Page 1 of 13 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 257

Thread: Of Math and Men

  1. #1
    Does anyone else find it, um, rather interesting that Alan's disenchantment with Rob originated not with blatant disregard for math, but because Rob said something not nice?

    And do folks understand that Rob compartmentalizing his play into "AP Days," "Professional Days," and "Post-Professional days" gives him three data streams from which to cherry pick outcomes and tie them in with theories when in fact it's all just one reality?

    Rob has some contributions to make -- don't get me wrong, but I think it's when he crticizes AP play that he's most useful.

  2. #2
    Redietz I don't know if "disregard" is the appropriate word for the way Rob approaches the math. First, Rob understands the math of the game of video poker. I guess you can say he "violates" what the math says to do, but that's because his "special plays" are based on "hunches" that he could win more doing something else. He's always said his system is based on "luck" more than "math" but he doesn't deny the math exists.

    Is my disenchantment with him because he is a jerk? Yes.

  3. #3
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Is my disenchantment with him because he is a jerk? Yes.
    Oh, it's much worse than that.

  4. #4
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Is my disenchantment with him because he is a jerk? Yes.
    Your disenchantment should have been way more visible a while ago......he's been a jerk to almost everybody from the beginning, just not to you. But I think you already know that. And to be very honoust I really doubt if Rob truly understands the math of the game. He hasn't shown he does.....but than again.....in general he didn't get much farther than personal insults and blowing his own horn. There's only one reason you could really miss the guy around here Alan, he generates traffic to your website. Somehow people just like to look at a disaster but they don't like to be affected by it. Result: many readers, little posters.

  5. #5
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Does anyone else find it, um, rather interesting that Alan's disenchantment with Rob originated not with blatant disregard for math, but because Rob said something not nice?

    And do folks understand that Rob compartmentalizing his play into "AP Days," "Professional Days," and "Post-Professional days" gives him three data streams from which to cherry pick outcomes and tie them in with theories when in fact it's all just one reality?

    Rob has some contributions to make -- don't get me wrong, but I think it's when he crticizes AP play that he's most useful.
    It's been my understanding advantage play didn't work for him. I know more than a few people personally who can also say the same, but you don't find many of them posting on forums. On the contrary, the ones who do post all claim to win using that method. I've always wondered about that, but I've never seen where anyone from any camp has ever had to prove anything either. So the debate rages on.

    It's your middle paragraph that's most intriguing to me. I don't see what you mean by it's "all just one reality" unless you're referring to the ap belief that our vp play is all one long term thing? ok so he failed at advantage play and chose to change the way he went after the game, which is light years different. I can see how that's two distinct ways of playing, with the second way being successful followed by retiring. Now what's he do, play like most of the rest of us, me included? Compartmentalizing might be a swear word when talking ap, but I think you stumbled on a very good description of what it is that he has done. Right?

    I mostly agree with Alan's assessment, except calling him a name. That and the insults is why I stayed away. Hunches don't fail for everybody, and Martingale type betting doesn't either. I had one hell of a run at the Mirage about 5 years ago playing that way on a BJ table. Too bad the years since haven't been so kind at the videopoker machines.

  6. #6
    Unfortunately for Rob, his system cannot be "proven" because it has hard and fast rules that can be tested. Even Rob says he plays "conventional strategy" 95% of the time, and when he diverts from conventional strategy "depends" on the situation. How do you test that? You can't.

    Rob has given us his strategy in bits and pieces but he can't write it down in one place because it is not only complex but has too many variables. But that doesn't make it wrong. It does make it impossible to verify or prove. And this is a problem that his strategy/system/methodology will always have.

    And because you can't "prove it" the mainstream vp people will not allow themselves to accept it.

    Look, I can't accept it either and part of the reason why I can't accept it is that I have no idea what all of it is! I understand the basics of his special plays because I shot the videos with him and we discussed them even before we shot each video. They were not done "off the cuff."

    But all of his other methodologies -- no -- I am clueless. Because no one really knows everything about his play, his critics will say that he makes it up as he goes along. They might be right.

    I said this before: if Singer didn't claim that he had a system, and instead wrote a book about how he beat the casinos for a million dollars playing video poker, without claiming some formula for doing it, he would be a hero. He would have sold more books, and it could even have been a movie.

    Instead everyone in the video poker world who has ever "studied" the game focuses on his method of play and overlooks his report that he won a million dollars. But the general public that doesn't know the difference between 8/5 Jacks and 8/5 Bonus (and I see plenty of them whenever I go to Rincon) only consider one thing -- he won a million bucks.

