Oscar's Grind

[Alan Mendelson]

Good idea to wait until Rob comes by, because either my posts show up in Chinese on your computer or your reading comprehension is failing greatly. The only arbitrary thing about his strategy is your continued inability to grasp what I've been saying, so you take left and right turns that you have to be guessing at. READ MY LIPS, He lost $35000, he lost $35000, he lost $35000, and the only amount that was reduced by his soft cash outs was the $57200 starting bankroll for his session, resulting in a net loss of $35000 ($57200 minus $22200 in soft cash outs equals $35000). He did not reduce the $35000 loss, ever.

Well, Mr Jatki, I'm certainly glad you put it that way, because that means we agree. He lost $35,000. Period.

But where the heck do you get the idea that he ever put $22,200 into his soft profit pool? I don't recall him ever saying anything about $22,200 in a soft profit pool. And even if he did, what difference does it make? It's still a loss of $35,000 isn't it?

Or, does the Singer system say its OK to have a net loss of $35,000 after you have $22,200 in a soft profit pool? LOL

[jatki]

Well, Mr Jatki, I'm certainly glad you put it that way, because that means we agree. He lost $35,000. Period.

But where the heck do you get the idea that he ever put $22,200 into his soft profit pool? I don't recall him ever saying anything about $22,200 in a soft profit pool. And even if he did, what difference does it make? It's still a loss of $35,000 isn't it?

Or, does the Singer system say its OK to have a net loss of $35,000 after you have $22,200 in a soft profit pool? LOL

I'm not a math genius but I do know that system or at least I think I do, and when he said he lost $35000 after playing through the $100 games, that can only mean he had to have $22200 in soft profits or he would have lost $57200. Once you understand how it is played you should see how easy this part is. I believe the reason Singer didn't mention the soft profit pool is because he may have thought you understood that part, I don't know. For sure a $35000 loss is a $35000 loss, which is kind of big. But I also saw in many of his columns where he had net wins in the five figures up to near $90000 too. Would those flabbergast you as well, wondering how the hey anyone could ever be happy with such large wins? Those wins would never be if he didn't play the way he plays. That's what I interpret the Singer system to mean.

[Alan Mendelson]

Very good jatki, thanks for clarifying that you made this up, and that Singer made no mention of $22,200 of soft profits. Perhaps he didn't mention it, because he knows -- as I know -- and as everyone else knows -- that "soft profits" mean nothing.

Even if he had "soft profits" along the way, at the end of the day (trip, session) he still lost $35,000. Any mention of "soft profits" is some smoke and mirrors diversion. He lost $35,000 -- period.

You can't justify a $35,000 loss saying that along the way he won $22,200. You just can't. Soft profits is like saying, "I walked into the casino, and on my very first push of the button I hit a royal for $4,000 -- but I kept playing, gave it all back, and then lost $35,000 more."

[jatki]

Alan my buddy, there's nothing made up. Those soft profits accumulating are as much a part of his system as climbing in denominations. There's no smoke and mirrors because that's the strategy. Play, cash out into the soft profit pool when you get 40 credits up, then keep playing, all the way up to the $100 games if need be, because once you are up a net $2500 then you're done. If you do have to play through the $100 games then that means you went through the $57200 session bankroll, and you subtract the cash outs ie soft profits to arrive at your true loss. In this case his true loss was $35000. Why is that so hard for you? When you say smoke and mirrors that can only be because you in some way want to think he hides the loss, but it's $35000 and nothing else just as he's said. Without that soft profit pool the loss would have been much higher when he finished. Where in the world did you get he was trying to justify losing $35000 anyway? I've never seen him apologize for it or try to downplay it. It's no different than when he won $90000. The HOLY SMOKES! beauty of what he does is in how every session has a result attributable to only that session of playing.

Most people would leave the casino after hitting a $4000 royal, including Singer because that hits his win goal plus some. Not a hundred percent sure but I hope he'll elaborate.

[Alan Mendelson]

Jatki, good buddy, you made up this number of $22,200 -- Singer never mentioned it here. Unless, you are Singer? Or Singer is telling you what to say? Is that what is going on?

It doesn't matter what he cashed out as "soft profits" along the way because at the end of the day he was still down $35,000. Stop being so gullible that "soft profits" matter. They don't.

I am really surprised that Singer, who preaches that the only thing that matters is leaving the casino with a profit, would use a crutch called "soft profits."

[jatki]

Phew! Are you of such special needs to not be able to understand that in order to lose $35000 on singer's strategy after playing through the $100 denomination which by the way is the only way to lose $35000 within that system, that hehad to have had soft profits in the amount of $22200? No I am not currently in touch with him and he may not even know or care what we're discussing. But I sure do hope he has a way of getting this point across to you when he shows up, that his written strategy that he had on his site and in the paper do clearly identify how and why those soft profits are accumulated. Now you're calling them a crutch. Why? They've always been explained in plain English for anyone to read about if they were interested in what he did.

I'm further stupified as to why you say the soft profits don't matter. Do you realize that if he didn't have any cash outs as he played through the denominations, that he'd have lost $57200, and even if he only had $10000 in soft profits, he'd have lost $47200? Do you realize what having no soft profit cash outs mean? Do you realize what having them means?

