Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Frank Kneeland's Termination of His Singer Play Strategy Review

  1. #1
    Let's first look at some facts before the opining starts.

    1. That record-shattering thread about his intention clearly stated he was reviewing my "system" - which is what he chooses to call the SPS. However, the hacks on LVA, once the initial shock of his cancellation wore off, are now of course claiming that the strategy wasn't in need of reviewing. Alanleroy showed just how blind the geniuses over there can be by saying (in paraphrased form): "Singer plays games that already are in favor of the casinos, then he makes further -EV plays which can do nothing but make him lose even MORE money". Naturally this is pure BS made by someone so far out of touch with SPS that he had to put on his "I hate Singer" hat in order to spew such nonsense.

    Example: In SDBP I'm dealt KK887 and the "optimal play" is to hold the 2 pr. What do I do? I hold the K's only, because four of them pay 600 credits - which is usually enough to send me home a winner. And it happens, just like other FH's happen as well as any of a number of other smaller winners happen. It simply gives you an opportunity for the big win. Hold the KK88 like the paranoid AP's would hold? You have a 4/47 chance of getting that killer FH, and you are guaranteed to at least get a push. Big whoop. That may be enough for most players but it neither impresses me nor gives me the opportunity for a 600-credit win. What alanleroy is trying to say is that I'm getting slightly less EV for that one hold, and if I were to make that play a million times into infinity I would show negative results from doing so. What's lost here is that it is indeed only ONE PLAY--here and now--and anything can happen at any time. It is not the value of the hand you HOLD that counts--it's the value of the FINAL OUTCOME OF THAT HAND that means everything.

    Lurkerposter, if I were like Frank and I could quote Shakespeare, I'd be able to accurately portray the amount of P-A-I-N you're sufferring after learning of the termination. Your distressed and rambling posts that flow from your fingertips truly does explain why you had to take on yet another alias to continue trying to scratch that itch called Rob Singer that'll never go away. Ask arci!

    Then we have the usual rants of arci, who if we could see a picture of him as he read about the cancellation, we would certainly all have a renewed sense of what anger is all about. His non-stop "the math is the math is the math" is probably only surpassed by the amount of praying he does these days.....

    Frank is a unique individual--nearly all intellect and he is self-taught. His problem inasmuch as it relates to his effort to evaluate my play strategy, is in his belief that nothing can possibly be real unless it was in theory form first. In other words, since I did not put out a mathematical theory when I developed my play strategy, it is of little to no value, and the fact that I've netted almost a million dollars in profit from using it over the years is insignificant and ultimately, meaningless to those of his persuasion. It always gets back to the same advantage player copout: negative EV games will, over time, yield losing results; positive EV games will, over time, yield winning results. These people just cannot grasp the concept that it is possible to win all the time on -EV games, because no one ever plays them enough to ever reach anything even close to being "the long term". So the word "theory" is and remains to be only a "theory" that can never be realized by any one player.

    Over the course of his eval, because the strategy was so complex to comprehend and how it is an ACTUAL STRATEGY and not some silly theory, he changed over to evaluate ME instead--which was a massive mistake given how much greater my life experience has been compared to his. Theory ended for me when I left the classroom and began actually living my life with all types of personalities all over the world. Frank seems to have never LEFT that classroom.

    The whole thing backfired, but I remain willing to explain the entire strategy in detail to Frank as time permits after we get back from our family vacation here in a cabin on Lake Tahoe.

    Snidely, I do believe there is hope for you yet. So many of you really like to talk about SPS as if you know it, but no one is even close to being correct. And yes, that includes arcimedes, regardless of the amount of lies and misrepresentations he tells thinking he's impressing every one of you over and over again.
    Last edited by Rob.Singer; 12-14-2011 at 12:36 AM.

  2. #2
    Update: After reading the latest of several RS-related threads over on LVA about this subject, I have the following comments and observations:

    Enter thlf (a known anonymous RS critic who's always found solace in hiding behind his computer rather than actually facing me in a debate--not at all unlike the best of the best Singer-hating BS'ers in LV btw) who said he remained silent throughout the entire thread hoping to read the results of the evaluation of SPS. Here I have to give him credit. You'll notice that as soon as the thread began arci got upset and rattled that this was going down, claiming he already knew everything about everything and portraying how much smarter than Frank he was anyway. Minimalize the evaluator.....part of arci's game probably throughout his entire business and personal life. After all, NO ONE can ever be thought of as being able to either prove him confused, wrong, of being a better and more skilled debater, or of simply having even a little more upstairs than he. Imagine living with that?

    So thlf showed irritation and disappointment at Frank's quitting the eval. Who can blame him when all this hoopla preceeded what was to be an in-depth review on the most famous and intriguing video poker strategy in history? And this is more than likely the same feelings experienced by most of the other members who post and who don't post, on LVA. Why? Well, first off, anyone who doesn't experience luck and then immediately take the money home is a vp loser lifetime - which includes 99.99% of all players. Then, you've seen all too often how the self-proclaimed "AP's" either claim they win win win or give the impression they do. Yet these same people often call me a fraud and a liar over my reported profitting of nearly a million dollars using my play strategy. Their reasoning? Other than the usual envy of course, since these people regularly LOSE even though they say and really feel they only play when they have that make-believe "theoretical edge" over any casino they go into, it is incomprehensible to their psyche that someone actually DOES win at the game of video poker. And to win SO MUCH....SO OFTEN, USING only negative EV games along with special holds that go against what they want but what the casinos most definitely do not want the player to make, hit, and leave? Now you see why they always turn debates WITH ANYONE ANYWHERE ABOUT IT into name-calling sessions, and why they just can't stand being taken out to the woodshed by me time and time again.

