Following Your Rules

[Alan Mendelson]

I'm afraid I missed this in our conversation, Rob. I thought you only played to beat the casinos and never would you play "like any other Joe for entertainment." You always seemed to indicate that it was you against the casinos which is why you would never do things their way such as use markers, cash checks and you would even shun promotions so you would only play on your schedule and never their schedule. Did I misunderstand?

Why would 5-play and Multi-strike have different strategies? You don't have different strategies for Bonus vs Super Double Bonus? Sure you might play the cards differently because payoffs are different but they should all come under one strategy?

And I would think that if you have a strategy for quitting when you reach a win goal -- and leaving the casino to savor your win for a week -- that this would be your best strategy and you would stick to the best. Am I wrong again?

This is not the "Rob Singer" that I thought I knew. The "Rob Singer" that I thought I knew has a laid out, defined, and firm plan for attacking the casinos with a cash management system, win goal and special plays that would lead to a $2500 or better victory with each and every visit.

Now you tell me there are other ways to win... or heaven forbid... to play "like any other Joe for entertainment" and it's okay to do that?

[Rob.Singer]

Yes you missed a lot of what I told you. Here it is again.

I played my strategies for profit for about 12 years, in which I netted about +$984,000 without adding in slot club or any other benefits. Sometimes and very infrequently, as I've mentioned, I relaxed and/or wrote a book on a trip around Nevada, where gathering information and/or talking to other people or watching a special sporting event was more important than playing my strategy for profit. When I played my strategy I only played on my schedule period. A baseball player is paid to play the game professionally for 162 games. They can also go to family reunions or scrap around with friends and play for entertainment every now and then. Is this clear yet?

5play has a slightly different hold strategy and multistrike goes a bit further, but I can't go thru it all here given how you have so much trouble grasping how winning strategies operate and how you cannot follow easier parts of it like not tipping handpays and your helter-skelter use of casino finance options that both absolutely have to be better understood for someone to become a winning player consistently.

Basically Alan you are so confused over my strategies and I believe much of this comes from how all you can do is think about playing and, for a lack of any other meaningful nice word which you deserve, you're thick, if that's still a word used these days.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob: The obligation to understand the content does not fall on the consumer/reader/viewer but on the author and content provider. That's one of the first things you learn in the communications business.

Rob, right now you should try to make it clear just what it is you are trying to convey. Your ideas might be sound but if people don't understand them no one will ever know their value.

And when I did my first interview with you, you mentioned nothing about different strategies, or different goals. And in our subsequent interviews you said nothing about different strategies. Here is the first video again:



The only references to your "hit and get out of there strategy" are made at 7:53 and 9:09 and 9:39 and you also discuss your money management. There is no other mention made of other strategies.

So how many strategies do you really have?

[quahaug]

Alan, you seem to be a good guy and it would be a pleasure to hang out with you sometime, but, man are you THICK. (obtuse maybe)?

[Alan Mendelson]

Please quahaug... look at the video interview and tell me if Rob mentions any other system or methodology? He didn't -- and that's the final answer. Now, if he had another system that he didn't discuss with me before and doesn't appear on the FIVE pages of this website that detail his system, he should simply explain what it is.

That's all I ask.

Why he is getting so defensive over this is beyond me. Yeah -- I'm thick when it comes to not understanding why Rob can't simply say... "Gee Alan, there is another system I didn't tell you about. And this is it...."

That is what a mensch would do instead of calling me "thick" or whatever other offensive terms you want to use.

If there is ANYONE who has given Rob a fair hearing in the media it's me. And for him to launch a personal attack because he has "another system" that he never discussed with me -- OR ON THIS WEBSITE -- before makes no sense.

[Vegas Vic]

There's two different scenarios in effect here. Vic brings up what I call the "Fezzik" argument, where he broadcast how I "go out and tag the building" before starting a new session. And of course, that stupidity resulted in him and the Anthony Curtis gang of AP's being totally humiliated by my next two Gaming Today articles as I publicly challenged them to a bet which they quickly ran away from with tails tucked firmly underneath. It was as sweet a victory as one has ever had in video poker.

