Frank Kneeland on Rob Singer?

[Alan Mendelson]

Gee Frank. I'm not asking you to reveal the magical bus stop machine or the secret handshake.

My point is that there is no non-progressive game that offers a positive paytable without a royal.

If there is please correct me.

Edited to add: and yes, my first table was with Men The Master Nguyen, and later I was with him when there were only four tables left in the tournament. I wrote about my thoughts about playing with Men here: http://alanbestbuys.com/id145.html

[Frank Kneeland]

Gee Frank. I'm not asking you to reveal the magical bus stop machine or the secret handshake.

My point is that there is no non-progressive game that offers a positive paytable without a royal.

If there is please correct me.

Edited to add: and yes, my first table was with Men The Master Nguyen, and later I was with him when there were only four tables left in the tournament. I wrote about my thoughts about playing with Men here: http://alanbestbuys.com/id145.html

I thought I was clear. Yes there are games where even if you never got a Royal the machines would be positive. They are not common knowledge and the people that play them aren't talking.

[Rob.Singer]

Let me take the strain (& mystery perhaps?) out of this conversation by saying this: There is no such thing as a "positive" machine unless the player leaves the thing with a profit. Playing video poker for real results is a far different event than theorizing about it before you sit down to play. That's why I've never been afraid of and have always consistently beaten games that do not theoretically calculate out to 100%+. Scared money never won a dime. It is very, very true.

As for those who claim they have the "advantage" a single hand on a vp machine that is a 100%+ game, I'll set them straight also. Let's begin with the all-important concept of the coin flip--a single flip so we can relate it to a single hand of vp. If the house chooses heads and you have tails for a $1 bet, no one has the advantage on this flip. But say the house gives you 10:1 odds where if it comes up in your favor you win 10 bucks, and if it doesn't you lose a dollar. Who has the ACTUAL advantage on this particular flip? That's right--NO ONE DOES. It is still a 50-50 proposition. The amount it pays IF it comes up in anyone's favor is of no consequence prior to the flip since it is all theoretical at that point.

Now onto the hot topic of video poker and a single dealt/drawn upon hand. You're playing an $21,568 progressive royal dollar 10/7DBP machine, which is well into the positive area as we all know. Talk about getting an AP's pants wet! But you are only playing ONE hand. I know, such a sad, sad thought for the many addicted AP's out there who live in total denial.

So who actually has the advantage for this one single hand of vp? Well, the theorists who live on probability theory--which is the #1 rope-'em-in tactic used by casinos against them--will claim it is THEY who hold the advantage over this monstrously positive game. But in reality--that's IN REALITY--they are only fooling themselves and are at the same time giving their egos a huge, but false boost.

Here's why: Since >50% of all vp hands are losers, the advantage for this one hand lies squarely with the casino. It's the same thing as if there were no payout except for the royal flush, and the royal were a staggerring $10milliom. For one hand, who has the advantage? Guess who....as another beautiful property begins to be built from video poker profits on the Strip. Of course, if I were a theorist looking for a reason to play on and on and on until I went broke, hit the royal (either royal, that is) or my wife came in after me using every curse word in the book, I'd say something dumb like "But gee honey, I was playing a +$67/hour game or whatever". Then his wife snaps back: "So tell me, genius, how many gallons of gasoline can I buy with THOSE phantom bucks--I suppose just as many as you claimed I could buy on your last 10 visits?"

That concludes today's lesson on simple common sene, and why it is so important to understand the REALITY of playing video poker rather than playing probability theory with each and every hand.

[Alan Mendelson]

I thought I was clear. Yes there are games where even if you never got a Royal the machines would be positive. They are not common knowledge and the people that play them aren't talking.

I wish the Secret Society lots of luck.

Frank: my very first trip to a casino in 1977 was in St. Maarten. There in the casino was a 25-cent slot machine which had a malfunction, and on every pull of the handle the machine landed on a cherry. A group of us surrounded the machine and took turns doubling our 50-cents to a dollar. One after another. Until a manager came along and literally pulled the plug on the machine.

Whatever magical machine you are talking about is a machine that is flawed, either by being having the wrong program or some other glitch.

There is no video poker game made, that is not a progressive, that has a positive paytable without a royal unless the machine has an error-- or was rigged.

Why don't you just say that instead of the super secret society mumbo jumbo?

[Frank Kneeland]

Let me take the strain (& mystery perhaps?) out of this conversation by saying this: There is no such thing as a "positive" machine unless the player leaves the thing with a profit. Playing video poker for real results is a far different event than theorizing about it before you sit down to play. That's why I've never been afraid of and have always consistently beaten games that do not theoretically calculate out to 100%+. Scared money never won a dime. It is very, very true.

As for those who claim they have the "advantage" a single hand on a vp machine that is a 100%+ game, I'll set them straight also. Let's begin with the all-important concept of the coin flip--a single flip so we can relate it to a single hand of vp. If the house chooses heads and you have tails for a $1 bet, no one has the advantage on this flip. But say the house gives you 10:1 odds where if it comes up in your favor you win 10 bucks, and if it doesn't you lose a dollar. Who has the ACTUAL advantage on this particular flip? That's right--NO ONE DOES. It is still a 50-50 proposition. The amount it pays IF it comes up in anyone's favor is of no consequence prior to the flip since it is all theoretical at that point.

Now onto the hot topic of video poker and a single dealt/drawn upon hand. You're playing an $21,568 progressive royal dollar 10/7DBP machine, which is well into the positive area as we all know. Talk about getting an AP's pants wet! But you are only playing ONE hand. I know, such a sad, sad thought for the many addicted AP's out there who live in total denial.

So who actually has the advantage for this one single hand of vp? Well, the theorists who live on probability theory--which is the #1 rope-'em-in tactic used by casinos against them--will claim it is THEY who hold the advantage over this monstrously positive game. But in reality--that's IN REALITY--they are only fooling themselves and are at the same time giving their egos a huge, but false boost.

Here's why: Since >50% of all vp hands are losers, the advantage for this one hand lies squarely with the casino. It's the same thing as if there were no payout except for the royal flush, and the royal were a staggerring $10milliom. For one hand, who has the advantage? Guess who....as another beautiful property begins to be built from video poker profits on the Strip. Of course, if I were a theorist looking for a reason to play on and on and on until I went broke, hit the royal (either royal, that is) or my wife came in after me using every curse word in the book, I'd say something dumb like "But gee honey, I was playing a +$67/hour game or whatever". Then his wife snaps back: "So tell me, genius, how many gallons of gasoline can I buy with THOSE phantom bucks--I suppose just as many as you claimed I could buy on your last 10 visits?"

That concludes today's lesson on simple common sene, and why it is so important to understand the REALITY of playing video poker rather than playing probability theory with each and every hand.

And now we should all understand why my task of evaluating the RS system has been so difficult. Rob does not seem to use terms like "positive" or "edge" in the normal way. What we have here is a definition for concepts that I wasn't even talking about. The machines I was referring to were calculated as being positive without the Royal. I have actually played them and have run slightly better than expected...not sure why that should matter.

When I use terms like, "positive", I use them irrespective of play. Such terms are normally used before you play, so I'm not sure how Rob manages to include yet to happen events which are in the future.

Before you have walked into a casino you say, "I'm going to play this positive game that's 103% return". After you play you can list a result based on how you actually did. It is unlikely that this number will match the games return. It may be less, it may be more. No way to tell until it happens.

For some bizarre reason I have yet to understand in any of our conversations, Rob feels (as he said above) that how things turn out disavows predictions of how things should come out.

My strong guess is that when he says things like, "theorists who live on probability theory are only fooling themselves" it's because he does not understand what they mean when they use terms for which he has different meanings. I certainly don't expect to get 103% return from a 103% game. Not sure why Rob thinks I do.

In summary, what we have here is a major failure to communicate. I'll be really busy for the next week. Try to sort it out and remember, I think the main issue here is use of language, not true disagreement on concepts. What Rob talking about here is called equivalence assurance, and it is an important thing to consider. It is not normally included in the terms "edge" "Positive", "etc" as those are based on simple game odds.

[Alan Mendelson]

My strong guess is that when he says things like, "theorists who live on probability theory are only fooling themselves" it's because he does not understand what they mean when they use terms for which he has different meanings. I certainly don't expect to get 103% return from a 103% game. Not sure why Rob thinks I do.

I think, Frank, it's because everyone who has ever disagreed with Rob's system maintains that if the paytable says 100.17% that they will indeed get 100.17% return over time.

You are the first to say that "I certainly don't expect to get 103% return from a 103% game."

In fact, the more I think about it, why don't you do an analysis of his critics? Why don't you try to figure out why they think if the paytable says 99.2% that they will get 99.2% over time? Why don't you try to figure out why they can't leave the casino when they reach a win goal? Why don't you try to figure out why when playing 7/5 Bonus and dealt a full house with 3 aces they wouldn't take a shot at getting quad aces?

[Frank Kneeland]

I think, Frank, it's because everyone who has ever disagreed with Rob's system maintains that if the paytable says 100.17% that they will indeed get 100.17% return over time.

You are the first to say that "I certainly don't expect to get 103% return from a 103% game."

I agree with that. Some of the criticism Rob has gotten was, shall we say is "less than accurate". And some AP's out there don't understand these concepts very well either, and use their own definitions as well. The whole thing has gotten horribly muddled over time and it would be extremely remiss to place all the blame on Rob's door. I can tell you that this isn't what I mean when I use such terms. I cannot speak for others.

I really have to go get ready for my girlfriends impending trip.

Good luck all and TTFN. Focus on locking down definitions while I'm away. Expected return Nov 8th.

[Rob.Singer]

The AP's who get ruffled by my common sense look at how video poker ACTUALLY works for a player vs. compared to the perfect robot as created by the math books, have always tried to get out of it by claiming that the more hands one plays, the closer to mathematical expectation one will get.

Gee that's great---except for the very small problem that says we all play in individual sessions having nothing to do with any that have come before or that are yet to come. Why is this? Simple. No one hand is influenced by any that have come before or that are yet to come, so it stands to reason that the same holds true for the sessions. In conclusion, there is no such thing as the "long-term" for the player. The casinos attain it....even the machines attain it, but the player never will. And since this is true, then maybe players will finally get that if you play a progressive approach knowing that there is a session-ending lucky hand awaiting you somewhere in your session at least 85% of the time that you play--and that the few large losing sessions are way more than compensated for by the huge winners that appear (along with the many smaller winning sessions which only add gravy to the mix)--then you will finally understand how & why the Singer Single-Play Strategy has been so successful. It is really very, very simple.

[redietz]

I haven't gotten around to bringing this up for discussion, so until Frank returns, I'll mention it: In my opinion, the arguments APers make for the idea that no machines are using flawed or rigged chips do not hold water. The usual argument is that the sky would fall if a casino were caught cheating or ignoring non-random chips. In the past, when casinos were caught rigging drawings, the punishments were affordable fines and a person here or there was fired. These people wound up with better jobs in Indian gaming a few days later. The casinos themselves didn't get much negative publicity, or everybody forgot about it soon thereafter. So why are we to assume all the chips function as we are told they will?

I mean, really, if people were told that 20% of all chips were flawed, would they stop playing video poker? Not likely.

Running into one machine with a bad chip, either by design or accident, could undercut the entire premise of playing with an advantage. Heavy play on such a machine could reverse your outcome for the year.

[Alan Mendelson]

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.

Our friend Arcimede$ never responded to Frank's last post. He has returned to the LVA where he is less likely to be criticized or even questioned.

Too bad.

[Rob.Singer]

arci is only being arci. When the heat of a debate gets turned up and 100% of the respondents aren't praising him, he always sneaks out thru the back door--much like he did twice with me when we set up meetings in LV to review my play strategy. Regardless of how things turn out with Frank and myself, he's seen we've actually met once and we have plans to do it again. Realities like that when escaping are a viable option, are not something arci can deal with.

He's also posting on videopoker.com where there are more hacks who are allowed to badmouth me, as well as an administrator who has been known to encourage it.

[Alan Mendelson]

Frank Kneeland: Are we miscommunicating? Here's what you wrote on another forum:

"If you don't dispute the math you follow the math every single hand, all the time without question."

The miscommunication concerns the word dispute.

I looked up the definition of the word dispute on various online dictionaries, including this familiar one:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dispute

Never did I find any definition that indicates you must follow the math strategy of video poker if you dispute the math. Every definition says something like this:

---to engage in argument
---to struggle against
---to debate over

Is it not possible to dispute the math but still not follow the math?

Rob Singer has told me he does not dispute the math, but does not always follow the "math play." Why is that a problem for you to accept? Do mathematicians have a special language that the rest of us aren't privy too? Do mathematicians believe that if you don't dispute it that you must follow it?

I disputed the draft and the Vietnam war, but I carried my draft card, and when I got an order to go for a pre-induction physical I showed up at my draft board at 6-AM for the bus ride to the White Hall Street induction station.

I don't dispute the law that says you must come to a full stop at a stop sign, yet I sometimes will use a "rolling stop." (Turn me in.)

I don't dispute the guidance that you should save 10% of your paycheck, but I can promise you I don't save 10% of my paycheck.

(By the way, I would have posted this on the other forum, but for some reason I cannot unless I go to the extreme of going around various methods that do not allow me to post. The moderator of that claims I have not been banned, yet I can't post without taking extreme measures. I have explained this in various emails, and have not received any response. I don't think they want to clear up the problem and probably would rather I didn't post. This censorship appeared, I believe, when others complained about my reporting of the Singer system. Fortunately, I don't censor ideas here. I do censor poor taste, however.)

[Alan Mendelson]

The latest from Frank about his analysis of Rob Singer's strategy: On the LVA Forum he posted that it's about 25,000 words and said he might offer it as a download on his website. I sent him an email and asked him how long that was in pages and he said it is about 40 pages long. My website here is about 235 pages (not counting our Forum pages) so that's quite an analysis by Frank!

I raised the question about making it available as a download. I know that I try not to download anything from the web because of malware. I'm sure that Frank will take appropriate care, but I suggested that it might be better to post the pages on open website pages that do not require downloads.

Any other thoughts on this?

By the way, this is going to be a very interesting article from Frank because as I understand it, Rob's description of his system doesn't cover more than a few pages of text. I suspect that a lot of Frank's report will be spent explaining why certain beliefs are true, or not true or can't be proven or invalidated. We might even get to read a Q&A between Frank and Rob which would be interesting and may finally present the public debate that Rob has sought over the years.

I think it is good to put all information out there so that everyone can make up their own minds. I don't know what I will agree with or what I will disagree with in Frank's report, but I commend him for doing it, for putting it out there, and I hope everyone who has interest in video poker and those who are critical of Rob's system and the few who see value in it, will all consider what Frank has to say.

Thank you Frank for doing this work. More information can't hurt anyone's decision making. As I used to say on the TV news-- and that's the bottom line for your money.

[Rob.Singer]

One thing we agreed would be a constant: Envious critics like arci who have a single agenda in life driven by being controlled by the game of video poker, will criticize either myself, Frank, or both! The reason? Because arci has shown throughout the years that anyone who even ever-so-slightly says something positive about my life or how I approach the game, irritates him no end and brings out the true arci as known to him by his family (see him call Alan all sorts of names from being frustraed by this on the other forum and even this one).

Similarly, arci will find every reason to attack me via his anal "this is the way it is and this is the way it has GOT to be!" interpretation of how everyone HAS to play the game....or else. And in the process, even more people will think of him as someone with a hard life--which, of course, he has dug himself into with a big assist from casinos.

I tingle at the number of sleepless nights the poor fellow is having right now!

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, I wonder if you might update us? Frank reported on the LVA Forum that he has written some 30-thousand words about your system. I'm curious... how much time have you spent discussing your system with Frank to this point?

[Rob.Singer]

It seems odd, but Frank only asked about my play strategy earlier this week after a month or two of other stuff, and I haven't had any questions after telling him it was written up in fair detail here on your site. 30,000 words? Wow.

[Rew10]

O.K. My first post. I'll be targeted as an "impostor" but this ain't my first rodeo so whatever! Have at it.

It certainly does seem odd that Kneeland could write 30,000 words in analyzing a single "strategy!" Over the last few days I've educated myself on this particular thread here and on other forums. You might ask why would someone spend the time to do such? In search for knowledge. That is why. Certainly not because of the quality of post which arise from any discussion (involving a few posters) of "Rob Singer" and his 'system.'

I personally think Rob's "system" or "strategy" (whatever) has merit an wanted to expand my knowledge on it.

To Kneelands "Analysis." I'll say, I was hopeful when I saw this was happening because of the holes in Rob's (many) description attempts of his 'method' (a word I choose to call it) and I hoped those would be answered in this "analysis." Sounds like it may not.
The news of Kneelands "analysis" being ~30,000 words long tempers my anticipation to say the least. Possibly 120 pages??? (I know Kneeland estimated 40 pages but that would be 750 wpp and 250 wpp is considered the standard) an we hear as little as a 'few pages' will contain actual analysis information? HUH!

I've heard / read / watched Kneelands various contributions on the subject of VP over the years. One thing I've noticed is he's wordy for sure. But, that can't account for the size here. I believe what we are going to get here is 3 or so pages about Rob Singers method and 247 page of 'amateur psychology' analysis of "Rob Singer." I can't be the only one who sees Kneelands dabblings in the 'amateur psych' world. BORING!!!!!!

I hope I'm wrong. Nothing I said here should be taken as a personal attack of any sort. Just my opinion.

[redietz]

I'll find the psychological/sociological aspects a lot more interesting than the video poker. VP's just an angle to examine broader aspects of the world.

[Alan Mendelson]

I was talking with Rob last night on the phone about this. There is a big difference, it seems, between video poker players and craps players on the concept of "walking away" or leaving with a profit.

In craps, players will leave many times after a hot roll. The craps players will take their profits and run and yes, to return another day.

In video poker, the APers scoff at the idea of leaving with a win, or after reaching a win goal.

What's the difference here?

Why can craps players, even advantage craps players leave the table and return another time without criticism, but advantage video poker players, and the math guys, say leaving with a profit or after reach a win goal is, to quote one prominent APer, "not logical"??

Someone, please explain this difference, please.

[Rob.Singer]

I'll find the psychological/sociological aspects a lot more interesting than the video poker. VP's just an angle to examine broader aspects of the world.

And one of those psychological aspects has to be enjoying watching arcimedes make a fool of himself on LVA after he got scolded by Frank over here, among others. And it's not difficult at all to guess how many times he reads what I post here, daily! Whenever I get under his skin he starts ranting on LVA about my "con" and how I've never played my strategy while he knows more about it than I--expecting his one follower to hand over support for his lies that he didn't get here.

Sociological? Well, there's a reason I enjoyed Thanksgiving dinner with my wife and family while arci went alone to the Indian casino