Rob Singer didn't beat video poker

[Alan Mendelson]

Kewlj asks: "..Alan do you benefit in any way by supporting Singer and his system?"

The answer is no. Now what?

Then can you explain why you vehemently support and make statements of support, of a system that you admit you don't know and don't play?? Is it just a friendship thing?

Vehemently support? Vehemently support a system I don't play and don't know how to play? Are you really out of your mind?

[AxelWolf]

I don't think Rob starts at the 25-cents level. LOL

Why are you LOL'ing at that?

Because it's impossible to reach a $2500 win goal playing 25-cents video poker without voodoo that gives you multiple royals between bathroom breaks.

Kewlj asks: "..Alan do you benefit in any way by supporting Singer and his system?"

The answer is no. Now what?

Are you using the word impossible? Said the guy who claims to have seen 18 yo's in a row. WOW, HOW RICH IS THAT?

I don't see how it is impossible or even close it is if you start at .25c and keep bumping up levels. You could eventually hit a $2500 win goal once you are at the higher denomination. So no, it's not even close to being impossible. I would say its very likely. And since you claim to know very little about his system I have no clue why or how you would think hitting a $2500 win goal is hard to obtain. For all you know he plays .25c for 10 hands and if he loses all 10 hands he bumps up to the $25 denomination.

[mickeycrimm]

mickey remains in the dark. He still doesn't realize that trips up yield a W2G on the $100 machine!

Yup----he's a real honest-to-goodness gambling expert alright! The density must be from not getting any of those Tuna Fish Face cheat sheets since the bum killed himself

Rob is such a dumass. I was referring to quad W-2G's. Rob has never written about the logistical problem of the hundy machine locking up whenever you hit 3K, ST, Fl or FH. That's most likely because it never happened.

[mickeycrimm]

Ya know eddie, since I'm not winning using conventional VP and I went to Dancer's claesses and I used his software and read Grochowskis book, and i havent won, maybe I should get trained by Rob?

I think that's a great idea! Maybe bring slingshot along too!

I don't say that to be sarcastic or in an insulting way. Seriously.

You two are perhaps his biggest supporters on this forum. You both play a lot of VP. Let's see if you can be successful playing his way. He says he's trained hundreds of successful players, what's 2 more?

It would be great to read updates on how the 2 of you were doing. Since you live in Las Vegas now Alan, you could do multiple daily sessions. From the way Rob describes his financial situation (along with yours and your pension) putting together another $172,000 bankroll doesn't seem like it would be a problem at all.

If he ever passes through Shreveport again, I will. I messed up my first visit. It would be interesting to see how close my comprehension of his strategies is. Of course, artt is my favorite and most versatile strategy. And since my taxes, insurances, and other unforeseeable hindrances are now taken care of, I plan on reporting on how I do. Of course, $50-$200 wins would probably be boring to those who play higher denoms. HOWEVER- if I hit 4 A's/kicker or royal ($500/$1000) I will play take and play the exciting $5 machine artt style, bonus poker at 1,2,&5 credits, win $100/lose $100 and do it on video. (Usually lasts about 2 minutes). I will play it fully as I stopped other times at +$75, +$95, and once at +$105.

Short coining? Yeah, thats the ticket! Keep at it, dumbo.

[mickeycrimm]

Mickeycrimm why should Rob play $100 machines if he could reach his win goal on $5 machines?

Alan, Rob plays 80 bets per level. On the $5 level that's $2000. Do you have any clue how easy it is to run through 80 bets on a game that pays even money on two pair? You talk about winning like its an easy thing to do. So how come you are so broke?

[Alan Mendelson]

Why are you LOL'ing at that?

Because it's impossible to reach a $2500 win goal playing 25-cents video poker without voodoo that gives you multiple royals between bathroom breaks.

Kewlj asks: "..Alan do you benefit in any way by supporting Singer and his system?"

The answer is no. Now what?

Are you using the word impossible? Said the guy who claims to have seen 18 yo's in a row. WOW, HOW RICH IS THAT?

I don't see how it is impossible or even close it is if you start at .25c and keep bumping up levels. You could eventually hit a $2500 win goal once you are at the higher denomination. So no, it's not even close to being impossible. I would say its very likely. And since you claim to know very little about his system I have no clue why or how you would think hitting a $2500 win goal is hard to obtain. For all you know he plays .25c for 10 hands and if he loses all 10 hands he bumps up to the $25 denomination.

Why don't you ask Rob? It's his system and I don't play it. Frankly I shouldn't have responded except that I know Rob starts at $1 or $2.

Are you afraid to ask Rob directly? You can. He's here.

Why are you asking me when I don't play anything like how Rob plays? Oh, I know why! You still want me to say Rob's system can't work. Sorry I'm not going to pass judgment on a system I don't know enough about and don't even use.

And kewlj that answer applies to you too... vehemently.

[Alan Mendelson]

Mickeycrimm why should Rob play $100 machines if he could reach his win goal on $5 machines?

Alan, Rob plays 80 bets per level. On the $5 level that's $2000. Do you have any clue how easy it is to run through 80 bets on a game that pays even money on two pair? You talk about winning like its an easy thing to do. So how come you are so broke?

Sorry Mickey but Rob's primary game is Bonus Poker and as we all know two pair on Bonus Poker does not pay even money.

Should I say it? Okay I will. Wise up.

LOL

[mickeycrimm]

Mickeycrimm why should Rob play $100 machines if he could reach his win goal on $5 machines?

Alan, Rob plays 80 bets per level. On the $5 level that's $2000. Do you have any clue how easy it is to run through 80 bets on a game that pays even money on two pair? You talk about winning like its an easy thing to do. So how come you are so broke?

Sorry Mickey but Rob's primary game is Bonus Poker and as we all know two pair on Bonus Poker does not pay even money.

Should I say it? Okay I will. Wise up.

LOL

No, you need to wise up. He plays the DDB type games where quad aces pay 160 for 1 or higher.

BTW, Rob's denom martingale is 1/2/5/10/25/100. I wouldn't have a problem if Rob said he wins most sessions playing this progression. It's his reported success rate I have a problem with. Rob never seems to run into a quad draught. The failure rate is higher than he reports.

[Alan Mendelson]

Stop mickeycrimm. Let Rob answer.

[mickeycrimm]

Stop mickeycrimm. Let Rob answer.

Fuck off, Alan Mendelson. Why don't you shut the fuck up from answering questions for him?

[Alan Mendelson]

Stop mickeycrimm. Let Rob answer.

Fuck off, Alan Mendelson. Why don't you shut the fuck up from answering questions for him?

Why so touchy?

[Rob.Singer]

Because it's impossible to reach a $2500 win goal playing 25-cents video poker without voodoo that gives you multiple royals between bathroom breaks.

Kewlj asks: "..Alan do you benefit in any way by supporting Singer and his system?"

The answer is no. Now what?

Are you using the word impossible? Said the guy who claims to have seen 18 yo's in a row. WOW, HOW RICH IS THAT?

I don't see how it is impossible or even close it is if you start at .25c and keep bumping up levels. You could eventually hit a $2500 win goal once you are at the higher denomination. So no, it's not even close to being impossible. I would say its very likely. And since you claim to know very little about his system I have no clue why or how you would think hitting a $2500 win goal is hard to obtain. For all you know he plays .25c for 10 hands and if he loses all 10 hands he bumps up to the $25 denomination.

Why don't you ask Rob? It's his system and I don't play it. Frankly I shouldn't have responded except that I know Rob starts at $1 or $2.

Are you afraid to ask Rob directly? You can. He's here.

Why are you asking me when I don't play anything like how Rob plays? Oh, I know why! You still want me to say Rob's system can't work. Sorry I'm not going to pass judgment on a system I don't know enough about and don't even use.

And kewlj that answer applies to you too... vehemently.

My play strategy, again, begins at dollars and ends up at $100.

400 credits = 80 hands....if you lose every one of them. This is why it's easy to tell mickey is a school dropout: he can't read.

One thing you guys should EASILY get is that playing progressive denomination/game volatility video poker for a minimum $2500 win goal with a session bankroll of $57,200, is SLIGHTLY more difficult than figuring out how to wipe your ass with your opposite hand.
And mickey----I mean with using toilet paper.

[a2a3dseddie]

Stop mickeycrimm. Let Rob answer.

Fuck off, Alan Mendelson. Why don't you shut the fuck up from answering questions for him?

You've been around long enough mickey. Rob doesn't answer questions. He just posts insults and rehashes the same fabrications over and over and over and over and over and over again until the questions and comments he cannot address get buried.

With all the posting he's done lately one has to wonder if his wife really did kick him out of the trailer again. Was it was due to his infidelity or his perversion to online kiddie porn in between his forum postings?(6210 posts and counting on this site alone!)

[AxelWolf]

Are you using the word impossible? Said the guy who claims to have seen 18 yo's in a row. WOW, HOW RICH IS THAT?

I don't see how it is impossible or even close it is if you start at .25c and keep bumping up levels. You could eventually hit a $2500 win goal once you are at the higher denomination. So no, it's not even close to being impossible. I would say its very likely. And since you claim to know very little about his system I have no clue why or how you would think hitting a $2500 win goal is hard to obtain. For all you know he plays .25c for 10 hands and if he loses all 10 hands he bumps up to the $25 denomination.

Why don't you ask Rob? It's his system and I don't play it. Frankly I shouldn't have responded except that I know Rob starts at $1 or $2.

Are you afraid to ask Rob directly? You can. He's here.

Why are you asking me when I don't play anything like how Rob plays? Oh, I know why! You still want me to say Rob's system can't work. Sorry I'm not going to pass judgment on a system I don't know enough about and don't even use.

And kewlj that answer applies to you too... vehemently.

My play strategy, again, begins at dollars and ends up at $100.

400 credits = 80 hands....if you lose every one of them. This is why it's easy to tell mickey is a school dropout: he can't read.

One thing you guys should EASILY get is that playing progressive denomination/game volatility video poker for a minimum $2500 win goal with a session bankroll of $57,200, is SLIGHTLY more difficult than figuring out how to wipe your ass with your opposite hand.
And mickey----I mean with using toilet paper.

Given what you just posted.

What's your average coin in amount (Let's say over 20 sessions)

What percentage and or dollar amount are you making? How long is your average session?

Am I understanding correctly.

You have a win goal of $2500 during a session. Using your system you claim to hit that each time before you ever run out of the 57k?

[Rob.Singer]

I don't mind answering decent questions like this. And naturally, an obsessed sicko like eddie won't like that we've stopped back here at Tahoe for a week on our way back to S. Dakota after going to a SF wedding, so I have the time to.

I'd say about 2000 hands on avg., which is 10,000 coins in. My speed was 1400 accurate hph as an AP, but since the new strategy was developed I don't rush.

An avg. session is about four hours. One ended on the second hand, another took more than 12 hours. Given that my avg. win/session played (including losing sessions) has been over $3000, my % of bankroll win is nearly 6% overall. In just the winning sessions, it's quite a bit higher. However, this includes sessions where I lose money as well as "failed" sessions where I have to quit after winning anywhere from $1 to $2499. Having to quit means I've played thru all of my credits. There is never a total loss of bankroll, because of the numerous amounts of soft profit 40+ credits cashouts along the way.

[mickeycrimm]

I don't mind answering decent questions like this. And naturally, an obsessed sicko like eddie won't like that we've stopped back here at Tahoe for a week on our way back to S. Dakota after going to a SF wedding, so I have the time to.

I'd say about 2000 hands on avg., which is 10,000 coins in. My speed was 1400 accurate hph as an AP, but since the new strategy was developed I don't rush.

An avg. session is about four hours. One ended on the second hand, another took more than 12 hours. Given that my avg. win/session played (including losing sessions) has been over $3000, my % of bankroll win is nearly 6% overall. In just the winning sessions, it's quite a bit higher. However, this includes sessions where I lose money as well as "failed" sessions where I have to quit after winning anywhere from $1 to $2499. Having to quit means I've played thru all of my credits. There is never a total loss of bankroll, because of the numerous amounts of soft profit 40+ credits cashouts along the way.

Ah, yes, the soft profits. This is where Rob plays a game with himself. He will occasionally cash out a ticket, stick it in his pocket, then insert more money into the machine. He says he usually does this after a full house. Does it change his results? No. He is still up or down the exact same amount. There is zero effect on outcome. But what it does serve to do is muddy up the waters for anyone trying to draw a bead on what he is doing.

He starts with a 57K bankroll. And he had three 57K bankrolls. He says he has an 85% success rate at getting the $2500 or higher win with just one 57K bankroll. From these two stats one would assume he has a failure rate of 15% of losing the 57K. Failure rates are important. You can calculate things from it. Like you would have a 1 in 44 chance of losing two 57K bankrolls in a row. And a 1 in 267 chance of losing all three 57K bankrolls in a row.

A trip a week to the casino is 50 times a year. Ten years and its 500 visits. That would be like a dozen times Rob would have lost two bankrolls in a row, down to his last bankroll and sweating bullets. And he dodged the bullet of losing three bankrolls in a row, which would wipe him out, even though it should happen about twice in 500 sessions.

Thats what the overview is. But Rob muddies all that up with the soft profit bullshit about not really losing all of the 57K bankroll. So much so that any math professor would be driven nuts by his bullshit.

[Alan Mendelson]

The "soft profits" concept isn't a bad idea for "regular gamblers" who keep playing till nothing is left.

If you've ever "run free play through once" you've also used the concept of "cashing out soft profits."

Sure, it's not going to change the paytable and it's not going to increase your chances for a royal, but it does make you stop and think about what you just got back from XXX of coin in.

What's so horrible about stopping and thinking for a moment?

[Rob.Singer]

I don't mind answering decent questions like this. And naturally, an obsessed sicko like eddie won't like that we've stopped back here at Tahoe for a week on our way back to S. Dakota after going to a SF wedding, so I have the time to.

I'd say about 2000 hands on avg., which is 10,000 coins in. My speed was 1400 accurate hph as an AP, but since the new strategy was developed I don't rush.

An avg. session is about four hours. One ended on the second hand, another took more than 12 hours. Given that my avg. win/session played (including losing sessions) has been over $3000, my % of bankroll win is nearly 6% overall. In just the winning sessions, it's quite a bit higher. However, this includes sessions where I lose money as well as "failed" sessions where I have to quit after winning anywhere from $1 to $2499. Having to quit means I've played thru all of my credits. There is never a total loss of bankroll, because of the numerous amounts of soft profit 40+ credits cashouts along the way.

Ah, yes, the soft profits. This is where Rob plays a game with himself. He will occasionally cash out a ticket, stick it in his pocket, then insert more money into the machine. He says he usually does this after a full house. Does it change his results? No. He is still up or down the exact same amount. There is zero effect on outcome. But what it does serve to do is muddy up the waters for anyone trying to draw a bead on what he is doing.

He starts with a 57K bankroll. And he had three 57K bankrolls. He says he has an 85% success rate at getting the $2500 or higher win with just one 57K bankroll. From these two stats one would assume he has a failure rate of 15% of losing the 57K. Failure rates are important. You can calculate things from it. Like you would have a 1 in 44 chance of losing two 57K bankrolls in a row. And a 1 in 267 chance of losing all three 57K bankrolls in a row.

A trip a week to the casino is 50 times a year. Ten years and its 500 visits. That would be like a dozen times Rob would have lost two bankrolls in a row, down to his last bankroll and sweating bullets. And he dodged the bullet of losing three bankrolls in a row, which would wipe him out, even though it should happen about twice in 500 sessions.

Thats what the overview is. But Rob muddies all that up with the soft profit bullshit about not really losing all of the 57K bankroll. So much so that any math professor would be driven nuts by his bullshit.

mickey you just haven't learned to listen to the facts. It's difficult dealing with an uneducated soul such as yourself. You keep making up things pretending that's how you want them to look, because you just can't get yourself to see things clearly.

There is no "losing the $57k session bankroll" as I've repeated many times. My largest session loss has been around $33k; 2nd largest, $11k. And those soft profits you can't understand? They don't come because of "full houses" or whatever stupid assertion you wrote. They come whenever I get 40+ credits ahead on a particular denomination, OR when I get a quad that recovers my losses on BP and the advanced game along with making a 40+ credit profit....and is the gateway to immediately going back down to a lower denomination. I wouldn't expect you to even get close to figuring this out and why it's effective, but maybe axel might.

[slingshot]

I don't mind answering decent questions like this. And naturally, an obsessed sicko like eddie won't like that we've stopped back here at Tahoe for a week on our way back to S. Dakota after going to a SF wedding, so I have the time to.

I'd say about 2000 hands on avg., which is 10,000 coins in. My speed was 1400 accurate hph as an AP, but since the new strategy was developed I don't rush.

An avg. session is about four hours. One ended on the second hand, another took more than 12 hours. Given that my avg. win/session played (including losing sessions) has been over $3000, my % of bankroll win is nearly 6% overall. In just the winning sessions, it's quite a bit higher. However, this includes sessions where I lose money as well as "failed" sessions where I have to quit after winning anywhere from $1 to $2499. Having to quit means I've played thru all of my credits. There is never a total loss of bankroll, because of the numerous amounts of soft profit 40+ credits cashouts along the way.

Ah, yes, the soft profits. This is where Rob plays a game with himself. He will occasionally cash out a ticket, stick it in his pocket, then insert more money into the machine. He says he usually does this after a full house. Does it change his results? No. He is still up or down the exact same amount. There is zero effect on outcome. But what it does serve to do is muddy up the waters for anyone trying to draw a bead on what he is doing.

He starts with a 57K bankroll. And he had three 57K bankrolls. He says he has an 85% success rate at getting the $2500 or higher win with just one 57K bankroll. From these two stats one would assume he has a failure rate of 15% of losing the 57K. Failure rates are important. You can calculate things from it. Like you would have a 1 in 44 chance of losing two 57K bankrolls in a row. And a 1 in 267 chance of losing all three 57K bankrolls in a row.

A trip a week to the casino is 50 times a year. Ten years and its 500 visits. That would be like a dozen times Rob would have lost two bankrolls in a row, down to his last bankroll and sweating bullets. And he dodged the bullet of losing three bankrolls in a row, which would wipe him out, even though it should happen about twice in 500 sessions.

Thats what the overview is. But Rob muddies all that up with the soft profit bullshit about not really losing all of the 57K bankroll. So much so that any math professor would be driven nuts by his bullshit.

This is the craziest mumbo jumbo I've read so far! It is a make believe world created by make believe math! My son made thousands of dollars as a computer analyst selling virtual property to people who were unable to program them in their make believe cities, etc. I couldn't believe anyone would purchase something that didn't exist so they could operate in a make believe world- but now I see it's possible. Use make believe math to create make believe sessions. It's easy to put it on paper- but it comes out different in the real world.

[kewlJ]

This is the craziest mumbo jumbo I've read so far! It is a make believe world created by make believe math! My son made thousands of dollars as a computer analyst selling virtual property to people who were unable to program them in their make believe cities, etc. I couldn't believe anyone would purchase something that didn't exist so they could operate in a make believe world- but now I see it's possible. Use make believe math to create make believe sessions. It's easy to put it on paper- but it comes out different in the real world.

No...this rebuttal is the craziest mumbo jumbo, posted so far. "Make believe math?" There is only one person (and his followers) that is using fake or alternative math. You are backing a guy ho keeps telling you that 2+2=5. And that is all this whole bag of nonsense comes down to.