I'll Be Making An Official PUBLIC Challenge To The AP "Community

[slingshot]

I still don't know these systems of Rob's including ARTT and whatever else they're called. I would like to see step by step instructions.

I'm also mystified that the AP critics know it so well.

See, this is the problem with deciding to parrot the language of someone who adopts specific lingo to aggrandize themselves. Mr. Mendelson didn't really mean "AP critics" here. He meant something along the lines of "APs who are critics of Singer." But because he decided to use one of Argentino's pet attempts at self-aggrandizement -- framing people who disagree with him as a lump group of "critics" -- Mr. Mendelson butchered clear meaning.

One could adopt a phrase other than "AP critics" here to describe those who don't agree with Argentino's systems. I mean, really, it's hard to get a plural on the word "supporter" for those systems. Slingshot would count, so that gets you to add the "s" to supporter, but even Mr. Mendelson has said he does not use the systems. Coach belly has never said that he does. Blackhole, an AP critic, has said he thinks the systems are junk. So one has to rely on slingshot to even get the people who advocate the Singer systems to a plural.

Alternative, and more accurate (Mr. Mendelson advocates accuracy) ways of describing the people who do NOT advocate for the Singer systems might be:

1) "People who know math."
2) "People who understand probability theory."
3) "Potentially everyone but Argentino and slingshot."

These phrases, if substituted for "the critics," are more accurate for the following reason. Saying "the critics" suggests that there are supporters, critics, and some mathematically neutral ground. There is no mathematically neutral ground containing arguments for and against. That simply is not the case. There is simply the systems and their barely-plural supporters, and there is everyone else.

In any event, "AP critics" was a very wrong phrase because it could just as easily (I think more likely) mean "critics of APs" rather than "APs who are critics of Singer." Think about how ridiculous it would be for me to say I think, without evidence, that humans descended from koala bears, and everyone who disagrees is "the critics." That's essentially the phraseology that Argentino tries to sell. He's got to bring in slingshot just to get to the plural of "supporter."

He doesn't need me-let the challenge begin.

[jbjb]

I still don't know these systems of Rob's including ARTT and whatever else they're called. I would like to see step by step instructions.

I'm also mystified that the AP critics know it so well.

See, this is the problem with deciding to parrot the language of someone who adopts specific lingo to aggrandize themselves. Mr. Mendelson didn't really mean "AP critics" here. He meant something along the lines of "APs who are critics of Singer." But because he decided to use one of Argentino's pet attempts at self-aggrandizement -- framing people who disagree with him as a lump group of "critics" -- Mr. Mendelson butchered clear meaning.

One could adopt a phrase other than "AP critics" here to describe those who don't agree with Argentino's systems. I mean, really, it's hard to get a plural on the word "supporter" for those systems. Slingshot would count, so that gets you to add the "s" to supporter, but even Mr. Mendelson has said he does not use the systems. Coach belly has never said that he does. Blackhole, an AP critic, has said he thinks the systems are junk. So one has to rely on slingshot to even get the people who advocate the Singer systems to a plural.

Alternative, and more accurate (Mr. Mendelson advocates accuracy) ways of describing the people who do NOT advocate for the Singer systems might be:

1) "People who know math."
2) "People who understand probability theory."
3) "Potentially everyone but Argentino and slingshot."

These phrases, if substituted for "the critics," are more accurate for the following reason. Saying "the critics" suggests that there are supporters, critics, and some mathematically neutral ground. There is no mathematically neutral ground containing arguments for and against. That simply is not the case. There is simply the systems and their barely-plural supporters, and there is everyone else.

In any event, "AP critics" was a very wrong phrase because it could just as easily (I think more likely) mean "critics of APs" rather than "APs who are critics of Singer." Think about how ridiculous it would be for me to say I think, without evidence, that humans descended from koala bears, and everyone who disagrees is "the critics." That's essentially the phraseology that Argentino tries to sell. He's got to bring in slingshot just to get to the plural of "supporter."

He doesn't need me-let the challenge begin.

This challenge doesn't mean shit, win OR lose! If I walk up to a roulette table and make one bet on red, and it comes up red, is that a winning system? Hell no is not. Go back to shilling for this idiot. We need you suckers losing your inheritance in the casinos

[tableplay]

I still don't know these systems of Rob's including ARTT and whatever else they're called. I would like to see step by step instructions.

I'm also mystified that the AP critics know it so well.

See, this is the problem with deciding to parrot the language of someone who adopts specific lingo to aggrandize themselves. Mr. Mendelson didn't really mean "AP critics" here. He meant something along the lines of "APs who are critics of Singer." But because he decided to use one of Argentino's pet attempts at self-aggrandizement -- framing people who disagree with him as a lump group of "critics" -- Mr. Mendelson butchered clear meaning.

One could adopt a phrase other than "AP critics" here to describe those who don't agree with Argentino's systems. I mean, really, it's hard to get a plural on the word "supporter" for those systems. Slingshot would count, so that gets you to add the "s" to supporter, but even Mr. Mendelson has said he does not use the systems. Coach belly has never said that he does. Blackhole, an AP critic, has said he thinks the systems are junk. So one has to rely on slingshot to even get the people who advocate the Singer systems to a plural.

Alternative, and more accurate (Mr. Mendelson advocates accuracy) ways of describing the people who do NOT advocate for the Singer systems might be:

1) "People who know math."
2) "People who understand probability theory."
3) "Potentially everyone but Argentino and slingshot."

These phrases, if substituted for "the critics," are more accurate for the following reason. Saying "the critics" suggests that there are supporters, critics, and some mathematically neutral ground. There is no mathematically neutral ground containing arguments for and against. That simply is not the case. There is simply the systems and their barely-plural supporters, and there is everyone else.

In any event, "AP critics" was a very wrong phrase because it could just as easily (I think more likely) mean "critics of APs" rather than "APs who are critics of Singer." Think about how ridiculous it would be for me to say I think, without evidence, that humans descended from koala bears, and everyone who disagrees is "the critics." That's essentially the phraseology that Argentino tries to sell. He's got to bring in slingshot just to get to the plural of "supporter."

I wonder if it has been established that Singbot is not an Argentino sockpuppet.

[kewlJ]

I wonder if it has been established that Singbot is not an Argentino sockpuppet.

Yeah, I have been wondering this of late as well. Interesting that Slingshot joined just days after Singer.

I try to give people the benefit of doubt but Rob Singer has been proven to be the sock puppet king on numerous sites. So whether it turns out that slingshot is a Singer sockpuppet or not, the question begs why does Singer continually create sock puppets on all these different sites? Why are there no real people that can step up and support his claims? Instead he has to make up "supporters'. Not only is that an agenda to intentionally mislead and deceive players with all this nonsense, but it really speaks to his mental competence. He is making up people to support his fantasy world claims.

[jbjb]

I wonder if it has been established that Singbot is not an Argentino sockpuppet.

Yeah, I have been wondering this of late as well. Interesting that Slingshot joined just days after Singer.

I try to give people the benefit of doubt but Rob Singer has been proven to be the sock puppet king on numerous sites. So whether it turns out that slingshot is a Singer sockpuppet or not, the question begs why does Singer continually create sock puppets on all these different sites? Why are there no real people that can step up and support his claims? Instead he has to make up "supporters'. Not only is that an agenda to intentionally mislead and deceive players with all this nonsense, but it really speaks to his mental competence. He is making up people to support his fantasy world claims.

Sling isn't Singer. Just a lost soul. Hopefully for his sake, he'll see the light someday.

[slingshot]

I conversed with Rob until the end of VP Truth. His last article. "What's wrong with a positive progression?" indicated the possibility of a third and final book. When I found out he was on this forum. I actively participated to see if there was any new info. The first couple of years did just that with the findings on hot/cold cycles and a couple of "quickie" strategies, etc. When Alan says he would like to see his strategies, he forgets they were discussed in full- with some variances even discussed. After that it was nothing but name calling and disgusting references. If anyone thinks I'm a sock puppet or whatever, I honestly welcome-even implore- Dan to ban me as I have no interest other than the final chapter-truth.

[mickeycrimm]

The Sun needs US dollars. When Rob tried to pay with his mind full of 401k imaginary bucks, of course they refused.

It's not out of the question for a bunch of struggling casino rats who call themselves ap's, to be jealous and very uneasy at the thought of just how much that bunch have given up wasting time gambling while those of us who've led productive and respectable lives continue to count the money.

Wise up max. When you get over the fact that I put a pic up of our Newall CLASS A rv here a few years ago, start concentrating on what working class folks accumulate because of their "true advantages" over the gambling ap slugs.

Goodluck.

Prove its your RV.

[mickeycrimm]

But I do know his strategies and the Single Play Strategy is the best- if one has the time and discipline to do it right.

The fuck they are!! They are the WORST things you can do in a casino. You have to be an absolute, idiotic moron to believe such stupid bullshit. Dude, you're hopeless!

That's why I look for the challenge to happen. Actually. I'm basically a selfish person as I could care less if his strategies were accepted. I had 3 friends who watched me play artt and saw me WIN and just shrugged their shoulders and said it was sorta interesting but felt I was just a lucky SOB and I just quit showing anyone after that.I'm actually shocked whenever I read of anyone trying them. So let the challenge begin and THEN let's see who's a moron.

You've also bitched on this forum about not being able to hit a 4 of a kind.

[jbjb]

I conversed with Rob until the end of VP Truth. His last article. "What's wrong with a positive progression?" indicated the possibility of a third and final book. When I found out he was on this forum. I actively participated to see if there was any new info. The first couple of years did just that with the findings on hot/cold cycles and a couple of "quickie" strategies, etc. When Alan says he would like to see his strategies, he forgets they were discussed in full- with some variances even discussed. After that it was nothing but name calling and disgusting references. If anyone thinks I'm a sock puppet or whatever, I honestly welcome-even implore- Dan to ban me as I have no interest other than the final chapter-truth.

There are NO SUCH THINGS as "hot and cold cycles." The machines shuffle the cards just as you would with a real, physical deck. Get over this garbage nonsense.

[Alan Mendelson]

Redietz I don't understand what you're saying in your convoluted posts so I'm just going to ignore them.

One day I would like to see step by step instructions on Rob's strategy so I could comment on it. I don't know it. I don't know anyone who does. I do know about his special plays and I don't use them.

Can we all cut the BS and deal with facts?

Is there anyone here who really knows Rob's strategies?

Honest answers, if that's even possible.

[Spock]

One day I would like to see step by step instructions on Rob's strategy so I could comment on it. I don't know it. I don't know anyone who does. I do know about his special plays and I don't use them.

You can read his entire SPS strategy at this obscure site:

http://www.alanbestbuys.com/id261.html

[Alan Mendelson]

I forgot it was there and I still don't understand soft profits, nor do I play the other games.

Is there anyone who does?

[jbjb]

Soft profits, win goals or any other terms you might conjure up don't mean squat if you plan on coming back.

[slingshot]

Redietz I don't understand what you're saying in your convoluted posts so I'm just going to ignore them.

One day I would like to see step by step instructions on Rob's strategy so I could comment on it. I don't know it. I don't know anyone who does. I do know about his special plays and I don't use them.

Can we all cut the BS and deal with facts?

Is there anyone here who really knows Rob's strategies?

Honest answers, if that's even possible.

Vegas Casino Talk forums - Powered by vBulletin
Log Out
Settings
My Profile
Notifications
Welcome, slingshot
Forum
New PostsPrivate MessagesFAQCalendarCommunity Forum Actions Quick Links
What's New?

Submit
Advanced Search
HomeForumVegas Casino TalkLas Vegas A strategy question for Rob...+ Reply to Thread Results 1 to 8 of 8
Thread: A strategy question for Rob...
Thread Tools
Search Thread
Rate This Thread
Display
08-27-2012, 08:27 PM #1
slingshot slingshot is online now
Senior Member
Join Date
Dec 2010
Posts
1,227
In one of your articles, you stated that if you were a local who played each week (like myself) you would try to win just a small amount playing bp. Although this could happen in 10 seconds, am I correct in that it would require 200 credits of play and an increase in denomination should one have a losing session? I realize that although the win goal is small, the bigger wins could come and how often would you go about changing machines. At first read, it would appear that one would change machines after each $5 (or more) win. In other words, would this be the rtt strategy with bp? Thanks
Last edited by slingshot; 08-27-2012 at 09:02 PM. Reason: mispell and misquote
Quick reply to this message Reply Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message 08-27-2012, 09:30 PM #2
antfanas antfanas is offline
Member
Join Date
Aug 2012
Posts
37
Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
In one of your articles, you stated that if you were a local who played each week (like myself) you would try to win just a small amount playing bp. Although this could happen in 10 seconds, am I correct in that it would require 200 credits of play and an increase in denomination should one have a losing session? I realize that although the win goal is small, the bigger wins could come and how often would you go about changing machines. At first read, it would appear that one would change machines after each $5 (or more) win. In other words, would this be the rtt strategy with bp? Thanks
I think this is the article you are referring to


A very good Strategy For Local Players
by Rob Singer
Tuesday, May 9, 2006

Take home some cash today! I get a lot of e-mails every single day from players looking for a better way...a better way of approaching their battle against the video poker computers. Many of course come from all over the country, but even more come directly from people living in and around Las Vegas.

By and large, most of these now thousands of folks tell me that they believe they are as good an ‘advantage player’ (AP) as the people who write the books and sell the strategy cards and videos to them. And I don’t doubt it. I’ve met with hundreds of these players, and many of them are as savvy and intelligent in what they’re trying to do as I or anyone else is.

Seems that most players have read my site at www.vptruth.com and have come away wondering how in the world they’ll ever be able to follow my lead when I start play at dollars and go up from there. After all, people who play almost every day when they have family and employment responsibilities that obviously need to come first, really SHOULDN’T be risking more than they can comfortably afford.

But that’s why they contact me. They know I do not condone playing the machines with anything other than a pre-planned gaming-only bankroll that has zero to do with the expenses surrounding their daily lives…..both today and into the future. They also know I have helped many players play successfully at mostly lower levels, and when a strategy includes progressions in both denomination and game volatility, it is important that they get the procedure correct.

Although only a couple players tell me they continue to play my single-play strategy at the same levels I do with similar resounding success, most of those whom I advise rightfully choose to play Romp Thru Town (RTT) or Advanced Romp Thru Town (ARTT) strategy. Either one has a consistently high possible win rate and overall profiting associated with them. On RTT I am 35-5 with an average win of $960 over 40 sessions, and in ARTT I am 34-8 with an average win of $1520 over 42 sessions.

My play usually begins at dollars on both strategies – which can be read/copied for free on my site. Even so, players can easily begin their play at 5c, 25c or wherever they want to. In RTT, there are several variations, and some players have even made their own successful adjustments to what I tell them.

In RTT, the staple game is Bonus Poker (BP). One way to play it is to plan to run 100 or 200 (but no more) credits at three or more denomination with good spreads, such as 25c/$1/$5/$25….or 5c/25c/$1 – although when playing nickels I always suggest Double Double Bonus Poker or a similar ‘advanced’ BP game be played. Many people choose to do the basic 25c/50c/$1 and are also successful – albeit to a smaller extent. The important part is where to cash out.

On any Romp that included 5c, nothing higher than $2 is recommended. Starting at quarters, I suggest $5 or at most, $10. And of course it goes up from there. But when does one know where to call it quits for the day? Well, that depends on how smart a player is vs. how greedy they are. The greater the greed the greater the risk. Set reasonable overall session win goals, and if you’re not sure what to use, just ask me. rsinger1111@cox.net or rob_singer@qwest.net I always reply.

My favorite way of playing this strategy is using 5 levels from dollars to $25, but at times I play for far less stakes. My 7-level also includes 25c & 50c. The real beauty of this strategy is first, it is played mostly on BP – which pays 2:1 for two pair and therefore gives much more play since it is a less volatile game; and next, there are so many variations which the player can create in order to make it comfortable for them. And that, my friends, is a major part of becoming a successful gambler.

