Frank Kneeland on Rob Singer?

[Frank Kneeland]

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.

According to Rob he did do a risk analysis. Where the disconnect lies is what Rob considered to be a "risk analysis". That will be in my report. Many of the statements he has made seem false, because as I have said before, he does not use standard definition of words and processes.

Arci says he didn't do a risk analysis
Rob says he did do a risk analysis

They are both right because they are talking about completely different things.

[Alan Mendelson]

According to Rob he did do a risk analysis. Where the disconnect lies is what Rob considered to be a "risk analysis". That will be in my report. Many of the statements he has made seem false, because as I have said before, he does not use standard definition of words and processes.

Arci says he didn't do a risk analysis
Rob says he did do a risk analysis

They are both right because they are talking about completely different things.

I'm curious to know if this statement indicates your own bias? First you say about Rob that "many of the statements he has made seem false, because as I have said before, he does not use standard definition of words and processes" but then you say:

"Arci says he didn't do a risk analysis
Rob says he did do a risk analysis

They are both right because they are talking about completely different things."

Are you going to be a good judge for the others who will read your report? Or a fair guide for where your analysis will lead the reader? Or will you say that everyone is right because they are talking about completely different things?

In all seriousness, I'm not expecting a report... I'm expecting a book.

[Frank Kneeland]

I'm curious to know if this statement indicates your own bias? First you say about Rob that "many of the statements he has made seem false, because as I have said before, he does not use standard definition of words and processes" but then you say:

"Arci says he didn't do a risk analysis
Rob says he did do a risk analysis

They are both right because they are talking about completely different things."

Are you going to be a good judge for the others who will read your report? Or a fair guide for where your analysis will lead the reader? Or will you say that everyone is right because they are talking about completely different things?

In all seriousness, I'm not expecting a report... I'm expecting a book.

I have done the best I can. That's all anyone can do. It is small book sized. The intro is 2500 words. I'm expecting it to be around 10,000 when I'm finished.

[arcimede$]

According to Rob he did do a risk analysis. Where the disconnect lies is what Rob considered to be a "risk analysis". That will be in my report. Many of the statements he has made seem false, because as I have said before, he does not use standard definition of words and processes.

Arci says he didn't do a risk analysis
Rob says he did do a risk analysis

They are both right because they are talking about completely different things.

Nope, Rob is simply lying to your face. Did you ask him about the 3 mathematicians that supposedly validated his system? They just happen to all live in foreign lands. They didn't have email addresses either. Isn't that a coincidence. Of course, we all know there are no math guys in the US.

So, it is a complete lie. In fact, if Rob had their analysis why would he want you to do an analysis? Just print what he already has. I've dealt with Singer for many years and it's beyond obvious that Singer just lies and then lies some more to cover up previous lies.

This is what malignant narcissists do. They have no problem lying right in your face, that's part of their condition. Whatever Singer has told you can't be trusted. Not a single word. Sure, there will be truths sprinkled in here and there. That's what all good liars have learned. All con men as well.

[arcimede$]

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.

Of course it is. However, you've blinded yourself by considering wild stories of lucky wins and ignore the far more prevalent cases where the special plays fail over and over and over again.

You ignored my comment about drawing 3 queens holding A instead of AQ. Do you think holding AQ is a good play because it *might* hit someday? I know you don't, but why in the world would you think it was ever a good play for anyone? Well, that's basically what the special plays are all about.

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?

Strawman. You don't get to keep your credits in tournament play. Hence, it is a completely different game. Apples and Oranges if you will. If you can't see how this is different I'm really concerned for you.

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.

No one cares if people take a "shot" once in awhile. I can easily see that it could increase the enjoyment for certain types of players. However, you never have these players telling you that you will win more often doing this. Nor, do they tell you other strategies won't work. Only Singer does that. Clear the cobwebs from your mind, Alan, and focus on the basic elements.

[Alan Mendelson]

Nope, Rob is simply lying to your face. Did you ask him about the 3 mathematicians that supposedly validated his system? They just happen to all live in foreign lands. They didn't have email addresses either. Isn't that a coincidence. Of course, we all know there are no math guys in the US.

So, it is a complete lie. In fact, if Rob had their analysis why would he want Frank to do an analysis? Just print what he already has. To anyone with any critical thinking skills whatsoever it's beyond obvious that Singer just lies and then lies some more to cover up previous lies.

This is what malignant narcissists do. They have no problem lying right in your face, that's part of their condition. Whatever Singer has told you can't be trusted. Not a single word. Sure, there will be truths sprinkled in here and there. That's what all good liars have learned. All con men as well.

Question: is a formal risk analysis really needed for some of these "special plays"? Look, it doesn't take much of an analysis for me to decide if I want to risk breaking up a full house with three aces in 8/5 bonus poker to try for quad aces. And it doesn't take much of an analysis for me to decide not to hold a kicker when dealt three aces on triple-double-bonus.

(By the way, Singer would not break up that full house in 8/5 bonus, and he would not hold the kicker when dealt 3 aces in TDB and neither would I even though "the math" says to hold the kicker.)

You need more analysis? Are we playing video poker here or planning a manned space shot to Jupiter?

[Alan Mendelson]

Here you go again, Arcimedes. Above you wrote:

"you've blinded yourself by considering wild stories of lucky wins and ignore the far more prevalent cases where the special plays fail over and over and over again."

The problem with all of your arguments is that you don't have all the information to reach a valid conclusion. And neither do I. We still don't know when Singer will make his "Special Plays." He says 5% of the time but which 5% of the time?

Do you know, Arc? Can you cite, quote or report exactly what Rob does and when he does it? And when he plays by the same math you play? You can't. I can't. And so far, Rob hasn't told us in enough detail that anyone can give an accurate analysis of his system.

[Frank Kneeland]

Nope, Rob is simply lying to your face. Did you ask him about the 3 mathematicians that supposedly validated his system? They just happen to all live in foreign lands. They didn't have email addresses either. Isn't that a coincidence. Of course, we all know there are no math guys in the US.

So, it is a complete lie. In fact, if Rob had their analysis why would he want Frank to do an analysis? Just print what he already has. To anyone with any critical thinking skills whatsoever it's beyond obvious that Singer just lies and then lies some more to cover up previous lies.

This is what malignant narcissists do. They have no problem lying right in your face, that's part of their condition. Whatever Singer has told you can't be trusted. Not a single word. Sure, there will be truths sprinkled in here and there. That's what all good liars have learned. All con men as well.

Hmm...and I guess you know that because you have hacked into my email and are aware of each and every word we have exchanged?

Really, you spend a lot of time on conjecture.

On this particular point, when I asked him what he meant by "risk analysis" his answer was not what I expected, but it perfectly explained what he meant without any confabulation or need for it.

Incidentally, what he meant was he thought about it a lot in his head. Here's his exact words:

ROB: I looked at the expectation of the optimal holds, I calculated what the expectation was with my alternate holds, I looked at the "give" and the potential opportunity, and I decided if the potential reward was worth the risk.

Obviously, this isn't what you or I would consider a risk analysis, but it is what he meant when he used the term and he did do it.

To get from misuse of the English language and poor math skills to lying is quite the stretch, and I don't think you are accounting for how distorted some people's memory and beliefs can be when sunk cost bias comes into play.

I can't speak for what he has done in the past, but during our exchanges I have not detected any deliberate subterfuge. He believes what he says. At least what he has said to me.

Seriously Arci, if someone was color blind, would you call them a lier if they told you the sky was gray?

[arcimede$]

Hmm...and I guess you know that because you have hacked into my email and are aware of each and every word we have exchanged?

Really, you spend a lot of time on conjecture.

No, I've seen Singer spew 100s if not 1000s of lies. I know the man.

I've also seen the way he treats complete strangers and celebrates the death of other individuals. This is not rocket science. Singer fits every symptom of NPD to a tee.

[Frank Kneeland]

No, I've seen Singer spew 100s if not 1000s of lies. I know the man.

I've also seen the way he treats complete strangers and celebrates the death of other individuals. This is not rocket science. Singer fits every symptom of NPD to a tee.

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I do find it distressing. If you really believe RS has NPD that you'd say that on a public forum. You do realize how inappropriate that is?

If anyone truly had a mental problem, that should be a private matter, and your goal should be to help them, not malign them in public. Since when was picking on people with mental problems appropriate...did I miss a memo?

