What is the most efficient use of comp points?

[Rob.Singer]

Bigfoot, he also loses credibility when he lies about me requiring players, aka students, to fork over their points to me. Only the hacks on videopoker.com--of which there are righteously several fewer today-- believe him on that lie. What they WOULDNT'T want to believe, however, is how he turned his poor wife into a vegetable by making her go to the casinos with him when she needed a much healthier lifestyle....as well as a permanent roof over their heads that they wouldnt't lose to the machines.

[arcimede$]

I haven't read past here on the board yet, but come on. Really? There are plenty of areas to bang on Rob Singer that are right on. But he is willing to train people on his nonconvential strategy and just asks that they give him the comp points in return. How is this morally wrong on any level? Its an offer no one has to accept.

You lose credibility when you make claims like this.

You are right that almost every scam requires a greedy mark. However, that doesn't make lying any less immoral. Sorry if you don't see it that way.

If I offer to sell you land that turns out to be a toxic waste dump and I never claimed it wasn't a dump, does that make it morally ok?

[arcimede$]

Bigfoot, he also loses credibility when he lies about me requiring players, aka students, to fork over their points to me. Only the hacks on videopoker.com--of which there are righteously several fewer today-- believe him on that lie. What they WOULDNT'T want to believe, however, is how he turned his poor wife into a vegetable by making her go to the casinos with him when she needed a much healthier lifestyle....as well as a permanent roof over their heads that they wouldnt't lose to the machines.

You see, here's another example of Singer spewing lies. He knows none of it is true and yet he continues to repeat it hoping that a few suckers will believe and he can feel superior to them. Is this moral?

Obviously, most people would consider this worse than his strategy scam, but both are dishonest in both there content and intent.

[Rob.Singer]

Arci, it wasn't written with even a remote expectation that you'd come on and just agree with the truth. I mean, what type of dipstick would do that? And denial is your middle name, right? What's good is how you showed your irritability with it as you read every painful true word. and as you look around I'm sure you're reminded of every despicable part of your past that's led up to the sufferring going on in there today.

[Alan Mendelson]

If I offer to sell you land that turns out to be a toxic waste dump and I never claimed it wasn't a dump, does that make it morally ok?

In the case of a land sale, not only would it be immoral, it would also be illegal in most if not all States. But we're not talking about the sale of toxic land. My whole point all along has been that IF it were true that Rob inserted his card when another player was being coached, what is the big deal? It's an issue involving a few comp dollars that probably is no more than what the cocktail waitress would get in tips. And, I don't know what law it violates. And if it does cheat the casino's slot club, so what? Every casino goer tries to milk comps and slot clubs for everything they can! (LOL)

To me, the whole thing is a non issue, even if it really did happen. Of all the things to make an issue over, using your slot card on someone else's dime (or $20 or $1,000) isn't it.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, I'm gonna have to leave all the frustrating arci with the facts up to you for a little while. We're moving on to Washington, Idaho, and who knows where else in the morning, and we even have to do something in the Seattle area I hoped I'd never have to do again on Tues.: fly...for a niece's wedding. And yes, no one has been as fairminded as you have. I just talk about the tough things others find oppressive, because I've been there and I know what it's like.

I do hope you finish off that remaining $5000 in fp with a healthy profit. My concern, of course, is that if you do not attain whatever you want after running it thru once, you'll keep playing and probably not get anything--or worse. Remember, beat them for what you can the first time thru and be happy with whatever it is. There's nothing worse than having to take a long drive home after losing what you could have had.

[arcimede$]

Arci, it wasn't written with even a remote expectation that you'd come on and just agree with the truth. I mean, what type of dipstick would do that? And denial is your middle name, right? What's good is how you showed your irritability with it as you read every painful true word. and as you look around I'm sure you're reminded of every despicable part of your past that's led up to the sufferring going on in there today.

Alan, here's another example of Singer lying. You want to stop the "back and forth". Well, you need to call him on these lies. Simply tell him to provide proof. It would be hysterical watching him scramble. Of course, he will try to assert it is all "obvious" since he has no proof of any of these claims (because the simple fact is they are all lies). If it's so obvious why doesn't he simply show the evidence?

And remember, this is the same person who tells you he won almost a million dollars. If he is making claims like these that he can't support, what does that say about his other claims? Simple answer .... they are also lies.

In a court this would all go to establishing a pattern. Well Alan, you seen this now for quite awhile. You should be catching on.

[bigfoot66]

You are right that almost every scam requires a greedy mark. However, that doesn't make lying any less immoral. Sorry if you don't see it that way.

If I offer to sell you land that turns out to be a toxic waste dump and I never claimed it wasn't a dump, does that make it morally ok?

Well, I think Singer is pretty honest about his the goals of his strategy, which is to miximize the shot at a going home a winner, and sacrificing long term EV to do it. In the videos with Mr. Mendelson he says things like "I will throw away these cards that the math people would hold on to because the numbers say to go for the straight. I am not playing to get a straight and win 4 coins, I am gonna hold the pair and try to make 4 OAK for a jackpot". I would be inclined to agree with you that this is not the most sound strategy, but it is what he says it is. If you are willing to give up long term EV in order to maximize the chances that you leave the casino a winner, then Mr. Singer's strategy is a fine one. It is not fraudulent in any way. He claims to be a long term winner and he may well be one, no one knows but him and his wife. But he does not make innaccurate claims about his strategy.

If you want to beat him up you should harp on 1) his hot/cold cycle stuff, 2) his claims about the machines being unfair, 3) the fact that he can be a jerk in his posts. However, you are a jerk right back at him so you have little ground to go for #3.

[arcimede$]

Well, I think Singer is pretty honest about his the goals of his strategy, which is to miximize the shot at a going home a winner, and sacrificing long term EV to do it.

No, he isn't honest. If you would have followed his claims over the year you would know he claims his approach is the only way to win. That is not honest.

If you are willing to give up long term EV in order to maximize the chances that you leave the casino a winner, then Mr. Singer's strategy is a fine one. It is not fraudulent in any way. He claims to be a long term winner and he may well be one, no one knows but him and his wife. But he does not make innaccurate claims about his strategy.

You may have missed the thread where I analyzed many of his special plays. Instead of increasing one's chances to "leave the casino a winner", most of them actual reduce the chances. This is dishonest. And, instead of admitting he was wrong, he still makes the same claims in spite of proof to the contrary.

If you want to beat him up you should harp on 1) his hot/cold cycle stuff, 2) his claims about the machines being unfair, 3) the fact that he can be a jerk in his posts. However, you are a jerk right back at him so you have little ground to go for #3.

I've done all of those a zillion times.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, this is where you're wrong. You wrote: You may have missed the thread where I analyzed many of his special plays. Instead of increasing one's chances to "leave the casino a winner", most of them actual reduce the chances. This is dishonest.

Singer is very upfront and he says so in the videos that his "special plays" are less likely to win. But, it's when they do hit (when he gets lucky) that you win more. And coupled with his win-goal strategy these wins allow a player to "leave" the casino.

We have argued this point a gazillion times and it just doesn't get through to you? So again: Singer says his special plays are NOT more likely to win. But when they do hit, he will have a big enough winner to reach a win goal.

Now, you can argue that he might never hit those "special draws" and "special plays" and that would be a valid argument because, in fact, his special plays are generally "long shots." But in some cases, the special plays (in Triple Double Bonus, for example) actually improve the chances of winning, but smaller jackpots than what the optimal play says to do.

I like what Bigfoot wrote: If you want to beat him up you should harp on 1) his hot/cold cycle stuff, 2) his claims about the machines being unfair, 3) the fact that he can be a jerk in his posts.

[arcimede$]

Arc, this is where you're wrong. You wrote: You may have missed the thread where I analyzed many of his special plays. Instead of increasing one's chances to "leave the casino a winner", most of them actual reduce the chances. This is dishonest.

Singer is very upfront and he says so in the videos that his "special plays" are less likely to win. But, it's when they do hit (when he gets lucky) that you win more. And coupled with his win-goal strategy these wins allow a player to "leave" the casino.

