The Rob Singer System vs. the Kardashian-Humphries Wedding and Divorce

[Alan Mendelson]

I think that Frank Kneeland's evaluation of the Rob Singer video poker system will go down in history as the second most anticipated event since Kim Kardashian's wedding to Kris Humphries. But unlike the Kardashian-Humphries marriage, the debate over Frank's evaluation will last a long, long time.

I'm afraid that nothing will be resolved by Frank's evaluation, and I don't even know what Frank is going to say.

But I can tell you this when different people look at Frank's report:

The "math guys" will always argue for the math of the game.
The "non math guys" will always argue for their personal experience.

And there is the fork in the road that will forever divide everyone when it comes to the Rob Singer System.

These are the facts:

1. The math is the math and Rob doesn't dispute the math of the game.

2. Rob Singer sometimes plays differently from what the math says to do because he likes to "take a shot" for a bigger win. If that is a "video poker crime" then Rob is guilty. Hang 'em high.

3. Rob has a system that calls for leaving the casino when a particular win goal is reached. If leaving with a profit is not logical, and makes no sense according to the math, and means that Rob is limiting his potential wins then Rob is guilty. Hang 'em high.

4. Rob has expressed suspicions that video poker machines are not "honest" or "true" yet he continues to play them as if they are. I can't understand why anyone would want to play a "crooked game" but if that's his belief, then that is his belief. It is not my belief. And I would venture that most video poker players also believe the games are honest. At least, we hope they are. So, if Rob has a suspicion that the games are rigged but his strategy is based on "honest games" then his suspicions about "rigged games" are of no consequence to the rest of us. So hang up your own criticisms of Rob's statements that the games are rigged, because it doesn't matter because you play them as if they're honest and so does Rob.

5. We'll still be talking about the Singer Video Poker System long after the rest of American forgot that Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries were once married.

[redietz]

While I think 99% of vp games are not rigged or faulty, I have my doubts about the figure being 100%. I mean, c'mon, if you defend the 100% figure, you're basically saying there are zero faulty non-random chips in all the machines in all of the casinos. You are also arguing that there are zero slot managers who have access to folks with the capability of switching chips and the motivation to do so. The likelihood that each and every machine is indeed random is very small.

In fact (drum roll, please), I have a pretty good idea of which machines I would rig when if I were a manager interested in skewing results just a tad.

And, as far as the Gaming Commission checking the chips in casinos in Nevada, if they are on schedule, they may get around to particular machines every 18 months or so. Of course, if their examination schedule is leaked in any way, then the whole checking thing becomes moot.

This isn't conspiracy theory. This is just the obvious.

[Alan Mendelson]

Redietz, I am willing to accept that there are chips with non-intentional errors that might have been caused by some process no one was able to catch. I will play those games as long as I don't know in advance that the game is malfunctioning. I will not play a game that I know is malfunctioning and is not fair.

Same thing with craps.

When I belly up to a craps table (and lately my belly has been reaching the craps table sooner than it did in the past) I expect that the dealers will be fair when they call each roll of the dice. But, I have been at tables where dealers have, in my opinion made the wrong call. For example:

1. Calling no roll when a good number is thrown but one die fails to reach the back wall. But when both dice fail to reach the back wall and a 7 appears, they call "seven out."

2. Calling the wrong number when a die is leaning against a chip.

[Rob.Singer]

Machines are "rigged" on-line, they're rigged at most or all Indian casinos, they're rigged in foreign countries and on cruise ships, but they are not rigged in Nevada. I am sure they are not random in Nevada, but that is because they are programmed exactly as required by the gaming regulations. It's right about here that arci has a cow and throws up all the regulations he can muster from the Internet, but a personality like him does not accept that there are certain confidential regulations that the public is not allowed to view. Just like with any proprietary agreement.

What surprises me is how people who play a LOT cannot ascertain from what they see right there in front of them, that the machines do not operate in totally random fashion. Once I spotted this I investigated, tested machines, and even got a machine into my garage for 3 months to do my own testing. And my suspicions were always confirmed.

Why do I play them? Because I have never been able to tell if how they're programmed helps or hurts a player of my style with the strategies I use. But I strongly suspect they hurt those who play many hands and often--such as the self-proclaimed AP's of the world who's most important goal in life is to get into the long-term as quickly as possible.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, how can we as players know that a machine is not giving us random cards? I am yet to play a machine that has dealt to me two of the same cards, i.e. two aces of spades in the same hand.

If that ever happened it would be easy for me to detect a flaw.

But unless I got a replacement card that was the same card that I had just discarded, how could I tell the game was not accurate, or flawed, or rigged?

Please explain.

By the way, and just as an aside: about three years ago I was playing a poker tournament at Hustler Casino, and on the very first hand of the tournament at the table next to mine there was an uproar when two players went all in and both turned over an ace of hearts. There were two errors: first, the "card room" at the casino assembled an incorrect deck. (cards do not come from fresh, factory packs.) second, the dealer when fanning the cards before the tourney failed to notice that there was an Ah where the Ad should have been. Accidents happen.

[Rob.Singer]

I guess it's up to the intellectual capability of the individual player. You either have the aptitude to detect a) hot/cold cycles that are not due to randomness, b) cumulative 5th card flipover rates that are or are not in the 6% territory, c) the more-than-often/outside-of-chance first card dealt that would have given you your quad, SF, or Royal on the immediately preceding hand--and there may be others....or you do not. It's like when dealing with Frank. I've noticed he has a larger number of "wow factor" things about him that the normal person just doesn't have. I have less, but my ability to detect oddities within a supposed RNG is one of them.

I'll give one example, and I've had this confirmed by my source. Cold cycles: They happen in a random environment. But after numerous RAZGU's (swept hands that result in another nothing) accompanied by the continued inability to convert 4-card flushes, straights, and/or 2-pr.FH's within approximately 100 hands (notice RF's & SF's are not included for whatever reason) you have entered an outside-of-random cold cycle.

Believe it or not, it has worked great for me, as I consider myself the master of knowing when to switch machines. I think you'll agree that leaving any machine--esp. a loser that you're trying to teach a lesson to--to restart on another is a very difficult move to make. But not for me, and it has resulted in quite a few winning sessions overall.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, can you define what you mean by a cold streak or cold cycle? You mentioned the figure of "100 hands" in this context:

"But after numerous RAZGU's (swept hands that result in another nothing) accompanied by the continued inability to convert 4-card flushes, straights, and/or 2-pr.FH's within approximately 100 hands (notice RF's & SF's are not included for whatever reason) you have entered an outside-of-random cold cycle."

Is 100 failed conversions your mark of a "cold cycle"?

I don't think I've ever gone longer than 10 or 20 hands without hitting at least a paying pair, and I probably hit at least a paying pair probably at least once in 8 hands during most sessions. Does this mean I've never had a cold cycle by your definition?

[redietz]

Alan's comment hits home, as there is no way to determine if the machine you are playing is non-random or random. That's one of my points. If people are competing for some promo drawing, for example, by competing on high-stakes machines for just a few days or a month, and they take a horrible beating -- they will never know if that was a random walk or a non-random mugging (I hereby lay claim to that phrase). The couple-of-standard-deviation beating on a high stakes machine would profit the casino well, but would be swallowed up in the totality of the statistics for the vp in that particular casino.

There is simply no way for any individual to determine if the machine he/she is playing right now is random.

[Rob.Singer]

Rob, can you define what you mean by a cold streak or cold cycle? You mentioned the figure of "100 hands" in this context:

"But after numerous RAZGU's (swept hands that result in another nothing) accompanied by the continued inability to convert 4-card flushes, straights, and/or 2-pr.FH's within approximately 100 hands (notice RF's & SF's are not included for whatever reason) you have entered an outside-of-random cold cycle."