    And just one more thing. His critics say that Rob's system employes a Martingale. It does not. Martingales only fit even money bets, and not video poker. Does he increase bets to make up for previous losses? Yes. Ironically in his view that is OK, but using wins to win more at higher denominations is not OK. Go figure.

  7. #7
    Good discussion. I used to know much of how he plays because like I said we followed his every word in that paper he wrote for, and he also further explained everything to his critics on the sports forum. But you're right, you can't hardly follow it in order to play it probably unless he shows you at a machine, and even then you'd have to come across all the variables. Some say he makes it up on the go but I don't buy into that, if only for the fact that he offered and did show some of our members how it's done. But all that did was create more critics by the time the discussions got started again.

    I have yet to meet any gambler who has proven that they win. That's the novelty of it all. I think Singer actually called the LV A people out and said he could prove his claims, but nothing ever came of it but more annoying Singer chest-pounding over the Anthony Curtis people backing down.

    Yes, the Martingale controversy. It is even money bets, and video poker denomination changes are not that, as you stated. I really don't know what to call it in a word. It does chase losses though, and it goes down in denomination whenever wins show up, that I remember. I guess using those wins to win more at higher denominations are taboo to his strategy. I've never understood why.

  8. #8
    Singer has always counted on the ignorance of people to push his system. As I've said before, there's no betting system that can change the return of a game. This has been proven mathematically for both even bets and uneven bets like Singer promotes. If a person wants to play a negative progression like Singer's then they should understand that it will not improve their chances of winning. It also won't reduce their expected return unless they use the "special plays" which mostly do exactly the opposite of what Singer claims.

    The worst thing Singer does is claim the return of a game does not matter and that people do not win playing positive return games. This is just silly nonsense that no one with a reasonable math foundation would believe.

  9. #9
    Arc, we could go back and forth about "silly nonsense" and not interpreting his strategy correctly. But that doesn't matter in the end.

    In the end NO ONE but Singer can really play his system because I don't think ANYONE knows what Singer does.

    Also remember that part of his system is based on his belief that the machines are not completely random. He has waffled on this in various discussions but that still is an overriding theme in his "special plays" and in his strategy. He says (and you can check the video for this) that because the machines are not totally random it can help him win.

    And I like something that jatki wrote above: I have yet to meet any gambler who has proven that they win. Bravo. However, I can prove to you that despite all my study of Dancer and Grochowski and even following a bit of Singer, I haven't won either. LOL And I'm not quitting my day job.

  10. #10
    Of course no one knows what Singer really does. However, it doesn't matter. They is NO betting system that can change the return of a VP game. So, we don't have to understand Singer's system. We already know it is nonsense to claim a betting system will make a difference. We also know that special plays reduce the game's ER which means it will reduce the return of an average player who adopts Singer's system.

    These are not open for debate. They are mathematical facts. You'll need to move to another universe if you want 2+2 to equal something other than 4.

  11. #11
    Alan, maybe there can be some sort of poll thread that asks: Did Rob really win $1,000,000 using his professional system over 10 years?

    I've often wondered whether he was telling the truth here.

    The part of me that says he might have actually done it asks:
    Why would he go through all the trouble of putting up a website and weekly articles for so many years just to make some points off other peoples' player cards (as arcimede$ has claimed in the past)? This is a super-elaborate ploy with too much negative public exposure and scrutiny for such a small gain. Why else would he bother to do all that stuff over 10 years if he hadn't won anything? Just seems like too much work for too little gain if it was merely for other players' comp points.

    The skeptical part of me asks:
    Quite a few people have asked him to prove his winnings, but he requires a $250,000 bet with him (if I remember correctly) to determine if he's telling the truth. I admit I'm curious about the veracity of his declarations that he is a big long-term winner...but seriously, putting up $250k just to see proof? I didn't ask to be looking at the river card in a major WSOP tournament.

    If someone DID find something good in a casino that was a moneymaker, wouldn't s/he keep quiet about it? One of the reasons 100% VP games have disappeared over the years is the public knowledge about them being widely disseminated during these same years. The 1990's, for instance, were Video Poker Paradise years because relatively few people understood advantage play concepts. This begs the question for me: Why would Rob toot his horn so much if he was winning? Smart winners would keep their mouth shut so the casino wouldn't introduce countermeasures that dissipate the edge in question instead of writing public articles every week for years on end.
    Last edited by Count Room; 07-29-2012 at 11:12 PM. Reason: corrected spelling error

  12. #12
    Those are all good questions but not the toughest. The toughest is why would Singer play as little as he claimed when he was taking so much money from the casinos? And now, why would he quit?

    It's not like he was spending a 1000 hours a year. He claimed he played as little as 25 hours in one year to reach his goal. Who among us would give up on $100K every year for less than a weeks work? And, who among us wouldn't gamble 10x that amount in previous years if it was so easy? Singer claims to win 88% of his sessions. It's not like he was also holding down a full time job. He was unemployed.

    When you think logically about Singer's claims it becomes apparent that the plausibility doesn't jump out at you. Add into that the fact he consistently lies and you have even less reason to believe him.

    Yes, it is possible he has won. I suspect he did win some at the very beginning. Pure luck. He used it too get himself the position at GT and to get publicity. When reality eventually set in he didn't want to give up the life he had created so he continued to claim he was winning. It also led to nice comps and a little extra cash through the player's card usage he was generating in the education sessions. However, it was likely more about ego than actual money.

    Finally, from a mathematical viewpoint his chances of winning as he has claimed are less than .03%. Add this to the rest of the issues and any reasonably skeptical person would be a non-believer.

  13. #13
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    Of course no one knows what Singer really does. However, it doesn't matter. They is NO betting system that can change the return of a VP game. So, we don't have to understand Singer's system. We already know it is nonsense to claim a betting system will make a difference. We also know that special plays reduce the game's ER which means it will reduce the return of an average player who adopts Singer's system.

    These are not open for debate. They are mathematical facts. You'll need to move to another universe if you want 2+2 to equal something other than 4.
    Here you go again, Arc, with the same song and dance. And for the umpteenth time no one said including Singer, that his system/method/strategy changes the "return." All he ever claimed is that by holding different cards, and by betting differing amounts, and by pocketing wins, he won nearly a million dollars over a ten year period.

    He never claimed to alter the return of a paytable or of the game. Now stop it. Once and for all-- stop your nonsense. He never disputed paytables or math. He just didn't play the conventional way. So knock it off. You've been on this same rant for a couple of years now. End it.

  14. #14
    Originally Posted by Count Room View Post
    Alan, maybe there can be some sort of poll thread that asks: Did Rob really win $1,000,000 using his professional system over 10 years?
    I've often wondered whether he was telling the truth here.
    Quite honestly, if you doubt him, contact him yourself and discuss it with him. I think a public poll would be totally inappropriate, just as if Rob asked that we have a poll here asking if forum members thought I was an addicted gambler.

    And to tell you the truth, winning on average about $100,000 per year the way Rob plays -- as often as he does (for all we know he went every week), and at the higher limits (most of his winning play he said was at the $10/coin level), and using his win goals to cash out and leave -- makes it very possible in my book. And if he didn't chase his losses on that trip when he threw away $35,000 he could have won even more. (LOL)

  15. #15
    Look Singer is no angel, but Arc there was absolutely no reason for you to say this:

    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    Add into that the fact he consistently lies and you have even less reason to believe him.
    And to call the guy a liar when he probably is not coming back here is a cheap shot. You raise good points for discussion but I know what Rob is going to say. He's going to say that he got lucky, hit some big winners, and stopped playing. He's going to say that his strict discipline kept him from giving the money back (except for the $35,000. LOL) And he's going to say that by sticking to win goals he wasn't tempted or able to give the winnings back once the money was in his pocket. Okay, that's what he's going to say.

    Now he says he's retired. I know very wealthy and high paid professionals who also retire from high earning jobs. People retire. They're allowed to stop playing. Personally, I think he stopped playing because he reached a particular milestone -- he says he won about a million dollars. Heck, if I won a million dollars at something, I'd stop playing it too especially when you want to be remembered for going out at the top of your game.

    Arc, if you really want to criticize him about something ask why he keeps dabbling at VP as a "recreational gambler" which violates the system he touts?

    I'm going to say one more time: I think winning on average $100K a year is reasonable when you play for the most part $10/coin VP.

    Arc, let's not forget that you also claim to be a multi year winner. And Arc, you're a $1 player. Would you mind telling us how much you win each year, and then let's multiply that by 10 and see what it comes to?

  16. #16
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    I'm going to say one more time: I think winning on average $100K a year is reasonable when you play for the most part $10/coin VP.
    Alan,

    Don't get me wrong, I get what you're saying and we shouldn't go on talking about Singer since he isn't around anymore. But winning a $100.000 a year consistantly for about 10 years playing negative er games is just as unlikely as winning $10.000 a year playing at the $1 dollar level. You have to consider that the losses at the $10 level are 10 times as large as at the $1 level as well. Remember Singer is the one that said it didn't make much difference to play negative of positive games using his strategy which as far as math is concerned is simply not correct. That would mean that his results were, for the most part, a result of luck. I don't know anybody who has been lucky for 10 years in a row......That's what makes we question his statements.

  17. #17
    Let's ask Arc how many years he has won playing $1 video poker, and how much he won each year. I think the comparison would be interesting.

    Secondly, people win at negative expectation games. Playing 8/5 Bonus at the $10 level it doesn't take "too much" to reach a profit level of $2500. No one says he wins every session... after all he does admit to dropping $35,000 in one session. But he was probably playing a lot of sessions.

    Honestly, I think his claim of winning about a hundred thou a year is a non-issue at the higher denominations. I think there are other issues worth discussing.

    And yes, Singer says his system depends on luck. Gosh he says it. He doesn't dispute it. And what he did with his special plays IN SOME CASES increases his chance for getting lucky. And the biggest example is where he broke up trip queens to hold three to the royal and got the $100,000 royal. That is ONLY luck.

    Here's the bottom line... we can question his system and strategy and methodology from today till doomsday this coming December (LOL) but we'll never get a straight answer from Singer or an answer that can be tested to be able to verify it.

    So, I have an idea: let's just forget about it. He's not here, so let's talk about something else. For example, yesterday I was playing poker at Hollywood Park and the same player (seat 4) got pocket aces five times. They held up twice, and got cracked three times. And that was in less than two hours.

  18. #18
    I don't understand why arcimedes has to be so condescending to the forum administrator, who can make him disappear in an instant, just because he doesn't see things his way. Lots of players believe there are betting systems that can alter the outcome of what a machine pays, and some have done it. How you ask? I've read about it from others, Singer writes about having done it, and just like advantage players claim they've won with their math system, we either take them at their word or not. Because you don't think it's possible doesn't mean you need to get all worked up over what other people have done or may think. Please keep it civil if you've got to argue, and please, calling other people ignorant because of their choices only makes you look bad.

  19. #19
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Let's ask Arc how many years he has won playing $1 video poker, and how much he won each year. I think the comparison would be interesting.

    Secondly, people win at negative expectation games. Playing 8/5 Bonus at the $10 level it doesn't take "too much" to reach a profit level of $2500. No one says he wins every session... after all he does admit to dropping $35,000 in one session. But he was probably playing a lot of sessions.

    Honestly, I think his claim of winning about a hundred thou a year is a non-issue at the higher denominations. I think there are other issues worth discussing.

    And yes, Singer says his system depends on luck. Gosh he says it. He doesn't dispute it. And what he did with his special plays IN SOME CASES increases his chance for getting lucky. And the biggest example is where he broke up trip queens to hold three to the royal and got the $100,000 royal. That is ONLY luck.

    Here's the bottom line... we can question his system and strategy and methodology from today till doomsday this coming December (LOL) but we'll never get a straight answer from Singer or an answer that can be tested to be able to verify it.

    So, I have an idea: let's just forget about it. He's not here, so let's talk about something else. For example, yesterday I was playing poker at Hollywood Park and the same player (seat 4) got pocket aces five times. They held up twice, and got cracked three times. And that was in less than two hours.
    An elegant response Alan. While I was writing my post I was thinking the same "let's move on" angle. Do you think it's possible, or is the axe still going to grind?

  20. #20
    Originally Posted by jatki View Post
    An elegant response Alan. While I was writing my post I was thinking the same "let's move on" angle. Do you think it's possible, or is the axe still going to grind?
    Well... the guy in seat 4 eventually busted out and he was a young kid, probably about 25 (that's young when you're my age) and he left the table in a huff and a puff screaming at the guy who made a flush with 4s-6s when he was holding two red aces. Unfortunately for the boy wonder, he made a small bet with AA (obviously he was greedy and wanted to get a lot of callers) and two spades came on the flop and there was no way to get rid of the player with 4-6 spades not matter how much Mr. AA bet -- which was all-in.

    And I think the young wonder player is grinding his axe this morning. Is that what you meant? LOL ;-)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •