Question for Rob Singer

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, you criticized me for taking "winnings" and playing those winnings on higher denominations of video poker during the same session. You call it evidence of "addiction."

Yet, when you are losing, you advocate moving up to higher denominations until you not only recoup your previous losses but until you reach a pre-determined win goal or totally bust. You even discuss having a bankroll for such a strategy of more than $50,000 to play through this strategy.

Please explain the differences? Please explain why using "winnings" to play at a higher level is indicative of "addiction" but continuing to play when you are losing and moving up to higher levels and risk going bust is not indicative of an "addiction"?

[slingshot]

Rob, you criticized me for taking "winnings" and playing those winnings on higher denominations of video poker during the same session. You call it evidence of "addiction."

Yet, when you are losing, you advocate moving up to higher denominations until you not only recoup your previous losses but until you reach a pre-determined win goal or totally bust. You even discuss having a bankroll for such a strategy of more than $50,000 to play through this strategy.

Please explain the differences? Please explain why using "winnings" to play at a higher level is indicative of "addiction" but continuing to play when you are losing and moving up to higher levels and risk going bust is not indicative of an "addiction"?

I actually think this is a good question and why I have shortened my playing times on some machines.

[Alan Mendelson]

And a follow-up question for Rob: Why isn't your strategy of increasing denominations when you are losing nothing more than "chasing your losses" which has been identified as being a sign of addiction? See https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclien...w=1366&bih=643

[bigfoot66]

You should be happy with your winnings.... A bird in the hand versus two in the bush.....

[Rob.Singer]

And a follow-up question for Rob: Why isn't your strategy of increasing denominations when you are losing nothing more than "chasing your losses" which has been identified as being a sign of addiction? See https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclien...w=1366&bih=643

Very good question, and it's one that definitely had to be dealt with prior to putting my new strategy into play--especially after having been a true addict for so long beforehand.

The way I ended up being able to justify "chasing losses" by increasing denominations was complicated--as all gambling justifications usually are. My figures showed at least an 85% win rate with many "smaller" wins between $2500 & $3500, some "devastatingly" large losses, and many more larger wins. That spelled not only profit, but success--for a change. It was motivating in a positive way.

I also saved out a specific bankroll this time around that had nothing to do with the rest of my life. I was fortunate enough (not really--I earned it) to have been sought out as VP of Worldwide Marketing for ATC systems by Northrop-Grumman with a high salary and accompanying six figure exec profit sharing program, and I used that to put together the $171,600 (3X a session's bankroll for play) I deemed necessary to accomplish my goal in professional gambling. Lose it, and no harm/no foul this time.

Also, chasing losses usually equates to losing whatever you have when you play before quitting. My strategy was such that even when I did not win the minimum $2500 with a session's $57,200 bankroll, I regularly lost only a portion of it--never losing anything over about $35,000.

[slingshot]

Oh, I see! Without the cash outs and win goals, you're a cooked goose. So on a smaller scale, say a $1200 bankroll for dollars, the small cashouts and win goals may come close to or even surpass the session bankroll.

[Alan Mendelson]

I...put together the $171,600 (3X a session's bankroll for play) I deemed necessary to accomplish my goal in professional gambling. Lose it, and no harm/no foul this time.

Also, chasing losses usually equates to losing whatever you have when you play before quitting. My strategy was such that even when I did not win the minimum $2500 with a session's $57,200 bankroll, I regularly lost only a portion of it--never losing anything over about $35,000.

Whoa. Let me see if I understand you. You had a bankroll of $171,600 which represented three sessions of $57,200. You had a "win goal" of $2500 but you may have lost as much as $35,000 trying to reach a $2,500 win goal?

[slingshot]

I also have another follow up: if you have to move to another machine to finish the session, wouldn't you stand a chance to play on machines that were in cold cycles at higher denominations?

[arcimede$]

Whoa. Let me see if I understand you. You had a bankroll of $171,600 which represented three sessions of $57,200. You had a "win goal" of $2500 but you may have lost as much as $35,000 trying to reach a $2,500 win goal?

