How to sell a gambling system, in five easy steps.

[arcimede$]

My problem with the math (and this is not an attack on Arci because his mathematics are fact) in video poker is that whether I am getting 8-5 or 7-5 only means I'm getting a few more spins. My winning or losing is really dependent upon getting a bonus quad like aces with a kicker or even a lesser quad like 3's with a kicker. If I don't get the bonus quad I lose--plain and simple.

You're ignoring the problem of compounding ... just like interest only much faster. If you give up the 1% you mentioned above that costs you $1 every time you put $100 through the machines. For those playing higher denominations it might only take 1-3 minutes. That means it costs you that dollar very quickly and over and over again. By the time you play 3 hours that might cost you 60-180 dollars or more. Sure you can make this up with some lucky quads but wouldn't you rather have the extra money even on days you don't hit the those quads? And, on those 10 hour days it could be the difference between winning and losing even after hitting lots of quads.

So if Singer has a system, or if Alan's system of taking every win, or any other system works short term, I'm all for it. My history has been pretty regular wins at a definitely negative expectation game of craps (especially since I'm not a 6 and 8 or pass and 2 comes guy), and terrible losses with almost perfect play at video poker regardless of the payback (8-5; 7-5; etc.)[/QUOTE]

[regnis]

Very good point about the compounding Arci. I guess short of not playing I have to accept that I will suffer additional grind due to bad payoffs here. On the short sessions up to 3 hours, I don't really care--on the longer ones it does become significant.

Interesting that in horse racing which is my primary form of gambling, I was furious about a recent surcharge Illinois put on on-line horse racing winnings that is way less than what we are talking about in poker. I see my own inconsistency here.

[Alan Mendelson]

You're ignoring the problem of compounding ... just like interest only much faster. If you give up the 1% you mentioned above that costs you $1 every time you put $100 through the machines. For those playing higher denominations it might only take 1-3 minutes. That means it costs you that dollar very quickly and over and over again. By the time you play 3 hours that might cost you 60-180 dollars or more. Sure you can make this up with some lucky quads but wouldn't you rather have the extra money even on days you don't hit the those quads? And, on those 10 hour days it could be the difference between winning and losing even after hitting lots of quads.

So if Singer has a system, or if Alan's system of taking every win, or any other system works short term, I'm all for it. My history has been pretty regular wins at a definitely negative expectation game of craps (especially since I'm not a 6 and 8 or pass and 2 comes guy), and terrible losses with almost perfect play at video poker regardless of the payback (8-5; 7-5; etc.)

Compounding is certainly important when it comes to bank interest, but how do you figure the wins that come along when you play video poker? In most video poker games you are expected to "win" about 45% of the hands you play. Now an important caveat: a "win" might only be getting your money back.

Arc, taking your "wins" is not Singer's system, and it's certainly not my system. But smart gamblers take money off the table and leave with it whenever they can.

[arcimede$]

Compounding is certainly important when it comes to bank interest, but how do you figure the wins that come along when you play video poker? In most video poker games you are expected to "win" about 45% of the hands you play. Now an important caveat: a "win" might only be getting your money back.

Arc, taking your "wins" is not Singer's system, and it's certainly not my system. But smart gamblers take money off the table and leave with it whenever they can.

Alan, the discussion is about the effect of playing 7/5 vs. 8/5. The assumption is you can hit the exact same quads in both cases so that doesn't come into play.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, the discussion is about the effect of playing 7/5 vs. 8/5. The assumption is you can hit the exact same quads in both cases so that doesn't come into play.

Well then, factor in to the assumption that you will win 45% of your hands and then factor in that playing both 8/5 and 7/5 you get a few more three of a kinds than expected or a few more two-pairs than expected and what happens to that negative pay table? Does it become a positive game?

[arcimede$]

Well then, factor in to the assumption that you will win 45% of your hands and then factor in that playing both 8/5 and 7/5 you get a few more three of a kinds than expected or a few more two-pairs than expected and what happens to that negative pay table? Does it become a positive game?

We've been down this road before, Alan. Everyone knows that you can have both good and bad luck. Those things are out of our control and there's absolutely nothing you can do to control it. However, we can control the selection of pay tables. That's what we are discussing.

[Vegas Vic]

We've been down this road before, Alan. Everyone knows that you can have both good and bad luck. Those things are out of our control and there's absolutely nothing you can do to control it. However, we can control the selection of pay tables. That's what we are discussing.

An example of extremes: The 6/5 DDB game (94.65%) @ McCarran Airport or the 10/6 DDB game (100.07%) @ Palace Station. Clearly, the difference in the overall return of each game is magnified in these 2 hands due to the disparity of contribution to the return. Luck, bad luck...whatever...pretty well levels the field but the pay table matters.

[arcimede$]

An example of extremes: The 6/5 DDB game (94.65%) @ McCarran Airport or the 10/6 DDB game (100.07%) @ Palace Station. Clearly, the difference in the overall return of each game is magnified in these 2 hands due to the disparity of contribution to the return. Luck, bad luck...whatever...pretty well levels the field but the pay table matters.

Absolutely, and the more you play the more the pay table matters as luck tends to average out.

It's kind of interesting to listen to Alan. On one hand he castigates Singer for chasing losses and with the other hand he tends to promote playing to win single sessions and ignoring long term results. He's bi-polar.

[Alan Mendelson]

It's kind of interesting to listen to Alan. On one hand he castigates Singer for chasing losses and with the other hand he tends to promote playing to win single sessions and ignoring long term results. He's bi-polar.

Not bi-polar but perhaps more down to earth than you are. When I gamble I can't leave the casino and say "gee I lost $100 but in the long run I'll get back 99.5% of everything I put through the game." You see the "long run" is really fun to consider when you look at the pay table of a game because the pay table and the long run expectation gives you an indication of which is the better game to play or even if you should play. That's all those "long run" stats and math are good for -- to help you decide about playing.

But the only thing that counts in the here and now is did I win or did I lose? That's why you want to leave when you're ahead. You see, you can't pay bills with long term theoretical results, and you can't put "long term theoretical results" on a table as a bet.

Now, Singer chasing $35,000 losses? You bet I'm going to criticize him. Because anyone who preaches "discipline" and claims to have an annual profit of $100,000 on average can't possibly think that dropping $35,000 in one casino visit makes any kind of sense.

[jatki]

Alan I am one who agrees with what you're saying about your sensible explanations to the zombie like positions from the disagreers. I still now don't get where you say Singer chases $35000 losses. Where's he do that, did you read his strategy you posted? His discipline is to play through all his credits trying to get to his minimum win goal as stated, but there has to be times he doesn't make it. That's the sense of it all as I was told. Would you be criticizing him for winning $50000 in a session when his yearly average win is about $100000?

[Alan Mendelson]

jatki, Singer posted how in one session he lost $35,000. He didn't lose $35,000 on one spin or one roll of the dice. First he lost playing dollars, then two dollars, then at five dollars, then at ten dollars... at each denomination his losses mounted and mounted. At some point he must have been down ten-thousand but he wouldn't quit -- so he put more money into play. Then at some point he was down $20K and he didn't quit, so he put more money into play. That is chasing losses. And finally he lost $35,000 before calling it quits. Is that supposed to be a disciplined approach to gambling? For someone who claims to have a rigid and disciplined strategy, it is a giant inconsistency. How do you defend losing $35k in one session which is about one-third of a year's income from gambling? You just can't and still be reasonable in your thinking.

[jatki]

The -$35000 outcome is as much a part of the system's expectation as are the $50000 winning sessions. All part of the plan, all part of the discipline he plays under. Thats why the guy follows through on sessions irregardless of winning or losing. I know from when he jumped on you that sticking with your plan doesn't mean a lot to you and that you are ok with a change on the fly. If Singer did that then he'd probably just be another videopoker loser. Having sat with him I can tell you how much serious emphasis he puts on sticking with the plan. It's like a religion with him. I remember telling him that after my next denomination switch up or down I was going to take a break to the restroom. Well I went from 25cents to 5c because of a good win and I felt lucky and like holding it so I didn't want to go. Are you ready, he would not continue with me until I took that break.I actually argued with him for a minute about it and he was unflappable, I never ran into that before.