But what Vic & Fezzik talk about is due to a gross misrepresentation of the facts born out of an ignorance about my SPS . This strategy required that upon attaining at least a $2500 win goal, I'd immediately get in my car and drive home regardless of anything else. I would not play again until the following week where I'd begin at the lowest denomination once again. It is the true essence of why video poker as played by the SPS is not just one long term event. Sure I could have started another session after going to a movie or taking a nap. But that't got nothing to do with how and why SPS was developed, because a part of it requires enjoying the win for at least a week.
.

So, unless someone goes home for a week or so (your preferred method), all other approaches to playing VP are wrong? What is so special about what you do, other than providing more fodder for your ego? Waiting a week is as arbitrary a strategy as carrying a rabbit's foot. Having different strategies for SPS, RTT, FART, TWIT and any other set of letters you throw together only indicates how much of a KOOK you really are.

[Rob.Singer]

Please quahaug... look at the video interview and tell me if Rob mentions any other system or methodology? He didn't -- and that's the final answer. Now, if he had another system that he didn't discuss with me before and doesn't appear on the FIVE pages of this website that detail his system, he should simply explain what it is.

That's all I ask.

Why he is getting so defensive over this is beyond me. Yeah -- I'm thick when it comes to not understanding why Rob can't simply say... "Gee Alan, there is another system I didn't tell you about. And this is it...."

That is what a mensch would do instead of calling me "thick" or whatever other offensive terms you want to use.

If there is ANYONE who has given Rob a fair hearing in the media it's me. And for him to launch a personal attack because he has "another system" that he never discussed with me -- OR ON THIS WEBSITE -- before makes no sense.

I guess I expected you to have read my site BEFORE any interviews--where all five strategies were highlighted on the front page, and where I've discussed the fact that I developed and used five strategies was in telecons with you. Others have always mentioned ARTT & RTT on LVA. The other two are less common because Multistrike has never been available very many places in dollars, and five-play required $61000 cash to play a session.

BTW, the #1 strategy I teach players who come to visit in Pahrump is ARTT. It's more popular because it's easier to adapt to lower bankrolls, and it's more enjoyable to play also.

Vic, what's so special about the concept of going home for a week before playing again is I almost always, because of the only 15% session loss rate, used this money to buy surprise gifts for my wife and children (like a Yukon Denali for my son, an Infinity QX56 for my daughter's family, and a Caddy CTS-V for my wife.) And yes, there was a BIG ego involved each time I did these things for them.

[arcimede$]

Well now, isn't this interesting.

The only reason Alan ever fell for Robbie's nonsense is now thrown back at him by the con man himself. Hilarious.

Alan, think for a change. Just like I told you from the beginning. It's all pure nonsense with a few facts worked in to fool the gullible. Just like all cons. Now, that you've been around Robbie for some time you're starting to see the inconsistencies that demonstrate nothing you have been told has any basis in fact. Most of his claims are probably outright lies. The silly hot/cold machines and 5th card flip over theories are total nonsense.

I gave you mathematical proof that special plays reduce the chances of going home a winner and you ignored it. You would rather believe silly claims because you like the idea of win goals. Well, how's it feel now?

[Rob.Singer]

I guess its getting pretty lonely up there isn't it!

[Alan Mendelson]

Well now, isn't this interesting.

The only reason Alan ever fell for Robbie's nonsense is now thrown back at him by the con man himself. Hilarious.

Alan, think for a change. Just like I told you from the beginning. It's all pure nonsense with a few facts worked in to fool the gullible. Just like all cons. Now, that you've been around Robbie for some time you're starting to see the inconsistencies that demonstrate nothing you have been told has any basis in fact. Most of his claims are probably outright lies. The silly hot/cold machines and 5th card flip over theories are total nonsense.

I gave you mathematical proof that special plays reduce the chances of going home a winner and you ignored it. You would rather believe silly claims because you like the idea of win goals. Well, how's it feel now?

Arc, nice to have you back. Allow me to make a few comments here.

First, to Rob: I didn't know much about your site, your books or even your theories when I first contacted you. I first contacted you to find out about your belief and knowledge that video poker machines were allegedly not random. I so stated that in our first video interview. Only after that first video interview which we did in the high limit room of a casino in Vegas (they were nice enough to respond to your request, Rob) did I find out about your other strategies. It was then that I asked you about explaining your special plays -- and we shot those videos about your special plays in a subsequent session in Vegas -- but those videos were shot at my hotel room at Caesars. I mention all this because even though I read your two books (you gave them to me at our first interview) and I got some of your video email updates, I was totally unfamiliar with these other strategies. The first time I ever saw mentions of ARTT & RTT was here on this forum.

Now, Rob, that you have these other systems I have to question why do you have other systems? Why wouldn't one system work best? In fact you said to me when we discussed your system, which I guess now is the SPS, that you had to save up a certain bankroll and only with that bankroll would it work. It's confusing to me that you would have other systems. I'm not judging the other systems because I don't know them -- but it just confuses me that if you have one system that works why would you come up with alternate systems? I would think that the system that works best is the system that you would use and promote. To put it another way, if Plan A works why go to Plan B??

Now for Arc: Again thanks for returning. Your comments are always welcomed.

I still think that Rob's #1 strength is his money management rules, and if you look at the video again (the one above) Rob even stresses and says it's the number one rule. I strongly agree with that rule because like him I also believe that no player is at the machine for the long term.

I also believe that some of his special plays make sense. I personally have used his special play when dealt 3 aces with a kicker in TDB. I did not draw the fourth ace but it was the best way to play the hand in my opinion. I have also used his special play of breaking up the full house with three aces in Bonus poker and yes I drew the fourth ace-- and I did it because I was in a hole and I needed the quad aces ($2,000) to pull me out of that hole. That's what his special plays are all about.

Arc you are correct that mathematically the special plays reduce the chances of going home a winner. In fact, Rob will tell you that as well. He so states that in every one of the special plays discussed on this website. The math is presented. But we're not talking about "the math" here. We are talking about giving yourself a chance to get lucky with a special draw. And that is something you and I have argued for a long time on LVA.

Mathematically, Rob is wrong. That is true. But Rob's special plays open the door to have a bigger win.

I've made the analogy many times to the game of craps. Mathematically you want to bet the pass line and the place 6 and place 8 because mathematically you are more likely to win. But when you bet the high and low (12 and 2) the math is against you but you have a chance to win more money.

[quahaug]

Alan being thick isn't a pejorative. It just means it can be harder to get through. Singers website spelled it all out pretty clearly and whether he's full of #!$&% or not I can't be sure but either way its good to have more than one tool in your toolbox. Maybe he's just the luckiest SOB alive. After all some one is at the far right side of the luck bell curve and it may as well be Rob as anybody. Its not me!

[Alan Mendelson]

Thanks quahaug. When I read his books, and after talking with Rob, I came away with one important point about his strategy: Rob opens the door to get lucky with bigger wins in video poker. The classic example was special play #13 here: http://alanbestbuys.com/id194.html where he discards 3 queens to hold 3 to the royal, and he hit the royal.

I wouldn't do it... you wouldn't do it... Rob says he did it only once and was presented with the option only twice in his life. But he took the option and hit the royal. Who is to say that is wrong? Mathematically it was wrong, but you can't argue with the money that they count out into your hand.

I should point out that even Rob says he does not use his special plays all the time. Sometimes they are not needed. Sometimes the wins come without special help or special plays.

I broke up the full house with three aces in bonus poker only once -- when I needed it. Otherwise I always hold a full house with three aces in bonus poker.

And I can't understand why anyone would argue with Rob's system of quitting after reaching a win goal. There's nothing wrong in my book with going home with cash in your pocket and a smile on your face so that you have money to come back for another trip to Vegas.

