Following Your Rules

[arcimede$]

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.

In the game I play the correct play is often to break up two high pairs and go for a RF. So, I've done it quite often. I've never hit a RF or even a wild RF (the game has wild cards) in 15+ years of playing the game.

However, your response is more telling than anything. You assume your going to lose so why not take chances. I guess that must be OK in your mind. When I play, I only play to win. Therefore, these kinds of thoughts don't factor into any of my decisions. I know what I have to do to win.

You might want to think about your approach. Why not play to win?

[Alan Mendelson]

Arci wrote: "It's simple math and proves beyond any doubt that Rob is a liar."

Arci, if you are saying that Rob is lying about the math you are wrong. Rob has always been up front and honest about what the math says about his special plays. He will be the first to tell you that many, if not all, of his special plays have a lower "expected return" than what the conventional play has. But you keep missing the point: he doesn't care about the expected return because he wants a shot at the big payoff.

If you want to argue that taking these shots at the big payoff could and will cost him money over the short term and the long term I will have no complaint about your position. But calling him a liar and accusing him of distorting the math of the game is flat out wrong.

[arcimede$]

Oh, they also walked away with two signed copies of my books.

Always nice for a cold Delaware night when you need something to get the fireplace going. Must be frustrating to know you couldn't find enough suckers to buy them that you have to give them away.

[arcimede$]

Arci wrote: "It's simple math and proves beyond any doubt that Rob is a liar."

Arci, if you are saying that Rob is lying about the math you are wrong. Rob has always been up front and honest about what the math says about his special plays. He will be the first to tell you that many, if not all, of his special plays have a lower "expected return" than what the conventional play has. But you keep missing the point: he doesn't care about the expected return because he wants a shot at the big payoff.

If you want to argue that taking these shots at the big payoff could and will cost him money over the short term and the long term I will have no complaint about your position. But calling him a liar and accusing him of distorting the math of the game is flat out wrong.

Wow, I've probably explained this to you a dozen times and yet you still don't get it. I'm not talking about the return of the game, Alan. You keep thinking that even though I've told you several times that is not the case. It's the special plays themselves do not give him a better "shot at the big payoff". In most cases the special plays REDUCE (you do understand what reduce means, don't you?), that's right, REDUCE the chances of the big payoff. It has nothing to do with the fact that those same plays ALSO lower the expected return. That is not the issue at hand.

So, if Rob claims all his special plays give a player a better chance of hitting a big winner, then he is lying. Got it????????

[Alan Mendelson]

Wow, I've probably explained this to you a dozen times and yet you still don't get it. I'm not talking about the return of the game, Alan. You keep thinking that even though I've told you several times that is not the case. It's the special plays themselves do not give him a better "shot at the big payoff". In most cases the special plays REDUCE (you do understand what reduce means, don't you?), that's right, REDUCE the chances of the big payoff. It has nothing to do with the fact that those same plays ALSO lower the expected return. That is not the issue at hand.

So, if Rob claims all his special plays give a player a better chance of hitting a big winner, then he is lying. Got it????????

Thanks for making that clear.

So now that we both agree that Rob is not telling lies about the return of the special plays, let's discuss the point that his special plays, as you put it, "REDUCE the chances of the big payoff."

What makes some of his special plays appealing is that they actually increase your chances of getting a win that will help you reach a win goal, and keep in mind that the "win goal" is one of the important things in Rob's strategy. Take for example Special Play #15 in Triple Double Bonus on page http://alanbestbuys.com/id195.html -- here Rob drops the kicker when dealt three aces. His reasoning is that he wants to give himself a better shot at getting the fourth ace vs. a 1/47 shot for the fourth ace which would give him the bigger jackpot.

This is one of his special plays that I have used. In my case I was playing a $5 game. Getting the fourth ace without a kicker would have paid $4,000. Getting the fourth ace and still holding the kicker would have paid $20,000. I dropped the kicker to improve my chances at getting the fourth ace. I didn't get it, but I gave myself a better chance.

By the way, I've also been at a $5 TDB machine when I was dealt quad aces, and did not draw the kicker.

[arcimede$]

Thanks for making that clear.

So now that we both agree that Rob is not telling lies about the return of the special plays, let's discuss the point that his special plays, as you put it, "REDUCE the chances of the big payoff."

What makes some of his special plays appealing is that they actually increase your chances of getting a win that will help you reach a win goal, and keep in mind that the "win goal" is one of the important things in Rob's strategy.

What I showed you previously is that most of the special plays DO NOT increase one's chances of reaching a win goal. That is my point. The few that do are usually the ones where 3 aces are held, otherwise most of them lead to fewer hands played overall. By playing fewer hands you miss out on many chances to hit those big winners that will produce your win goal. It turns out that, mathematically, those extra chances provide an increased opportunity of hitting the big winner.

[slingshot]

I don't assume anything. It makes perfect sense to me. You think if I keep sitting there THAT hand is gonna appear the second time? I DO play to win. Sorry if Rob's approach seems to make sense to me. I've found it to be true in actual play-and I don't mean by that that it happens all the time. And if 400 credits lost isn't a lot of playing, someone must be playing an awful lot to go beyond that. I tried your method and sat there 4 hrs. straight and couldn't beleive the dang machine wouldn't hit enough to get back to start. I got home with lungs full of smoke, a deflated ego, and felt awful stupid. I'll be honest- I'm thankful I'm not a whiz with the math-common sense means more to me.

[Rob.Singer]

I'm glad everyone is seeing thru arci's hate & jealousy-driven illogic spew!

Notice how he's trying to pretend that making special plays reduces your total overall hands, when the only truth is you WANT to play as few hands as possible, which in turn means you hope to have as many special play opportunities as you can. But what he cannot get himself to say--even though he knows it and it is agonizing to his ego--is how never making these plays means far less opportunities to win & go home.

Don't let him get to you over this. I've been frustrating his efforts for years now, and in an even more grueling turn of events for him, he tried to stay away from me here, he just couldn't't help himself, and now he also has to wonder where all his REAL long-term dreams went as he sees the wonderful life my wife & I are LIVING, while he can only hang his head and wonder why me and not him.....

Answer: Respect for others.

[Rob.Singer]

I'm glad everyone is seeing thru arci's hate & jealousy-driven illogic spew!

Notice how he's trying to pretend that making special plays reduces your total overall hands, when the only truth is you WANT to play as few hands as possible, which in turn means you hope to have as many special play opportunities as you can. But what he cannot get himself to say--even though he knows it and it is agonizing to his ego--is how never making these plays means far less opportunities to win & go home.

Don't let him get to you over this. I've been frustrating his efforts for years now, and in an even more grueling turn of events for him, he tried to stay away from me here, he just couldn't't help himself, and now he also has to wonder where all his REAL long-term dreams went as he sees the wonderful life my wife & I are LIVING, while he can only hang his head and wonder why me and not him.....

Answer: Respect for others.

Now THAT was worth reading twice!

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, may I suggest that what it comes down to is this: two different methods/systems for two different goals.

Arc (and others) are devoted to the long term math and to long term play. You and your followers are not. Therein lies all the difference.

If you are a "long termer" you're going to play one way... if you are not, you might employ the "Singer method."

To each his own.

Arc cannot rightfully say your system/method is wrong just as you can't say that his system/method is wrong. This is because both systems have too many differences and goals and objectives. Arc has clearly stated that he does not agree with the concept of a win goal -- well that alone eliminates any chance that he could possibly adopt a "special play" to reach that win goal.

All of the other chatter and debate about fifth card flipovers and hot/cold cycles are really side issues. Because the big picture and the big issue is simply what are you playing for? Are you playing for "forever" or are you playing for a short term goal?

There will never be a meeting of the minds, just as different religions can't decide if God rested on Saturday or Sunday or just took a nap Thursday at noon.

[slingshot]

While I'm thankful Rob opened my eyes to vp, I don't think "follower" is a good word. For instance, I would hold the A with a suited 10 and Rob wouldn't in his style of play. That way, I have a chance at 4 A's, four 10's, and STILL have the chance to hit the Royal. Just because I agree with his premises doesn't mean I can't think for myself. In fact, doing this, I have reached a mini-goal with 3 10's on ARTT that returned me to my lowest denom. The thing that I like about his style is that it's so flexible and you're actually allowed to think while you're playing.

[redietz]

Mr. Kneeland would step in with something pithy in response to that insight, Alan, but I'm less delicate, so I'll just add, "Using the Singer system requires a belief in special plays. Being a heavy-playing AP requires a belief that every single machine is random, and that people who spend many, many hours in casinos are immune to the expenditure seductions in those casinos. In a sense, the two approaches require the suspension of disbelief."

[Alan Mendelson]

Mr. Kneeland would step in with something pithy in response to that insight, Alan, but I'm less delicate, so I'll just add, "Using the Singer system requires a belief in special plays. Being a heavy-playing AP requires a belief that every single machine is random, and that people who spend many, many hours in casinos are immune to the expenditure seductions in those casinos. In a sense, the two approaches require the suspension of disbelief."

Okay, here I admit I'm thick. What the heck are you saying??

[Rob.Singer]

Rob, may I suggest that what it comes down to is this: two different methods/systems for two different goals.

Arc (and others) are devoted to the long term math and to long term play. You and your followers are not. Therein lies all the difference.

If you are a "long termer" you're going to play one way... if you are not, you might employ the "Singer method."

To each his own.

Arc cannot rightfully say your system/method is wrong just as you can't say that his system/method is wrong. This is because both systems have too many differences and goals and objectives. Arc has clearly stated that he does not agree with the concept of a win goal -- well that alone eliminates any chance that he could possibly adopt a "special play" to reach that win goal.

All of the other chatter and debate about fifth card flipovers and hot/cold cycles are really side issues. Because the big picture and the big issue is simply what are you playing for? Are you playing for "forever" or are you playing for a short term goal?

There will never be a meeting of the minds, just as different religions can't decide if God rested on Saturday or Sunday or just took a nap Thursday at noon.

Two problems with that analysis Alan: First--and I believe I recently read a few posts on this on vpFREE or maybe vp.com--it has been identified by more than one player that they've watched Dancer and other supposed big deal AP's participating in <100% plays, and they've witnessed them making optimal-play errors too.They so want to talk the talk (and in some cases it's for product sales) but they are unable to continuously walk the walk. That feeds right into what I've been saying all along about those type of proclaimers: they rarely do what they say, and they will play at ANY cost until they step into their graves because they just cannot stop and will not stop--regardless how low the paytables go. There will always be excuses for playing this or that paytable, and they will always value the benefits at whatever necessary just so they can continue to justify their play, if only unto themselves.

Then, I can absolutely say that the AP method is wrong because I have done it and I know it as well or better than any of them. I also know how it makes you a problem gambler--just look at arci for that type of verification. He played his bankroll right out of Las Vegas, and now he suffers by having to sit up there in lonely Minnesota where EVERYONE wishes they were, having to lick his wounds due to sins of the past.

That's why there is and has never been someone like me on what is basically a white trash scene. I have now seen it from both sides, and along with all the investigation and studying about the game and the industry I've done, it's no wonder I'm probably the only one who has actually beaten the game consistently without very unusual good fortune in getting royals. I understand why you don't want to accept some of what I've said on what you call "side issues" and it all has to do with rocking your vp world, which in a time like this that you're going thru with the losing, you can't take anything more that might turn into overload. So be it, but you are stopping yourself short of becoming a yearly winner.

I've also read on one of the forums where Dancer is blabbing about making something like $3million profit since playing vp. I'm based in common sense, and I saw where someone else challenged him on that and the poster was immediately stuffed. If you're confused then this is why there's no common sense in what Dancer said: Anyone who would make that kind of money would NEVER be permitted to play anywhere in LV. He would be banned all over the state and possibly beyond with the technology these days. And not only that, the guy has for years written about his supposed conquests--mostly never naming where he does it--but he is neither banned nor STOPPED FROM PLAYING ANYWHERE. In the meantime, he continues to work at a time most people his age are comfortably retired.

And people wonder why Dancer has never accepted a challenge I've put out to him......

[redietz]

What I was saying, more or less, was that using the Singer system requires believing that special plays actually will help your bottom line over your lifetime of playing video poker. That requires belief without evidence, kind of like religion. And being a hard-core advantage player requires believing that each and every machine is random, because if you encounter one that isn't and play a lot on it, your supposed lifetime advantage goes out the window. That requires faith without evidence, also, like a religion. And lastly, if you think being an advantage player is a good thing, that requires thinking somehow you won't succumb to other casino games or habits while spending all that advantage-player time in the casinos. That requires another element of faith without evidence, sort of like a third religion.

So I liked your religion analogy, because buying into these systems does require a suspension of disbelief, just like various religions.

[Alan Mendelson]

Ahhh, I get it now, redietz. Thank you.

Casinos and religion have a lot in common. People pray in casinos just as they pray in houses of worship. But in casinos -- when they pray they really mean it.

[slingshot]

What I was saying, more or less, was that using the Singer system requires believing that special plays actually will help your bottom line over your lifetime of playing video poker. That requires belief without evidence, kind of like religion. And being a hard-core advantage player requires believing that each and every machine is random, because if you encounter one that isn't and play a lot on it, your supposed lifetime advantage goes out the window. That requires faith without evidence, also, like a religion. And lastly, if you think being an advantage player is a good thing, that requires thinking somehow you won't succumb to other casino games or habits while spending all that advantage-player time in the casinos. That requires another element of faith without evidence, sort of like a third religion.

So I liked your religion analogy, because buying into these systems does require a suspension of disbelief, just like various religions.

A lot of the special plays are within the last 100 credits-so it's not without plan. The 3-to-a -royal I always go for.

[arcimede$]

Arc cannot rightfully say your system/method is wrong just as you can't say that his system/method is wrong. This is because both systems have too many differences and goals and objectives. Arc has clearly stated that he does not agree with the concept of a win goal -- well that alone eliminates any chance that he could possibly adopt a "special play" to reach that win goal.

I have no problem with the concept of a win goal. It's meaningless in the overall picture as it doesn't improve nor hurt your results. Kind of like playing on end machines or at certain time or with a lucky charm. It doesn't change long term results.

OTOH, I clearly can state "his system/method is wrong" if you believe winning vs. losing is important. If your goals are something different, then you can believe anything you want. I proved that most of his special plays are pure nonsense. They don't improve a person's chances of reaching a win goal and they reduce the expected return.

All of the other chatter and debate about fifth card flipovers and hot/cold cycles are really side issues. Because the big picture and the big issue is simply what are you playing for? Are you playing for "forever" or are you playing for a short term goal?

The side issues are simply evidence that Rob will lie about the most simple things. Why would anyone believe the rest of his BS when he makes claims that are absolutely crazy.

And, once again, I proved that special plays make it less likely to achieve those "short term goals". Sorry Alan, Singer fails at everything he claims. He is nothing but a con man selling BS to suckers. There is nothing in his claims that are supported by even a simple analysis. This has nothing to do with different goals. I've demonstrated his approach does not match his stated goals. Quit defending the indefensible. It just makes you look bad.

[arcimede$]

And being a hard-core advantage player requires believing that each and every machine is random, because if you encounter one that isn't and play a lot on it, your supposed lifetime advantage goes out the window. That requires faith without evidence, also, like a religion.

It has nothing to do with being an advantage player. If you go to casino and use Rob's (or any) approach you are still assuming the machines are random. If machine's are gaffed it doesn't matter how you play.

All player's should be careful when playing. They should be alert to possible machine malfunctions which could negate the randomness. They should also track results to see if they are reasonable. I believe the phrase "trust, but verify" applies. If any situation is the least bit questionable then don't play. It's not that difficult.

[arcimede$]

Two problems with that analysis Alan ....

This is typical of Robbie. Since I know my own situation I can state the facts. First of all I only was in LV in the winter, I quit going there in the winter due to my wife's health issues, I won money every year I was there. So, why does Rob feel the need to lie?

Then, he also goes on and on about Dancer and other players which he also cannot possibly know anything about their lives. Why does Rob need to lie about something he can't possibly know?

Once you see that Singer lies about anything and everything, why would anyone believe anything else he says?

It's so obvious that a cave man could see it. When a person needs to lie constantly they are mentally ill. The person needs help. Anyone providing a venue for that person is actually preventing them from seeking professional help. Alan, you need to think through what you are doing here.

As for anyone who believes Rob, well there truly is one born every minute. Hey, I've got some prime real estate in Pahrump that I can't let you have for a song.