Of Math and Men

[jatki]

(Smile)..No, but I see the axe is still grinding. This is from memory, but as you eluded to, I remember even back in the mid 2000's where Singer said he would quit playing when he reached a million dollars profit or turned 60, whichever came first. He made a big deal out of it because we didn't believe him. It's videopoker after all. I think he hit 60 just before the million, right? I'm also retired from my profession because I'm 69. So the guy doesn't want to be playing a long time in casinos at those limits after turning 60 and after having a good career, what's wrong with that?

I question that .03% also. Is that the opportunity rate for winning that someone has at any 8/5 99% bonuspoker game today? How about tomorrow? How about next Tuesday? That math has no place in videopoker (except as Singer says, to the casinos-something he harped on on sports) because the only people who claim it works are those pushing their sales careers or those who don't want to be embarrassed. I win all the time on bonuspoker, and I lose more often on Sam's Town's fpdw machines. What's the chances of that, and where's it written that I can't win long-run on the bonuspoker games? Why, if I only played fpdw I'd be a big loser, and if I played only bonuspoker I'd be a big winner. (edit to add that I know I'm no expert; but it works both ways) But I'm a fool, and my sense always tells me to go back to the fpdw machines. For what? Because they're +ev of all things! What a scam that has to be. In other words, the math only works if the machines cooperate while you're at them. That's been my experience, and if you don't like that go check with the famous Fezzik from LV A, who also told of losing not only his shirt, but shoes and socks on those "almost guaranteed winner" machines at the Wynn and the Venetian when they had good pay tables plus a whole lot of comps.

vegaslover, I hear you about those awful negative machines, but how negative are they really? Half a per cent? I get lucky constantly on bonuspoker and if I had the resources to keep going up in denomination I'd probably be able to get that house up in Big Bear I've always wanted. From how Singer described it, it didn't take a miracle to get lucky enough to quit and go home, just a regular hit or two. Never thought much about it then. Now, after how bonuspoker has played for me, it means something.

Man, I thought we'd not be still talking about this but I see how stimulating it can be to even a slacker videopoker player like me, as long as we keep it respectful. I agree, calling ANYBODY a liar, has no place among gentlemen.

[arcimede$]

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

And to call the guy a liar when he probably is not coming back here is a cheap shot.

Alan, you seem to forget that many of Singer's lies are about me. So, all I'm doing is providing the facts. Live with it.

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?

I won over 6 figures since 2004 when I started keeping good records. I was a quarter player in the beginning and have only played consistently at the dollar level the last 3 years. Not bad for a part timer.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc wrote: " I won over 6 figures since 2004 when I started keeping good records. I was a quarter player in the beginning and have only played consistently at the dollar level the last 3 years. Not bad for a part timer. "

Congratulations!! Good job. And if you won 6-figures (I presume that does not include the decimal point) playing a mix of 25-cent games and then moving to dollars only three years ago, why couldn't Singer win nearly a million playing up to $25 per coin, and scoring the majority of his profits at the $10/coin level??

[Vegas Vic]

I won over 6 figures since 2004 when I started keeping good records. I was a quarter player in the beginning and have only played consistently at the dollar level the last 3 years. Not bad for a part timer.

Am I reading this correctly: playing at the quarter level, there were multiple years in which you won (as in "profited") over 6 figures in each year?

[arcimede$]

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.

It's been mathematically proven that it is not possible to change the return of a VP game with a betting system. Anyone who claims it can be done is lying. No ifs and or buts, they telling you that 2+2 can equal 5.

Keep in mind that a betting system is different than play strategy. How you play can change the return of a game. However, VP is a "solved" game just like tic-tac-toe. All possible combinations have been analyzed and the optimal strategies have been created.

I'm sorry if some people don't have the knowledge base to understand these facts. That doesn't change the facts.

[Alan Mendelson]

It's been mathematically proven that it is not possible to change the return of a VP game with a betting system. Anyone who claims it can be done is lying. No ifs and or buts, they telling you that 2+2 can equal 5.

Arc you are starting to drive me crazy. No one said Singer's system changes the "return" of the game. All anyone is saying is that you can still win. Do you understand the difference?

[arcimede$]

Arc wrote: " I won over 6 figures since 2004 when I started keeping good records. I was a quarter player in the beginning and have only played consistently at the dollar level the last 3 years. Not bad for a part timer. "

Congratulations!! Good job. And if you won 6-figures (I presume that does not include the decimal point) playing a mix of 25-cent games and then moving to dollars only three years ago, why couldn't Singer win nearly a million playing up to $25 per coin, and scoring the majority of his profits at the $10/coin level??

Because I played 100% positive return games. Singer claims he plays negative return games. Remember the discussion a couple of months ago where I looked at the probabilities of winning playing with a 1% edge vs. a 1% negative position? If not, you should have been paying attention.

Also, with a negative progression like the one Singer touts you end up playing most of the hands at the lower denominations. IIRC, his average bet is not much more than $2 ($10/hand). In addition, his claims of winning 88% of over 300 sessions is almost statistically impossible given the fact he rarely played a full 5 levels (which by itself only yields about a 75% win rate). He probably would have won somewhere around 70% with many 10-40K losses when he didn't win.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc let me be blunt. People win at negative expectation games. And people lose at positive expectation games.

Singer's system does not change the "return" of any video poker game, but he can still win even though the return does not change.

[arcimede$]

Arc you are starting to drive me crazy. No one said Singer's system changes the "return" of the game. All anyone is saying is that you can still win. Do you understand the difference?

Alan, as I've already said about a thousand times, anyone can win with any system. Blindly hitting deal/draw could lead to wins. Got it? That is not the point.

If someone claims that their approach improves the chances of winning the only possible way that is true is for it to change the return of the game. Singer talks out of both sides of his a... When you ask about return he correctly answers that it is not changed. But then, he turns around and claims his system will lead to winning even on negative return games. How is that possible? Clue: other than short term winning sessions it will not lead to any more winning years than people playing the same games that do not use a progression. So, his system provides no improvement in future results.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc wrote: "If someone claims that their approach improves the chances of winning the only possible way that is true is for it to change the return of the game."

I'm sorry, Arc, but I have to disagree with this. You are confusing "expected return" with "actual return." Expected return for every video poker game is well known and defined by the math. Altering how you play the game affects the "actual return."

Singer claims his alterations change the "actual return." Is that more clear for you??

[Vegas_lover]

Arc wrote: "If someone claims that their approach improves the chances of winning the only possible way that is true is for it to change the return of the game."

I'm sorry, Arc, but I have to disagree with this. You are confusing "expected return" with "actual return." Expected return for every video poker game is well known and defined by the math. Altering how you play the game affects the "actual return."

Singer claims his alterations change the "actual return." Is that more clear for you??

I thought we were going to stop talking about Singer. There are much more interesting Vegas related topics that can be discussed. Restaurants, shows, hotel rooms, service, small day tours, shopping, gambling results, personal experiences at the tables, need I go on??

I think it's time to just say some of us will never agree with eachother about the value of Singer's system and leave it at that....

[Count Room]

I thought we were going to stop talking about Singer.

Vegas_lover: Are you implying that we don't do what we say we're going to do around here?

Personally, it doesn't bother me a bit whether or not we continue to discuss VP (and Singer), but since I am a VP player more than live poker the forum might "dry up" a bit for me from here on out.

[Vegas_lover]

I agree with Alan that since Singer isn't around anymore we should stop discussing him or the aspects of his strategy. Everything that could be said about his strategy has been since plenty of times. I will only result in bickering about who is right and who is wrong. There's enough to talk about concerning vp without Singer being the subject of conversation. Not much good has come from it anyway.

Just my two cents....

[arcimede$]

Arc wrote: "If someone claims that their approach improves the chances of winning the only possible way that is true is for it to change the return of the game."

I'm sorry, Arc, but I have to disagree with this. You are confusing "expected return" with "actual return." Expected return for every video poker game is well known and defined by the math. Altering how you play the game affects the "actual return."

Singer claims his alterations change the "actual return." Is that more clear for you??

Actually, it is exactly what I just said. Singer claims his system will allow people to improve their results over the expected return. Of course this is precisely what the mathematical proof shows is impossible. Sorry Alan. It is not possible to consistently beat the expected return.

[arcimede$]

Alan, you have to remember that the published "expected return" for a game is based on optimal strategy. That means there is no method of play that can improve upon it. Now, if you were a player who does not use optimal strategy then you could do better, but that is not what I have been saying. What Singer states is his betting system can lead to an actual return > optimal return. Sorry, that is not possible as the math clearly shows.

[Count Room]

OK, after some careful thought this morning I find myself respectfully disagreeing a bit with Vegas_lover's and Alan's opinion that we should stop discussing Rob or aspects of his strategy.

Why?

Because Rob made the decision to leave and no one else forced him to leave. So why should we be forced to stop talking about Rob or his strategy since he made a voluntary decision to leave?

However, this is Alan's forum and he can do what he wants and still tell us to remain silent about Rob, but it leaves me a feeling that we are giving Rob too much power by giving him the luxury of a voluntary decision in which we are forced to behave in a permanently altered manner as a result of someone else's voluntary decision.

Alan is the final arbiter on this matter, but just my two cents...

[Alan Mendelson]

First a general comment: I think discussing Singer's system is valid as long as we are not making personal attacks on him. Discussing Singer's system is equivalent to discussing what Bob Dancer might teach or what John Grochowski has in a column. Honest discussion doesn't hurt.

Arc: you wrote: "What Singer states is his betting system can lead to an actual return > optimal return. Sorry, that is not possible as the math clearly shows."

I really don't understand how you can say this? So I am going to give you an example that you will love. It involves a coin toss. And the coin is weighted so that heads shows up more than tails. The "math" will tell you that any fair coin will have flip results that are 50/50 heads and tails. But remember that Singer says there are patterns? He says that machines are not random and you can use this "non randomness" to help you, and he has seen that aces appear when he holds just one? Believe it or not, this is the foundation of his special plays, and it all comes from his experience. Again, it goes beyond the math of the game.

Now, some of you are saying "well that's just crazy, Alan." So, let me give you another example in the casino which many, many people will agree with. You are at a craps table and the "math" tells you to bet the pass line or don's pass with odds. That's what the math says. But "Practice Johnny" is the shooter and suddenly all of the players are betting the horn -- 2, 3, 11 and 12 which are hard to hit, and high paying one-roll bets. If you follow the math you never bet the horn numbers. But "Practice Johnny" is able to influence the dice and he can hit the horn numbers more often than the math says he will.

Look at Singer's system the same way as betting on "Practice Johnny" in craps.

Now, getting back to your statement, Arc. What Singer states is his betting system can lead to an actual return > optimal return. Sorry, that is not possible as the math clearly shows. OK. The math says what the math says. And if you're at the craps game the math says you will lose betting on "Practice Johnny." But when all is said and done, those betting on "Practice Johnny" will have an actual return > optimal return even though the math says that is not possible.

Again Arc, you have to realize that "expected return" is just an "expected return." Actual is actual.

To put it another way: yeah, the math says this should happen, but when you change conditions something different actually happens.

And getting back to Singer: this is why while I don't believe in non random VP games existing, and why I have full faith in the integrity of the game, I am open to anyone showing me proof that the RNGs are not truly random. This is why I would welcome an independent third party investigation of the VP industry.

Just as I say show me the research to support your bell curve, I've also asked that Singer show me the proof that the games are not random which actually has a basis for some of his strategy.

And let me also say that special plays are not all of his strategy. He openly says his money management system gets the lion share of his success. And I think all of us can understand this: it's not really how much you win, but how much you don't lose back.

[Count Room]

Alan:

I can't prove that VP machines are non-random, but I can share a brief story. Some years ago a person I know to be very reputable was once dealt TWO deuces of clubs in a non wild-card VP game. This was verified by another person (as a witness) that I also consider to be very reputable. A glitch like this was never seen again. It was on an old Bally GameMaker machine.

[Alan Mendelson]

Some years ago a person I know to be very reputable was once dealt TWO deuces of clubs in a non wild-card VP game.

I can believe that it happened because we are dealing with an electronic device which might send out a message for two of the same cards.

One of my favorite stories about "same cards" comes from a poker tournament at Hustler Casino here in LA. It was the first hand of the tournament and at the table next to the one I was sitting at two players go all in and both turn over the ace of hearts. In this case, the dealer did not catch that an ace of hearts was substituted for the ace of diamonds. Fortunately it was in the very first hand of the tournament. If it was discovered later there could have been some challenges.

What many players may not realize is that the cards used in casinos do not come from "new, fresh decks" that are packaged at the factory. You are getting "used cards" that get washed and put into reassembled decks. So when you ask for a "new deck" you're getting a repackaged deck of previously used cards. This is one of the reasons dealers always check the cards prior to play... or at least they should.

Whenever I am in a game and a new deck is spread for the check, I also check the cards along with the dealer. But I am also looking for "marks" such as bends.

[Count Room]

Oh man, marking cards...HAH!

I know of another story from a long, long time ago in Minnesota at an Indian reservation casino (early 90's). If I remember correctly some guys beat a 2-deck handheld (cards dealt down) blackjack game at Jackpot Junction casino and took the place for $25-30,000. It turned out these guys were wearing special sunglasses where they would "daub" the cards with some sort of flourescent paint that only the special sunglasses could see. The naked eye couldn't tell the difference. I don't remember any details beyond this.