Video Poker Trucks Run Over Everybody

[arcimede$]

Arc, here's where I suggest you talk to Singer. I'm just telling you what he told me. He told me the bulk of his play is at the $10 level.

Well, if that is the case then he was lying his method of play. Can't say I'm surprised. The most likely case is he was lying about almost everything.

[Vegas Vic]

Arci: I guess you've been too busy with the gunfight out in the middle of the street to notice that one of the citizens on the sidewalk posted a question a few pages back. I was inquiring about your VP game of choice.. OEJ perhaps? I don't know if I've seen this one or does it go under another name as some VP games do? Where do you play it most? Can you post what the pay tables are at the various levels?

[arcimede$]

One Eyed Jacks is an old game that was created for the Grand Casinos. The Grand was eventually bought out by Harrahs and the game is now generally available. However, you can't find it in very many places. The game I play is a knock-off version of the game built by Atronic (a European company I believe).

If you look at the vpfree pay tables on their web page you will find some of the pay tables for the game:

http://www.west-point.org/users/usma...228/V/PayV.htm

The games are in alphabetical order. The game I play now is the 100.28 version. I used to play the 101.4 version in Vegas when we wintered there. It was my top play.

I play the game at a local casino here in Minnesota. The reason the game is very popular in my state is one of the tribes subcontracted with Grand casinos to operate their new casinos in the early 90s. The games were installed by Grand casinos and now they have a huge following. In order to compete with the Grands (there are 2 of them), the casino I play at installed a different version. They went through a couple of manufacturers and now have the Atronics version called Two Jacks Wild installed.

I really don't think they will be around that much longer. Minnesota has maximum return on VP of 98%. No one knew the return of OEJs back when they were first installed. The machines actually paid out only 93% due to the complexity of the game. Since then the old machines have been "grandfathered" but when they are replaced by a newer machine only the <98% pay tables are allowed.

[jatki]

The bulk of his play does not end up at the $10 level if his description of his system is accurate. It can't. He's playing a progression which causes him to reset back to previous levels when he hits a jackpot that doesn't make his win goal. Also, if he hits his goal early he may never reach any of the higher denoms.

For example, say he played through the first two levels and then hits quad Kings playing SDB. That is 600 credits at $5 or $3000. If he was early in that play his total investment from the previous levels was only $1200. He would reset to the $1 level most times and to the $2 level other times depending on exactly when he hits the quad.

As a result of small quads he may reset to the $1 level several times during a session. Each time he will play both $1 and $2 before he ever gets any higher. His hands at those level pile up while at higher levels he may only play through once quite often. This means his average play is usually $2+. Also note that Singer only played his full 6 levels like 3 times and didn't even play 5 levels all the time. As a result he rarely played at the $25 level.

Now, if Singer actually said most of his play was at the $10 level then either he lying about how his progression works or he was lying about his play. I suspect he meant he quit after the $10 level playing only 4 levels of the progression. Once again this would reduce the average denom significantly.

I'm familiar with what his strategy says, and you are not depicting it as it really is. First off, he doesn't do the reset to previous levels only with jackpot hits. Some of those confusing 40 credit cash outs along with I think a 10 credit profit into the soft profit pool will do it too.

Then, in your example of hitting four Kings on $5 sdbp, he's not just recovering the $1200 lost from the $1 and the $2 levels. He also has to recover the 100 credits lost at the $5 bonuspoker level plus anything lost on $5 sdbp prior to hitting those kings.

Singer had many jackpot pictures (taxables I mean) from the $10 and $25 levels, so your characterization of him not playing much at $25 is far off. The same with the $100 machines, as both you and Alan are incorrect. I remember at least a half dozen wild winners he boasted about at that level, but I don't know how many times he played there.

So arc, you ended up only contradicting yourself. You're depicting someone who wins his $2500 all the time at the lower levels when you've claimed he didn't win at all or whatever crazy criticism you dished out without support, and the fact is there's no way he would have done that without visits to the higher denominations many times over. His column and taxables confirmed that, but you're not wanting any of it. Further, you or I or anyone else has no clue as to when he uses those special plays, because he clearly doesn't use them all the time, and there's something about why he at times ndidn't go to the $100 level when he could have. So you do not understand his strategy even close while calling him a liar for no good reason, and Alan, I implore you to ask him to either come on and explain it fully or to write it up somewhere where we could all read it. Unless you're happy reading arc's sour grapes time and again, on and on.

[Alan Mendelson]

I never asked Rob to leave. He is not banned. He is welcome to return any time he likes.

Getting back to Rob's special plays-- he said this many times. About 95% of the time he played a conventional strategy. He used special plays 5% of the time. Sometimes, he would not use a special play when it presented itself because he was doing just fine playing the conventional way.

If you ask me, the whole hullabaloo about his special plays was overdone, overblown, and simply made too much of. And even Rob said the biggest reason for his wins is not the special plays but because of his "discipline" and keeping to win goals.

His critics, however, love to harp on the special plays. But even Rob concedes his special plays have a lower return -- but when they hit they give him what he needs. Hence his overall theme of "getting lucky."

Of course the math guys cannot accept anything besides playing by the math. Heck, they can't even accept the idea of playing with win goals. When they play on their "positive expectation machines with or without side benefits" every hand they play they count as money in the bank... even when they lose.

It's really hysterical when you step back and look at how the debate has gone.

[slingshot]

He makes it very clear to me-it all depends on keeping up with where you are in the strategy. He even says he uses it in the last 100 credits of his strategy if he hasn't a chance of reaching it by ap strategy. I've even kept 3 A's in bp instead of a full house if more than 30 credits away from returning me to the lower denom. Win goals again.

[arcimede$]

I'm familiar with what his strategy says, and you are not depicting it as it really is. First off, he doesn't do the reset to previous levels only with jackpot hits. Some of those confusing 40 credit cash outs along with I think a 10 credit profit into the soft profit pool will do it too.

Bwah haha haha haha. You are truly a tool. I was simply pointing out one aspect of his strategy that would cause him to revert to previous levels. The point was he will end up playing more times at those lower levels. Now, you come along and add another point that supports what I was saying. It was not my intent to describe the entire strategy but if you want add more evidence that supports my point I have no problem with that.

Then, in your example of hitting four Kings on $5 sdbp, he's not just recovering the $1200 lost from the $1 and the $2 levels. He also has to recover the 100 credits lost at the $5 bonuspoker level plus anything lost on $5 sdbp prior to hitting those kings.

Yup, that's why I stated he could go back to either the $1 or $2 level. Do you know how to read, don't you? I'm beginning to wonder.

Singer had many jackpot pictures (taxables I mean) from the $10 and $25 levels, so your characterization of him not playing much at $25 is far off. The same with the $100 machines, as both you and Alan are incorrect. I remember at least a half dozen wild winners he boasted about at that level, but I don't know how many times he played there.

Well, Singer himself claims 3 times at the $100 level. So, I guess you'll have to argue with him about it. Maybe you can convince him he really played more. You can talk to him right after to talk to Dancer.

And, IIRC, he played about 30 times at the $25 level. That's about one tenth of his total sessions.

So arc, you ended up only contradicting yourself. You're depicting someone who wins his $2500 all the time at the lower levels when you've claimed he didn't win at all or whatever crazy criticism you dished out without support, and the fact is there's no way he would have done that without visits to the higher denominations many times over. His column and taxables confirmed that, but you're not wanting any of it.

Well old timer, Singer actually told me how many times he played at those levels. So, you are making a complete fool out of yourself here. BTW, you do realize Singer could create his own W2G look-a-likes, don't you? You do understand how easy that would be? You have head of scanners, copiers and printers, right? Well, I suppose given your previous comments I probably should be nicer. You clearly aren't very smart.

Further, you or I or anyone else has no clue as to when he uses those special plays, because he clearly doesn't use them all the time, and there's something about why he at times ndidn't go to the $100 level when he could have. So you do not understand his strategy even close while calling him a liar for no good reason, and Alan, I implore you to ask him to either come on and explain it fully or to write it up somewhere where we could all read it. Unless you're happy reading arc's sour grapes time and again, on and on.

Look, for all we know Singer never played a single hand of VP using his strategy. It could be complete scam. You are a fool if you believe him. I'm only repeating the things he has said. I personally believe most of it is lies. Of course, he counts on a few suckers like you to carry the load for him.

[arcimede$]

I never asked Rob to leave. He is not banned. He is welcome to return any time he likes.

Does anyone else find it interesting he stopped posting here and at vpfree at exactly the same time as backsider quit posting at vp.com?

And, it turns out he did this right after I asked him why he was wasting his life on video poker forums when he claimed he was retired from VP and was on a vacation.

[arcimede$]

He makes it very clear to me-it all depends on keeping up with where you are in the strategy. He even says he uses it in the last 100 credits of his strategy if he hasn't a chance of reaching it by ap strategy. I've even kept 3 A's in bp instead of a full house if more than 30 credits away from returning me to the lower denom. Win goals again.

Yes, that what he claims. Maybe you can educate Vic. You obviously understand Singer's strategy much better.

[Alan Mendelson]

Does anyone else find it interesting he stopped posting here and at vpfree at exactly the same time as backsider quit posting at vp.com?

And, it turns out he did this right after I asked him why he was wasting his life on video poker forums when he claimed he was retired from VP and was on a vacation.

Does the guy have to post? No, he doesn't. If he decides to post again he is welcome. If he decides it's a pointless exercise I can understand that!

[slingshot]

Yes, that what he claims. Maybe you can educate Vic. You obviously understand Singer's strategy much better.

I merely try to get the best understanding I can and play however I want. You guys try to make it etched in stone as the only way to play. If I don't feel right at a machine, I get up, leave and try somewhere else. If aart isn't working for me, I'll switch to something else. They don't put glue in my vp seats, and I'm not tied down to "computer perfect" play.

[Vegas Vic]

One Eyed Jacks is an old game that was created for the Grand Casinos. The Grand was eventually bought out by Harrahs and the game is now generally available. However, you can't find it in very many places. The game I play is a knock-off version of the game built by Atronic (a European company I believe).

If you look at the vpfree pay tables on their web page you will find some of the pay tables for the game:

http://www.west-point.org/users/usma...228/V/PayV.htm

The games are in alphabetical order. The game I play now is the 100.28 version. I used to play the 101.4 version in Vegas when we wintered there. It was my top play.

I play the game at a local casino here in Minnesota. The reason the game is very popular in my state is one of the tribes subcontracted with Grand casinos to operate their new casinos in the early 90s. The games were installed by Grand casinos and now they have a huge following. In order to compete with the Grands (there are 2 of them), the casino I play at installed a different version. They went through a couple of manufacturers and now have the Atronics version called Two Jacks Wild installed.

I really don't think they will be around that much longer. Minnesota has maximum return on VP of 98%. No one knew the return of OEJs back when they were first installed. The machines actually paid out only 93% due to the complexity of the game. Since then the old machines have been "grandfathered" but when they are replaced by a newer machine only the <98% pay tables are allowed.

Thanks. This is exactly what I was looking for. I've been in well over a hundred casinos, but never one in Minnesota, so this particular game wasn't ringing a bell with me.

Yes, that what he claims. Maybe you can educate Vic. You obviously understand Singer's strategy much better.

Thanks, again, but I am not interested in any education courtesy of the Singer School of VP. I may not be rich from VP, but I manage to sustain my playing dollar through wise decision making skills learned before I ever heard of Rob. I'm a firm believer in avoiding the pitfalls of the S.W.A.G. method of play, and to date, it works for me.

[Alan Mendelson]

I'm a firm believer in avoiding the pitfalls of the S.W.A.G. method of play, and to date, it works for me.

What is the S.W.A.G. method of play? Did I miss this somewhere, or is this some new concoction of abbreviations?

[Vegas Vic]

What is the S.W.A.G. method of play? Did I miss this somewhere, or is this some new concoction of abbreviations?

Scientific Wild A$$ Guess

[Rob.Singer]

WAG was, at the two companies I worked at, what our engineers who quoted jobs called a Wild Ass Guess. So I imagine Vic, in his inimitable but "I don't need no help nohow" fashion, put the S in front of it for Singer--only because of his ignorance of the strategy, of course. But remember, he was speaking to arci.

[Vegas Vic]

Arci..again, thanks for the info on OEJ. I looked up the pay table you provided, and for one coin, a royal is 800. (Other sites show 1 coin = 250, progressing to a 5 coin = 4,000 royal.) Is this 800 coin amount incorrect, or does it progress up to a royal that's way over 4,000?

[Vegas Vic]

WAG was, at the two companies I worked at, what our engineers who quoted jobs called a Wild Ass Guess. So I imagine Vic, in his inimitable but "I don't need no help nohow" fashion, put the S in front of it for Singer--only because of his ignorance of the strategy, of course. But remember, he was speaking to arci.

Always have to make it about YOU, right Rob?

"S.W.A.G." has been around for years and years. http://www.acronymfinder.com/SWAG.html Surprised you aren't aware of this, given your "I know everything" fashion of posting.

[arcimede$]

Arci..again, thanks for the info on OEJ. I looked up the pay table you provided, and for one coin, a royal is 800. (Other sites show 1 coin = 250, progressing to a 5 coin = 4,000 royal.) Is this 800 coin amount incorrect, or does it progress up to a royal that's way over 4,000?

The RF for my current game is standard, 250 for one coin and 4000 for betting 5.

BTW, I have been using SWAG since I can remember. Hard to believe anyone who worked for a technology company wouldn't have heard of it.

[Rob.Singer]

Always have to make it about YOU, right Rob?

"S.W.A.G." has been around for years and years. http://www.acronymfinder.com/SWAG.html Surprised you aren't aware of this, given your "I know everything" fashion of posting.

Where did I say I didn't know it Vic? The real surprise is how you apparently didn't get the "S is for Singer" part, because that's what you really meant.

Yes arci, you worked so long ago....bet you didn't foresee all the anguish your retirement would bring way back then! I mean, sitting at a KEYBOARD for hours on end, with only a weekly 6-7 hour waste of time on ANOTHER KEYBOARD as a break?

[jatki]

My reading lessons here have me quantifying arc as chuckling at those keyboards, theoretically. That's the plus ev play.

Vic, S.W.A.G is widely known and was frequently used as Singer said in a company I worked at, Sylvania, as a Sylvania Wild Ass Guess. I've never heard the word Scientific for the S, but it is as good as any if your company doesn't begin with an S.