You got it. But, it's even worse than that. In all the simulations I ran of Singer's system most of the losses were over $40K and some as high as $50K.

[Alan Mendelson]

You got it. But, it's even worse than that. In all the simulations I ran of Singer's system most of the losses were over $40K and some as high as $50K.

And to think... he criticized me for coming home with a $2,000 profit?? And he called me addicted??

[Rob.Singer]

Whoa. Let me see if I understand you. You had a bankroll of $171,600 which represented three sessions of $57,200. You had a "win goal" of $2500 but you may have lost as much as $35,000 trying to reach a $2,500 win goal?

Yes, that was the most ever lost in a single session. I believe the next highest was around $11,000.

[Rob.Singer]

I also have another follow up: if you have to move to another machine to finish the session, wouldn't you stand a chance to play on machines that were in cold cycles at higher denominations?

Cold, or hot, cycles are much more the exception than the rule. I never used that as a deterrent or even a motivator to change or not change machines.

[Rob.Singer]

You got it. But, it's even worse than that. In all the simulations I ran of Singer's system most of the losses were over $40K and some as high as $50K.

That just shows how little you really know about the strategy. Not surprising though. Facts are not your forte'.
But I'll bet you've got a GOOD handle on the ingredients in diet coke!

[Rob.Singer]

And to think... he criticized me for coming home with a $2,000 profit?? And he called me addicted??

Alan, all you're doing is trying to mask your guilt when you say something like that. I'd think you'd have learned by now that one needs the proper bankroll in order to improve the size of it. Taking $2500 to play the $5 machine isn't the best of plans--if it's even a plan at all. I did not criticize you for coming home with a $2000 profit. That's the type of spin a goof like David Axelrod would utilize. Your blunders have everything to do with creating meaningless justification for not doing what you said you would do in both instances just so you didn't have to leave the action. Unlike me, you LOST money after attaining a goal. The name for that is problem gambler. And you know it.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob,the problem is that I challenged your philosophy and you can't deal with it. And, even though I challenged your philosophy I still came back with a profit which ALL came using FREE PLAY.

Let me remind you that one of the definitions of a problem gambler is someone who chases their losses. And when you tell me that you have lost as much as $35,000 trying to recoup your losses just to win $2,500 it says a lot about problem gambling. You surprised me. All this time I thought you had tighter loss limits. I can't imagine YOU, Mr. Discipline, dropping $35,000 during a trip. Frankly, I can't imagine YOU, Mr. Discipline, dropping $11,000 during a trip.

This points to a dramatic inconsistency in what you've been preaching.

[arcimede$]

You may be right, Alan. There's a distinct possibility that everything Singer has claimed is a lie. Both the wins and the losses.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, I won't call you a liar. And I think it's rude for anyone to say that. But here are the inconsistencies I see and I hope you can address them, because they involve your money management which I happen to believe in.

1. You have a win goal of $2,500 yet you start your play at the $1 level. The problem with this is that you are setting yourself up for failure setting such a high win goal playing only $1/coin video poker. It would take a royal or an incredible run of quads and straight flushes to hit a $2500 win goal. Using your bankroll at the $5 level or the $10 level makes more sense. I've always said hitting a $2500 win goal at the $10/coin level on 8/5 Bonus -- your #1 game -- is relatively easy.

2. You said you lost as much as $35,000 trying to recoup your losses and to come back with only a $2500 win goal. This makes no sense to me. First, why would you let yourself dig such a deep hole for yourself? You preach the need for discipline?

3. After a loss of $35,000 or even $11,000 why would you limit yourself to a win goal of $2500 on the successive trips? After losing $35,000 it would make no sense to stop your "wins" on a successive trip. If you did "stop" your winning at $2500 it would have taken you as many as fourteen trips to recover the $35,000 you lost on one trip. And if you "stop" your winning at $2500 it would have taken you more than four trips to recover the $11,000 lost on one trip.

4. The other great inconsistency is over your belief in hot and cold cycles and their predictability that allows you to switch denominations when the cycles appear. We can all tell in hindsight if we just went through a hot cycle or a cold cycle but how can a player foresee the future and what future pushes of the button will give us? I have also sat at hot machines where I was given five, six and seven or more winning hands in a row but there was no flashing sign that said "you are now in a hot cycle."

[slingshot]

One quick question for me. Was this on your original Singer Play strategy or aart? If so, do you rememer the biggest loss on aart? It's such a great strategy I can't imagine a huge loss.

[Rob.Singer]

One quick question for me. Was this on your original Singer Play strategy or aart? If so, do you rememer the biggest loss on aart? It's such a great strategy I can't imagine a huge loss.

It was on the original strategy. ARTT uses lower denominations for the most part, although I've played it at the 5-level $1 thru $25 level without ever losing. I don't really know what my largest loss is on it because I've played it at many different combinations of levels and it takes three losses (ten is the most I've had) in a session before I would quit. That never happened.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, you're fixated on the five figure losses I've had, and in a different way than arci you don't really understand the strategy.

Here's where your disconnect is when it comes to the definition of a problem gambler, and why you're seemingly saying anything and everything in order to minimalize your being one--and my having been one when playing for a living, apparently. But, I'll be the first one to say that, although I did everything possible with the SPS approach to playing to cover my bases relating to getting caught up in the gambling addiction I already fell victim to as an advantage player--and even though I had tremendous success--I don't really know if my problem ever went away during that time. Does it ever go away....

You're saying how losing $11,000 or $35,000 while going for a $2500 win is a gambling problem. Could be, I don't really know. But how is that any different than someone sporting a $5000 bankroll and losing $2000 on a weekend, or you losing the $2500 you took with you? I don't follow your thinking on this. Remember, one part of the definition of a problem gambler is chasing losses, and after losing everything you brought with you, you just have to go to the cashier or ATM's to get more; the other is when winning you crave to win more and just can't stop.

In my strategy, I DO stop after going thru my 2400 credits without attaining my win goal, and in all the winning sessions, I never did crave to win more after achieving my win goal because it was way more important to do what I said I would do. Also, my play bankroll was always separate from my other money and kept in a separate account to the dollar all during my career. Can you say that?

I believe you're more caught up in the sheer size of the numbers here instead of looking closely enough at the overall process. Yes a five figure loss hurt, but what loss doesn't? And because I was around a half million ahead when that biggest loss occurred, that still didn't ease the sting. I'm not really seeing a gambling problem in the mainstream sense here, because, unlike those who truly "chase their losses" my "chase" stops at a pre-determined point--and always with lots of cash still in my pockets. And where does the strategy ever say to just keep playing after hitting the $2500 minimum win? That's really something YOU do, is it not? I mean, you come on and supposedly toot your horn about coming home with +$2000, and you don't think anyone and everyone see the serious problem you have with stopping when you said you would?

Your philosophy isn't any different than 99% of vp players, only you have more money than most of them. They lose, you lose. They find that they just can't stop when they're ahead, just like you. Now you seem to have taken that a step further, by setting certain goals and not being able to stick with them once the surpassing hit arrives. You've won and you want to win more, only once you've taken the eye-opening beat-down, it doesn't do anything in the form of correction on your next casino visit. For some reason you just wipe out the fact you could have won far more, and you rationalize how coming home with the profit you did was a success of amazing proportions. That's a problem.

I missed the part about how playing the dollar game for $400 in credits must be a problem, because who could ever expect a $2500 win out of that, right? Although I've experienced about a half dozen dollar royals and two other sessions that never got beyond dollars before hitting my win goal, you're selectively right. And I say selectively because you're trying to separate the role that level plays in the strategy, when it's how all six levels work together that makes it what it is. I may have not ended many sessions playing dollars only, but the smaller profits via cashouts made from playing them were part of the hundreds of sessions I won--just as those smaller profits helped soften the amount lost whenever I did lose.