Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 91

Thread: Rob Singer's Single-Play Strategy COMMENT HERE

  1. #1
    Here is a link to Rob's own manuscript about his Single-Play Stategy:

    http://www.alanbestbuys.com/id261.html

    After reading it, please post your comments in this thread. Thank you.

  2. #2
    A touch confusing, I will have to reread it.

  3. #3
    Originally Posted by bigfoot66 View Post
    A touch confusing, I will have to reread it.
    It's confusing because it is not explained. More importantly what is missing is the "why" of his strategy. Why do you start at $1 games? Why do you bank soft profits? Why do you change games? Why do you change denominations? Why do you change denominations after playing certain number of credits?

    And then I would like to see some guidance on win goals and loss limits. If you are following this strategy, how do you know you are running according to plan and how do you know when you are behind?

    Of course the biggest problem for me, personally, is that Rob has detailed a plan here involving a bankroll I will never have as a recreational player.

  4. #4
    Singer: " the math predicted that while losing two straight sessions without a cash out was remotely possible (1.4%) it was near impossible to lose three straight in that manner (.0035%)."

    This is pure nonsense and not backed up by a single computation. It is, of course, dependent on the pay table of the games being played and not computable without specifying those pay tables. One needs not go any further to know that Singer has no clue about mathematics and those numbers are only there to fool the math challenged.

    So, the bigger question is why would Singer choose to lie right up front? Puts it all into perspective.

  5. #5
    Singer: " I'll identify one of my most commonly used special plays now--which is used in every game I play but SDBP and I'll explain why shortly. For example, you're dealt 7d 5c 8c Qd Jc or 2h Qd 4h 6s Jh. The optimal hold for both cases is the offsuit JQ, but that's not what I do. In both instances, I hold just the Q. Why?"

    Because you were missing when the working neurons were passed out?

    Singer continues: "Because my strategy takes penalty cards to the next level. Both examples have the J matched up with two other similarly suited cards, while in one case the Q has one similarly suited card and in the other case it has none. So, because of the situation where optimal play disregards this situation"

    Singer worries about a couple of flush penalties and ignores the fact keeping the queen reduces the number of possible straights significantly. There's actually a reason why the best play is QJ and that is because the average return of all the winners is higher. All penalty situations are all considered in the calculation of the best hold, even the flush penalties. It appears Singer does not even understand how optimal play holds are computed. This is the person who claims to have a better approach.

    Absolutely hilarious.

  6. #6
    Ok, I said I wouldn't post anymore, but because you were nice enough to post this....It's only confusing because you just don't READ! Even the very beginning of his article says it can start at any denom. Thus,,at quarters the mini goal would be $10 instead of $40 for a soft pool. You change games because-and I know you hate this-not only is it part of his pre-thought out strategy, but also because hot and cold cycles change with different games and the increase in volatility allows for a chance at a session-ending win. All you are doing is keeping record of your losses, building a soft pool which will NEVER be spent, and increasing in denom. so that when a good hit does come you are able to recover some or all of your losses or possibly the session-ending big win. So, instead of continuously increasing denominations without thought like the Martingale system, you are going back to a lower denom whenever possible and restarting. The number of credits for each denomination is nothing other that his rtt strategy. So, ok I'm just answering and don't need all your bull about how Rob has me deluded.

  7. #7
    slingshot, what you wrote might be true, but to be honest I wish Rob spelled it out. Perhaps he would like to rewrite his strategy with some more details?

    If this is supposed to be his guide to the SPS all of the bases should be covered. There is no question that Rob's system is very complicated. I have never read any video poker book that ever talked about changing games and changing denominations up and down as part of some soft profit banking of wins. Do you see why this screams for more clarity and explanation?

    I'm not criticizing Rob's system here. What I am criticizing is that as a document describing his system it is lacking the details to make someone who reads it understand what the heck it's all about.

    Put yourself in the shoes of someone who never heard of Rob Singer before. Do you think they could read Rob's article and know what the heck he's talking about? This doesn't mean that Rob's system can't work, it only means there is not enough information to explain how it does work.

    As a comparison let's talk about a book about "influencing" or controlling dice. It tells you that the objective is to keep the dice on axis, to minimize the rotation and bounce of the dice, to minimize the faces of the dice that will show when the dice come to rest. The book would also tell you how to train your muscle memory to duplicate this type of controlled throw. It's a complicated subject but the different points are spelled out and explained.

    Now, Rob also has a complicated subject here but I am afraid he doesn't explain enough. He might also want to present the math supporting his concepts of banking soft profits, moving to higher denominations, why he is changing games, etc.

  8. #8
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
    You change games because-and I know you hate this-not only is it part of his pre-thought out strategy, but also because hot and cold cycles change with different games and the increase in volatility allows for a chance at a session-ending win.
    Singer never mentioned the mythical hot-cold cycles in his write-up. You appear to be supporting Alan's comment.

  9. #9
    Let me just add this. Had I known about the SPS when I met Rob and did those two interviews with him in Vegas I also would have interviewed him about SPS. Using his article as a basic outline, there are many other questions that I could immediately come up with that would help to explain his system. Once again, I invite Rob to meet up in Vegas and do another video interview. But I also hope that he will forward more info that we can post online to more fully explain the system.

  10. #10
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    Singer never mentioned the mythical hot-cold cycles in his write-up. You appear to be supporting Alan's comment.
    They're in his previous writings on the VPTruth site that he once had. This statement could be omitted since he has also stated that his strategy was developed only to overcome the ups and downs in play for that one time in progression that the machine does pay out. Sorry for allowing my own thinking to slip in.

  11. #11
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
    They're in his previous writings on the VPTruth site that he once had. This statement could be omitted since he has also stated that his strategy was developed only to overcome the ups and downs in play for that one time in progression that the machine does pay out. Sorry for allowing my own thinking to slip in.
    Assuming that readers of "part two" have read "part one" in an instructional manual is not a good thing, especially if "part one" says "you must complete part one before attempting part two". I am one who has not seen any of his previous writings so an incomplete update now about his system is worthless.

  12. #12
    Raise your hand if you think anything Rob will post will be amenable to a mathematical analysis that "proves" his system works. Now those of you who think Rob's postings will be opaque to any mathematical analysis raise your hands.

    Okay, let's hear the tally, folks. Post your thoughts here.

    Look, Rob is promoting an art form, not a system. It will be detailed but incomplete. It has to be to keep the story rolling along.

    There will be no final, complete system explanation.

  13. #13
    I'm not sure Singer ever represented that the math justifies his system. Isn't the idea that he feels he can beat the math?

  14. #14
    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    I'm not sure Singer ever represented that the math justifies his system. Isn't the idea that he feels he can beat the math?
    What Rob said, and this is on the record, is that according to the math of the game, his "special plays" are all at a disadvantage, yet when he gets lucky with a special play he can win a big hand that will allow him to reach a win goal.

    I don't recall any comments about "the math of the game" regarding his SPS.

    Whether or not the math of the game even applies to his SPS may not matter. I think what we are looking for are some statistics or some figures showing that his SPS actually worked. These figures may not be equations. They might only be logs.

    This is similar to our request for evidence that the vp machine he tested was found to be not random. Where are the figures, the logs, the print outs or records of that machine? We haven't seen anything.

  15. #15
    I would like to see proof of the test machine results. You all may remember that Rob also disputes that the RNG is constantly in motion. Below is an excerpt from John Growchowski's column in the Chicago Sun Times last Friday:

    "Random number generators on electronic gaming devices that include slots, video poker, video keno and other games run continuously, even when the game is not in use. They also run very fast. By the time one player leaves a game and another starts to play, the RNG has moved several thousand potential outcomes down the road.

    Even if the original player had stayed put, he or she probably wouldn’t have won that same jackpot. Timing would have to be the same down to a small fraction of a second. Some of the most sophisticated RNGs have variable entry points to the algorithm that calculates the random numbers. Whether you hit “max bet,” “repeat bet,” or “bet one,” whether you push buttons or pull handles, and on video games where you touch the screen all can result in different outcomes."

  16. #16
    We may never see proof of the test machine results. For a start, Rob did not conduct the tests in an appropriate manner. Secondly, the results he has really won't tell us anything because they are a print out and someone would have to enter the results into a computer and then run some sort of a study of the results. And most importantly, Rob doesnt have the machine anymore so even if he did have proof of a problem with the RNG we wouldnt be able to tell if he had a rogue machine, or the RNG was malfunctioning, or if this was a widespread problem. In other words, amateur detectives should not be working on complex problems with inadequate resources and improper reporting in their garages.

  17. #17
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Raise your hand if you think anything Rob will post will be amenable to a mathematical analysis that "proves" his system works. Now those of you who think Rob's postings will be opaque to any mathematical analysis raise your hands.

    Okay, let's hear the tally, folks. Post your thoughts here.

    Look, Rob is promoting an art form, not a system. It will be detailed but incomplete. It has to be to keep the story rolling along.

    There will be no final, complete system explanation.
    If his system is an art form, then it's true that art is in the eye of the beholder. He sees a masterpiece, while others see graffiti on bathroom stall walls.

  18. #18
    I'm going to say this again: if Rob had written a book about how he beat the casinos playing his way, and how he won a million dollars, he would be a hero. But when he said he had a system for beating the casinos he opened himself up to criticism. Wouldn't we all be amazed if the guy had simply written a book that said "I know this sounds crazy, but here's how I won a million dollars playing video poker. Don't you try this, but it sure did work."

  19. #19
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    I'm going to say this again: if Rob had written a book about how he beat the casinos playing his way, and how he won a million dollars, he would be a hero. But when he said he had a system for beating the casinos he opened himself up to criticism. Wouldn't we all be amazed if the guy had simply written a book that said "I know this sounds crazy, but here's how I won a million dollars playing video poker. Don't you try this, but it sure did work."
    Rob should have written a book, just sharing his experiences. When he started to sell his system as "a sure bet" and when he started to bad mouth everybody who didn't agree with his perception of "the truth of VP" he became the center of attention (and not in a good way). He basically did this to himself.

  20. #20
    There's a big difference, an enormous and crucial difference, between "It sure did work" and "It does work."

    Think about someone who won the lottery. Somehow nobody buys "this is how I won the lottery" as a legitimate system. But some people are willing to buy "this is how I won playing negative EV video poker" as a system.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •