The Alan's Motives Thread

[arcimede$]

I'll bet you already have a sour grapes reply awaiting for when I make you look stupid. Oh wait again! You already DO, with yet another Internet search you don't comprehend!

No waiting required. I provided a reference to the math. What you will notice is there's nothing in the probability calculations that refer to the number of hands. In other words, the probabilities do not change between the short term and the long term. All you will get from Singer is replies like the one above. No content, just attempts to deflect.

Here's some more useful information:

http://www.probabilityof.com/poker.shtml

[Alan Mendelson]

How about this idea?

a) Have Rob front Alan $171,600 for the full 3-session bankroll on a 6 level SPS $1/$2/$5/$10/$25/$100
b) Alan & Rob can have a marathon TV show with live casino video poker play broken up into many segments garnering nice ratings while reaching for the minimum $2,500 win goal
c) Rob instructs Alan each and every second of the way...how to play each hand, what games to play, what casinos to romp around in for the day, etc.
d) Alan gives all winnings to Rob and/or Rob takes the potential loss. All Alan would do is press buttons mechanically under Rob's strict direction.
e) It would be just like Rob having his own professional sessions with the added benefit of more media fame & fortune for Rob & Alan
f) ??????
g) PROFIT!

I don't understand your point, Count Room. If Rob were to front me $171,600 I would not risk it in an attempt to reach a $2,500 win goal playing video poker. I think that is an inefficient use for that much money. I can think of better ways to attempt a profit with that much cash. For example, there are several banks with insured bank accounts paying 1% interest. So, without so much as stepping into a casino I take that bankroll and guarantee myself a return of $1,715 without any fear of $35,000 session losses.

I could also buy into 10 poker tournaments with a daily buy in of no more than $235 each. Total buy-in $2,350. And by finishing at the final table in only half of those tourneys I would probably win more than $2,500 plus my total liability would be only the $2,350 buy-in, again avoiding those potential $35,000 session losses.

I could also take $2500 to a craps game, put it on the pass line or the don't pass line and have about a 50% chance of doubling it again without the risk of a big session loss.

No, you're going to have to find someone else to play Rob's system with that kind of a bankroll. As I've said before it makes no sense to me. I can't follow that part of Rob's system.

Now, if you tell me to go a casino, play 8/5 Bonus and when I reach a win of $500 or $1,000 and leave... and repeat that process, while at the same time maintaining a tight loss limit, I might try that.

And would I use a few of his "special plays"? Well, I might if I were playing some of the higher variance games such as Triple Double Bonus, but not -- for the most part -- on 8/5 Bonus. Though I do admit I once broke up Aces full to hold the trip aces and did get the quad aces. I tried that once and it hit once. I tried it only because I needed the quad aces to get me out of a deep hole.

There is nothing wrong with "special plays" when you have to climb out of a deep hole.

[Count Room]

Alan:
Technically only $57,200 would be needed for the $2,500 goal. I just had this wild idea about $171,600 because it would provide plenty of ammunition for a lot of footage that could be edited into an action-packed, educational consumer TV show about Rob's system.

What better way to learn about special plays than to do on-the-spot, live casino examples? I remember all the videos you had with Rob when going over those hypothetical hands and it seemed like an exciting idea to pursue the real deal.

Meh, just an idea. Or, perhaps have live casino footage with Rob coaching you with the bonus poker you described?

[Rob.Singer]

$57,200 is correct.

Add in that the math people would be required to be filmed caving in from their ridiculous claims that negative machines cannot be beaten like this consistently, and it might be worth it. But....Oh No! These misguided people will get out of doing it by claiming one session just doesn't do it for them, and they'd need a number of sessions played that cannot possibly be coordinated, thereby comfortably assuring the safety of their false claims.

Alan, don't fall into the trap that the win HAS to be just $2500.

[Rob.Singer]

No waiting required. I provided a reference to the math. What you will notice is there's nothing in the probability calculations that refer to the number of hands. In other words, the probabilities do not change between the short term and the long term. All you will get from Singer is replies like the one above. No content, just attempts to deflect.

Here's some more useful information:

http://www.probabilityof.com/poker.shtml

You don't even understand the meaning of what you get from your searches. All you've done is cut & paste again.

[Alan Mendelson]

the probabilities do not change between the short term and the long term.

I really wish you would play some craps or some live poker, Arc. You might have a different outlook on gambling.

Let me give you an example for craps:

The math says that betting on the 12 is one of the two worst bets on the craps table. The other miserable bet is betting on the 2, or "aces." Depending on the casino you are at, this bet pays either 30 to 1 or 29 to 1. It is a one roll bet meaning if the dice do not show that number on the very next roll, you lose your bet. Betting on the 2 or 12 are different than betting on the 6 for example, because the bet on the 6 "lives" or remains until a "7 out" is rolled.

Everyone who plays craps knows that betting on the 2 or 12 is just an awful bet with a high house edge or advantage. Except that there are shooters who do throw more 2s and 12s for various reasons. Let's say these shooters can set their dice and throw them in a certain way that favors a 2 or 12.

When they shoot the "math" and the "probability" still says betting on the 2 or 12 is an awful bet. But the math probability tables do not account for a shooter who can influence the dice.

Now, in video poker, one cannot alter or influence the RNG... at least legally they can't. But after cards are dealt on the VP machine what cards you choose can influence the return of the game and sometimes that influence can help your bottom line. The classic example I use is playing Triple Double Bonus and being dealt three aces with a kicker. By holding the kicker along with the three aces your outcomes include:

1. Three aces only
2. Full house drawing the same value kicker
3. Drawing the fourth ace only for a return = to a royal flush.

By holding the three aces only, your outcomes include:

1. Having three aces only.
2. Drawing 11 different full house possibilities
3. Two chances for drawing the fourth ace.
4. Chance of drawing the case Ace plus a kicker.

Rob compares holding three aces with a kicker to just holding the three aces (the Special Play), this way:

Ac Ah Ad 5s 4c: OH=AAA4 @ $97.13; SP=AAA @ $78.32

I'm different from you Arc. If I see a shooter throwing a lot of 2s and 12s, I'm gong to start betting on 2s and 12s. And if I have trip aces in TDB with a big payoff for quad aces (bigger than what quad aces gets in Bonus) I'm going to just hold the aces.

[Count Room]

I see your point on that one, Rob, and it would seem fair to also have footage of AP'ers at work, too. The only problem is that very few casinos offer what an AP is looking for nowadays plus you have to filter out the possibility of a casino rejecting being on camera, etc. Besides that....is it really exciting to watch someone play 25-cent to $1 VP?

With your system you have plenty of 8/5 BP games in town to choose from, plenty of 9/5/4 TBP+, etc. etc. Much broader range of casino settings available from which footage could be shot.

[Rob.Singer]

Dancer claims there's an abundance of plays for AP's. He adds in everything including smiles from his host or having a sunny day to drive to the casinos for added EV, so it wouldn't be that difficult.

[Rob.Singer]

I really wish you would play some craps or some live poker, Arc. You might have a different outlook on gambling.

Let me give you an example for craps:

The math says that betting on the 12 is one of the two worst bets on the craps table. The other miserable bet is betting on the 2, or "aces." Depending on the casino you are at, this bet pays either 30 to 1 or 29 to 1. It is a one roll bet meaning if the dice do not show that number on the very next roll, you lose your bet. Betting on the 2 or 12 are different than betting on the 6 for example, because the bet on the 6 "lives" or remains until a "7 out" is rolled.

Everyone who plays craps knows that betting on the 2 or 12 is just an awful bet with a high house edge or advantage. Except that there are shooters who do throw more 2s and 12s for various reasons. Let's say these shooters can set their dice and throw them in a certain way that favors a 2 or 12.

When they shoot the "math" and the "probability" still says betting on the 2 or 12 is an awful bet. But the math probability tables do not account for a shooter who can influence the dice.

Now, in video poker, one cannot alter or influence the RNG... at least legally they can't. But after cards are dealt on the VP machine what cards you choose can influence the return of the game and sometimes that influence can help your bottom line. The classic example I use is playing Triple Double Bonus and being dealt three aces with a kicker. By holding the kicker along with the three aces your outcomes include:

1. Three aces only
2. Full house drawing the same value kicker
3. Drawing the fourth ace only for a return = to a royal flush.

By holding the three aces only, your outcomes include:

1. Having three aces only.
2. Drawing 11 different full house possibilities
3. Two chances for drawing the fourth ace.
4. Chance of drawing the case Ace plus a kicker.

Rob compares holding three aces with a kicker to just holding the three aces (the Special Play), this way:

Ac Ah Ad 5s 4c: OH=AAA4 @ $97.13; SP=AAA @ $78.32

I'm different from you Arc. If I see a shooter throwing a lot of 2s and 12s, I'm gong to start betting on 2s and 12s. And if I have trip aces in TDB with a big payoff for quad aces (bigger than what quad aces gets in Bonus) I'm going to just hold the aces.

He'll never admit to it Alan. DELETED how's he gonna admit to getting anything positive out of handling a negative situation in vp?

[arcimede$]

I really wish you would play some craps or some live poker, Arc. You might have a different outlook on gambling.

Let me give you an example for craps:

The math says that betting on the 12 is one of the two worst bets on the craps table. The other miserable bet is betting on the 2, or "aces." Depending on the casino you are at, this bet pays either 30 to 1 or 29 to 1. It is a one roll bet meaning if the dice do not show that number on the very next roll, you lose your bet. Betting on the 2 or 12 are different than betting on the 6 for example, because the bet on the 6 "lives" or remains until a "7 out" is rolled.

Everyone who plays craps knows that betting on the 2 or 12 is just an awful bet with a high house edge or advantage. Except that there are shooters who do throw more 2s and 12s for various reasons. Let's say these shooters can set their dice and throw them in a certain way that favors a 2 or 12.

When they shoot the "math" and the "probability" still says betting on the 2 or 12 is an awful bet. But the math probability tables do not account for a shooter who can influence the dice.

What pathetic nonsense. If a shooter can really affect the dice then the toss is not random and none of the math is applicable to the situation. The math was created for random events, Alan. Do you ever think a one minute about your comments.

Now, in video poker, one cannot alter or influence the RNG... at least legally they can't. But after cards are dealt on the VP machine what cards you choose can influence the return of the game and sometimes that influence can help your bottom line. The classic example I use is playing Triple Double Bonus and being dealt three aces with a kicker. By holding the kicker along with the three aces your outcomes include:

1. Three aces only
2. Full house drawing the same value kicker
3. Drawing the fourth ace only for a return = to a royal flush.

By holding the three aces only, your outcomes include:

1. Having three aces only.
2. Drawing 11 different full house possibilities
3. Two chances for drawing the fourth ace.
4. Chance of drawing the case Ace plus a kicker.

Rob compares holding three aces with a kicker to just holding the three aces (the Special Play), this way:

Ac Ah Ad 5s 4c: OH=AAA4 @ $97.13; SP=AAA @ $78.32

Did you have a point? Oh, that our decisions make a difference. Yes, absolutely. We can impact the ER by lowering our expected return by making poor decisions like the one you gave. We cannot increase it since it is the maximum possible ER.

I'm different from you Arc. If I see a shooter throwing a lot of 2s and 12s, I'm gong to start betting on 2s and 12s. And if I have trip aces in TDB with a big payoff for quad aces (bigger than what quad aces gets in Bonus) I'm going to just hold the aces.

Yes, you are different than me. I don't confuse one non-random event with a random one. If I see something that appears to be non-random then I wouldn't try to apply math based on randomness. Why would anyone?

[arcimede$]

Now, note that Singer claimed he had some math that was different for short term RANDOM VP play. Also note that he yet to provide it. Also note he never will. When are you going to wake up, Alan?

[Rob.Singer]

Now, note that Singer claimed he had some math that was different for short term RANDOM VP play. Also note that he yet to provide it. Also note he never will. When are you going to wake up, Alan?

Arci, so you've had to go thru a tough week here. Your long-time lie about some obscure slot card con I supposedly ran that you always claimed was the REAL source of my income, was thoroughly & completely exposed by jatki--further infuriating you into a frenzy of namecalling. Yes, it WAS satisfying as we all watched you suffer thru that one.


Now, after being identified as an Internet hack who uses searches to compensate for his lack of true math principles and application, you exposed yourself as having no clue as to how the math differs in the short term vs. your crazy long term theories. And when you're calmly asked by Alan to,sit back and wait for the proof since I have to go get it in Az. at a later date, you jump up and down like a screaming spoiled child. And Heaven only knows what challenges at home are eating away at you simultaneously. BTW, I took my wife out to dinner and a show last evening. Then we danced at a piano bar for a bit.

Yes....it certainly has been quite a week--esp. for those who enjoy watching you squirm and pay!

[antfanas]

For centuries man thought many things that were proven scientifically to be correct,to be infallible logic.You could not convince scientists of past times,that the world was round.This was though to be ridiculous,the science of those times ,proved it over and over,the world was flat.Those that believed in a round world were nuts.Those that spoke such a theory were outsiders,indulged in fringe thought and well outside the mainstream scientific community.
Well we all know how that turned out.The same one-mindedness exists today in regards to games of chance.Mathematics has long been thought to be the only type of logic that is infallible.You cannot change 2+2=4.There is nothing that could change that equation.Math is the one absolute in the universe.The answers simply cannot be anything other than what they are.This is true,for simple mathematical problems.However,more complex mathematical problems,may have more complex answers.

[Rob.Singer]

Well, I certainly won't disagree with that, since I already know there is something beyond math that governs video poker results. But when arci gets a load of this....hold on! We're liable to see more insults, more lying, and more of his famous namecalling that is the mark of a defeated man.

[arcimede$]

For centuries man thought many things that were proven scientifically to be correct,to be infallible logic.You could not convince scientists of past times,that the world was round.This was though to be ridiculous,the science of those times ,proved it over and over,the world was flat.Those that believed in a round world were nuts.Those that spoke such a theory were outsiders,indulged in fringe thought and well outside the mainstream scientific community.
Well we all know how that turned out.The same one-mindedness exists today in regards to games of chance.Mathematics has long been thought to be the only type of logic that is infallible.You cannot change 2+2=4.There is nothing that could change that equation.Math is the one absolute in the universe.The answers simply cannot be anything other than what they are.This is true,for simple mathematical problems.However,more complex mathematical problems,may have more complex answers.

All very true. However, VP is based on simple math.

[arcimede$]

Well, I certainly won't disagree with that, since I already know there is something beyond math that governs video poker results. But when arci gets a load of this....hold on! We're liable to see more insults, more lying, and more of his famous namecalling that is the mark of a defeated man.

Interesting ... Singer has been claiming his short term play was based on math and now it's something "beyond math".

Bwah haha haha haha haha

I can't wait to see those notes. Cue Twilight Zone music ...

[Rob.Singer]

Bite your tongue arci. A tough week is a tough week, and trying to cover up the angst in the middle of the "chipping away" process only adds to the entertainment value we all love to see. Now please, add to that enjoyment by telling us how your night out with the missus went last evening? If you please?

[arcimede$]

Bite your tongue arci. A tough week is a tough week, and trying to cover up the angst in the middle of the "chipping away" process only adds to the entertainment value we all love to see. Now please, add to that enjoyment by telling us how your night out with the missus went last evening? If you please?

I see you're still trying to attack my wife. Once again that is obvious evidence that you felt the sting of my last comment. Yes, you look foolish claiming both math and some other concept beyond math. It's beyond idiotic and that's how you look when you make those kind of claims.

Of course, the more idiotic you look, it also paints those who have believed your lies as suckers. You're starting to lose your grip. Better attack my wife some more. Otherwise, some are going to start wondering about you.

[redietz]

Maybe Rob has "the gift."

[arcimede$]

Maybe Rob has "the gift."

He has the gift of non-stop BS. However, what he says is exactly what some people want to hear. They want to believe there's an easy way to beat the casinos. That's why it's so easy to sucker them into his idiotic schemes.