Rob Singer didn't beat video poker

[kewlJ]

Unless Singer defines the term "total win from over all years" as being his NET win, i.e. the amount left after subtracting all losses from all wins, I submit that the smoke still occludes one's view of the mirrors in Singerland.

I have also raised this possibility, MrV.

Singer had a high paying career in business. No one is disputing that. I am sure that provided him with a nice pension and/or retirement or buyout or whatever. He often says he has or had more money than he would be able to spend.

So let's say he takes 2 million and plays VP with it. Over the years he "wins" a million dollars or whatever amount he wants to claim. Not net winnings of course. So when you subtract the play to get those "winnings" you are left with a negative. So his 2 million dollar starting BR is now 1 million after his 1 million or 1.5 million in "winnings".

We will refer to this as 'Singer Math', since he refuses to use real mathematics.

[Alan Mendelson]

I'm afraid you are all fussing too much about Rob's sub optimal plays. I've discussed these in detail with Rob. Let me give you an example of one and tell you why you are fussing over something that's actually insignificant.

The sub optimal special play is what to do when playing BONUS Poker and you are dealt a full house with three aces:

In 8/5 Bonus Rob holds the full house. So would Dancer.
In 7/5 Bonus Rob holds the 3 aces. Dancer still holds the full house.
In 6/5 Bonus Rob holds the 3 aces and Dancer also holds the 3 aces.

Now: Rob would never play 6/5 Bonus. That's point number one.

Point number two is how often are you dealt a full house with three aces in Bonus Poker?

Bonus Poker is the only game I play and I haven't been dealt a full house with trip aces in a year or longer.

[kewlJ]

Let me be clear about this and even though Rob is my friend I am totally objective about this:

Rob has never proved his claim about winning almost one million dollars while a professional player over ten years (a little less than $100k per year) nor has he proved $1.5-million won including his post professional years.

Also, I have never seen any proof by anyone else about their claimed profits with the exception of Arcimede$ who actually had the IRS send me his tax returns.

So before anyone else says they want proof of Rob's claims be prepared to show us your proof.

Alan, I am NOT calling for Rob to prove anything. You know my position. These are anonymous message boards, even if people chose to be known and not be anonymous. Real AP's will be anonymous and for good reason. But anyway, no one is required to prove anything. Other members can choose to believe or not believe. That is part of the message board culture. And reasonably intelligent people can figure out who is legit and who isn't. I am sure you have heard me say "It isn't that hard to figure out who knows what they are talking about and who is just talking". IT REALLY isn't.

And some of that figuring out who is legit has to do with the math. The math working is like the very first hurdle. If a person's claims can't clear that first hurdle....no need to say more.

This Singer situation has actually become very similar to the situation that led to me being banned at several sites. There was a guy making claims on a blackjack site, mathematically impossible claims. He claimed his very special custom, super duper blackjack count, that only he was smart enough to play, gave him a 500% increase over traditional card counting. A 5% advantage where in most card counters are lucky to grind out a 1% edge.

Now here was the problem. A 5% edge from card counting is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE! If a player set his laptop right their on the felt of the blackjack table, punching in each card played and playing perfectly....computer perfect, he still could not play with a 5% advantage!

So do you see the similarities. Singer is VP instead of blackjack, but completely mathematical impossible claims. You cannot grind your way to long-term wins playing a -EV game. Impossible, impossible, IMPOSSIBLE!

Oh and one other similarity, just like Singer, the blackjack fraud guy (which has since been debunked by blackjack math expert Don Schlesinger) tried to do the exact same tactics as Singer, distractions, change the subject, use oddly worded phrases that can have different meanings (or none at all). In short...these guys try to muddy the waters, because their claims don't work in clear view.

[jbjb]

I believe Rob has won over $1.5 million in VP. I also KNOW he's LOST more money than that, making him a net loser at VP.

[kewlJ]

I believe Rob has won over $1.5 million in VP. I also KNOW he's LOST more money than that, making him a net loser at VP.

Well the rest of us are talking about NET winnings. I know I am and I am pretty sure when mickey says he has won just under a million he is talking net winnings. Anyone who isn't is not being truthful. By that standard even Alan is a big winner and to his credit, even Alan knows and acknowledges that isn't the case.

[Rob.Singer]

Complete bullshit!

Your strategy IS NOT grounded in optimal play. Completely the contrary. The rest nothing but 'fluff'. Do this and that, and this and that in this exact order and you can achieve magical results, completely void of all mathematics. It's all just complete nonsense. It's an illusion....like a magic trick.

You just continue to try to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. Phrases like "optimal play", "complex strategy", "key points" are all a bunch of nonsense intended to sound good. This might work when talking to a bunch of people without a clue, but when you are talking to AP's, people who understand the math, they immediately see you for what you are...nothing but a snake oil salesman, peddling a bunch of mathematically unsustainable bullshit. And all your insults and attacks can't and won't change that.

Sorry you silly little ferocious brute, but the majority of those who've come to me for advice/training have been failed ap's. Are you up for YOUR training?

Where are these hundreds of "phantom students?" They are certainly not in the gambling forums.

And therein lies my continuing point. No true-to-his-word "AP" would ever come on a forum to make all the kinds of dumb claims the ones here make. They go about their business quietly as they always have, regardless if they too my training and advice to heart or not. There's a whole different gambling world out there than the one you guys make up and then fantasize about.

[Rob.Singer]

I believe Rob has won over $1.5 million in VP. I also KNOW he's LOST more money than that, making him a net loser at VP.

You believe and know things at the same time? Gee....how can I get to be like that!?

[Rob.Singer]

Let me be clear about this and even though Rob is my friend I am totally objective about this:

Rob has never proved his claim about winning almost one million dollars while a professional player over ten years (a little less than $100k per year) nor has he proved $1.5-million won including his post professional years.

Also, I have never seen any proof by anyone else about their claimed profits with the exception of Arcimede$ who actually had the IRS send me his tax returns.

So before anyone else says they want proof of Rob's claims be prepared to show us your proof.

Alan, I am NOT calling for Rob to prove anything. You know my position. These are anonymous message boards, even if people chose to be known and not be anonymous. Real AP's will be anonymous and for good reason. But anyway, no one is required to prove anything. Other members can choose to believe or not believe. That is part of the message board culture. And reasonably intelligent people can figure out who is legit and who isn't. I am sure you have heard me say "It isn't that hard to figure out who knows what they are talking about and who is just talking". IT REALLY isn't.

And some of that figuring out who is legit has to do with the math. The math working is like the very first hurdle. If a person's claims can't clear that first hurdle....no need to say more.

This Singer situation has actually become very similar to the situation that led to me being banned at several sites. There was a guy making claims on a blackjack site, mathematically impossible claims. He claimed his very special custom, super duper blackjack count, that only he was smart enough to play, gave him a 500% increase over traditional card counting. A 5% advantage where in most card counters are lucky to grind out a 1% edge.

Now here was the problem. A 5% edge from card counting is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE! If a player set his laptop right their on the felt of the blackjack table, punching in each card played and playing perfectly....computer perfect, he still could not play with a 5% advantage!

So do you see the similarities. Singer is VP instead of blackjack, but completely mathematical impossible claims. You cannot grind your way to long-term wins playing a -EV game. Impossible, impossible, IMPOSSIBLE!

Oh and one other similarity, just like Singer, the blackjack fraud guy (which has since been debunked by blackjack math expert Don Schlesinger) tried to do the exact same tactics as Singer, distractions, change the subject, use oddly worded phrases that can have different meanings (or none at all). In short...these guys try to muddy the waters, because their claims don't work in clear view.

Kew, you really don't know anything about people in general. Young and dumb and unwilling to learn, fantasizing in your own full-of-bs bj world as if it were the gospel for everyone.

If you had any real intelligence you'd know that it's best to take in and listen to those whom you disagree with, as a way of gaining knowledge so you can articulate it to others as you mature. But you're just one big baby who jumps up and down whining like a spoiled child when he can't get his way. But wait!....you've already MADE your know-it-all bad choices in life, and by the looks of your posts on forums you're continuing to pay a premium on the price.

[Alan Mendelson]

So kewlj am I correct in saying your belief is Rob can't win because of the math of the game and the math of his strategic plays?

I just wrote above a description of one of his special plays and I explained why it's actually insignificant.

It's the same with the rest of his strategy: the differences are insignificant compared to optimal play.

Want to know how Rob wins $100k a year? He plays high denomination video poker smartly. When you play high denomination VP you can win $100k a year -- and I mean a net profit. Just be smart about how you play. And those special plays? Insignificant. Sure they exist but Rob will tell you he plays optimally with a tiny percentage of exceptions. You weren't here when I called him out about why he didn't use a special play on $25 TDB and the conventional play -- a 1/47 chance -- hit for a $50,000 win.

[kewlJ]

Want to know how Rob wins $100k a year? He plays high denomination video poker smartly. When you play high denomination VP you can win $100k a year -- and I mean a net profit. Just be smart about how you play.

Alan, this is complete nonsense. Rob has stated he plays -EV games. You Alan, apparently don't understand what that means. IT means you cannot win longterm. "Playing smart" whatever that means doesn't change that math.

Let's take your ridiculous statement and substitute roulette for VP. Both -EV. Would you say a player can play high stakes roulette and win 100k a year if he plays "smartly"? It's just nonsense, Alan. It's voodoo. And frankly this is why by your own admission, and that of family members, you are not a winning player.

[Rob.Singer]

"The truth is Arc only reported taxable W2Gs from royals. That actually meant he under reported his winnings. While it's true his reported earnings were only from $1 royals I would never say it was humiliating. For all we know One Eyed Jacks wasn't available at higher denominations and there's nothing wrong with being a $1 VP player"

I thought this was an interesting reply by Alan.

There was nothing really clear about how arci filed with regards to gambling wins and losses, except for the fact that it neither matched his claims in his posts--thereby, humiliating-- nor did he have any brains for sending returns to a stranger for partial public reporting on in the first place.

If he in fact underrepresented his actual winnings on his tax returns--which would be the case based on his bravado talk here and on other forums--then he is has committed crimes, and nothing he claims, represents, or does here or anywhere else should be believed in any way.

So while nobody really knows anything beyond what I just stated, it is very clear why it was an all-around stupid move on his part. Sure his wife recently died and he probably felt he had nothing more to lose. Humiliation didn't bother him.

One Eyed Jacks was only available in dollars where he played at his MN. Indian casino.

[kewlJ]

Want to know how Rob wins $100k a year? He plays high denomination video poker smartly. When you play high denomination VP you can win $100k a year -- and I mean a net profit. Just be smart about how you play.

Alan can you define your use of smartly and be smart (about how you play)?

I have a feeling you are talking stop limits, loss limits, win limits. But I want to hear you say it and want it on record.

[Alan Mendelson]

Kewlj why don't you ask Rob?

You keep saying he has to lose playing -EV video poker. But that's not true. People do win. Some people get quads more than others. Some people get royals more than others.

You are making a dangerous assumption that the pay table is what makes you the winner. Its the paytable and the RNG and adjustments you might make to improve your chances to hit a quad or royal.

[kewlJ]

Ok, at this point I request that Rob Singer lay out in specifics, in great detail just what it is that he does that enables him to win longterm playing a -EV game.

Keep in mind that it is proven math that stop limits, win limits, loss limits have zero effect on long-term win distributions. Also that no betting system, including progression can change a -EV game into a longterm winning game. These are not my opinion....they are proven mathematical facts. And fairly basis math, so if this is your argument, then we are already done. You have no claim. You are talking earth is flat voodoo nonsense.

But if you have something that the rest of us have missed, then spell it out here. If it is time consuming....so be it. Still will be a fraction of the time we all have spent arguing this. And spell this out in regular English. Don't use any magical phantom phrases with hidden or no meaning.

Singer, This is your platform to make your case in plain English and real math.

[kewlJ]

Kewlj why don't you ask Rob?

Because YOU, Alan made the statement I would like qualified.

You keep saying he has to lose playing -EV video poker. But that's not true. People do win. Some people get quads more than others. Some people get royals more than others.

OMG! Is this where we are Alan? You are claiming that Rob is just luckier than everyone else? Is he wearing his lucky clover shirt with a necklace of rabbit's feet underneath and several lucky trolls in his pocket? Lucky clover shirt = 1.5 million in profit?

Alan, you are taking us further and further into the voodoo world and away from the real world of real world mathematics.

[Rob.Singer]

First of all, you need to have a plan on how you'll play, stick to it, not be greedy, and UNDERSTAND THAT TODAY'S SESSION IS COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO ANY SESSION THAT HAS COME BEFORE OR THAT HAS YET TO COME----JUST AS WE ALL KNOW THAT ANY SINGLE HAND OF VP HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY BEFORE OR AFTER IT. You must comprehend that once today's session ends at whatever denomination and game, the next visit will begin at the lowest denomination and least volatile game once again.

I could never describe all the idiosyncrasies of playing the strategy unless I were to talk to you in person. But the main point is, I have at least an 85% chance of winning every session, which is only close to 5% of the starting bankroll. Do you realize how easy that is? And, a losing session never means losing the entire bankroll, just as it is possible to walk away at the end of a session losing $50, $5000, $24,000 or whatever, or with "only" a profit of $400, $1300, $2200 or whatever....and still call it a "losing" session because the minimum win of $2500 was not attained. In other words, I play up to 6 denominations of 400 credits each, and once I've made my way thru all of them regardless of the number of soft profit 40+ credit cashouts along the way, my session ends then and there. I never play more than one of these a week because they're grueling at times, it takes tons of concentration and constantly keeping track of where I am vs. where I need to be, and because I win so often, it's enjoyable to savor the latest win for at least a short time.

Before you get back into the mode of +EV means win and -EV means lose over a lifetime, be smarter than that. We all know the converse of both of those can be true--albeit very infrequently. What is so hard to understand about, if I can win such a goal today somewhat easily--which I'm sure you get why that is based on my strategy, bankroll, and goal, then how is it you don't want to understand that this can happen over and over again? And where do you get lost over the fact that the large losing sessions are much more unlikely than the large winning sessions, while the larger winning sessions are mostly larger than the losing ones, thereby debunking any argument that "over time", the "math" takes over and I lose?? Then, if course, there are the numerous smaller winning sessions, which most or all critics overlook.

It has nothing to do with voodoo or magic or however else you would like it to be. It's just simple common sense when using a complex strategy. I am technically no luckier than the next guy. I just allow it to come into my play more often.

[regnis]

You get into trouble when you say "you can't win". The math, odds, and probabilities are against it. But it happens, and it happens every day.

What you should question is whether it gives you the best chance of winning. But whenever someone says "you can't". I know damn well that someone can, already has, or will do whatever you say can't be done.

[Rob.Singer]

You get into trouble when you say "you can't win". The math, odds, and probabilities are against it. But it happens, and it happens every day.

What you should question is whether it gives you the best chance of winning. But whenever someone says "you can't". I know damn well that someone can, already has, or will do whatever you say can't be done.

+10

[kewlJ]

Let me start by saying I appreciate the tone of civility in your reply Rob. I hope we can keep that tone as discussion continues.

Now you are not going to like this but I see no substance to your reply. I was hoping for quite a bit more detail.

"Have a plan and stick to it"?

Complete fluff! No meaning nor value. Every player has a plan. The roulette player has a plan that his number is going to come out more than statisticly "normal". The horse player has a plan to hit more exactas. It's just silly and has no meaning or value.

"I could never describe all the idiosyncrasies of playing the strategy unless I were to talk to you in person."

Why? this was your platform to do that. Why can't you do it?

"I have at least an 85% chance of winning every session, which is only close to 5% of the starting bankroll."

These are great numbers. Sounds good. Where did these numbers come from? Where is the math? Without the math, these numbers are meaningless. Phantom phrases that sound good, but with no meaning.

"I play up to 6 denominations of 400 credits each, and once I've made my way thru all of them regardless of the number of soft profit 40+ credit cashouts along the way, my session ends"

This is a good one. No specifics, but sounds like a very vague way of saying it is a progression betting system. I certainly understand why you didn't want to use those words...Progressive betting system, because it has been mathematically proven beyond contestation that betting systems, including progressive betting systems can NOT overcome a house advantage long-term.

I am sorry, Rob, I don't see anything here, except a bunch of hocus pocus nonsense.

[Alan Mendelson]

Kewlj most video poker players sit down at a machine with their money -- let's say $300 -- and they play until they lose it all. That's what most VP players do. One thing that Rob does IS THE SAME THING that APs do when they "play through once" their free play.

The APs will run thru their $300 at $1 Jacks and maybe they'll get $280.

Rob will do the same thing. That $280 is a soft profit.

But Rob's bankroll is bigger. So now he takes $1000 and he goes to $2 VP and sets aside his winnings. This time he gets $920.

Next it's $5 VP for $3,000 and he gets back $2700.

So far Rob is in the hole for $400.

His next step is $25 VP and on Bonus he gets a full house paying $1000... and suddenly he's ahead $600.

So he goes back to $1 VP.

It's not fool proof. It doesn't always work but it prevents him from getting wiped out while he has the bankroll to get lucky at higher levels.

The math doesn't change and he's not trying to change the math. But he's trying to stay in the game for when the big winners come along.

I think you do a similar thing at blackjack. When the count is right you increase your bets.