[Alan Mendelson]

The -$35000 outcome is as much a part of the system's expectation as are the $50000 winning sessions. All part of the plan, all part of the discipline he plays under.

That's just absolutely absurd. I will not participate in this discussion any further. It's totally whacky if not insane. No one does business like this.

[arcimede$]

Does anyone else find it strange that Alan chose to highlight Singer's system without understanding it?

[regnis]

Alan has given Singer the opportunity to explain the system, and has asked for more clarification. He has steadfastly questioned the high risk that Singer takes. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

[jatki]

I'm going to agree with the arc here but for a slightly different reason and without giving credence to his agenda with Singer. Alan you posted his system and I've seen a few positive things and some negative things you've said about parts of it in the past. I know how it works pretty good, and you're calling what I project as a major part of the strategy whacky. I'll bow out also since I don't and won't know what else to say about this surprise. Maybe Rob can explain it in better english than I.

Regnis I'm not saying anything's wrong with that, just I can't understand what the beef with the risk is. Its gambling, you don't win without risk, and it's no different than if I lost $350 by playing at 1/100th the value the system was based on playing. The same token is a win of $500. I don't see why that isn't the result of such an incredible risk result while a $350 loser is. But maybe Rob's clarifications will help in a few more weeks.

[Alan Mendelson]

Does anyone else find it strange that Alan chose to highlight Singer's system without understanding it?

I said it from the beginning, and it's clearly written on my website when I first started to post the information about Rob's System. Here it is on this page:
http://www.alanbestbuys.com/id194.html

And part of what I wrote was this (and you are invited to see the entire text):

You may not agree with what he does, but he says he has the proof to show it works and it wins and that it can beat the casinos. Singer says with this strategy he has walked out of the casinos as a winner. You will have your doubts as I have. I do not agree with everything that he says, but I think it is important that for the first time his strategy is shown in detail and with video examples.

Arc, you have been after me from the get-go about why I put Rob's material on my site, and I gave you the same answer then that I am going to give you now: because I wanted to report on his strategy and to report and make public as much information as I could because if people were going to make comments about him (pro and con) I wanted all the information to be available. Until I posted the videos of his special plays and until I posted the interviews, everything was in bits and pieces all over the Internet and even his own website was being taken down.

I am going to say it one more time: sometimes reporters report on subjects that are not popular. Reporters don't judge the popularity of subjects. They just report.

When I went to Ethiopia in the early 1980s to cover the famine my reports were not popular but they were true. I was probably the only Western reporter in Ethiopia who reported how the government was seizing the food that Western countries were sending in and there was no proof that the food was getting to the feeding camps. It wasn't popular, but I reported it.

[regnis]

My feeling on the whole thing is that at least Singer and Alan have offered a system for players that are not playing a million hands. I'm not certifying that their systems work, but I do know that they are a better option than grinding away for endless hours to make up the 1% over expected results in the form of comps. I no longer have the bankroll for Singer's system, but I have incorporated his multi denomination approach into my play for several years.

Certainly, the casinos also know the math and expected loss. They must not be that concerned about the AP's--or at least they know there are enough shmucks (like me) to offset the risk of the AP's, especially as they continue to reduce comps and pay tables.

[Alan Mendelson]

Its gambling, you don't win without risk,

I'm not challenging the idea of risking money. That's what gambling is all about. What I am challenging is Rob's claims about "discipline" and win goals and loss limits. Somebody who lost $35,000 in one session has no business criticizing me for losing $6,000 of an $8,000 win. Somebody who preaches strict discipline and win goals has no business saying it's okay to lose $35,000 in one casino visit especially when that $35K represents one-third of an annual profit amount.

No one is challenging the idea of risking money to win money because that is what gambling is all about. It's his pompous attitude and glaring personal inconsistency that makes him such a target for attack.

[Alan Mendelson]

My feeling on the whole thing is that at least Singer and Alan have offered a system for players that are not playing a million hands.

Stop right there. Take me out of the sentence. I'm just commenting on what parts of Rob's system/strategy/method I like and agree with. I don't take credit for anything. Remember, I learned video poker using the Dancer/Grochowski conventional way of playing it.