Question for Rob Singer

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, the more you try to justify your position, the more inconsistencies your bring up. Your latest inconsistency:

"In my strategy, I DO stop after going thru my 2400 credits without attaining my win goal,...."

Rob, how the heck do you go through 2400 credits but still end up losing $11,000 or $35,000?? I'm sorry, but you just don't make any sense. I should have stopped with your "special plays" which do make sense, and I should have stopped with the idea of increasing your bets to hit a win goal which is also possible. But all of the rest of your talk is just confusing and contradictory. Sorry buddy. As I said before, you lost me.

[Rob.Singer]

You've never read this?

There are minimum 40-credit cashouts collected into the "soft profit" pool as I go thru (up & down, depending on the level-recoveries) the denominations. In order for me to stop playing, that pool has to total at least $2500 when I return down to the dollar level to re-start. I also stop playing if I finish playing thru all the levels without getting the required $2500 ahead. There can be thousands or even (much less frequently) tens of thousands of dollars in the soft profit pool by then.

Few if any people understand how this works, which is why I tried so hard to get Frank in front of the machines with me. And just in case you see another feeble attempt, plan on arci coming on and making up his own spin on the strategy because he doesn't know it either.

[Alan Mendelson]

I don't understand what any of it means when you tell me you lost $11,000 or $35,000. All of your cash outs mean nothing if you tell us you left the casino with a loss of $11,000 or $35,000 by Mr. Discipline. And that it would take 14 wins of $2,500 to make up for your single $35,000 loss.

Are you sure you weren't working for a big Wall Street bank selling derivatives or junk bonds??

[Vegas Vic]

You've never read this?

There are minimum 40-credit cashouts collected into the "soft profit" pool as I go thru (up & down, depending on the level-recoveries) the denominations. In order for me to stop playing, that pool has to total at least $2500 when I return down to the dollar level to re-start. I also stop playing if I finish playing thru all the levels without getting the required $2500 ahead. There can be thousands or even (much less frequently) tens of thousands of dollars in the soft profit pool by then.

Few if any people understand how this works, which is why I tried so hard to get Frank in front of the machines with me. And just in case you see another feeble attempt, plan on arci coming on and making up his own spin on the strategy because he doesn't know it either.

Simply amazing! This sounds almost identical to my own special plays: I have a minimum of 24-credit cash outs which I put into my left pocket as I go thru (left & right, depending on the location of the machine I am playing. Sitting on the end of the row requires it's own strategy which only I can apply) the casino. In order for me to stop playing, the pool has to total at least $14 when I return to the originating machine to re-start. I also stop playing if I run out of decaf coffee. Few if any people understand how this works except me.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, let me simply the discussion, because you're right... NO ONE understands your system.

So here is a simple question: How does Mr. Discipline lose $11,000 or $35,000 when his overall win goal that sends him packing is only $2,500??

[quahaug]

Robs system isn't that complicated. After all I understand it. Alan and Arci may mis-characterize it but its hard to believe they don't understand it. One things for sure though, it does require you be on the right side of the luck bell curve! You don't lose your entire session bankroll because of the soft profit cash outs and you don' win exactly 2500 every time Sometimes you win way more. Rob claims his largest win was greater than his largest loss.
Simple

[Alan Mendelson]

The question becomes one of risk vs reward. Here we have a system that tells you to go into the hole by as much as $35,000 or even $53,000 just to cash out when you have a $2,500 profit. Does that make sense? I don't think so.

I'm on Rob's side when he's right. But this ain't right. Think carefully.

[quahaug]

Alan are you serious? The loss limit is the session bankroll minus the soft profit cash outs the win goal of 2500 minimum is tiny compared to the stop loss resulting in a very high percent of session wins. Arci already explained this several times. Simple.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan are you serious? The loss limit is the session bankroll minus the soft profit cash outs the win goal of 2500 minimum is tiny compared to the stop loss resulting in a very high percent of session wins. Arci already explained this several times. Simple.

Excuse me, but Rob said he LOST $35,000 and he LOST $11,000. He made NO mention that the LOSS was offset with "soft wins." Now, if Rob wants to change what he wrote, then please, let Rob state the true NET LOSS.

Let me remind you what was in post #11 of this thread:

I wrote: 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?

And Rob responded with:

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

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, you're not understanding the point because you don't want to understand it, and instead are looking to shift the lack of discipline from how you're caught up in playing to my strategy.

The losses I sustained were not between $11000 & $35000.Those are just the two highest I experienced. I did not have many losses over the course of I believe just over 300 sessions playing SPS, but the average loss was somewhere around $3500 for the losing sessions. My website always had cumulative totals. And since I only lost 15% of the total number of sessions I played, and the average winning session was thousands higher than the average losing session, why are you focusing on those two large losses? You haven't seen me try to justify anything by bringing up my larger winning sessions of $94000 and multiple winners in the $30k to $50k range. Look at the ENTIRE OVERALL PICTURE in order to understand the numbers part of it.

As for the actual details of the strategy, I did think you knew it. It doesn't seem like you'll ever get it down unless we sit down and discuss it thoroughly, and I'll do that at the time of the gaming expo if you'll be in LV.

[arcimede$]

Alan, a progressive system is one where you trade off a few large losses for a higher percentage of session wins. The "soft profits" reduce the large losses by a bit but they also reduce the number of session wins. Overall, a progressive system changes nothing in future expectation, it only increases variance.

If a person doesn't mind the occasional large losses it does provide a way to win more sessions. If one is more concerned with how they do overall then it just adds a bunch of busy work.

As for the $35K loss, that is his session bankroll of $57,200 minus whatever he pulled out as he went along (what he calls soft profits). This is a 5 level progression where he bets 400 credits at 1,2,5,10 and 25 dollar games. I assume the $11K loss is where he stopped after 4 levels.

Statistically his claims of success put him in the top .03% of the bell curve describing results for his system. One can believe it or not. However, when dealing with a pathological liar you have to ask ... could he really have been that lucky?

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, this is my only point. You wrote: "$11000 & $35000.Those are just the two highest I experienced." So I am going to ask you one more time: What the hell is the King of Discipline, Mr. Video Poker Discipline himself, the ruler and preacher of disclipline, doing losing this much money???

What happend Rob, you couldn't call it a day?? You had to keep feeding in hundred dollar bills till you were down $11,000 and then $35,000 using your system??

Criticize me all you want Rob. I never lost $11,000 in a trip playing video poker, And I certainly never lost $35,000. Geez. You're all over me because I won "only $2,000."

Look at yourself and ask, "how the heck did Rob Singer LOSE $35,000???" Come on Rob, answer the question: how did you LOSE $35,000?

[Rob.Singer]

I see you ignored arci's dumb and misrepresenting remarks, probably fit in in-between all his unenviable tasks around the house that he asked for--and RECEIVED!

What was I doing losing that much two times out of over 300 sessions? It's called doing exactly as I said I would do, not stopping until either I played thru all 2400 credits and lost - quitting even if I still had tens of thousands of dollars in my pockets, or I attained at least a $2500 overall session win. That's what discipline is all about, that's what professional gambling is all about, and that is why I won so often and so much. If I had become too scared to follow the strategy, I wouldn't have almost a million dollars of things we're enjoying today.

You keep focusing on those losses, lately saying how because you've never lost that much in a session I lack discipline. Well, where's the praise and envy of discipline when I hit the $100,000 royal, the four aces with a kicker on the $25 machine in your own back yard at Caesars, or for the multiple $10 royals I got over the years?

Methinks you're overly smarting from my analysis of how you are a serious pathological gambler. I'll even bet your drooling and your hands are currently sweating over your next visit to Rincon and LV. As I said, I hope you don't have a problem losing the money you do, because eventually it will be a problem.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, you are now painted into a corner, and you are now attacking to defend your own inconsistencies. Look at what you just wrote:

It's called doing exactly as I said I would do, not stopping until either I played thru all 2400 credits and lost - quitting even if I still had tens of thousands of dollars in my pockets, or I attained at least a $2500 overall session win.

This is called "standing your ground in quicksand." Now let's examine it in parts:

1. You wrote: "It's called doing exactly as I said I would do, not stopping until either I played thru all 2400 credits and lost...." Really Rob. You just keep plugging those $100 bills in, one after another? Gosh, it must be wonderful to be rich! You never change your mind? Gee, Rob, would you not swerve if you found a tanker truck was headed right for you in your ten wheeler? Or would you say "I'm driving to Spokane and nothing is getting in my way, not even that tanker truck loaded with jet fuel."

2. You wrote: "...or I attained at least a $2500 overall session win." Here is another inconsistency. Do you quit during one of your hot cycles? You claim some telepathic connection with the machines. And you hit your $2500 win goal? Your discipline is telling you to quit even when your telepathic connection tells you there is a hot cycle in progress. Well, what do you do? (By the way, YOU mentioned the telepathic connection in our video taped interview. I didn't make this up.)

3. You can call me a pathological gambler all you like Rob. But you will never find me losing $11,000 or $35,000 chasing losses. And that's what you did-- you chased your losses. I have a set budget for my trips. I know my limits. And I am only a recreational player and do it for fun. Nothing compels me to sit at a machine, pounding away to meet a $2500 win goal. There is nothing driving me to keep playing until I win... or lose it all. Again, as you wrote:

"It's called doing exactly as I said I would do, not stopping until either I played thru all 2400 credits and lost - quitting even if I still had tens of thousands of dollars in my pockets, or I attained at least a $2500 overall session win."

Get it, Rob? I'm not the one who is driven. You are. And you just said it here for everyone to see. And I am afraid you are turning your followers into addicts by giving them a formula for play. You are telling them "you can't quit now. Even though you lost XXX credits, you have to move up to the next denomination to win back those credits." Don't you see a danger in that? No, you don't.

[slingshot]

All I can say is that Rob did what his years of planning told him to do. Does anyone see why I break the rules and get off the machine when it just laughs at me? NO, YOU DON'T.

[quahaug]

Is your name Alan mendelson or Alan THICK?

[Alan Mendelson]

Since Rob doesn't want to answer this question, perhaps his followers can answer for me:

How does Rob justify losing as much as $35,000 using his system? When he wins, he has a rule to cash out as soon as he has a profit of $2,500 per visit. Well, if he has a $35,000 hole from a previous visit, he would have to win 14 times, cashing out $2,500 just to make up the $35,000.

Now, I doubt Rob is able to win or has won 14 sessions in a row. I will concede that sometimes his win goal cash-out can exceed $2,500.

My point is that allowing himself to lose $35,000 or $11,000 or even amounts of as little as $5,000 put him at a severe disadvantage when he has a rule about cashing out at $2,500.

A player who is willing to accept a loss of $35,000 or $11,000 must also put himself into a position where he wants to win over and above $2,500. And that could very well mean continued play after pocketing $2,500 of profits.

So if Rob is dead set to stop playing -- check out of his room -- and drive home (which is what he is on record for saying, see the video) -- it doesn't make sense that after losing $35K he wouldn't try for bigger wins.

Now, would one of you super fans of Rob care to answer?

Edited to add: And if Rob cares to respond, please tell us how many sessions (trips, visits) it took you to recoup the $11,000 loss and the $35,000 loss? And did you ever have to increase your win-goal/cash-out of $2500 because you needed to make up for larger, previous losses?

Also, Rob says he wins 85% of sessions. I am going to assume that the 85% win rate represents sessions where he cashed out a minimum of $2500, because that would be his win goal. Well, if he had to win 14 sessions of $2500 to recoup the $35,000 "big loss" it is likely he would have to play more than 14 sessions and the additional sessions that he "lost" could in fact increase his loss amount.

For example, if Rob were playing 14 sessions with an expected win rate of 85% of the sessions, it means he would actually win 11.9 of the 14 sessions. And the 2.1 "lost sessions" would mean additional losses over and above the initial $35,000 that would have to be made up at a future time.

This appears to be even more reason for him to either scale back his loss limits, or to increase his win goals. Accepting win goals of $2500 just might not be enough for Rob to climb out of a hole.

So why is this important? Because I think if Rob really had an annual win approaching $100,000 he was not as strict with his win goals (and loss limits) as he claims. I don't doubt that he won $100,000 per year, but to do it he had to play more than what he publicly claims. I sincerely doubt the "big royals" came "on cue" just when they were needed. As Rob likes to tell us, only the APers on LVA claim to get their royals right on cue to keep them in the black. And for Rob to have $100,000 annual wins, given a win rate of 85%, means he could have made as many as 48 trips to Las Vegas during the course of a year.

How did I reach the figure of 48 trips in a year?

Well, given his $100,000 annual profit, on average, he would have to win $2,500 forty times. (40 X $2500 = $100,000. With an 85% win rate, that would mean 48 trips. (48 trips X 85% = 40.8 winning trips). Not included in this is the amount of money lost on losing trips that also had to be "won back" during the winning trips.

Again, I concede Rob might have finished playing on a high note, with a "big win" over and above the $2500 profit level. But how many times can you hit a royal flush "on cue"??

The bottom line is that Rob spent a lot of time in casinos and perhaps made adjustments in his "money management" that he is not telling us about?

[quahaug]

Maybe its Alan Obtuse. You can't be as dumb as you're making yourself out to be.

[Alan Mendelson]

Maybe its Alan Obtuse. You can't be as dumb as you're making yourself out to be.

Please, if you're so smart, answer the question.

[Vegas Vic]

Short answer, Alan: It appears to me that Rob is making things up as he goes along in order to fit his purposes at that time. He'd be a good politician.