Absurdity

[a2a3dseddie]

Credibility? Rob? LMFAO

Here he is stating each VP hand and session is independent when before he says he creeped up in denomination and used his special plays to "supercharge" his chances as big hands weren't hit!

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.

a player using my strategy is no more likely to hit a quad or special quad at higher denoms. than at the lower ones.

BUT...

The strategy looked at the growing probability of the special quads, SF's, and royals as more hands were played without hitting them and which is figured over the long-term and not simply from the beginning of every session, and if one or more were hit that did not end the session then that was figured in too. So because I kept creeping up in denomination/game volatility as these weren't hit, the frequencies of hitting them became more and more "inviting". And when you add in the enhancement of the special plays specifically designed to supercharge those potential session-ending winners, good luck isn't really overall that far away.

He's been having a rough few weeks fellas. Guy's been posting incessantly. Either his wife booted him out again or the gutter he's lying in is within range of the free Wifi at Starbucks.

Couldn't distinguish between the Silverton and the Bellagio, couldn't remember if he was banned or not banned at the Silverton or Bellagio and couldn't spell correctly or use the auto-correct on the site correctly.

Looks like Father Time has finally caught up to Rob and his 69 years. Memory failing, eyesight failing. I almost feel bad for him.

I just hope when Rob declares the Earth is flat ('AND I HAVE PROOF THAT I'LL NEVER PROVIDE!') that his few supporters here won't vouch for him...


What do you think LarryS? Aricept? Reminyl?

[Alan Mendelson]

I don't understand your position here, eddie. You wrote "Here he is stating each VP hand and session is independent when before he says he creeped up in denomination and used his special plays to "supercharge" his chances as big hands weren't hit!"

Yes in video poker we know that each hand played is new and independent of any previous hands, and every hand starts with a new deck.

I think we also all know that eventually big hands will hit. If a royal doesn't come in the first 40,000 hands perhaps it will come in the next 40,000 or the 40,000 after that.

The math tells us that on average a royal comes once in about 40,000.

So what's the problem?

[a2a3dseddie]

I don't understand your position here, eddie. You wrote "Here he is stating each VP hand and session is independent when before he says he creeped up in denomination and used his special plays to "supercharge" his chances as big hands weren't hit!"

Yes in video poker we know that each hand played is new and independent of any previous hands, and every hand starts with a new deck.

I think we also all know that eventually big hands will hit. If a royal doesn't come in the first 40,000 hands perhaps it will come in the next 40,000 or the 40,000 after that.

The math tells us that on average a royal comes once in about 40,000.

So what's the problem?

Alan, when he uses phrases and words like "growing probability" or "frequencies of hitting them became more and more "inviting" you don't see any problem with that?

[Alan Mendelson]

Regarding terms like "growing probability" -- yes there's a problem. In VP the chance of hitting a royal never changes. It's always about 1 in 40,000. And we all know people who never hit a royal. But then there are people like Dan Druff who never hit a royal until one day they hit three royals.

So the bottom line is Rob shouldn't use phrases such as "growing probability." But we "get" what he's saying. And by moving up in denomination a big winner will eventually come.

Does that violate math? Yes. But again we "get it" because we know the winners eventually come.

Right now I'm going through a royal flush drought. I had one a few years back when I didn't have a royal for more than a year. And while the odds of a royal are always 1 in 40,000 I know eventually I'll get one.

By the way, last time I played I was dealt four to the royal three times in an hour and didn't even make a paying pair once.

[a2a3dseddie]

Regarding terms like "growing probability" -- yes there's a problem. In VP the chance of hitting a royal never changes. It's always about 1 in 40,000. And we all know people who never hit a royal. But then there are people like Dan Druff who never hit a royal until one day they hit three royals.

So the bottom line is Rob shouldn't use phrases such as "growing probability." But we "get" what he's saying. And by moving up in denomination a big winner will eventually come.

Does that violate math? Yes. But again we "get it" because we know the winners eventually come.

Right now I'm going through a royal flush drought. I had one a few years back when I didn't have a royal for more than a year. And while the odds of a royal are always 1 in 40,000 I know eventually I'll get one.

By the way, last time I played I was dealt four to the royal three times in an hour and didn't even make a paying pair once.

Well Alan, I don't "get" it. I especially don't get how Rob has said he has anywhere from 200 to 2000 credits per denomination as he moves up. That means he only had enough credits to play 40-400 hands.

You just said that a royal flush comes around every 40,000 hands or so. So...he was hitting all these session ending winners for 10+ years having just enough funds to play so few hands?

