Rob Singer's Single-Play Strategy COMMENT HERE

[arcimede$]

Actually, the "facts" might have no bearing on the discussion. Frankly, what does it matter where he lives, what color house, what color RV, or what color shoes does he have as it pertains to his video poker strategy? It doesn't.

Ever seen what goes on in a court in criminal trials? One heck of a lot of it establishing a pattern of behavior. If that pattern supports the criminal charges it is very likely the defendant will be found guilty.

If you want to argue his personal finances being an issue, I can quickly come up with five arguments why his personal finances are unrelated to his video poker claims of success:

1. the bankruptcy happened before he started with his system
2. he chose to live modestly and bank his winnings
3. he hid the ownership of his homes in corporations or under the names of relatives
4. he does not need to own anything as a sign of wealth
5. that storage locker in New Mexico is loaded with cash that will be uncovered in the next episode of Storage Wars because he forgot to pay the rent on it just as he forgot to pay the rental fees on the "mail drop" address he had in Arizona

Alan, we all know you have a second house on fantasy island. However, the majority of people still believe if it waddles and quacks it's probably a duck.

[arcimede$]

I don't think anyone is going to find the ''facts" on a document. Actually playing the machines is "fact". If nothing else, just think of the logic of it. If you keep up with your play, assuming you don't just bang away at the buttons, what's wrong with making a "special play" that breaks from the "correct" play if that play will cover the losses and come away with a profit? And how could you constantly do it without an increase in denomination? And why would you think that after success you could sit there and play on and on thinking that you can beat the machines any time you want?

What if the special play reduces your chances of "com(ing) away with a profit"? That just happens to be the case with most of Singer's special plays.

As for "playing on" ... What makes you think you can return to a casino and "beat the machines any time you want"? Why would the situation change just because you leave and come back at another time?

[regnis]

What if the special play reduces your chances of "com(ing) away with a profit"? That just happens to be the case with most of Singer's special plays.

As for "playing on" ... What makes you think you can return to a casino and "beat the machines any time you want"? Why would the situation change just because you leave and come back at another time?

Arci--again you look at this from a long term perspective. Singer, Longshot, myself, maybe Alan, understand that Singer wants to do something to make a big hit to recoup losses from earlier in a session. Although the special plays will have an expected loss in the long term compared to proper play, they are merely an attempt to make that big hit so as to go home a winner. The risk, overall, in an hour or two of play that day and that session is minimal in terms of dollars. It is not a question of math--it is an attempt, with full knowledge that mathematically it is wrong, to attain a goal that is unlikely to be attained by sitting there at the same denomination playing a negative expectation game for the one minute longer you would have been able to play had you not failed on the special play. And yes, you still have to be lucky and draw the right card, but you give up a little for the opportunity.

[arcimede$]

Arci--again you look at this from a long term perspective. Singer, Longshot, myself, maybe Alan, understand that Singer wants to do something to make a big hit to recoup losses from earlier in a session. Although the special plays will have an expected loss in the long term compared to proper play, they are merely an attempt to make that big hit so as to go home a winner.

The problem is most of the special plays DO NOT improve your chances of going home a winner. In fact, they decrease that opportunity.

The progression itself provides the biggest opportunity to make a bigger hit. However, that comes with a huge cost that turns into huge losses when you don't recoup those initial losses.

The risk, overall, in an hour or two of play that day and that session is minimal in terms of dollars. It is not a question of math--it is an attempt, with full knowledge that mathematically it is wrong, to attain a goal that is unlikely to be attained by sitting there at the same denomination playing a negative expectation game for the one minute longer you would have been able to play had you not failed on the special play. And yes, you still have to be lucky and draw the right card, but you give up a little for the opportunity.

Wrong, in most cases you give up some credits. Those credits give you a BETTER chance of hitting a big winner. Sorry, but you are simply believing Singer instead of checking out the reality of his claims. Is that smart?

[arcimede$]

Sometimes is helps to consider the extreme cases. If you believe in special plays then why not go for a royal on every hand? In almost every case a RF will attain your win goal. What makes this a bad choice and some other special play a good choice?

Once you understand the answer to this question it should help you understand why most of the special plays don't help. It's pretty obvious that you would give up lots and lots of credits by going for the RF on every hand. It turns out the same is also true for the majority of Singer's special plays. It's just not as obvious and hence it appears they may make a difference. You really have to analyze each and every one to determine if the lost credits actually are more useful in reaching win goals than the one low probability special play.

[regnis]

Arc-I've been playing a few hours. I'm down $800. I'm leaving in about a half hour. I'm up in my denomination and want to get even. The opportunity is only going to arise once or twice if at all. So I'll give up a few credits to go for the long one. What have I really given up. Those few credits were not gonna help. The one or two extra spins--doubtful they would help. So you take one swing. Doubtful you will hit it anyway but at least you tried.

Now you would probably say that those few credits multiplied by 200 trips to the casino add up. But the reality is I don't cash out a few credits b4 I leave. I play them through as I'm sure most do.

I think you overstate what is being lost by this rare deviation from proper play.It would be different if it were a regular occurrence.

By the way--last night-down $800 and ready to leave. Upped the denom to $5.00--hit a straight flush and left with a profit.

I was bemoaning my lack of royals in another thread. Strange I had 5 straight flushes last night in 2 hours, 4 of them to the king.

[jatki]

I think I may be the only one in this discussion who's been trained at a machine by singer? I see a lot of conjecture about his system and here's what he told me in respect to thar issues being talked about. The first is the special plays, and one actually worked for me in a session before I went to Missouri. I was on triple bonuspoker plus and got dealt two threes with another small pair like sixes. I was told to always hold the threes in that game and this time two more came out for 600 credits and a walk out of the casino. I was on my top denomination dollars too which is the only denomination in aart that game is played too. I've done that type of special play many times and this is the first time it ever hit, but it has given me a lot of trips and two pairs and even fullhouses too. Its not like you lose if you hold them and not the two pairs. Which means I wasn't that far behind because I made that play by the time it hit if at all, and now I'll more than likly never be ever behind for good when it comes to being dealt similar hands. I see what arc's saying about it giving the player less credits to play and therefore hit a game ending winner, but thats a theory and Singer told me what it would really be like at the machines in that you don't automaticaly end up behind after time by making that play over and over, and when it does hit you're usually on the top denomination so you should never be behind because of making it. His special plays are just an overall smart idea because of this, irregardless of the theories put forth. Arc doesn't want to think in terms of leaving the casino a winner after such a win and how the win would not have a chance in hell of coming if it isn't played that way because ap's just continue playing until the lights go out no matter what hands pop up for them.

I saw a cute piece on the news last night that reminds me of arc's agenda with Singer on forums. We're seeing how no matter how many times info comes out about what Romney says and says he would do, that Obama people keep on picking out snippets to pick on and make the most unflattering characterizations about Romney's ethics and idealogy and life from that bit of info they possibly can, and all because they are unable to convincingly argue to facts. That's the same I see as arc is doing because he dislikes Singer as much as Obama people dislike Romney. Rob's strategy and ideas work, I know that now because I play it at real machines and not merely try to theorize about it from afar. Rob videoed his home(s) and apt. and had a lot of weekly wins (and even loss when they happened) info posted in his paper articles, and everything was explained. He doesn't collect fees from students or make them use his slot card. These things I know and have seen, and it makes sense when seen from above so to speak. Arc seems intelligent enough to understand sense, but his agenda gets in the way all the time. His only way out is to say i'm singer or say I'm posting for him which I said ended long ago. Take it from me arc, I do win using his system and I do always use as many of his special plays as I can remember, which is a reason why I do the winning. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed either, so if I can do it just think of how someone like you who claims he's smarter than the crowd, would do.

[Alan Mendelson]

Regnis during my RF drought I had a high number of SFs and quad aces. Funny how that happens.

I agree with what you wrote about the Special Plays.

[redietz]

First of all, Singer's personal finances have nothing to do with whether his system(s) work or not.

Second, I'm sure most of the people can afford a vp simulator to check Rob's systems for themselves. If they do that, the systems won't work. In fact, Rob could easily program a simulator with the complete details of his system(s) and demonstrate the effectiveness. He doesn't do that. There's a reason he doesn't do that.

[jatki]

Red I liked your comparison about Singer and Dancer and the crocs. I personally am glad I took the Singer route. I'd much rather know about the crocs being there in advance and putting together a way to navigate through them than to do as Dancer does with his students, and not tell them they're there. Honesty vs deceit.

I don't know what a vp simulator is, but your statement that Rob's systems don't work is and I say this respectfully, an unsubstantiated lie. That's because I know it works from experience.

Why doesn't Rob program one of these things? I don't remember him as saying he was a programmer, maybe that's why. I think a bigger question would be why doesn't anyone who knows how to program such a thing contact him and ask to do it? Are there any progrmmers here who might want to do that? I myself would prefer, and I'm sure most people on either side of the aisle would prefer, to see the system at an actual machine. But every time he's offered to do that from what I've seen, people disappear. Could be because of the bets, but then again, if people are so sure he's wrong it should be a piece of cake, pie in the sky so to speak. Easy money, up until it leaves the theory realm and becomes reality. When the rubber hits the road the pros are the only ones left.

[Alan Mendelson]

Redietz thanks for acknowledging that Singer's personal finances are not relevant to the debate about his system.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if his system could be tested? Unfortunately Singer says he uses Special Plays only 5 percent of the time and when he uses them is not defined. So how do you test that?

[slingshot]

Redietz thanks for acknowledging that Singer's personal finances are not relevant to the debate about his system.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if his system could be tested? Unfortunately Singer says he uses Special Plays only 5 percent of the time and when he uses them is not defined. So how do you test that?

I thought he did define them. If a full house would win the mini-goals then go for it. If making the special play returns you to start-then go for it! He also stated that if you don't use the WHOLE method and stayed at one denomination, then it could be a lesson in futility.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob only told me that he uses a special play 5 percent of the time and it will vary when it will be used. So that is something else Rob should clarify. This is why it is important for everything to be in one place so his system can be correctly evaluated. Otherwise we have the students telling us what the teacher says.

[slingshot]

OK>I get what you're saying-I'll just hang back.

[jatki]

Alan I think Rob saying he uses the special plays and having a good representation of the main ones on your site is ok because if the description were put into the strategy page it would look too wordy and lengthy if he talked about the whys and whens and wheres of them.

An area I would like to see clarified is the 5% you talked about. It seems to me that if he considers the times he's holding only one high not suited card out of two of them because of the penalty he mentions, he'd be making special plays more than 5% of the time, right? Or is he only including the major plays that you have on your page here in that 5% figure he gave you?

[arcimede$]

Arc-I've been playing a few hours. I'm down $800. I'm leaving in about a half hour. I'm up in my denomination and want to get even. The opportunity is only going to arise once or twice if at all. So I'll give up a few credits to go for the long one. What have I really given up. Those few credits were not gonna help. The one or two extra spins--doubtful they would help. So you take one swing. Doubtful you will hit it anyway but at least you tried.

You have fallen for the lie. The fact is those few credits may give you a better than than that wild swing. I realize it may not seem that way at first, that's why you have to analyze each situation. BTW, I remember hitting a jackpot that returned almost everything I had lost once ... I did it on my last 5 credits. So, it can happen.

Now you would probably say that those few credits multiplied by 200 trips to the casino add up. But the reality is I don't cash out a few credits b4 I leave. I play them through as I'm sure most do.

I think you overstate what is being lost by this rare deviation from proper play.It would be different if it were a regular occurrence.

By the way--last night-down $800 and ready to leave. Upped the denom to $5.00--hit a straight flush and left with a profit.

I was bemoaning my lack of royals in another thread. Strange I had 5 straight flushes last night in 2 hours, 4 of them to the king.

Yes, it happens, just like my situation above. However, it doesn't happen very often in both situations. But, what if you have played more "special plays"? Maybe you wouldn't have had enough money to get that straight flush. Where would that have left you?

[arcimede$]

I think I may be the only one in this discussion who's been trained at a machine by singer? I see a lot of conjecture about his system and here's what he told me in respect to thar issues being talked about.

I see Rob is back commenting under jatki's name.

[arcimede$]

Redietz thanks for acknowledging that Singer's personal finances are not relevant to the debate about his system.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if his system could be tested? Unfortunately Singer says he uses Special Plays only 5 percent of the time and when he uses them is not defined. So how do you test that?

Good grief ... now you're back wondering if 2+2 might equal 5 under the right circumstances. Da plane ... da plane ...

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan I think Rob saying he uses the special plays and having a good representation of the main ones on your site is ok because if the description were put into the strategy page it would look too wordy and lengthy if he talked about the whys and whens and wheres of them.

An area I would like to see clarified is the 5% you talked about. It seems to me that if he considers the times he's holding only one high not suited card out of two of them because of the penalty he mentions, he'd be making special plays more than 5% of the time, right? Or is he only including the major plays that you have on your page here in that 5% figure he gave you?

Take a look at Special Play #13 on this page: http://www.alanbestbuys.com/id194.html This is an excellent example of how he makes a decision based on various circumstances about when and when not to make a special play. Listen to the comments, it only runs about two and a half minutes and it mentions the SPS.

[jatki]

Very interesting Alan, thanks.

Arc I figured you out. You're the Joe Biden of the forum.