[arcimede$]

Alan, once again you're confused. When I say "go home a winner", I'm talking about reaching his win goal. The very thing the special plays are supposed to promote. The majority of them REDUCE your chances of hitting a big winner and reaching the win goal. That is what I demonstrated and what you continually misrepresent.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, the reason why I developed a stretegy for multistrike is because it's a bearable game played with the adjustments I've incorporated. Same with 5-play, whereas triple play, ten play, and those other gimmick multiplay games are not. I developed RTT then ARTT in response to hundreds and even more players asking me to come up with strategies they could actually play with far less bankrolls than I used. Because they can also be played thru the $25 level, I played them every now and then professionally myself.

Remember, no matter what you say, arci will always go back to the same silly BS of claiming that the special plays decrease winning. Imagine that--in $25 TBP+ hold 22 from 22779 and you have the opportunity for 2222 and a $15,000 winner. But do it arci's way and that opportunity turns into a possible FH worth $1125 at best. What he's unable to do is play one hand at a time, and instead he is compelled to pretend the hand will appear a million times per session. Always long-term....kind of a shame he didn't plan his personal life that way as the most successful among us have done.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, the reason why I developed a stretegy for multistrike is because it's a bearable game played with the adjustments I've incorporated. Same with 5-play, whereas triple play, ten play, and those other gimmick multiplay games are not. I developed RTT then ARTT in response to hundreds and even more players asking me to come up with strategies they could actually play with far less bankrolls than I used. Because they can also be played thru the $25 level, I played them every now and then professionally myself.

Remember, no matter what you say, arci will always go back to the same silly BS of claiming that the special plays decrease winning. Imagine that--in $25 TBP+ hold 22 from 22779 and you have the opportunity for 2222 and a $15,000 winner. But do it arci's way and that opportunity turns into a possible FH worth $1125 at best. What he's unable to do is play one hand at a time, and instead he is compelled to pretend the hand will appear a million times per session. Always long-term....kind of a shame he didn't plan his personal life that way as the most successful among us have done.

Let me respond to your points:

1. Rob, if you developed the other strategies for smaller bankrolls that makes sense. But couldn't a player use your basic strategy and just lower the various levels and win goals to accommodate a smaller bankroll?

Basically, your win goal of $2500 represents a win goal of about 5% of your starting bankroll. And as we all know, a 5% return for a day's play or even a weekend's play is very nice and is in fact wonderful compared to any kind of loss which I suspect most video poker player have at the end of their weekend of play. So my point is, with the smaller bankroll could you simply adopt that 5% win goal?

Personally, I have never played at the $25 level... with one exception: years ago after winning about $2,000 playing Super Aces Bonus on a $1 machine, I took $125 to a $25 machine to play one hand at DDB and I got a paying pair to break even. Then played again and got two pair which only broke even. Then played a third hand and lost. Well, I can say I once played at the $25 level.

2. Rob, here is one of your special plays that I wouldn't try: giving up two pair (a break even hand) to hold a pair that could give you a jackpot hand but by itself is not a payback hand. This is similar to Special Play #28 that we have on our website on this page: http://alanbestbuys.com/id197.html But in #28 you are going for quad 4s instead of quad deuces. While I understand your strategy, I can't give up a break-even hand. If, however, I was way ahead in my session, I might take this long shot if I felt I had "money to burn." But usually, I'm far from having money to burn.

Your example #28 is far different from, for example, dumping a full house with trip aces in Bonus because at least the trip aces represents a win in Bonus.

I think there are only a few times when most players will dump a winning hand in order to go for something bigger. Of course we break up flushes and straights for one-card royal draws, but that's usually the limit for most players. Even break even hands keep us in the game for, hopefully, something bigger and better.

[arcimede$]

The big problem with breaking up a winning hand to hold a low pair is it only gives you a 1:360 chance at the quad. On any hand you start out with a 1:425 chance before the deal. So, if the average return provides just a little over one hand of play you have an equal chance of hitting a quad, and that's not counting other possible wins.