Once you’ve gotten a good understanding of that strategy, you’re ready to learn the advanced ARTT strategy. Here, the number of levels has a minimal effect. It’s the HIGHEST denomination you choose to play that’s the important aspect. Where you BEGIN your play is also important, but to a lesser extent.

The basis of ARTT is to first choose a denomination spread – such as 25c/50c/$1/$2/$5, or 5c/10c/25c/50c – and all on BP unless you lose, and I’ll explain that shortly. What the denominations are really doesn’t matter. That’s because you are only trying to win 5 credits of the lowest denomination you’ve chosen to play at.

For instance, on the first set of denominations, let’s say you lose your first hand on quarters. Now you go to 50c and lose that hand too. On your 3rd hand you get a pair of Kings – which is a push – so you play another hand and lose this time. It’s now onto $2. Here you get two pair, which equates to a win of $20. So what have you invested so far? That’s right...5 credits each at 25c + 50c + $1 + $2, which equals $18.75. And that means you’ve won $1.25...or 5 credits of your lowest denomination. You’ve attained your first goal of the session.

Obviously, $1.25 won’t be won every time you win here. Many times the win will be a little more or a lot more – depending on what you winning hand of two pair or higher is on ANY of the levels. And if this large winner puts you at or over your pre-determined win goal for the day – go home! The machines will still be there tomorrow for you to beat again.

But what about if you go through all 5 denomination and lose 5 hands? Here’s where the chances for big wins come in. At level 5 (in this case, the $5 level) you are to play a total of 100 credits of BP until you recover the lower level 5-credit losses as well as what you’ve spent on the current level, and when you attain at least a $1.25 profit you begin all over again.

And if you lose all 100 credits at $5 without recovery? Then you play 300 credits more at that level on any of the advanced BP games, such as Double Double Bonus Poker, Triple Bonus Poker Plus, Super Double Bonus Poker, etc. You can easily see that if a win does come here, usually it will be quite big. And if you lose? Start all over again wherever you feel up to it. That’s why I suggest having at least 3X 400 credits of the highest denomination you intend to play in you gaming bankroll for either of these strategies.

Tough to understand? Not at all. And these strategies make for some of the most interesting video poker play you’ll ever see. Gone will be the requirement to sit all day at the same machine & same denomination, pounding away and playing right on through quads, Royals, etc. Gone will be the need to play as fast as your hands and eyes will let you. And gone is the quest to pile up the points – they will come automatically and as second fiddle to the money. Now tell me...which makes more sense to you?
Quick reply to this message Reply Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message 08-27-2012, 10:18 PM #3
Rob.Singer Rob.Singer is offline
Senior Member
Join Date
Nov 2010
Posts
6,545
Yes, there is a RTT strategy that plays on only BP, and uses 200 credits at each level with a modest win goal. But you need to use either 4:1 or 5:1 ratios between denominations. If you want to have more details then tell me your denominations. I may not respond right away but I will when I get a break from driving, sleeping and eating.
Quick reply to this message Reply Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message 08-28-2012, 07:07 AM #4
slingshot slingshot is online now
Senior Member
Join Date
Dec 2010
Posts
1,227
Wow, antfanas. That's an oldie!! No, mine came from "Winning anything is better than losing" But thanks for the read, anywho. l had never read this one, that I remember. I'll just make it up as I go along with what I know. Sorry for the diversion, guys. My apologies.
Quick reply to this message Reply Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message 08-28-2012, 09:14 AM #5
antfanas antfanas is offline
Member
Join Date
Aug 2012
Posts
37
Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
Wow, antfanas. That's an oldie!! No, mine came from "Winning anything is better than losing" But thanks for the read, anywho. l had never read this one, that I remember. I'll just make it up as I go along with what I know. Sorry for the diversion, guys. My apologies.
This is for you slingshot

Winning ANYTHING Is Better Than Losing
by Rob Singer
Tuesday, May 3, 2005

Something is better than nothing! Those who’ve followed my message over the years understand that I believe in winning consistently - or else it's just not worth my time and effort. For instance, I go into casinos EXPECTING to win each and every time, and although I come out ahead around 85%-90% of the time, I still absolutely hate to lose. You see, what’s the point of gambling if you don’t take extra money home? Are you simply there for a ‘good time’ or have you got some time to kill...so why not lose a little? Or do you get a charge out of seeing how many points you can accumulate and what color card you can bring home to add to your collection?

Ha! I know what you’re thinking right about now...that you’ve told friends and family and/or have written on numerous video poker forums countless times before how you “did OK but you had a GREAT time” in Las Vegas. Or if you’re a local, it’s always the famous “I came out about even tonight.” I dropped those type statements from my vocabulary years ago. After a while, even THEY couldn’t ease the pain.

Maybe you're one of those self-serving 'advantage' players who make believe they play perfectly, make believe that if they DON'T play perfectly their 'errors' don't affect the outcome to any discernible extent (i.e., they want it to be OK either way), that all casino promotions were put their just to shovel cash into players wallets on certain days of the week, and that it's 'OK' to lose at least 70% of the time because the other 30% will more than make up for the frustration, the humiliation, and the dwindling bank account as you step one foot into the grave.

One of the main disagreements I have with those who have a belief in long-term/expert-play strategy is that they really don’t know what it takes to win on a consistent basis. Why? Because they don't. We regularly hear words such as “I expect to lose about 75% of my casino visits.” To me, that translates into having a miserable time on at least 7 out of every 10 trips! Yup, it sure makes sense to go home with an empty wallet and lungs full of smoke..... Is that what you’re after in this game?

As sure as the sun coming up every morning (at least here in Arizona) the next words out of their mouths claim that the 3 out of 10 winning sessions outscore the 7 losers by the tiniest of margins, that is, after all the comps, cash back, freebies, tournament invites, theoretical add-ons for them even when nothing is won, and VIP host smiles are all added in. To me it’s an exercise in futility, because I’m only there for the money, and so aren't they. But some people need to make themselves feel good if only for a day. It is, in effect, the meaning behind continuing to play the way that they do.

I’ve said this time and again—If I lived in Las Vegas I’d go out to win a small amount of credits playing Bonus Poker every single day. Maybe that would be just ten $10 credits, five $25 credits, or two $100 credits. It could be twenty-five $5 credits, whatever. It all depends on what you want or need. But it would also mean those marathon 6 hour sessions in front of a machine would instead be replaced by short-term bursts that would come to an end in as short as 10 seconds. Imagine that everyone! More time to live, more time to enjoy family, and more time to live a healthy, happy life!!

I can already hear the math critics whining out loud about this. But it’s always they who only can see the one side of the ledger that they like to see - if only because they have a NEED to see it that way. They’d say “Sure, you will win far more sessions than you will lose, but with the hefty bankroll needed to assure such wins, that one devastating loss is certain to arrive – thereby wiping out all the small wins accumulated along the way, and more.”

Now here’s the other side of that balance sheet that makes sense. Why is it always “those small wins” and “that devastatingly large loss”? Has anyone ever heard of a “huge jackpot win”? In fact, it’s been my overwhelming experience that such wins come quite a bit more often than the big losses do. I think my critics know that too, but since they can’t figure it out on a slide rule then it just can’t be true! I have yet to get any of them to respond to this statement after they take their uneducated shots at me. I attribute it to jealousy, and that's fine. Money talks, **it walks.

Another theme I preach on is that anyone who gambles would certainly want to be able to count out a $50 profit after gambling, than to count ATM slips. So it wasn’t worth your time for ‘just fifty bucks’? Get real. That’s where mental toughness comes into play. Here’s where true winning players get separated from make believe winners and outright losers. You gonna buy the groceries with ATM slips? Think about it.

So let’s look at all the reasons short-term play far outdistances long-term strategy when it comes to video poker. How’s your back? You enjoy sitting in those casino chairs for hours on end waiting for the masseuse that never comes? What about your girth? Do you feel good about yourself giving only your fingers the only workout of the day? What about those daily trips to the local casinos scattered around town? You like the view, and the way most of the patrons work so hard at looking their best when they go out? And my favorite pet peeve: Second hand smoke. Yes, I know, a great many video poker players already light up for reasons no one can understand. But if you don’t, just how enjoyable is it spending all that time sucking in other people’s problems?

Thankfully I’m still in good health, but that doesn’t stop me from coughing for a half hour sometimes after being in a casino for several hours. Even so, I can bring up a magical subject here that’l just make many of you easily forget or ignore everything I’ve said thus far: Slot Club Cards! Yes, those who sit at machines for long hours are sure to reap the benefits from those little demons. In fact, as strange as it may sound, there are people who play JUST FOR THE POINTS!

Folks, there has never been such an unforgiving casino game as video poker. You all know that as well as I do. So why then are you satisfied with all the losing? I couldn’t continue on playing the game if I lost even a third of the time that I played. And to spend all that time inside unhealthy atmospheres while doing so? Get real.

Take a hint: More and more people are learning to play hit-and-run video poker. These are the people who’ve been able to come to grips with their mistakes of the past, as I have, and are ready to embrace a whole new kind of enjoyment playing the game. There is no math that can analyze it because it just isn’t in any of the casino playbooks. And we all know the casinos invented long-term mathematical strategy. It doesn’t take a lot upstairs to see that the only way to beat them is to play exactly the opposite as they expect gamblers to.

At the end of the day, you may have to speak to others around you, but you have to answer only to yourself. You spend enough time going over it and it will all make sense. Either that, or go out and buy something that tells you if you achieve robotic perfection and continue on that path into eternity, then you may see light at the end of a tunnel at night.
Quick reply to this message Reply Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message 08-28-2012, 07:51 PM #6
slingshot slingshot is online now
Senior Member
Join Date
Dec 2010
Posts
1,227
That's the one-thanks. I just didn't know if it was from playing the rtt strategy or not. What really was important to me was the first article where Rob said to play 100 credits on bp-I knew I had read that before and that it had changed to 200 credits. I now have absolute proof and it's important to me to know that-for personal reasons. I know you don't know what I'm talking about, but let's just say my confidence level just shot up really high. Thanks, again.
Quick reply to this message Reply Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message 08-29-2012, 07:59 PM #7
Max A Million Max A Million is offline
Member
Join Date
Aug 2012
Posts
33
Originally Posted by antfanas View Post
I think this is the article you are referring to


A very good Strategy For Local Players
by Rob Singer
Tuesday, May 9, 2006

.
.
.

But what about if you go through all 5 denomination and lose 5 hands? Here’s where the chances for big wins come in. At level 5 (in this case, the $5 level) you are to play a total of 100 credits of BP until you recover the lower level 5-credit losses as well as what you’ve spent on the current level, and when you attain at least a $1.25 profit you begin all over again.

And if you lose all 100 credits at $5 without recovery? Then you play 300 credits more at that level on any of the advanced BP games, such as Double Double Bonus Poker, Triple Bonus Poker Plus, Super Double Bonus Poker, etc. You can easily see that if a win does come here, usually it will be quite big. And if you lose? Start all over again wherever you feel up to it. That’s why I suggest having at least 3X 400 credits of the highest denomination you intend to play in you gaming bankroll for either of these strategies.

Hi antfanas! Thanks for posting this article referring to one of Rob's strategies.

I looked over this strategy and maybe Rob or any others can clarify a question regarding this type of play style.

Say, for example that you are cycling among the denominations (e.g. .25/.50/1/2/5) and are accumulating a small profit as one plays. Let's suppose that I have been going back and forth among the first 4 levels and I now have a profit of $80. Now, when I start again at .25 and then reach the $5 level and I lose that hand, I have now lost $43.75.

My total profit now stands at $36.75. So now what do I do? Do I protect my winnings and drop back to the .25 level and start the cycle again or do I now consider the previous $80 profit as my new baseline to get back at by playing at the $5 level?

Thanks!
Quick reply to this message Reply Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message 08-29-2012, 08:14 PM #8
slingshot slingshot is online now
Senior Member
Join Date
Dec 2010
Posts
1,227
Originally Posted by Max A Million View Post
Hi antfanas! Thanks for posting this article referring to one of Rob's strategies.

I looked over this strategy and maybe Rob or any others can clarify a question regarding this type of play style.

Say, for example that you are cycling among the denominations (e.g. .25/.50/1/2/5) and are accumulating a small profit as one plays. Let's suppose that I have been going back and forth among the first 4 levels and I now have a profit of $80. Now, when I start again at .25 and then reach the $5 level and I lose that hand, I have now lost $43.75.

My total profit now stands at $36.75. So now what do I do? Do I protect my winnings and drop back to the .25 level and start the cycle again or do I now consider the previous $80 profit as my new baseline to get back at by playing at the $5 level?

Thanks!
You threw away a SESSION WIN GOAL! I did it for sometime before I realized I should have stopped. The temptation is to win it all at one time on one machine. Rob sometimes sets a mini-win goal of say $25 and then sometimes starts over regardless of where he is. I don't have his bankroll and so I would have stopped after winning the session win goal and gone elsewhere.So at this point, I would say the best thing is to start all over since you've already won your mini-goal.
Last edited by slingshot; 08-29-2012 at 08:32 PM. Reason: left out words.
Quick reply to this message Reply Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
+ Reply to Thread
Quick Navigation Las Vegas Top
Quick Reply Quick Reply
FontSize

Post Quick Reply Go Advanced Cancel
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Information
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 0 guests)

slingshot
Tags for this Thread
Add / Edit Tags
None
View Tag Cloud

Posting Permissions
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
[VIDEO] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Rules


Contact Us Vegas Casino Talk Top
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:56 PM.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All Material Copyright VegasCasinoTalk.com

[Alan Mendelson]

Hey Sling... I don't know what RTT is, nor do I know what any of the other abbreviations are.

Frankly, besides YOU I don't think anyone else knows.

[quahaug]

Hey Sling... I don't know what RTT is, nor do I know what any of the other abbreviations are.

Frankly, besides YOU I don't think anyone else knows.

Romp thru town, Advanced romp thru town.

[Kim Lee]

I would like to see step by step instructions on Rob's strategy so I could comment on it. I do know about his special plays and I don't use them.

He basically tries to ratchet his bankroll up for a small win. If he loses, then he escalates denominations until he hits his goal or busts his session bankroll. So he usually gets a small win, and occasionally gets a large loss. His special plays are used when they can increase his chance of hitting the session goal.

https://www.gamingtoday.com/articles...gy_makes_sense

[jbjb]

I would like to see step by step instructions on Rob's strategy so I could comment on it. I do know about his special plays and I don't use them.

He basically tries to ratchet his bankroll up for a small win. If he loses, then he escalates denominations until he hits his goal or busts his session bankroll. So he usually gets a small win, and occasionally gets a large loss. His special plays are used when they can increase his chance of hitting the session goal.

https://www.gamingtoday.com/articles...gy_makes_sense

The times where he, or anyone else, loses the first hand and never recovers will outweigh the times where he hits his goal. This has been proven. It's just another stupid negative EV betting scheme. DON'T DO IT!

[coach belly]

It only took you 9 hours to contradict yourself.

Go back to shilling for this idiot. We need you suckers losing your inheritance in the casinos

It's just another stupid negative EV betting scheme. DON'T DO IT!

Make up your mind you fucking flake.

[Spock]

Don't forget that' you'll spend a large amount of your time switching denominations.

From Rob's original post:

For instance, on the first set of denominations, let’s say you lose your first hand on quarters. Now you go to 50c and lose that hand too. On your 3rd hand you get a pair of Kings – which is a push – so you play another hand and lose this time. It’s now onto $2. Here you get two pair, which equates to a win of $20. So what have you invested so far? That’s right...5 credits each at 25c + 50c + $1 + $2, which equals $18.75. And that means you’ve won $1.25...or 5 credits of your lowest denomination. You’ve attained your first goal of the session.

So your play time would look like this:
1) select a denomination,
2) select max bet,
3) select deal,
4) choose cards and draw

If you win your goal it's back to step 1 with lowering the denomination, lose and you need to go up in denomination, both of which mirror steps 1-4 again.

And you'll also need to constantly calculate your progress so you'll know if you've exceeded your win goal.

It's a fantastic system if you're trying to slow down your hands per hour.