Page 56 of 501 FirstFirst ... 64652535455565758596066106156 ... LastLast
Results 1,101 to 1,120 of 10016

Thread: The WoV Thread

  1. #1101
    BBB you better not let wizard catch you praying to God over here!

  2. #1102
    Originally Posted by Prozema View Post
    I found this video of Rob and Alan.



    At about the 1 minute mark, Rob started talking about video poker games not being random.

    If that belief is still true, I don't see the point in arguing.... You either believe you are playing a fair game and side with the math people (i.e. MC) or you believe it's not random and you side with... I'm not even sure what to call it... (I.e. Rob).

    If there is not alignment on whether the deal and draw are random, there is no basis for a conversation. All you have left at best is a debate or a argument on whether games are or are not random. Am I right?

    I want to assume it is a debate and the goal is to influence the audience on who is right and who is wrong. I know what I think...

    Or maybe this is just an argument where the goal is nothing more than to hurt or diminish the other person?

    The most baffeling thing here is both people claim to be making a mint... Defense and prosecuting attorneys both join the same country clubs and doctors and business men. Each one of them had different paths to success... But somehow, gambling is different I guess.
    I don't know if I should thank you or not for this link. Here is an interesting quote from Rob Singer...

    "I play short term. I am a video poker professional. I play short term strategies. I play to get lucky... hope that I get a winner. They eventually come, I have a structured strategy that gets me outta here as soon as I get a winner."

    He actually said that He plays to get LUCKY and HOPES to get a WINNER!

    However he is on another video with Alan talking about throwing away 3 queens against the KOJ suited when he is playing 8/5 Bonus Poker if he is buried in a massive hole for the day.



    He explains this is a rare hold but that he will throw the 3 queens away if the circumstances are right and he is losing tons of cash on the day. This is really good stuff and I have only listened to him for 15 mins. Honestly I have never heard of this guy because while he was writing books and finding patterns for the last 18 years I was too busy taking advantage of easy plays inside of the Casinos of Las Vegas... but whatever... I am just a POS, criminal.

    This is a good one too about 4567 vs A



    Here you have an open ended straight you hold that right? No Way... not with an Ace!
    Last edited by monet; 04-13-2018 at 02:22 AM.

  3. #1103
    Monet don't forget that Rob also clearly gives the math showing his special plays are at a disadvantage to the conventional play. His critics always seem to leave that out.

    By the way I do not follow his special plays BUT don't forget his justification for them. Take for example the Ace vs the open ended straight. When he needs a big win is it going to come from a straight or is it going to come from Aces or maybe a royal with the ace?

    Me? I hold the open ended straight. Always. But I've missed those straight draws too.

  4. #1104


    This link is pretty good. I am guessing that Rob Singer never played Flush Attack... even he would have to hold the flush draw without a high card in that game.

    His strategy is all about the Ace... he should just play Super Aces all the time... they still have some FP versions in town.

  5. #1105
    Originally Posted by monet View Post


    This link is pretty good. I am guessing that Rob Singer never played Flush Attack... even he would have to hold the flush draw without a high card in that game.

    His strategy is all about the Ace... he should just play Super Aces all the time... they still have some FP versions in town.
    These YouTube videos do not include the math analysis that is on my website. See:

    http://alanbestbuys.com/id194.html

  6. #1106
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Originally Posted by monet View Post


    This link is pretty good. I am guessing that Rob Singer never played Flush Attack... even he would have to hold the flush draw without a high card in that game.

    His strategy is all about the Ace... he should just play Super Aces all the time... they still have some FP versions in town.
    These YouTube videos do not include the math analysis that is on my website. See:

    http://alanbestbuys.com/id194.html
    Remember the old George Bush (the father) term "fuzzy math"? That's all this is Alan. Singer has several short term negative EV strategies, that while it is possible to turn a profit short-term with these strategies, it is just a mathematical impossibility to win long-term.

    Several short term negative EV strategies do not....can not...add up to a long-term winning strategy. It is that simple. Any spin by Singer, or you to suggests otherwise is just nonsense. A mathematical impossibility.

    But you, Alan apparently appreciate mathematical impossibilities with your lightning in a bottle...18 times... goofiness, so you are a perfect match for Singer. I guess that is why you have years of enabling him. But for the rest of the real world, you are just two guys in fantasyland. Two guys in the twilight zone, completely ignoring, even going against the mathematics of the real world. The mathematics that almost everything in the real world really is and boils down to.

  7. #1107
    The biggest mistake the AP's are always making, is that, once again, if you play -EV games you will lose, and if you play +EV games you will win. They just can't see beyond that. I can. And can you imagine thinking that a game which theoretically pays 100.17% will generate ANY different results that a game paying 99.7% during a 3 hour session when you're playing for a win goal? Makes no sense.

    They like to think that there's no such thing as going into a casino with a set win goal, then leaving when you attain it. Can't happen....but they offer no explanation because they know they're wrong. This is why monet mentioned Flush Attack. I consider that a gimmick game that AP's get roped into playing because of the juicy sounding +EV it has with the right pay table. These guys ONLY think in terms of playing on and on forever, which is only the case for the machines and the casinos, by the way. To win consistently in casinos you have to think in a smarter way than they're set up to operate. You can't beat them at their own long term game.

  8. #1108
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    The biggest mistake the AP's are always making, is that, once again, if you play -EV games you will lose, and if you play +EV games you will win. They just can't see beyond that. I can. And can you imagine thinking that a game which theoretically pays 100.17% will generate ANY different results that a game paying 99.7% during a 3 hour session when you're playing for a win goal? Makes no sense.

    They like to think that there's no such thing as going into a casino with a set win goal, then leaving when you attain it. Can't happen....but they offer no explanation because they know they're wrong. This is why monet mentioned Flush Attack. I consider that a gimmick game that AP's get roped into playing because of the juicy sounding +EV it has with the right pay table. These guys ONLY think in terms of playing on and on forever, which is only the case for the machines and the casinos, by the way. To win consistently in casinos you have to think in a smarter way than they're set up to operate. You can't beat them at their own long term game.
    YES, a player can win short-term. A roulette player betting black can win over an hour or two if an abnormal number of blacks appear short-term like that. A horse bettor, betting favorites can win over an afternoon race card if 4 or 5 favorites happen to win that day. Neither of these possible short term strategies can be carried forth for any length of time, that is to say longer term and that is what you are attempting to do.

    Stop limits, of which "win goals" is a part can not change a losing strategy into a winning strategy. All it does is "redistribute" the wins and losses in such a manner that you will have clusters of wins, but also clusters of LARGER losses. So yes, you will have a small cluster, a small sample size that looks like a win but IT ISN'T. Long term the results will be EXACTLY the same. A negative EV strategy can not win long term and nothing you say or do can change that. Not the fuzzy math. Not the hate. Not the personal attacks.

  9. #1109
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Monet don't forget that Rob also clearly gives the math showing his special plays are at a disadvantage to the conventional play. His critics always seem to leave that out.

    By the way I do not follow his special plays BUT don't forget his justification for them. Take for example the Ace vs the open ended straight. When he needs a big win is it going to come from a straight or is it going to come from Aces or maybe a royal with the ace?

    Me? I hold the open ended straight. Always. But I've missed those straight draws too.
    About 1 in 6 to make the straight and it pays 4 for 1.
    About 1 in 4054 to make 4 Aces and they pay only 160 for 1.

    Yeah, I know, aces pay more on certain games or with kickers but it's still a pretty shitty deal over holding the straight draw.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  10. #1110
    Originally Posted by monet View Post


    This link is pretty good. I am guessing that Rob Singer never played Flush Attack... even he would have to hold the flush draw without a high card in that game.

    His strategy is all about the Ace... he should just play Super Aces all the time... they still have some FP versions in town.
    Or 100 play Royal Aces Bonus ;-)

  11. #1111
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Monet don't forget that Rob also clearly gives the math showing his special plays are at a disadvantage to the conventional play. His critics always seem to leave that out.

    By the way I do not follow his special plays BUT don't forget his justification for them. Take for example the Ace vs the open ended straight. When he needs a big win is it going to come from a straight or is it going to come from Aces or maybe a royal with the ace?

    Me? I hold the open ended straight. Always. But I've missed those straight draws too.
    I want to mention that, in my opinion, referring to people as Argentino's "critics" is a language gimmick that presents an inaccurate picture of reality. It bestows a certain gravitas to what Argentino does that isn't deserved, and creates a verbal patina of credibility to what he claims he does.

    The reality is not that Argentino has an influential strategy and that there is a bevy of "critics" who go out of their way to analyze and debunk Argentino's way of operating. The reality is actually that there is an established math of probability. Argentino is the "critic" of what that established math says will happen. The "critics" of Argentino aren't the outliers. Nobody with a doctorate in math is going to agree with what Argentino claims his results will be. The outlier is Argentino, who is a "critic" of established math and says results will be different going forward than what the math says they will be.

  12. #1112
    Originally Posted by monet View Post


    This link is pretty good. I am guessing that Rob Singer never played Flush Attack... even he would have to hold the flush draw without a high card in that game.

    His strategy is all about the Ace... he should just play Super Aces all the time... they still have some FP versions in town.
    LOLOLOLOL!!!!! at the sheer stupidity in the video. Rob with "you go for the flush, you don't get it, you don't get it, you don't get it." Hey, LOL but if you hold the lone Ace you get 4 Aces. Whopeeeeee!!!! LOLOLOLOL!!! Dumb, dumb, dumb. Dumber, Dumber, Dumber. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Alan, you should be embarrassed to have your name associated with that.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  13. #1113
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by monet View Post


    This link is pretty good. I am guessing that Rob Singer never played Flush Attack... even he would have to hold the flush draw without a high card in that game.

    His strategy is all about the Ace... he should just play Super Aces all the time... they still have some FP versions in town.
    LOLOLOLOL!!!!! at the sheer stupidity in the video. Rob with "you go for the flush, you don't get it, you don't get it, you don't get it." Hey, LOL but if you hold the lone Ace you get 4 Aces. Whopeeeeee!!!! LOLOLOLOL!!! Dumb, dumb, dumb. Dumber, Dumber, Dumber. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Alan, you should be embarrassed to have your name associated with that.
    When you're in the hole thousands of dollars because of this stupid strategy...ah nevermind...

  14. #1114
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Originally Posted by monet View Post


    This link is pretty good. I am guessing that Rob Singer never played Flush Attack... even he would have to hold the flush draw without a high card in that game.

    His strategy is all about the Ace... he should just play Super Aces all the time... they still have some FP versions in town.
    These YouTube videos do not include the math analysis that is on my website. See:

    http://alanbestbuys.com/id194.html
    Alan, have you ever asked yourself "if Argentino's tactics actually work why is he not targeting the highest hand on the payscale, the Royal Flush, by holding 3-card royals over high pairs and 2-card royals over low pairs, etc?"
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  15. #1115
    The video of Singer tossing 4 to the flush in favor of a single A is exactly the point I was trying to make earlier. If the game is random, there is no question what to hold. If the game is not randomly dealing cards, there is no common ground to have a discussion. So... Let's get back to the insults please.

  16. #1116
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    The biggest mistake the AP's are always making, is that, once again, if you play -EV games you will lose, and if you play +EV games you will win. They just can't see beyond that. I can. And can you imagine thinking that a game which theoretically pays 100.17% will generate ANY different results that a game paying 99.7% during a 3 hour session when you're playing for a win goal? Makes no sense.

    They like to think that there's no such thing as going into a casino with a set win goal, then leaving when you attain it. Can't happen....but they offer no explanation because they know they're wrong. This is why monet mentioned Flush Attack. I consider that a gimmick game that AP's get roped into playing because of the juicy sounding +EV it has with the right pay table. These guys ONLY think in terms of playing on and on forever, which is only the case for the machines and the casinos, by the way. To win consistently in casinos you have to think in a smarter way than they're set up to operate. You can't beat them at their own long term game.
    YES, a player can win short-term. A roulette player betting black can win over an hour or two if an abnormal number of blacks appear short-term like that. A horse bettor, betting favorites can win over an afternoon race card if 4 or 5 favorites happen to win that day. Neither of these possible short term strategies can be carried forth for any length of time, that is to say longer term and that is what you are attempting to do.

    Stop limits, of which "win goals" is a part can not change a losing strategy into a winning strategy. All it does is "redistribute" the wins and losses in such a manner that you will have clusters of wins, but also clusters of LARGER losses. So yes, you will have a small cluster, a small sample size that looks like a win but IT ISN'T. Long term the results will be EXACTLY the same. A negative EV strategy can not win long term and nothing you say or do can change that. Not the fuzzy math. Not the hate. Not the personal attacks.
    Here's where you and others like you are completely confused, and fail to comprehend how gambling works other than for the long term casinos. AP's have been roped in by the casinos to think exactly like them, which is why you people help them continue to operate with your theoretical wins but actual losses.

    You claim I can win a session TODAY....something I've seen AP's say a million times since I began writing my column in GT in 2000. Well....care to guess what MY--not your--probability % is of winning that session with my play strategy? If you guessed 85% then you'd be very close. And it's right here that every AP who's ever faced off with me begins to fade away.

    Tell me kew--if I had an 85% chance of winning 5% of my session bankroll minimum with my strategy last week, what would my chances be on this week's casino visit? You say 85%? Exactly right.

    So now we have two wins in two weeks. But what about after 40 weeks? Where are we now? Well, the math says I should have about 6 losing sessions and 34 winning ones, and in my career that's pretty close to what it's been. What? Singer won 34 sessions and lost only 6?? So you now have no choice but to say that my losses--and they have to be BIG--add up to more than my puny $2500/session wins, right?

    That's the AP emotional response for sure. Why? Because their "theories" say that you must add up all these individual short term sessions and transform them into one long term event. What's funny about this approach is this: you're only saying that because when 99.7% avg. games are being played, your casino-trained minds are forced to add everything up and get a negative number....but had my avg. game been played at 100.1%, you'd be howling about how a profit COULD occur in this instance! Then all your babbling and moaning about how I play MARTINGALE so I HAVE to lose, would no longer hold any water. You guys in effect begin to argue against yourselves!

    Here's the key kew: each of those 6 losses, because or the very complex "go down, not up, in denomination upon attaining mini-win goals along the way" which includes numerous 40 credit or greater soft profit cashouts, I'm losing around $6k-$10k/losing session on average and not the $57,200 session bankroll. Conversely, the winners are all either slightly above $2500, much above $2500, greatly above $2500, or in a few cases massively above $2500. In other words, there are a lot of smaller winners ($2500-$3500 range) but the larger winners far outnumber the larger losers. Which is how this short term playing strategy has been able to consistently make me money---money that is far and away at a far greater actual "hourly rate" than any of that theoretical per hour nonsense that AP's claim to "grind away" at.

    This is what's been driving AP's up the wall for over 18 years now. But it is what it is. And as long as people choose to only see things the way the casinos see them and WANT everyone to see them, and believe you cannot make money off of a machine that's theoretically .4% less than the one next to it, the disbelief and the arguments will go on and on.

  17. #1117
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    The biggest mistake the AP's are always making, is that, once again, if you play -EV games you will lose, and if you play +EV games you will win. They just can't see beyond that. I can. And can you imagine thinking that a game which theoretically pays 100.17% will generate ANY different results that a game paying 99.7% during a 3 hour session when you're playing for a win goal? Makes no sense.

    They like to think that there's no such thing as going into a casino with a set win goal, then leaving when you attain it. Can't happen....but they offer no explanation because they know they're wrong. This is why monet mentioned Flush Attack. I consider that a gimmick game that AP's get roped into playing because of the juicy sounding +EV it has with the right pay table. These guys ONLY think in terms of playing on and on forever, which is only the case for the machines and the casinos, by the way. To win consistently in casinos you have to think in a smarter way than they're set up to operate. You can't beat them at their own long term game.
    YES, a player can win short-term. A roulette player betting black can win over an hour or two if an abnormal number of blacks appear short-term like that. A horse bettor, betting favorites can win over an afternoon race card if 4 or 5 favorites happen to win that day. Neither of these possible short term strategies can be carried forth for any length of time, that is to say longer term and that is what you are attempting to do.

    Stop limits, of which "win goals" is a part can not change a losing strategy into a winning strategy. All it does is "redistribute" the wins and losses in such a manner that you will have clusters of wins, but also clusters of LARGER losses. So yes, you will have a small cluster, a small sample size that looks like a win but IT ISN'T. Long term the results will be EXACTLY the same. A negative EV strategy can not win long term and nothing you say or do can change that. Not the fuzzy math. Not the hate. Not the personal attacks.
    Here's where you and others like you are completely confused, and fail to comprehend how gambling works other than for the long term casinos. AP's have been roped in by the casinos to think exactly like them, which is why you people help them continue to operate with your theoretical wins but actual losses.

    You claim I can win a session TODAY....something I've seen AP's say a million times since I began writing my column in GT in 2000. Well....care to guess what MY--not your--probability % is of winning that session with my play strategy? If you guessed 85% then you'd be very close. And it's right here that every AP who's ever faced off with me begins to fade away.

    Tell me kew--if I had an 85% chance of winning 5% of my session bankroll minimum with my strategy last week, what would my chances be on this week's casino visit? You say 85%? Exactly right.

    So now we have two wins in two weeks. But what about after 40 weeks? Where are we now? Well, the math says I should have about 6 losing sessions and 34 winning ones, and in my career that's pretty close to what it's been. What? Singer won 34 sessions and lost only 6?? So you now have no choice but to say that my losses--and they have to be BIG--add up to more than my puny $2500/session wins, right?

    That's the AP emotional response for sure. Why? Because their "theories" say that you must add up all these individual short term sessions and transform them into one long term event. What's funny about this approach is this: you're only saying that because when 99.7% avg. games are being played, your casino-trained minds are forced to add everything up and get a negative number....but had my avg. game been played at 100.1%, you'd be howling about how a profit COULD occur in this instance! Then all your babbling and moaning about how I play MARTINGALE so I HAVE to lose, would no longer hold any water. You guys in effect begin to argue against yourselves!

    Here's the key kew: each of those 6 losses, because or the very complex "go down, not up, in denomination upon attaining mini-win goals along the way" which includes numerous 40 credit or greater soft profit cashouts, I'm losing around $6k-$10k/losing session on average and not the $57,200 session bankroll. Conversely, the winners are all either slightly above $2500, much above $2500, greatly above $2500, or in a few cases massively above $2500. In other words, there are a lot of smaller winners ($2500-$3500 range) but the larger winners far outnumber the larger losers. Which is how this short term playing strategy has been able to consistently make me money---money that is far and away at a far greater actual "hourly rate" than any of that theoretical per hour nonsense that AP's claim to "grind away" at.

    This is what's been driving AP's up the wall for over 18 years now. But it is what it is. And as long as people choose to only see things the way the casinos see them and WANT everyone to see them, and believe you cannot make money off of a machine that's theoretically .4% less than the one next to it, the disbelief and the arguments will go on and on.
    Prove it.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  18. #1118
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Why? Because their "theories" say that you must add up all these individual short term sessions and transform them into one long term event.
    .
    Other than the time between the last deal-draw of a 3 hour session and the first deal-draw of the next 3 hour session on a different day, what is the difference between the hands composing the two 3 hour sessions and those composing a six hour session (all hands on 8/5 bonus poker with identical paytables) ?

  19. #1119
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Why? Because their "theories" say that you must add up all these individual short term sessions and transform them into one long term event.
    .
    Other than the time between the last deal-draw of a 3 hour session and the first deal-draw of the next 3 hour session on a different day, what is the difference between the hands composing the two 3 hour sessions and those composing a six hour session (all hands on 8/5 bonus poker with identical paytables) ?
    First, you don't seem to know the strategy. It uses 100 credits on BP then 300 credits on SDBP on each denomination. And you go down, not up in denomination as the small winning hands appear.

    Next, there is no difference if I play and win a session in 3 hours, go see a man about a horse, then come back and play another session---or if I take a week off to live my life then return for another session that also might last 3 hours. And it has zero to do with the previous session. Why not? Because while I may have finished the previous session at the $10 level on SDBP, each new session begins on $1 BP. Similarly, because no hand has anything to do with those that have already been played or those that are yet to come, neither do these individual short term sessions have anything at all to do with any other.

  20. #1120
    Wow Rob... That's a complicated system. Kinda sounds like a betting progression.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 46 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 45 guests)

  1. smurgerburger

Similar Threads

  1. The Genealogy Thread
    By mickeycrimm in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 04-27-2018, 06:29 AM
  2. Closed Thread
    By coach belly in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 01-30-2017, 08:29 PM
  3. Sportsbetting ONLY thread
    By LoneStarHorse in forum Sports & Sportsbetting
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-05-2016, 04:48 PM
  4. A thread for losses.
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-26-2014, 02:01 AM
  5. The Kicker Thread
    By Rob.Singer in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 01-12-2014, 02:24 AM

Posting Permissions

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