Oscar's Grind

[Count Room]

Does anyone use the Oscar's Grind system for craps or other table games? I've often looked at Rob's system in VP as a bit of a strange mix of Oscar's Grind & Martingale that I would use for excitement when no 100% games are available...

[Alan Mendelson]

I have to admit I never heard of this before, so I did a quick look on the web and found this summary: http://www.casinoanswers.com/betting...g-strategy.php

Unfortunately, I don't know if the summary is accurate or not.

I can't understand how this could even be used at craps since craps is a negative expectation game, and every bet carries a house edge or advantage. Even the "free odds" bet is still more likely to be won by the house.

I know there are some bettors who use a small progression on their passline bets and bank their wins after a few points are made.

I also observe that many players will let their bets on the table stay for three rolls of the dice and they take their bets down anticipating a 7-out because the average shooter throws the dice something like 5 or 6 times.

There is no betting scheme that can make you a winner at craps. I honestly believe that the only way to win is to master dice influencing or dice control and that is easier said than done.

[arcimede$]

No betting system can change the return of a game. That has been proven. This appears to be just another method that increases small session wins but adds in the occasional big loss. Just like Singer's systems they don't make any difference over time.

[jatki]

I often wonder about that same tired response we've seen arc submit time after time. I never thought much about why he's been saying it until I first saw Singer rip into it. Rob's right, you never see arc admit that there are also occasional big wins, and why? Because it doesn't fit his agenda emulating from his first, and second, sentences. What's more, he always compares using these systems with what he says is over time, a term he cannot define or he would.

Here's what I've picked up over the years in my readings. I'll believe the math people when they say if you play your whole life then you should be close to whatever expectation you played against by the time you're buried. But what about Singer, how long did he play his system? Once a week, from anywhere around 30 seconds to 10 hours or whatever? For 10 years? Forget about why arc doesn't like him because not only does nobody care, it really has nothing to do with the facts. Maybe that's why arc can't understand what he did or how he did it. If he can't accept that there are always big winners that hit, how would he ever accept Rob's short term strategy definition? Maybe that's why Rob said he'd quit when he reached a million dollars profit or 60 years of age. Sounds like a good plan to stay out of the long term after all that winning if he's playing those minus ev games, don't you think?

[arcimede$]

The Tool tries to speak for Singer and by golly it is Singer's style all the way. I guess the attempts to hide his identity are no longer worth his effort.

No one cares if Singer was successful or not. While his constant lying make it very doubtful, even if it was the truth it wouldn't mean anything to another player using his system. The math rules over time. There will be a few very lucky folks that win despite playing against the odds. The vast majority will lose just like they do playing negative games using another approach.

You see if The Tool was a real person you know he'd wonder why anyone who could make $100K/year, playing as little as 25 hours, would quit. No one would. That's why it's so obvious Singer is typing all these comments. No reasonable person would believe that BS.

[Alan Mendelson]

he'd wonder why anyone who could make $100K/year, playing as little as 25 hours, would quit. No one would.

Actually, this is a principle in business and in gambling: you strike when the iron is hot, and you don't "play" when it's not.

In business, entrepreneurs and speculators will take advantage of "deals" that come along and they carefully decide when to make a move and when not to.
In live poker, we do the same thing. Unlike video poker, in live poker you do not have to play every hand.
So why not apply these principles to video poker, Arc?
In a way, Rob does that with his "win goals." When he has reached a certain "win goal" that lets him meet his income goals he can sit back and not have to play and risk losing it back.
It's done in business, it's done in speculative investing, it's done in "live poker," so why not do it in video poker?

[arcimede$]

Actually, this is a principle in business and in gambling: you strike when the iron is hot, and you don't "play" when it's not.

But, but, but ... according to Singer all you have to do is use his system and you will win just as he has. He has never stated that it was luck. It's his supposed discipline that makes the difference.

In business, entrepreneurs and speculators will take advantage of "deals" that come along and they carefully decide when to make a move and when not to.
In live poker, we do the same thing. Unlike video poker, in live poker you do not have to play every hand.
So why not apply these principles to video poker, Arc?
In a way, Rob does that with his "win goals." When he has reached a certain "win goal" that lets him meet his income goals he can sit back and not have to play and risk losing it back.
It's done in business, it's done in speculative investing, it's done in "live poker," so why not do it in video poker?

Give us a break, Alan. Since when is business or speculative investing based on random events? Your response is just plain silly.

The only reason Singer has claimed to retire is so he doesn't have to continue to push his fantasy existence that never happened after being forced to skip town. No house, no supporting documentation, nothing but lies.

[Alan Mendelson]

Come on Arc, this has nothing to do with random events. You can use win goals and profit goals in any activity, whether its gambling or not. Why don't you, for once, be realistic and stop being so argumentative?

[Alan Mendelson]

He has never stated that it was luck. It's his supposed discipline that makes the difference.

Arc, you should go back and take Singer 101 over again. He says the whole thing is "luck" and increasing his chances to take advantage of "luck" and his discipline locks up the wins that luck gives him.

[jatki]

Arc, you should go back and take Singer 101 over again. He says the whole thing is "luck" and increasing his chances to take advantage of "luck" and his discipline locks up the wins that luck gives him.

Arc's the expert know-everything on Singer's system? I can think of at least two dozen times I've read Rob write in an article that what you're saying Alan is the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Guess we can see how far arc gets off target when he's shaken like a cheap rug.

[arcimede$]

Come on Arc, this has nothing to do with random events. You can use win goals and profit goals in any activity, whether its gambling or not. Why don't you, for once, be realistic and stop being so argumentative?

When investing you are trying to lock in earnings. You haven't earned anything until you sell. With Singer's system he has already supposedly locked in his wins. He claims his system will generate wins for anyone who uses it. Why would he not continue. You are confusing yourself again by not understanding these kind of differences.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc you are tying everything into a package. Instead just isolate one concept: quitting when ahead. This one concept works. It doesn't mean the " special plays" work or anything else of Singer's works. Try if you can to concede that "quitting when ahead" works. And if you can quit when ahead multiple times you can beat a negative game. Is that impossible for you?

[arcimede$]

Arc you are tying everything into a package. Instead just isolate one concept: quitting when ahead. This one concept works. It doesn't mean the " special plays" work or anything else of Singer's works. Try if you can to concede that "quitting when ahead" works. And if you can quit when ahead multiple times you can beat a negative game. Is that impossible for you?

No, it has nothing to do with me. It is improbable due to the math. I've told you this umpteen times. Once again ... it has nothing to do with me. I'm simply explaining the math to you. When will you try to understand something that has been known for decades?

[jatki]

Arc you are tying everything into a package. Instead just isolate one concept: quitting when ahead. This one concept works. It doesn't mean the " special plays" work or anything else of Singer's works. Try if you can to concede that "quitting when ahead" works. And if you can quit when ahead multiple times you can beat a negative game. Is that impossible for you?

Since talking to Singer I have learned to quit when I'm ahead at certain points, and it sure has helped me. The math has nothing to do with that and the long term has even less to do with it. Lots of videopoker players are ahead in the casino some amount when you're in one. Add all those people up and you probably have the math and the long term locked up with the key thrown out. One problem though, the casino is almost certainly behind when you do that. What this tells me is Singer's right on with his teaching that we play only in the short term.

To the side issue of why Singer doesn't keep playing if his system turns such good results. Arc has had to see the answer so many times everywhere and I've even seen it here a couple, even though I don't have time to look it up. Maybe spock could, if it fits his agenda? What part of "i'm quitting when i reach 60 years of age or i win a million dollars" is so difficult? That row he had with Alan here, about the free play at the LV casino where Alan didn't do his plan. Wasn't it all about Singer being bothered badly by Alan not doing what he said he would do? You sit with Rob at a training and that's the first thing he tells you, and says if you can't do that then you have no chance at winning with his system. He emphasizes NONE. That's what the guy lives by, that's his motto. He said when he would quit and he did. Arc, maybe you don't do what you say or maybe he might just have a life worth living where you don't. Just stop playing dumb please.

Just noticed this and I'm not a wizard at math so please bear with me. Is arc actually at a higher rate per month in posting prowess than the forum's host? This explains so much.

[Alan Mendelson]

No, it has nothing to do with me. It is improbable due to the math. I've told you this umpteen times. Once again ... it has nothing to do with me. I'm simply explaining the math to you. When will you try to understand something that has been known for decades?

Arc, if a coin flip is supposed to be 50-50, but I flip a coin only once when betting on heads -- and the result is heads -- isn't my actual return different than the expected return? It is no different with video poker. If the pay table says the return should be 99.2% but I manage a $10 profit each time I play do I not have an actual return greater than 100% ??

Just say you understand that. Whether or not someone has actually won more than they lost is not the issue here. It is only that actual return differs from expected return and someone can beat a negative expectation game. Say you understand that and I will be a happy guy.

Then if you want to argue that no one ever did that it's another issue.

[Alan Mendelson]

Jatki: I sent you a private message. Please respond.

[arcimede$]

Arc, if a coin flip is supposed to be 50-50, but I flip a coin only once when betting on heads -- and the result is heads -- isn't my actual return different than the expected return? It is no different with video poker. If the pay table says the return should be 99.2% but I manage a $10 profit each time I play do I not have an actual return greater than 100% ??

Notice the difference in your two descriptions. In the first case you only flipped the coin once. If you never flip a coin again then you are correct. However, do you believe that if you continue to flip coins that you will always flip a head on the first flip? I'll assume you don't. Then, why do you believe you could always mange a profit at VP. The fact is, you can't. That's the problem with your thinking here and something I've pointed out many times. Why do you persist in ignoring reality?

Just say you understand that. Whether or not someone has actually won more than they lost is not the issue here. It is only that actual return differs from expected return and someone can beat a negative expectation game. Say you understand that and I will be a happy guy.

Then if you want to argue that no one ever did that it's another issue.

I've already stated that almost anything is "possible" many, many times. Once again it's the difference between "possible" and "probable". Just like it's possible I could win a super lottery like Power Ball, it is highly improbable. When will you understand the difference? Do you plan on winning a super lottery? Would you risk thousands of dollars every week to improve your chances? If not, then you obviously believe that any approach that counts on improbable events is not a wise gambling strategy. Well, if you think win goals will help you win over time on a negative game you are doing exactly that.

[redietz]

Alan, just go play your game with your win goals and tape the damn results. After a couple hundred sessions come back and tell us how win goal theory did. Odds are, as we say, you'll be whistling a different tune.

[Alan Mendelson]

redietz, I've been using the win goal system for the last several months, and I am ahead. My only regret is that I didn't use the same "win goal plan" eight years ago when I started to play video poker.

My last session profits include those $2,000 profit sessions at Caesars that Singer criticized me for because I didn't quit with even bigger profits, plus the $12,000 profit at Rincon, plus a couple of other smaller profits when I hit $4,000 royals at Rincon. Remember, I've had six royals so far this year.

My loss limits, by the way, have been reduced to $1,500 because for the most part I am now playing $1 and $2 VP. I lost the session limits twice in this time period.

With just the single $12,000 profit session, I can have eight losing sessions of $1,500. And even if I have eight losing sessions of $1,500 I still have a cushion from the other session wins.

Now there is a difference between what Singer does and what I do. I have a stricter loss limit than Singer has. I don't have $57,000 or $73,000 or whatever to lose in a session. And because I have smaller loss limits, my win goals don't have to be as large. If I have a session win of $500 or even $300 I am overjoyed. Remember, a $300 win on a $1500 bankroll is 20%.

[arcimede$]

Remember, a $300 win on a $1500 bankroll is 20%.

You have to win $300 5 out of every 6 tries just to break even. You also have been over-royaled during this period so it's not surprising you are ahead.

The good news is this approach should reduce your play and hence reduce your losses over time. However, it will not make you a winner. The only way to do better than the optimal ER is to have a higher frequency of better hands. The chances of this persisting over time goes down the more you play.