Is 100 failed conversions your mark of a "cold cycle"?

I don't think I've ever gone longer than 10 or 20 hands without hitting at least a paying pair, and I probably hit at least a paying pair probably at least once in 8 hands during most sessions. Does this mean I've never had a cold cycle by your definition?

That's not what I tried to convey. Those telltale hands must appear WITHIN about 100 overall hands. If even one RAZGU or even one 4-card fl/str/fh converts within ~100 hands then you are not in a cold cycle. How many paying other hands you get is of no consequence.

redietz, respectfully I take exception to your statement based on the above. It does not show up often but it does show up, and the astute/aware player will notice it. Similarly, if you pay attention to how many stiffs you get on the final card that would have given you a big winner but seem to appear as the first card dealt on the next hand, you WILL understand it is not simply recognition bias. Just as with the anomaly associated with the famous 5th card flipover. It actually happens at least twice as often as it mathematically should. You're right in that no one can really tell anything on just the machine they're playing on, but if you are able to combine the other signs with those then it is easy to come to the proper conclusion about the machine you are playing.

[Alan Mendelson]

If even one RAZGU or even one 4-card fl/str/fh converts within ~100 hands then you are not in a cold cycle. How many paying other hands you get is of no consequence.

Rob, if that's how you define a "cold cycle" then I can say with certainty I have never had a cold cycle. 100 hands is a lot of chances to hit a straight/fh/fl and I am pretty sure I've always hit at least one of those in a hundred hands. Does this mean I've never played on a rigged machine?

Now, when it comes to Royals I'm not so lucky. As of my latest tally, it's been at least 146,133 hands since my last royal. Yet, in that time I've had at least 8 straight flushes including that one night about two months ago when I had four SFs in one night, including two that were dealt to me.

[Lucky(St)Louis]

I want to address something Rob said regarding regulations. Regulations for far too long have focused on elements that are now outdated since quite simply regulations are lagging technology badly. Now I realize I'm going to link an article in a moment that people will say "it's an apples and oranges discussion" but the article exemplifies the limitations of old regulations that fail in an attempt to maintain the spirit and integrity of their original purposes.

I will not try to explain it but let the facts speak for themselves in this article by Alan Krigman published yesterday.

http://krigman.casinocitytimes.com/a...-greatly-60179

[Lucky(St)Louis]

I was asked if I'd elaborate...........

First of all, I recognize slots are a losing proposition, however if Rob can make his case for profiting (sp?) at neg EV VP by having a win goal/exit strategy then I can make the same case for slots. Fair enough? In fact, there is a great interview in Kneeland's archives where he and Dancer interview "Mickey Crimm". Crimm says when he arrived in Laughlin in the mid to late 90's he had no money but built his stake playing a particular slot, which there is a great video of btw. It was the original Piggy Bankin' by WMS, the one that infringed on IGT's Telnaes patent, but I digress.
The point of Krigman's article as it apllies is several fold. Though I've known for years that simple variance and randomness failed to explain what some slot players were observing, others argued it was pure math, and not the ability by casinos to literally change the game one is playing without changing RTP%. I've said for years that regulations have failed to keep pace with technology, this is a prime example. This somewhat ties into "hot" and "cold" cycles as they might not be simply a result of variance. In any event, the results are still legally random, though the player's chances to win short term are no longer consistent as in "the old days" where a machine would hit the floor and the math would do the rest.

If casinos, particularly those using central determination and SBG, can swap configurations at will and with no compliance issues, then essentially a player who is always playing in the short term will not have a consistent chance to win though every spin is still random. And the regs currently say this is OK.

It also explains well the observation by slot players that machines pay better when they are "new".

I urge anyone who has ever played any machine to read the article I linked in previous post.

[Rob.Singer]

Rob, if that's how you define a "cold cycle" then I can say with certainty I have never had a cold cycle. 100 hands is a lot of chances to hit a straight/fh/fl and I am pretty sure I've always hit at least one of those in a hundred hands. Does this mean I've never played on a rigged machine?

Now, when it comes to Royals I'm not so lucky. As of my latest tally, it's been at least 146,133 hands since my last royal. Yet, in that time I've had at least 8 straight flushes including that one night about two months ago when I had four SFs in one night, including two that were dealt to me.

It's not simply hitting one of those winners--it's hitting them with a 1-card draw. If you get them in any other manner then it means nothing as far as whether you're in a cold cycle or not. And to clarify again, if you're playing in Nevada then the term is not "a rigged machine". It's simply not 100% random. However, at Rincon, an Indian casino, "rigged" is a valid term.

As you know, my problem is not hitting SF's. I'm glad someone else is!

[Rob.Singer]

Lucky(St)Louis: The reason Dancer had "Mickey Crimm" on is because he is a tremendous story-teller. I put him on par with one of the great made-up story-tellers of the past century--Death Valley Scottie ("Scottie's Castle"). Mickey comes up with more tall tales on gambling than the number of times Bill Clinton has lustful thoughts about other women. If you notice, people like Frank and others are still able to locate and play these 104% etc. games. If Mickey was truly ever successful in his life of gambling then he would be on these things faster than Barrack Obama coming out and denouncing the actions of a white policeman against a thug while having zero facts in hand.

And this notion that he had no money when he started playing--what a pile of BS. It's even more nonsensical than Bob Dancer trying to get people believe he started out with just $6000 and built it up over the years, when the hard fact is that he has had to work MANY JOBS very hard since moving to LV in order to keep his ruse up.

[Alan Mendelson]

It's not simply hitting one of those winners--it's hitting them with a 1-card draw. If you get them in any other manner then it means nothing as far as whether you're in a cold cycle or not. And to clarify again, if you're playing in Nevada then the term is not "a rigged machine". It's simply not 100% random. However, at Rincon, an Indian casino, "rigged" is a valid term.

As you know, my problem is not hitting SF's. I'm glad someone else is!

Most of my play is at Rincon, operated by Harrahs/Caesars but owned by Rincon Indians. And yet, I am converting 1 card draws... on everything but the royals!!! I am getting my fair share of one card draws that convert to flushes and certainly to full houses, and I have had more than my fair share of straight flushes.

My personal deficit is with royals... more than 146,000 hands since my last royal. But I wouldnt say the machines are rigged and I see no evidence that the machines are not random. I accept the results for what they are. I think when it comes to the failure to convert four-to-the-royal hands as just being unlucky.

And darn, I think Ive had more than my share of being unlucky this year. LOL

[Rob.Singer]

Could be the Indians did something to the machines you're playing as well as others. I know you like that place but your catch-up royals await you in LV!

[Alan Mendelson]

Could be the Indians did something to the machines you're playing as well as others. I know you like that place but your catch-up royals await you in LV!

I have to disagree. I've sat there and on several occasions a player sitting next to me or a couple of seats away has hit a royal. It just happened about a week ago. And one night I saw the same player get two royals. I totally reject the idea that there is any hanky-panky there.

Remember that two years ago I hit two progressives there.

[Rob.Singer]

Try playing without a card next time. While there's never been evidence as far as I've heard about the game's software being influenced by a certain player's card, it is something that can easily be coded into the system. Do you know if Rincon's machines are capable of fibre optic control?

Alan, I understand how and why you reject the idea of non-random or rigging at the Indian casinos. It's the same as what people always say when confronted with the possibility that their online gambling sites might be rigged. No one wants it to be true because they really can't fathom not playing there again. Hey, when I was in Phoenix they had some beautiful Indian casinos there. But I never played at them because I told myself early on that there was no reason to take the added chance when none of the tribes are totally forthcoming in how they operate. I'd have loved to be able to play for profit 20 miles from home instead of having to make the 600 mile round trip trek every week for almost a decade.