[Alan Mendelson]

Phew! Are you of such special needs to not be able to understand that in order to lose $35000 on singer's strategy after playing through the $100 denomination which by the way is the only way to lose $35000 within that system, that hehad to have had soft profits in the amount of $22200?

That is absolute BS. He just as easily could have sat at a machine and lost every hand, one after another, till he went through $35,000. There is no guarantee he ever had any soft profits. You are creating "facts" without any documentation. Show me the spread sheet for that day of play if you can. And of course you can't.

So why do you persist in this claim about soft profits? Soft profits mean nothing because at the end of the day he lost $35,000. For all we know he had no "soft profits" and simply called it quits when $35K was down the drain.

What the heck does it matter if he had soft profits or not? This is an absurd argument. You are standing your ground, I know, but your feet are firmly placed in quicksand.

Finally jatki you asked: "Do you realize what having no soft profit cash outs mean? Do you realize what having them means?" Yeah, the answer is he lost $35,000. Next question?

[OceanCityMD]

Several years ago I do recall Singer mentioning he quit playing not only because he made 1 million, but that he did not trust the machines any longer.

[jatki]

That is absolute BS. He just as easily could have sat at a machine and lost every hand, one after another, till he went through $35,000. There is no guarantee he ever had any soft profits. You are creating "facts" without any documentation. Show me the spread sheet for that day of play if you can. And of course you can't.

So why do you persist in this claim about soft profits? Soft profits mean nothing because at the end of the day he lost $35,000. For all we know he had no "soft profits" and simply called it quits when $35K was down the drain.

What the heck does it matter if he had soft profits or not? This is an absurd argument. You are standing your ground, I know, but your feet are firmly placed in quicksand.

Finally jatki you asked: "Do you realize what having no soft profit cash outs mean? Do you realize what having them means?" Yeah, the answer is he lost $35,000. Next question?

Not BS Alan. There is some history and for me it was from reading his column where he said he lost the $35000 after playing through the $100 games. That can only mean he played the session as he stated he always did, and had those $22000 in cash outs. There is no creation of facts, only following how his strategy works. There's no way he'd play up to losing $35000 without finishing his system, or else why even bother with it. That same follow-through carried him to his many wins. It's not really that hard. But OK, a $35000 loss is a $35000 loss and that sounds outrageous to just about any normal videopoker player. His $90000 win does the same thing to me too. How about you? That too was in his column with a picture. What I think you're caught up in is how bad $35000 sounds, when where you and I take stray cash with us to play with, he has a specific gambling roll which is his tool for winning and can also have a portion of it lost. If you lose $2000 then maybe you have to wait a week to get that new something or other, but if he loses $35000 then it's just a part of what he allocated aside for the program or job he was doing.

Another thing. I'm not persisting on a claim about soft profits or anything. When will you understand that it's a required part of his strategy to 40 credit cash out as he plays? Repeat after me: It is a required part of his strategy to soft profit pool the 40 credit cash outs! My goodness!

[Alan Mendelson]

But OK, a $35000 loss is a $35000 loss...

What I think you're caught up in is how bad $35000 sounds,...

Exactly right. A $35,000 loss is a $35,000 loss. And that $35,000 represents more than one-third of an annual win. Remember, he says he won nearly a million dollars over ten years. So, can you support a strategy that allows you to lose one-third of your yearly income in one session or trip? Really?

[jatki]

What you're saying is you finally accept that he wrote about how the soft profit pool was an important part of his system. I hope we understand that in the same way finally.

I know $35000 as a loss wipes out a good part of any yearly win. I don't remember him setting yearly win goals but maybe he did and I didn't pay attention to that. By the same token, what kind of shocking words would you come up with after he won $50000 or $90000 or any of those other five figure wins he wrote about?

[Alan Mendelson]

What you're saying is you finally accept that he wrote about how the soft profit pool was an important part of his system. I hope we understand that in the same way finally.

I know $35000 as a loss wipes out a good part of any yearly win. I don't remember him setting yearly win goals but maybe he did and I didn't pay attention to that. By the same token, what kind of shocking words would you come up with after he won $50000 or $90000 or any of those other five figure wins he wrote about?

Yes Jatki, Singer writes about how soft profits are an important part of his system. And if you think that's important, then it's important. To me, it's just fuzzy accounting. Because the only thing that matters is what goes on the tax return at the end of the year.

Singer says he won a profit of about $960,000 over ten years, which averages to be $96,000 per year. So he might have had big wins of $50,000 or $90,000 but then it also means that he had some mighty big losses to end up with an annual average profit of $96,000.

So now, I even become more skeptical of his "system." Most casino players do not want to go through wild swings -- because frankly there is no joy in going through big losses. This is why I switched from 9/5 double double bonus progressives to 8/5 bonus -- to play a more steady game.

But then, I'm not a professional... just a recreational player. And if you are correct about Singer's system with a $50,000+ bankroll requirement, and the willingness to accept wide swings and $35,000 losses then I really have to question why anyone besides a professional would want to follow his advice?? There aren't many professional video poker players out there with that kind of bankroll.

You don't have it, Jatki, so why do you follow his system? It's not for you, good buddy.