is meant by the word "disputes"?

    Math says do A
    Rob says do B
    Rob also says he does not dispute the math (Hmm... but math said do A. What would you call that exactly if not "disputing"?)

    As soon as he said to do other than A, he had already disputed it regardless of his admonitions to the contrary.

    I have had lengthy discussion with Rob about this, and what he disputes is that math alone can render the truth where VP is concerned. Since the mathematical explanation for all things gambling, says that only math is required to determine odds and strategies, Rob begun disputing that they day he began conceiving of his system and remains a staunch disputer to this day. Math also says that Rob's system is wrong, so at the very least he disputes that, which is by extension disputing the math.

    In my report on his system I open with making it clear that he disputes the math. Rob proof read it and agreed.

    Functionally it works like this: I agree that 2+2 = 4. You then go to add 2 apples and 2 oranges. I stop you and say, "What are you doing, you can't add apples and oranges?" You remind me that 2+2 = 4 and that I agreed with that. I say, "Well I'm not disputing the math, I'm just disputing its use here!"

    The logical fallacy being committed here is grave. Saying that one can't add apples and oranges is disputing the math, because the math says you can add two of anything to two of anything and get four of anything.

    It is true that on your site he does not implicitly state that he disputes the math. It is not something he said, it is everything he says.

    Hope this clears up the misunderstandings rather than creates more. I don't usually like to take sides in these things, but Arci is so far on the side of correct in this it is really hard to even understand why you can't see it. My guess it that one of your cognitive distortions is blocking you. Pity we are never aware of those ourselves.

    I am looking a great deal beyond the math in my eval, so don't think the report will be completely negative. It is safe to say it can't be proven with math. That isn't negative it just is.

    ~FK

    P.S. We all have cognitive distortions and biases and saying that someone else has them is not an insult in any way. I have them as well I'm sure, though they are likely different ones. The two defining qualities of all biases are that all people have them, and that no one is ever aware of them.

    P.P.S Thinking that you are completely unbiased is a cognitive bias, so if you believe this you are guaranteed to be wrong.
    Last edited by Frank Kneeland; 10-24-2011 at 04:04 PM.

  8. #48
    One of the recurring themes in my conversations with Rob is that his use of the English language is oft fast and loose, as he adds or alters definitions and includes additional meaning in some words.

    Believe it or not: I could say, "Rob disputes the Math." He could say, "I don't dispute the math", and we could both be right...and even be in agreement with each other.

    I already know his definition of, "The Math" is not conventional in anyway, as we had a long talk about what was meant by, "The math working". It would not surprise me to find out he uses a different definition of "disputing" as well.

    We had a very long discussion which ended in me begging him to stick to dictionary definitions so we didn't waste anymore time on misunderstandings. Since that time our discussions have gotten much better.

    ~FK
    Last edited by Frank Kneeland; 10-24-2011 at 04:37 PM.

  9. #49
    Frank Kneeland wrote above:

    "Math says do A
    Rob says do B
    Rob also says he does not dispute the math (Hmm... but math said do A. What would you call that exactly if not "disputing"?)

    As soon as he said to do other than A, he had already disputed it regardless of his admonitions to the contrary."


    And at this point, I have to sit out and just wait for Frank's report and Rob's comments, because I never thought of the math telling anybody to do anything. I do not understand how math can say to do A. I think of the math of the game of video poker as showing what is expected to happen based on the remaining cards in the deck. I never thought that the math of the game was controlling your own choice or decision making process.

  10. #50
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Frank Kneeland wrote above:

    "Math says do A
    Rob says do B
    Rob also says he does not dispute the math (Hmm... but math said do A. What would you call that exactly if not "disputing"?)

    As soon as he said to do other than A, he had already disputed it regardless of his admonitions to the contrary."


    And at this point, I have to sit out and just wait for Frank's report and Rob's comments, because I never thought of the math telling anybody to do anything. I do not understand how math can say to do A. I think of the math of the game of video poker as showing what is expected to happen based on the remaining cards in the deck. I never thought that the math of the game was controlling your own choice or decision making process.
    Ah ha...a break through.

    Now your POV makes so much more sense. You haven't read my book have you. I cover this in laborious detail. We math based AP's do exactly what they math says is the best course of action at all times with all the personal choice of a snow flake in an avalanche.

    In fact there really isn't much decision making in AP at all, only number crunching and memorization. The only decision one can make is to be right or wrong.

    Math is a hard science and not an experimental science. It's the difference between fact, opinion and theory.

  11. #51
    Here's an example outside our discussion that might be easier to grasp.

    A farmer says he AGREES WITH AND DOES NOT DISPUTE ALL THE RULES OF FARMING. He then goes on to state that they don't work for growing onions, and that when it comes to onions, he's going to do his own thing.

    Our farmer in this example has not made any errors or disputed "the rules of farming", unless the "the rules of farming" expressly state that they work for growing onions and using any other method would be inferior.

    Here the farmer can say he isn't disputing the rules of farming all he wants, it merely makes him wrong if he chooses to ignore them where onions are concerned.

    He could even be right about onions!!! He would however be wrong about not disputing the rules of farming.
    Last edited by Frank Kneeland; 10-24-2011 at 05:46 PM.

  12. #52
    Thanks Frank for the posts and explanations. But as I said earlier in this thread, when you play video poker you are not graded for following the math. You are not rewarded for remembering which is the best play according to the math. Video poker is a gamble because you have no control over the RNG. The so-called rules of the math only go so far to help you to win.

    If you are going to maintain that you should only play by the math then there is no point meeting with Rob Singer any further. I can tell you and everyone else right now -- you will reject his strategy.

    A. You will reject any idea of a special play that violates the best expected value of a draw.
    B. You will reject his concept of quitting when he reaches a win goal.
    C. You will reject playing any higher variance game without a positive return or close to a positive return on the paytable.

    Just admit it: Rob doesn't follow the math, so it can't work.

  13. #53
    Alan, there is no argument that Singer does not follow the math. That is obvious. however, you are still ignoring the fact that he claims his special plays increase his chances of going home a winner. Most of them don't. So, even ignoring all the long term math stuff, we still see that Singer is lying about what his system provides.

    BTW, it doesn't matter when Singer makes these special plays. They fail in EVERY situation.

  14. #54
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    BTW, it doesn't matter when Singer makes these special plays. They fail in EVERY situation.
    If I used one of his special plays and it hit big, would you say that I failed?

  15. #55
    Originally Posted by Vegas Vic View Post
    If I used one of his special plays and it hit big, would you say that I failed?
    No! I would say you failed as soon as you decided to make a less than optimal play. To be clear this would have been before hitting the draw button. So you can't include your results in the decision because they haven't happened yet.

    You are confusing results with expectancies. They mix less well than oil and water.

    When you ask a question about whether or not someone made a good decision you disclude the results of that decision, because to do otherwise invites hindsight bias. You must take yourself back in time to the moment of the decision put yourself in their shoes and weigh the information. Julius Caesar's did real well crossing the Rubicon. Napoleon did less well at Waterloo. One of them was a brilliant military strategist that got some bad information. One of them just flipped a coin to decide on whether or not to commit his forces. I'll give you a clue who is who: Even now with 20/20 hindsight, I'd follow Napoleon any-day over Caesar.

    I have this silly opinion that my life shouldn't be decided on coin tosses.

    ~FK
    Last edited by Frank Kneeland; 10-24-2011 at 11:27 PM.

  16. #56
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Thanks Frank for the posts and explanations. But as I said earlier in this thread, when you play video poker you are not graded for following the math. You are not rewarded for remembering which is the best play according to the math. Video poker is a gamble because you have no control over the RNG. The so-called rules of the math only go so far to help you to win.

    If you are going to maintain that you should only play by the math then there is no point meeting with Rob Singer any further. I can tell you and everyone else right now -- you will reject his strategy.

    A. You will reject any idea of a special play that violates the best expected value of a draw.
    B. You will reject his concept of quitting when he reaches a win goal.
    C. You will reject playing any higher variance game without a positive return or close to a positive return on the paytable.

    Just admit it: Rob doesn't follow the math, so it can't work.
    The kind of things you are suggesting will be in my report might be if I had set out to disprove the RS system. I did not. I set out with the intent to prove it and find efficacy in it. Where I have failed you can draw your own conclusions. If that leads to believe that because Rob departs from math it can't work, then that will be your words not mine.

    Others have approached this from the POV of disproving Rob's claims, I was trying to boldly go where none have gone before. I may have failed, but it will not be for lack of trying.

    ~FK

  17. #57
    Originally Posted by Frank Kneeland View Post
    The kind of things you are suggesting will be in my report might be if I had set out to disprove the RS system. I did not. I set out with the intent to prove it and find efficacy in it. Where I have failed you can draw your own conclusions. If that leads to believe that because Rob departs from math it can't work, then that will be your words not mine.

    Others have approached this from the POV of disproving Rob's claims, I was trying to boldly go where none have gone before. I may have failed, but it will not be for lack of trying.

    ~FK
    Well, that's an interesting statement, Frank. Did I read this correctly? You were trying to prove the efficacy of Rob's strategy and system?

    So based on what you know, how do you feel about Rob's strategy for holding cards that are different from what "the math" says to hold, what he refers to as the "optimal hold"? Case in point: example #2 in Bonus Poker, which you will find on this page http://alanbestbuys.com/id194.html with Rob's video comment:

    2. In this next hand, instead of holding two high cards, Rob's special play is to hold only the Ace, increasing the chances for quad aces.

    Ah Qd 6c 7c 2s: OH=AQ @ $2.40; SP=A @ $2.36.


    Rob's position is that holding only the ace has a slightly lower value than holding AQ offsuit, but his objective is to get quad aces and he wants to maximize his chance for that.

    Frank, do you see any value in that play? And, specifically, what value do you see?

  18. #58
    Originally Posted by Vegas Vic View Post
    If I used one of his special plays and it hit big, would you say that I failed?
    As Frank already noted it has nothing to do with success or failure. It all has to do with expectation. Let me put the question back at you in a different way ... if you are playing DDB and held only the ace from AQ (the correct play) would drawing 3 queens be considered a failure?

    I suppose most people would, but it would not be a failure for the reasons most of them would think about.

    That's the problem with considering low probability results as a reason to make a particular hold. There are all kinds of low probability draws. Why would anyone take that into consideration?

    Here's another one that demonstrates that Singer does not always go for big wins. Say you're dealt TTTTJ. Assume a RF will generate enough money to "go home a winner" but the 4 tens won't. Why doesn't Singer hold the suited TJ? Yes, it would be ridiculous to toss the quad tens but this demonstrates a fallacy in Singer's claims. He does not base his decisions on reaching his win goals alone. He factors in the value of the holds. Of course, once you make this type of decision then you have to ask why make the lower return hold in one case and the higher return hold in another? For this Singer has no answer because he never did a risk analysis. It's easy to show that some of his special plays are completely bogus on both counts.

  19. #59
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    As Frank already noted it has nothing to do with success or failure. It all has to do with expectation. Let me put the question back at you in a different way ... if you are playing DDB and held only the ace from AQ (the correct play) would drawing 3 queens be considered a failure?

    I suppose most people would, but it would not be a failure for the reasons most of them would think about.

    That's the problem with considering low probability results as a reason to make a particular hold. There are all kinds of low probability draws. Why would anyone take that into consideration?

    Here's another one that demonstrates that Singer does not always go for big wins. Say you're dealt TTTTJ. Assume a RF will generate enough money to "go home a winner" but the 4 tens won't. Why doesn't Singer hold the suited TJ? Yes, it would be ridiculous to toss the quad tens but this demonstrates a fallacy in Singer's claims. He does not base his decisions on reaching his win goals alone. He factors in the value of the holds. Of course, once you make this type of decision then you have to ask why make the lower return hold in one case and the higher return hold in another? For this Singer has no answer because he never did a risk analysis. It's easy to show that some of his special plays are completely bogus on both counts.
    This is very interesting, Arc. Let me start with this comment you made:

    As Frank already noted it has nothing to do with success or failure. It all has to do with expectation.

    That reminds me of what is sometimes said about scholastic sports: it's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game.

    Well, that was in school. In the big leagues, it's all about winning.

    I also like this comment you made:

    Say you're dealt TTTTJ. Assume a RF will generate enough money to "go home a winner" but the 4 tens won't. Why doesn't Singer hold the suited TJ? Yes, it would be ridiculous to toss the quad tens but this demonstrates a fallacy in Singer's claims.

    Bob Dancer actually discussed an issue like this when talking about tournament strategy when the player with the royal is likely going to win. And, see Singer's own Special Play when he had had three queens with three to the royal, held the royal cards and got the royal for a $100K win. He not only discussed it with me in one of our videos, but he wrote about it in his newspaper column. Look at the video again and then ask yourself is it about winning or how you play the game?

    And you can see the video about this "Special Play" which is #13 on this page: http://alanbestbuys.com/id194.html

    Please note that I called it "the craziest, whackiest, and most incredible of Rob Singer's lucky plays, but even Rob admits he tries this rarely." In fact, Rob told me he faced this particular hand only twice in his life and made the Special Play only once... and it worked.

    Miracles do happen. Oh, and I love how Rob told me how the video poker strategy police came down on him.

    Funny thing happened with my son. He had a pair of aces with three to the royal playing double double bonus, broke up the aces, and got the royal. He was soooo wrong as he was collecting that $4800 progressive jackpot.

  20. #60
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Well, that's an interesting statement, Frank. Did I read this correctly? You were trying to prove the efficacy of Rob's strategy and system?

    So based on what you know, how do you feel about Rob's strategy for holding cards that are different from what "the math" says to hold, what he refers to as the "optimal hold"? Case in point: example #2 in Bonus Poker, which you will find on this page http://alanbestbuys.com/id194.html with Rob's video comment:

    2. In this next hand, instead of holding two high cards, Rob's special play is to hold only the Ace, increasing the chances for quad aces.

    Ah Qd 6c 7c 2s: OH=AQ @ $2.40; SP=A @ $2.36.


    Rob's position is that holding only the ace has a slightly lower value than holding AQ offsuit, but his objective is to get quad aces and he wants to maximize his chance for that.

    Frank, do you see any value in that play? And, specifically, what value do you see?
    You're asking questions that will be covered in the final draft. I'd prefer to wait and offer the information in context. I'm meeting Rob on the 10th of next month and will then be typing up my final report.

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
  •