Alan, Singer clearly states he believes the special plays give a player a better chance to reach a given win goal in that particular session. Right? Are you following? They don't. Understand? The DO NOT give a player a better chance to reach a win goal. Most of them decrease that chance. Nothing is being said about long term winning although the special plays also reduce your long term expectation as well.

We have argued this point a gazillion times and it just doesn't get through to you? So again: Singer says his special plays are NOT more likely to win. But when they do hit, he will have a big enough winner to reach a win goal.

But, he is more likely to reach that win goal if he doesn't make the special plays. The reason we keep going around on this one is because you haven't yet caught on. The vast majority of specials plays do exactly the opposite to what Singer claims. They lower the probability that the player will reach his win goal.

Now, you can argue that he might never hit those "special draws" and "special plays" and that would be a valid argument because, in fact, his special plays are generally "long shots." But in some cases, the special plays (in Triple Double Bonus, for example) actually improve the chances of winning, but smaller jackpots than what the optimal play says to do.

I make no arguments about what "might" happen. I simply look at what will happen on average. The main problem with the special plays has to do with the lost credits. By avoiding those lost credits a person will INCREASE the odds of hitting a win goal reaching quad (or whatever) over and above the odds of hitting the special play. Most of the special plays don't do what you think they do.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, you wrote: Alan, Singer clearly states he believes the special plays give a player a better chance to reach a given win goal in that particular session. Right? Are you following? They don't. Understand? The DO NOT give a player a better chance to reach a win goal.

Let me give you ONE example, and it is one of the few "special plays" that I follow. Dealt AAA39 in Triple Double Bonus, the "correct play" is to hold AAA3 and have a 1/47 draw for the fourth ace. In TDB quad aces with a kicker is the equivalent of a royal flush for 4000 coins.

Singer's "special play" is to hold only the three aces, so you have "two chances" to draw the fourth ace.

Let's look at this at a $5/coin game paying 9/6:

Holding AAA3 I am guaranteed a return of trips for $75. I have 3 chances for pulling another 3 for a full house paying $225. I have one out of 47 chances for drawing the case Ace for $20,000.

Now Singer's special play holding AAA. I now have two chances to draw the case ace for quad aces for $4,000, plus I still have a shot at drawing the quad ace with a kicker for $20K. In addition (though this is not Singer's goal) there are more chances for a full house.

Remember that Singer's entire strategy (and this is what makes him such a pain in the butt, and offensive, and rude, and why he calls everyone who enjoys playing an addict) is based on his $2,500 win goal. He has more chances for hitting the fourth ace for $4,000 and the win goal holding only the three aces.

Frankly, if you were to take a random survey among video poker players, I would wager that most casinogoers would also hold just the three aces thinking the same way that Singer thinks, even if they have no idea who he is.

[arcimede$]

Arc, you wrote: Alan, Singer clearly states he believes the special plays give a player a better chance to reach a given win goal in that particular session. Right? Are you following? They don't. Understand? The DO NOT give a player a better chance to reach a win goal.

Let me give you ONE example, and it is one of the few "special plays" that I follow. Dealt AAA39 in Triple Double Bonus, the "correct play" is to hold AAA3 and have a 1/47 draw for the fourth ace. In TDB quad aces with a kicker is the equivalent of a royal flush for 4000 coins.

Singer's "special play" is to hold only the three aces, so you have "two chances" to draw the fourth ace.

Let's look at this at a $5/coin game paying 9/6:

Holding AAA3 I am guaranteed a return of trips for $75. I have 3 chances for pulling another 3 for a full house paying $225. I have one out of 47 chances for drawing the case Ace for $20,000.

Now Singer's special play holding AAA. I now have two chances to draw the case ace for quad aces for $4,000, plus I still have a shot at drawing the quad ace with a kicker for $20K. In addition (though this is not Singer's goal) there are more chances for a full house.

Remember that Singer's entire strategy (and this is what makes him such a pain in the butt, and offensive, and rude, and why he calls everyone who enjoys playing an addict) is based on his $2,500 win goal. He has more chances for hitting the fourth ace for $4,000 and the win goal holding only the three aces.

Frankly, if you were to take a random survey among video poker players, I would wager that most casinogoers would also hold just the three aces thinking the same way that Singer thinks, even if they have no idea who he is.

Alan, I said "most" .... there's a reason I didn't say "all". There are 2 or 3 special plays which appear to help reach a win goal. Now, go back and look at all of them. You will see my statement is completely correct.

Of course, for Singer to have any credibility they should ALL improve his chances of reaching a win goal. They don't. Get it?

[Alan Mendelson]

Then we don't disagree. As I've said many times, I do not follow his special plays with the exception of his plays for triple double bonus, and I will admit that ONE TIME playing 8/5 Bonus I did something that Singer WOULD NOT do -- I broke up a full house with three aces and successfully drew the fourth ace for $2,000 and I broke up the full house because I was in a deep hole and only hitting for $2,000 would save me. Otherwise, even when I play 7/5 Bonus I hold a full house with three aces -- which goes against Singer's special play.

You wrote, Arc: Of course, for Singer to have any credibility they should ALL improve his chances of reaching a win goal. They don't. Get it? Since I am not advocating his other special plays, I cannot debate this with you. I'm reporting his position, and some of the special plays such as breaking up a full house in 7/5 Bonus with three aces might also accomplish that at the $5 level (pay is $2,000).

Some of his other special plays where he drops two pair to try for a big payoff on quads I wouldn't do, but I see people do it all the time.

[arcimede$]

Remember Alan, what was being discussed was Singer's honesty. I used Singer's system and the special plays as an example of his lack of morals. Go back and read what lead up to this.

[Alan Mendelson]

Remember Alan, what was being discussed was Singer's honesty. I used Singer's system and the special plays as an example of his lack of morals. Go back and read what lead up to this.

Forgive me Arc, but I get lost with all of these side arguments and discussions and fights. One topic at a time please. When you start talking about "special plays" in the same breath (or sentence) with "lack of morals" I get lost.

[Rob.Singer]

If you think THAT'S tough to follow, try logging down every time arci gets caught in one of his whoppers about me or even himself! Oh wait, we need to give the poor guy some slack here. He's never going anywhere again and as such, we need him to spend his time in purgatory as trouble-free as possible.

[slingshot]

Alan, Singer clearly states he believes the special plays give a player a better chance to reach a given win goal in that particular session. Right? Are you following? They don't. Understand? The DO NOT give a player a better chance to reach a win goal. Most of them decrease that chance. Nothing is being said about long term winning although the special plays also reduce your long term expectation as well.



But, he is more likely to reach that win goal if he doesn't make the special plays. The reason we keep going around on this one is because you haven't yet caught on. The vast majority of specials plays do exactly the opposite to what Singer claims. They lower the probability that the player will reach his win goal.



I make no arguments about what "might" happen. I simply look at what will happen on average. The main problem with the special plays has to do with the lost credits. By avoiding those lost credits a person will INCREASE the odds of hitting a win goal reaching quad (or whatever) over and above the odds of hitting the special play. Most of the special plays don't do what you think they do.

My Gosh, man! Are you a casino host?

[Alan Mendelson]

Slingshot, as you saw in my post above I don't agree with Arc when it comes to the value of special plays. I think certain special plays do have value, as I wrote above. But I don't understand your comment about "casino host"? I don't think there is any connection between what Arc said and what a casino host might say or do. Please set me straight about your comment. Thanks.

[bigfoot66]

If one absolutely had to get his hands on $10,000,000 by next week, what would be his best shot at getting there:

A)Playing $1 full pay dueces wild, or

B)Playing the mega millions lottery which has a house edge of 50%

While the anology is far from perfect, I propose that the Singer system is something along these lines. Throw away long term EV in order to reach a different goal, which is going home a winner. Another anology would be taking even money on a natural at a BJ game. Long term you will not win as much $$$ but you will go home a winner more frequently.

I haven't heard Singer represent it otherwise.