Right or wrong, I find your approach and motivation unsettling. If you are right, what you are doing with the information is unkind. If you are wrong, your statements are libelous. For you this is a lose lose scenario. I must say I'm having just as hard a time understanding you as I am Rob.

I'm not doubting what you are saying only why and how you are saying it. I hope you understand the distinction. Many of your post are insightful, informative and a great contribution to the forum community. When you get going on Rob, it just turns my stomach and lessen my opinion of you, not Rob. Think on that.

[arcimede$]

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I do find it distressing. If you really believe RS has NPD that you'd say that on a public forum. You do realize how inappropriate that is?

If anyone truly had a mental problem, that should be a private matter, and your goal should be to help them, not malign them in public. Since when was picking on people with mental problems appropriate...did I miss a memo?

I've asked him to get help for many years. He has chosen not to seek help. For what it's worth NPD is generally not successfully treated in most individuals so it was not very likely he could be helped. First he would actually want to be helped. I've seen no evidence of that.

Right or wrong, I find your approach and motivation unsettling. If you are right, what you are doing with the information is unkind. If you are wrong, your statements are libelous. For you this is a lose lose scenario. I must say I'm having just as hard a time understanding you as I am Rob.

I'm not doubting what you are saying only why and how you are saying it. I hope you understand the distinction. Many of your post are insightful, informative and a great contribution to the forum community. When you get going on Rob, it just turns my stomach and lessen my opinion of you, not Rob. Think on that.

I deal in the facts. One day you will realize I am right. What you are missing is Singer is out there dealing with people. Those people, like you and Alan, have a right to know exactly the type of person they are dealing with.

BTW, it's not libel to state facts no matter how harmful they might be. All I'd need to do to prove my case is show Singer's comments in various fora. It's hard for him to defend his attacks on dead people and that is only the tip of the iceberg.

[Alan Mendelson]

I don't care what went on in other forums and websites. It's not appropriate. Stop it.

And for the record, Rob Singer has always conducted himself honorably with me. And what went on, for whatever reasons, on other websites will not be allowed to continue here. And that's for all parties.

[arcimede$]

I don't care what went on in other forums and websites. It's not appropriate. Stop it.

Picturing Alan with four arms covering his eyes and ears saying ... Don't you dare present evidence to make it obvious I've been fooled. I don't want to know.

And for the record, Rob Singer has always conducted himself honorably with me.

Yes, you have been successfully conned. You really can fool some of the people all of the time.

Bye.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arcimede$ you continue to misunderstand that reporting information and differiing viewpoints is not being conned. It is both an obligation and a right to allow ideas to be presented and discussed. In my 35+ years of being on TV and reporting on radio and in print no one ever accused me of being conned because I reported on controversial ideas. And wow, have I reported on controversial ideas ranging from A to Z -- from abortion rights to Zoos keeping elephants.

You might not like the ideas being presented and discussed and you have every right to say that, and to present your objections to those ideas.

But asking me or any other forum moderator to censor those ideas goes against the principles of a free press and the rights and privileges of our country-- our Constitutional freedoms.

You have a grudge against Rob, and Rob has a grudge against you. You guys should find your own sandbox to do battle in.

I am not going to let your grudge to destroy this forum and I am not going to allow his grudge to destroy this forum. You are both welcome to present your differing ideas here-- just keep it civil and stick to the issue.

Keep it mature. If you want to take your ball and go home, then goodbye. But if you want to express your ideas -- and yes your objections to Rob's strategy or even to my ideas -- you are welcome to do it.

[Frank Kneeland]

BTW, it's not libel to state facts no matter how harmful they might be.

I'm a fully aware of that. If you re-read my post you'll notice I said, "if you were wrong".

I also find it odd that you seem to think you are trying to save me from what I believe about Rob, when you don't actually know what that is. Keep in mind, I don't blurt out all my thoughts like you do if I believe they might offend or hurt someone.

Next, NPD and its related disorders in known by the psychiatric profession to be aggravated and exacerbated by public confrontation. So one needs to ask again, if you wanted to help why would you behave in a manner that is known to make the problem worse?

Lastly, to make a diagnosis of NPD even for a licensed therapist, would require many tests and quite a lot of time. To think you could make such a judgment based on forum posts and your limited and outdated psychological experience is really the height of conceit. I certainly wouldn't presume to post a medical diagnosis about someone (anyone) if I wasn't a medical doctor.

I passed on a great deal of this issue to a practicing licensed therapists and all they could say was that they couldn't be sure of anything.

I don't expect this to change your behavior in any way, but if I had not voiced my strong disapproval to this situation I would have felt remiss in my duties.

You remind me of that old adage: "If one hunts monsters, one must be careful not to become one themselves."

It might appall you to know that when I was reading some of your and Rob's more acerbic exchanges, I had to keep looking at the header to distinguish who was talking. From the tone and wording I could not tell you apart. I'm sure of few things in life, but I'm guessing that isn't something you would want. As is usually my intent with these comments is not one of chastisement. I tried to put my self in your shoes and I would certainly want to know how others were perceiving me. This is advice, nothing more.

Good luck and just be aware that from my POV you aren't achieving your professed goals in an optimal fashion.

[redietz]

This is, as always, fascinating. I wanted to comment on certain definitions because they are at the heart of everything.

The value or danger of Singer's methodology has to be compared to something. Now, one can compare it to the play of the 1 in 1000 vp player who adheres religiously to actual by-the-book advantage play all of the time, no exceptions. Or it can be compared to the "looser" play of those who define themselves as advantage players but who deviate from by-the-book occasionally, almsot all of whom lose lifetime. Or it can be compared to the "average" vp player, who also loses lifetime.

[redietz]

Next we can ask whether the "by-the-book-all-the-time" vp players have the same or fewer or more weaknesses to dabble in non-vp negative expectation games in casinos. Since they spend more time in casinos, and have become part of the culture, perhaps that leads to leakage in non-vp venues. For example, Dancer is the ultimate by-the-book guy. But he dabbles in other things. I can tell you that dabbling in sports betting probably results in such leakage. Leaning on the "Wizard of Odds" and saying "these are advantage plays" doesn't mean you actually know what you are doing. And Dancer, finally, is not qualified to evaluate which sports bettors know anything about anything. My point is that, unless the by-the-book guys stick to their field of expertise, they tend to blow it.

[redietz]

What does this have to do with Singer? Frank will get into locus of control at some point. Singer's methodology may have its advantages -- it stresses no leakage via internal locus of control. And if 99.9999% of players leak, then it has value.

[Rob.Singer]

I was notified by e-mail that there was a distressing exchange going on here--which is unfortunate given the way I know Alan wants his forum conducted because it has something to do with his livlihood--and the theme seems to always be the same headed by a constant. I've only chosen to read this one page of posts, and who would have guessed that it's arci against the world? Now it becomes abundantly clear why he was permanently banned from vpFREE.

I'm supposed to be a victim of NPD? I never knew what that was until arci started using that out of his frustration against me when I began chastising him for what he's done to his family. Whenever I hear this I just think of what a great time I had with my wife last night or at dinner today, and then give a great big smile from ear to ear. And I REALLY like the taste of them apples

Attacks on dead people? It's not libel to state facts no matter how harmful they may be, and this cadaver only got that which he begged for during his existence as a videopoker.com hack--knowing I was banned from responding. What goes around comes around, and in SUCH a righteous way.

Anyway, I know Alan is having trouble hitting a royal this year. Kind of odd that I haven't seen a SF in TWO years, but RF's are no stranger to me. I hit another one today on quarters, again on a 6/5 BP machine at the local bar playing $40 while waiting for a pizza and a pulled pork sandwich to take up to the RV.

[Vegas Vic]

I manage to visit Las Vegas once or twice a year, and during each week's visit, I play a lot of VP every day. The rest of the year, I might average 6 hours a month at local Detroit casinos with an occasional visit to other Michigan casino locations. That's probably not a lot of time spent playing compared to most of you. Since I started playing VP in 2004, I've had 23 RF (sorry, Alan) and probably average at least two SF a year (sorry, Rob). Having learned to play by using Bob Dancer's materials, do these two stats make Bob's system a better one than what Rob preaches?

Who knows?

It is what it is.