It's simple math and proves beyond any doubt that Rob is a liar. He tries to get people to focus on one very unlikely result and claims that makes sense while ignoring the highly probable results. Pure nonsense and anyone who helps him advertise this BS or believes him can only be described as suckers.

[slingshot]

I broke up two high pairs and went for the Royal and got it in quarters. I almost overlooked it, but fortunately wasn't playing too fast. I would do it again. If I had the $1200 bankroll, I would do it at dollars. I look at it this way, I ain't gonna be there at that machine for long, so why not? And usually, even if I get the full house, the money will be gone if things don't go well within the strategies' # of hands. I don't worry about whether I would do something or not if I know I'll probably not have the bankroll to go there anyway.

[Rob.Singer]

I broke up two high pairs and went for the Royal and got it in quarters. I almost overlooked it, but fortunately wasn't playing too fast. I would do it again. If I had the $1200 bankroll, I would do it at dollars. I look at it this way, I ain't gonna be there at that machine for long, so why not? And usually, even if I get the full house, the money will be gone if things don't go well within the strategies' # of hands. I don't worry about whether I would do something or not if I know I'll probably not have the bankroll to go there anyway.

There's the key-- there is no requirement that the machine and its RNG, in all its mathematical glory, will cooperate in any sense of the word over any amount of time, let alone on a single hand. The low pair held example I provided above has hit for me twice on $25 TBP+ and once on $5 DDBP with no kicker. In all games that play is only used during the last 100 credits.

For arci to be jumping up & down screaming "liar" over this like a whiny kid, has to be a product of his self-inflicted boredom & agony up there. He quotes how, "this or that should THEORETICALLY HAPPEN" in three or four hundred hands" when he can't get over that it's just one hand. Imagine the conflict he creates in other aspects of his life if he makes something like this part of his internal struggle! That's how little he knows and how frustrated he gets over this. Losing self-proclaimed "advantage players" always react the same. It's the Fezzik Syndrome, where illogic just keeps flowing. But in arci's case, he well learned from the Gaming Today total beatdown & humiliation of the LVA crowd of AP "idols", as he has carefully stayed away from getting involved with any challenges I've tossed to him. What he DID learn from them are excuses and how to escape thru the back door at the last minute to avoid embarrassment--albeit the Fezzik crew did it out of fear of losing while arci just doesn't have the money.

Alan, I understand you're afraid of casting away a guaranteed push, but that's the sign of a player more enamored with compiling points than winning money. You'd be happy if every hand were a push just to keep getting all those Harrahs comps. And not to worry--I've run into plenty of that type of player. In fact, I had one at a machine here two nights ago in from Delaware. It's a very hard habit to break. The several big special plays she made didn't work and REALLY irritated her husband, but she did leave here with $196 in profit. I then bought them dinner, and contrary to more phony claims I've seen, they (my trainees) always use their own players cards, and they were off to LV with a newfound understanding of the game. Oh, they also walked away with two signed copies of my books. Arci please take note: life is good !

[quahaug]

Arci I can't remember from past rants, do you say Rob is lying about winning what he claims to have won?

[arcimede$]

Arci I can't remember from past rants, do you say Rob is lying about winning what he claims to have won?

I've always said his claims are unlikely. Of course, it's possible. There are lottery winners every week so he could have been lucky. The odds are about 99.97% against him right up front, and then ....

Then, you have to factor in the rest of the garbage he states. The 5th card flip-over claim being the most obvious. The odds he had the number of flip-overs that he claims is next to impossible. And, by that I mean greater than there are atoms in the universe. An obvious lie if there ever was one. And, this is far from the only lie he has been caught on. And, despite all these claimed winnings we're suppose to believe he has chosen to live in a trailer park in Pahrump as his ideal retirement life.

When someone is a pathelogical liar and all evidence points to another lie ... well, you'd be crazy to believe him.