Sure, the "winners eventually come", but don't you need to be properly bankrolled to hit them?

[jbjb]

If you like Russian Roulette, play Robs strategy. Only his gun has 3 or 4 out of 6 possible bullets instead of just one.

[Alan Mendelson]

Eddie I can't comment on Rob's system regarding credits or changing games. You'll have to ask him. I don't know the answers.

But you certainly don't need a royal to win $2500.

And then there are those soft cash outs which is what APs do when they run free play once through a machine.

I get $75 free play at Red Rock and I average about $60 each time I run it through once. There was a time I hit quad 8s for $125.

[kewlJ]

I get $75 free play at Red Rock and I average about $60 each time I run it through once.

Then you are doing something very, very wrong, Alan.


All I can say is the title of this thread is most appropriate. This gets more bizarre with every comment.

[jbjb]

I get $75 free play at Red Rock and I average about $60 each time I run it through once.

Then you are doing something very, very wrong, Alan.


All I can say is the title of this thread is most appropriate. This gets more bizarre with every comment.

He could just be running bad depending on how much he's played. I ran $20 free play today and used it strictly vulturing Ultimate X. Through the first $14.75, and mostly on nickels, I made a whopping 25 cents! Then I finally got dealt 3 kings on a ten play and hit quads once on the very last hand. Alan will hit something good eventually to bring that average up.

BTW, I made $24.50 out of the $20 free play and immediately left after scouting table games.

[Rob.Singer]

I don't understand your position here, eddie. You wrote "Here he is stating each VP hand and session is independent when before he says he creeped up in denomination and used his special plays to "supercharge" his chances as big hands weren't hit!"

Yes in video poker we know that each hand played is new and independent of any previous hands, and every hand starts with a new deck.

I think we also all know that eventually big hands will hit. If a royal doesn't come in the first 40,000 hands perhaps it will come in the next 40,000 or the 40,000 after that.

The math tells us that on average a royal comes once in about 40,000.

So what's the problem?

Alan, when he uses phrases and words like "growing probability" or "frequencies of hitting them became more and more "inviting" you don't see any problem with that?

More stupidity Eddie--spinning words doesn't help your cause...although I continue to enjoy the large amount of time you both obsess over me (yes, what you do is the result of the stewing you do when I put the tiniest dig on you) and research old stuff.

Growing probability, as everyone knows, means eventually a winner will come. Has zero to do with the math.

[Rob.Singer]

Regarding terms like "growing probability" -- yes there's a problem. In VP the chance of hitting a royal never changes. It's always about 1 in 40,000. And we all know people who never hit a royal. But then there are people like Dan Druff who never hit a royal until one day they hit three royals.

So the bottom line is Rob shouldn't use phrases such as "growing probability." But we "get" what he's saying. And by moving up in denomination a big winner will eventually come.

Does that violate math? Yes. But again we "get it" because we know the winners eventually come.

Right now I'm going through a royal flush drought. I had one a few years back when I didn't have a royal for more than a year. And while the odds of a royal are always 1 in 40,000 I know eventually I'll get one.

By the way, last time I played I was dealt four to the royal three times in an hour and didn't even make a paying pair once.

Well Alan, I don't "get" it. I especially don't get how Rob has said he has anywhere from 200 to 2000 credits per denomination as he moves up. That means he only had enough credits to play 40-400 hands.

You just said that a royal flush comes around every 40,000 hands or so. So...he was hitting all these session ending winners for 10+ years having just enough funds to play so few hands?

Sure, the "winners eventually come", but don't you need to be properly bankrolled to hit them?

Eddie for someone who has no choice to soothe his irritation by trying to misrepresent old posts, you're certainly not the sharpest tool in the shed when it comes to understanding things.

This play strategy uses up to 400 credits of each denomination. Depending on how many times I go back down a level or two or three after attaining certain mini-win goals, that's what determines if and how many times I start over with the 400 credits again. And if you don't know that 400 credits yield more than 80 hands, you're about as intelligent as mickey when it comes to gambling.

[Rob.Singer]

Redietz, the ad hominem attack against you in response to your opening query comes of course as no surprise.

No doubt Singer developed his theories on the fly, without "doing the math;" nor was empirical testing employed prior to taking his game to the casino.

No, it seems Singer came up with some notions, adjusted his game accordingly, and took it, untested, to the casinos.

He seems to say / imply that using his methods has caused him to win over a million at VP; that's quite an accomplishment, if true.

There's the rub: "if true;" it comes down to credibility.

Of course the masses aren't going to believe what I've done because most gamblers lose, and reading that someone figured out a way to win absolutely rubs people the wrong way. Just look at the number of repetitive dumb comments jbjb forces himself to make. Do you really think someone like him ever wins anything in casinos? And once you verify that point, run a credit and social check on the guy.

You are mistaken that my play strategy didn't undergo empirical review prior to quitting my job and playing it. That's been discussed thru the years and in the paper. The reason the "math-is-the-only-good-way-to-play people" continue to argue is because they want my formula to come out to 100.01% or else they'll always claim it's a loser. Very silly of course. No math book in the world says playing some hands sub-optimally on machines where no slot club fluff is added in, means you will not win over and over and over again. Those sub-optimal hands as well as the many more hands that are played optimally on sub-100% games when increasing game denomination and volatility, IE, when big winners hit the session is over, more than compensate for the tiny -EV % you people are so infatuated with.

[Dan Druff]

I've said it before many times.

Rob's "system" actually wouldn't be bad if it were peddled to one-time-playing amateurs, who prefer a higher chance to hit a jackpot at the expense of EV.

So if you have a guy taking a rare casino trip, who doesn't care about a moderate loss, but really wants to hit a royal, I'd suggest Rob's strategy to him. I'd make sure the guy understood that Rob's strategy gives the casino a higher expected win.

I refer to Rob's strategy as "tournament style" VP play.

Unfortunately, instead of framing his strategy as a long-term loser which increases the (fairly slim) chances of a short-term big hit, Rob claims these strategies made HIM a long-term winner over a 10-year period.

And that's absolutely impossible.

[RS__]

Unfortunately, instead of framing his strategy as a long-term loser which increases the (fairly slim) chances of a short-term big hit, Rob claims these strategies made HIM a long-term winner over a 10-year period.

And that's absolutely impossible.

Can we just leave it at that?

Rob says his system is founded in math, yet desperately avoids ever talking about math and hasn’t once put up any kind of math about his system. He insults his way through the forum, both pushing his impossible claims & system and beating down on actual legitimate AP.

Rob is to VP as poker cheats & colluders are to live poker. Neither should be given a platform to spew their BS.

[Alan Mendelson]

I would caution... as regnis has... about using phrases such as "absolutely impossible."

Each of us, according to the odds of gene combinations, would be considered impossible yet here we are.

It's more likely that 18 yos in a row would be thrown than Dan would exist.

Think about that, math junkies.

[mickeycrimm]

I would caution... as regnis has... about using phrases such as "absolutely impossible."

Each of us, according to the odds of gene combinations, would be considered impossible yet here we are.

It's more likely that 18 yos in a row would be thrown than Dan would exist.

Think about that, math junkies.

When the architect of the Titanic told the Captain the ship was going to sink the Captain was dumbfounded. "How the hell do you know?" he asked. "It's a mathematical certainty" replied the architect. He wasn't wrong either.

[kewlJ]

It's funny....as I was laying in bed trying to fall asleep last night, I had two thoughts:

1.) Why haven't I see Dan Druff weight in on Singer's "system"? Being that Dan is a poker player and certainly understands math and probabilities, I would think people would be interested in his opinion. So I wake up this morning and Dan has weighted in. So that takes care of that.

2.) Being that the two members currently supporting Singer and his "system", Alan and slingshot, have both admitted that they haven't made any money playing the system, and don't even fully understand it, I am wondering why there is nobody that has ever come on here and said "yeah, I play Singer's system and have has success and made xxx doing so".

And if such a testimonial were to occur, being that Singer is the king of sockpuppets, I would request that Dan make sure this supporter isn't a match to any of Singer's or singer's supporter's IP addresses. So let's see how this one goes.

[Alan Mendelson]

Kewlj did you really write this consciously? You said "(Alan) admitted that they haven't made any money playing the system."

Of course I haven't made any money with Singer's system because I DON'T PLAY USING SINGER'S SYSTEM.

You're becoming a joke.

[Alan Mendelson]

I doubt any supporter of Singer would post on this hostile forum. Look at all of the members that have left since the hostility started. You expect anyone else with a differing viewpoint to join now?

[MisterV]

I've no issue with Singer discussing the details and results of him playing his system; nor have I any a problem with posts which disagree with him, provided the posters outline the basis for their disagreement with his ideas.

The problem comes when we attack the person and not what he says.

Sure, I'm as guilty of this as the next guy, but just because flaming is a bit "fun" doesn't make it "right."