    So instead of missing Frank's amateurish evaluation on my state of mind or maybe how I put corn into my mouth and what that would mean to the Romans or how Drunkyard's Walk would interpret it, go ahead and ask him to actually do a review on what he said he would do--my play strategy. Or how about he do a report on the tremendously powerful aspects of the 2009 Corvette ZR1 I have stored in Casa Grande, Az. waiting for my 5 year old grandson to turn 21. Or maybe he could just ask to meet my family and do a report that would show what would absolutely horrify my critics: that I'm a video poker player who has actually been very happily married for over 33 years with two successful children and four beautiful grandchildren, and that we're financially set for the rest of our lives. Oh, and I'm not an alcoholic, I have never smoked the cancer sticks, I've never been in any trouble of any kind, I've always been in the best shape for my age group throughout my life, and that I've met and talked to the three most important athletes and/or role models in my life: Muhammed Ali, Larry Bird, and Al Kaline. Sure, these attributes all regularly piss off my critics because not only am I not like your typical video poker-playing degenerate--I'm so far to the normal side that they just can't take it. Take a look at what Tim Tebow represents--a successful football player all-around who has always been criticized....especially for being a decent human being and a devout Christian. What his critics REALLY want is for him to have said he's a Muslim. Then, imagine the tolerance he'd have as he made his way around the country in a Denver Broncos uniform.

    Now wouldn't ANY of those be a much more interesting read than reading a RS psycho-analysis by someone who's sky high Mensa IQ spits out theoretical evaluations that have nothing to do with my famously successful play strategy?
    Last edited by Rob.Singer; 12-14-2011 at 12:55 PM.

  3. #3
    Rob, what amazes me is that your critics continue to focus on only one thing: your "special plays" which -- as you readily admit and always point out -- are at a mathematical disadvantage but open the possibility of a big win. What they refuse to accept or even comprehend or make an effort to understand are:

    1. At least 95% of the time you are making the "conventional plays" just as all of your critics try to do.
    2. You have a strict discipline that allows you to leave when hitting a win goal -- so that you don't put all your money back in the machine, and allowing you a chance to enjoy a trip without slaving over a machine to grind out the small percentage win that long-term "advantage play" might offer.
    3. Your "special plays" are only played at "special times" and if you are having a run of good luck they might not ever be played.
    4. You have a money management system involving "soft profits" that can help you manage your bankroll and control losses while at the same time contributing to win goals.

    Instead of realizing these other parts of your method of play they continue to harp on only one thing -- the "special plays" with the negative expectation that you concede they have. But even your special plays are not as disastrous as your critics paint them to be. When you drop two pair to hold only one pair, even if you don't make quads you still might draw another pair, or trips or a full house, and keeping one pair might still give you a paying hand. When you break up a full house with three aces you might not draw the fourth ace but you still might draw another full house but you will still be left with three of a kind. When you break up a particular draw you might be sacrificing the big win that the APers will try to get with a 1/47 possibility but you are increasing your chance for getting a secondary win.

    These "special plays" are in fact not a disaster. They are reasoned approaches that might follow the concept of "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" or "invest a little with the opportunity to get back even more." These are actually principles in business that managers use every day.

    When you sit down at a video poker machine you are not being tested on what is the correct hold or draw. Instead it is your opportunity to try to extract the most money you can from the casino. The machine is not scoring you as if you were playing on a computer test program. The only score is the credit meter and what you ultimately cash out.

    While I don't usually follow your special plays, I can understand why you could divert from the "accepted strategy" of the games to go for a "special play." I accept that a special play gives you a chance to "get lucky" or it can also give you a better chance for a lesser win -- but still a win.

    Your critics also blast your allegiance to leaving when you reach a win goal, saying that you are giving up the opportunity to win more. Well, don't they know that the casino will still be there next week or next month? Do they have to keep recycling their wins through the coin-in slot until a bad run catches up with them and they lose it all?

    And perhaps the biggest and most ridiculous criticism comes when they say it's wrong to leave when you reach your $2500 win goal. Are they nuts? What's wrong with winning $2500? It's when you press your luck trying to win more when bad luck catches up with you.

    By the way, it's now been more than 160,000 hands since my last royal flush. Even if I were playing a positive expectation game like the APers claim they do, would I still have a profit without a royal in 160,000? Didn't think so.

    The bottom line is this: unless everyone can decide to look at your method of play as an entire method of play, they will not see the value or any value in it. Personally, I think the best value is in your money management approach and devotion to win goals.

  4. #4
    The blinded critics will ALWAYS focus on the added -ev of the special plays. Why? Because the strategy is too complex even for the self-proclaimed math experts who only show just how lazy they really are when it comes to actually APPLYING that math intellect instead of taking the easy way out and theorizing about it.

    Right now these people are beside themselves given the status of that eval. Just look at how arci is reacting -- he's so distraught & confused about the whole thing that he now claims you & I are one in the same....or something weird like that. And I don't see any relief for the poor fellow in the foreseeable future. Think about it: have you ever seen him post in any other threads where I'm not the guest of honor?! Yes....think about the obsession ibvolved here, then think about the lonliness he faces each day along with him having to read about the termination of a thread about me! OMG!!!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •