Rob Singer's Single-Play Strategy COMMENT HERE

[Alan Mendelson]

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

Jatki, this is Arc's favorite analogy when talking about Singer: 2+2=5. But Singer does not dispute the math. Singer only says that if you do something different you might get lucky and win more. Or, he says take a chance not on a bigger win, but on a smaller win and increase your chances for getting the smaller win.

Somehow Arc thinks that means 2+2=5. I just don't get why he keeps saying Singer doesn't follow the math.

To be clear Singer does not follow conventional strategy. His plays can and often due result in less than otpimal return or expected return, but when he connects he wins. And Singer makes these decisions because his goal for playing is different from those who follow conventional strategy. Conventional strategy has no time limit -- and it is played whether you play one hand or a billion hands. Singer is different. He plays only until a win goal is reached or a loss limit is reached.

Now, where Singer gets really controversial isn't anything to do with his special plays. In fact, a lot of VP players in casinos hold aces or one pair instead of two pair, etc. Where Singer really gets everyone in a tizzy is when he says part of the reason for his special plays is that its based on his experience about what cards are dealt from the RNG and his belief in hot and cold cycles, and fifth card flipovers, etc. It is that part of his strategy/system/method which makes the rest of his system open to attack.

The reality is in games like DDB when two pair pays the same as one pair, a lot of players will hold the single paying pair. For example, dealt QQ339 many players will hold the QQ to try for quads. Conventional strategy says hold the two pair for a better chance at a full house. But if you get lucky and hit the quads you could reach your win goal. I see players all the time at $5 DDB machines holding only the big paying pair -- and when they get the quads they pick up and leave with $1250.

And take a look at Special Play #30 here: http://alanbestbuys.com/id197.html I know that the "correct play" is to hold the full house, but it certainly is tempting to try for the quad deuces, isn't it?

[arcimede$]

Jatki, this is Arc's favorite analogy when talking about Singer: 2+2=5. But Singer does not dispute the math. Singer only says that if you do something different you might get lucky and win more. Or, he says take a chance not on a bigger win, but on a smaller win and increase your chances for getting the smaller win.

Somehow Arc thinks that means 2+2=5. I just don't get why he keeps saying Singer doesn't follow the math.

Nope, he claims special plays help when they don't and he claims you will win on negative games. Both of these are contrary to the math. And that's just the beginning. Remember he also claims advantage players can't win.

When are you going to quit spewing this nonsense? You keep making the same claims even though this has been explained to you dozens of times. Why do you feel the need to twist the facts?

[Alan Mendelson]

Nope, he claims special plays help when they don't and he claims you will win on negative games. Both of these are contrary to the math. And that's just the beginning. Remember he also claims advantage players can't win.

Please Arc. He makes no guarantee about his special plays. And he spells it right out on this website in his discussion of the special plays. He gives the expected value of the special plays vs the value of the conventional play and he is upfront and honest. The whole idea behind the special plays is the chance to get lucky, get a good winning hand, and leave. Your nonsense is saying that he guarantees. He guarantees nothing.

Secondly he doesn't guarantee youll win on negative games. He says you can win on negative games and he has won on negative games. Is that nonsense? Of course it isn't. People win on negative games all the time. Only the "math guys" who only look at the long term math can't recognize that people can win on negative games.

And he never said advantage players can't win. He said the conditions for winning are hard. That you have to play the "long term" and few can. It his choice not to be a long term player, and that led to his system of taking the money and running when he gets lucky to win it.

And if I got this wrong, let Rob Singer himself come on here and tell me I got it wrong. If there is someone twisting the facts Arc, it's you.

[arcimede$]

Please Arc. He makes no guarantee about his special plays. And he spells it right out on this website in his discussion of the special plays. He gives the expected value of the special plays vs the value of the conventional play and he is upfront and honest. The whole idea behind the special plays is the chance to get lucky, get a good winning hand, and leave. Your nonsense is saying that he guarantees. He guarantees nothing.

As I've told you many times most of his special plays REDUCE the chances of getting lucky. They do the exact opposite of what he claims.

Secondly he doesn't guarantee youll win on negative games. He says you can win on negative games and he has won on negative games. Is that nonsense? Of course it isn't. People win on negative games all the time. Only the "math guys" who only look at the long term math can't recognize that people can win on negative games.

I asked him point blank if he thought players using his system on negative games would win over time. He said yes. Until he recants that position he is on record that his system can overcome the math. That's reality, Alan.

And he never said advantage players can't win. He said the conditions for winning are hard. That you have to play the "long term" and few can. It his choice not to be a long term player, and that led to his system of taking the money and running when he gets lucky to win it.

And if I got this wrong, let Rob Singer himself come on here and tell me I got it wrong. If there is someone twisting the facts Arc, it's you.

You got it all wrong. He has claimed over and over again that advantages players can never reach the "long term". That is nonsense. You seem to forget I have been dealing with Singer for a lot longer than you. I've actually pinned him down on his claims, something that you have never done. That's why I know the facts and you can only twist them.

[redietz]

I have to say, Alan, I think you are softening Rob's position in ways that make him more palatable, which is the job of a publicist. Really, the summary above is not of the tone or essence of most of Rob's posts and misrepresents him as much as it represents him.

[Alan Mendelson]

I think Rob will have to come here and correct me himself if I have it wrong. But what I wrote is my understanding of Rob's position on these issues. If I reported them incorrectly, Rob should correct me.

As far as Arc's comments:

He wrote: As I've told you many times most of his special plays REDUCE the chances of getting lucky. They do the exact opposite of what he claims.

Well Arc, you're the first math guy who also doubled as a fortune teller. Now you are telling us about reducing the chance of getting lucky? I always thought luck was luck. Anyway, to answer your question, here's an example. If you hold a full house with three aces in 7/5 Bonus, you will never get lucky to draw quad aces as in Rob's special play.

Arc also wrote: I asked him point blank if he thought players using his system on negative games would win over time. He said yes. Until he recants that position he is on record that his system can overcome the math. That's reality, Alan.

Of course he says players using his system on negative games will win over time. That's the point of his system. The question is can he guarantee it because that seems to be the issue here? Well, can you guarantee that over time I will win playing positive games? You can't and therefore I think anyone playing Rob's system cannot be guaranteed that they will win either. I never heard the word "guarantee" from him. I think anyone who steps into a casino automatically has excluded the word guarantee from their vocabulary for everything.

And Arc's third point: He has claimed over and over again that advantages players can never reach the "long term". Yes, he has said something like that. So tell me Arc, what is the long term? Just how many hands, how many hours, do you have to sit there before you can proclaim-- I have been to the mountain top. I have seen the long term and I have touched it and held it in my hand. Oh, the long term is bright and it is warm and it is loving and it is wonderful. Oh, praise the long term because it is you and it is me and it is all around us just waiting to come into our arms, our minds and our hearts. Praise the long term. Hallelujah.

I can't be responsible for what he said to you, Arc.

[Alan Mendelson]

I have to say, Alan, I think you are softening Rob's position in ways that make him more palatable, which is the job of a publicist. Really, the summary above is not of the tone or essence of most of Rob's posts and misrepresents him as much as it represents him.

One of the things I set out to do when I first heard about Rob, and read all of the comments about him (pro and con) was to meet him, interview him, and find out exactly what his position is. Specifically I wanted to find out about his belief that machines are not random and even rigged. That was the first interview I did with him. And quite frankly, I challenged his belief that the machines are not random and may in fact be rigged.

Next, was his "special plays." I asked him to prepare examples of them so everyone could see what they are. I had heard about the Special Plays but didn't know what they were. To be honest, I would use only a few in triple double bonus, and yes I once broke up a full house with three aces in bonus and drew the fourth ace -- but I would not try the majority of them.

I honestly think he's gotten a bad wrap because his position on various issues has been blown out of proportion many times. Perhaps it is his own fault because of things he said and things his supporters say. And then there are the critics who keep repeating the same misinformation until it is viewed as "fact."

My criticisms of Rob's strategy are well known: I can't understand how a guy who preaches discipline can chase losses. I don't agree that machines are rigged. I do think you should take advantage of casino promotions and players club benefits.

But Rob is no different from everyone else when he says he always plays the best pay tables that are available and he doesn't intentionally play on lesser paytables.

When you really listen to what he says with an open mind he's not as crazy as he is made out to be.

However, his personal attacks are not excusable.

[arcimede$]

I can't be responsible for what he said to you, Arc.

No, but you are responsible for your own statements about him. You are the one claiming Singer hasn't made any statements that conflict with the math. I've shown you over and over again that he has done exactly that. So, you need to stop making claims that you can't back up.

The rest of your comment was your typical illogical nonsense.

[Alan Mendelson]

Singer doesn't dispute the math. Singer just plays differently. I guess you call that a "conflict" with the math. Okay-- the way Singer plays conflicts with the math. So??

Singer plays differently. As I've said -- if we were at a craps table, the math guys would be betting the come with odds, and Singer would be betting the high and low. That's the difference between you and him. That doesn't make him disputing the math, but yes, he would be playing in conflict with what the math says to do. And that's his system.

We've gone around and around about this a thousand times. What do you want to do, burn him at the stake like a witch?

[arcimede$]

Singer doesn't dispute the math. Singer just plays differently. I guess you call that a "conflict" with the math. Okay-- the way Singer plays conflicts with the math. So??

So ... first, quit saying he doesn't dispute the math. Second, admit he has claimed that his approach is superior to a math based approach. That is the problem. No one cares how Singer plays.

[Alan Mendelson]

So ... first, quit saying he doesn't dispute the math. Second, admit he has claimed that his approach is superior to a math based approach. That is the problem. No one cares how Singer plays.

Really, Arc, you're like a kid in a playground having an argument over who has the better "slammer" in the game of "pogs." Yes, Singer plays differently than what the math of the game dictates. He says that in his special plays, and he does that. What's the big issue? Did he commit a crime? Is he a witch?

The problem with a strict math-based approach is that over time you should get exactly what the math says you are going to get. So if you play a game that returns 99.54% you are going to get 99.54%. It's when you do things differently that you either win more or you win less. He says he won more doing things differently.

While no one cares how Singer plays,you certainly care a lot.

His information is here for all to see. Let everyone make up their own mind. If they see problems with his system they'll decide that for themselves. Me? I'll never chase losses the way he did. But I will hold only three aces when dealt AAA3K in TDB just as he does. And leaving when you reach a win goal would have put a lot of money in my pocket over the years.

Now please dismantle that pile of wood in your backyard. There will be no witch burning today.

[arcimede$]

Really, Arc, you're like a kid in a playground having an argument over who has the better "slammer" in the game of "pogs." Yes, Singer plays differently than what the math of the game dictates. He says that in his special plays, and he does that. What's the big issue? Did he commit a crime? Is he a witch?

The problem with a strict math-based approach is that over time you should get exactly what the math says you are going to get. So if you play a game that returns 99.54% you are going to get 99.54%. It's when you do things differently that you either win more or you win less. He says he won more doing things differently.

Pure nonsense. Playing by the math does not eliminate variance. You have just as much of a chance to get lucky and gain a higher return as anyone else. The fact you would make such an ignorant statement is amazing. You need to do some remedial reading about video poker.

While no one cares how Singer plays,you certainly care a lot.

Nope. What I care about is anyone presenting lies as facts.

His information is here for all to see. Let everyone make up their own mind. If they see problems with his system they'll decide that for themselves. Me? I'll never chase losses the way he did. But I will hold only three aces when dealt AAA3K in TDB just as he does. And leaving when you reach a win goal would have put a lot of money in my pocket over the years.

Now please dismantle that pile of wood in your backyard. There will be no witch burning today.

Alan, the vast majority of people don't have the ability to assess any system. That's why making incorrect claims like you have done is not responsible.

[Alan Mendelson]

Pure nonsense. Playing by the math does not eliminate variance. You have just as much of a chance to get lucky and gain a higher return as anyone else. The fact you would make such an ignorant statement is amazing. You need to do some remedial reading about video poker.

Gee this comes as a surprise after all this talk discussion about "expected returns." The way you made it sound, if there really is a long term, in the end there should be no variance, so if a game is supposed to return 99.54% then in the long term it will return 99.54%. You mean a 99.54% game won't return 99.54% in the long term? Then what the heck is "long term" all about??

Nope. What I care about is anyone presenting lies as facts.

You will have to discuss this directly with Rob, or perhaps Rob can respond. I only report what Rob told me. You seem to say he has said different things. Rob should clear it up.

Alan, the vast majority of people don't have the ability to assess any system. That's why making incorrect claims like you have done is not responsible.

Again, they're not my claims. Don't kill the messenger. I'm just trying to find a way to win. I've tried Dancer, I've tried Grochowski, and nothing has worked yet. I'm thinking about tarot cards but I'm not sure they will let me lay them out on the console in front of the video poker machine.

[Vegas_lover]

We've gone around and around about this a thousand times.

That's right Alan. That's why I don't get why you start up the same discussion over and over again everytime your forum has been silent for a couple of days. A change of topic would be refreshing...You are sounding like a broken record about Singer's "strategy" just as much as Arci is about his view on the subject. Sorry for being a stick in the mud again....

[Alan Mendelson]

I dont think I was the one to start it this time. Look back a few posts. And this thread is to comment about Singer's SPS. So please ignore it if you're not interested.

[Vegas Vic]

They may not be facts that you have personally verified, that does not mean they are not facts.

Again, just because you say they are facts or that you claim to have verification that substantiates, neither is proof and all of what you say about Rob remains in the heresay category. Can you back up what you've been telling us about him? Inquiring minds want to know.

[redietz]

One of the problems here is that Arci, and to a lesser extent myself and others, have experience with Rob stretching back through multiple forums and other venues back more than a decade. So what has been presented here is just a subset of the "Rob Singer" info. There have been other suspicious alternative identity promoters, sudden appearances of Rob followers at curious times, and so on. Some "Rob followers" have been caught in out-and-out lies and been banned from other forums -- surprise, surprise. Should everyone just stick to what Rob has said on this particular forum when discussing him?

Also, I fail to see the significant difference between saying, "you will win" with Rob's system and guaranteeing a win. There's no real difference. Rob's not saying that a certain small percentage of people will win with his system. He's saying that anyone/everyone can win on negative games with his system.

[Vegas_lover]

I dont think I was the one to start it this time. Look back a few posts. And this thread is to comment about Singer's SPS. So please ignore it if you're not interested.

Post number 61 was the one where you started it again after your forum went silent for a little while. The first thing you did is refer to Arci's analogy (2 + 2 = 5). Did you think there wouldn't be a reply to that? So yes, you started it. If you don't like to be criticized on your own forum, don't be the number one poster....

[regnis]

This fight will never end. As Alan points out, if the math has to hold true we are all playing for the right to lose the % provided by the paybacks. So Singer has a plan to attempt to hit a big hand in rare occassions when Arci would not. The percentage long term is so negligible as to be meaningless. But it offers a slightly better chance to hit the big hand NOW, maybe at the risk of playing one or two less hands long term. Arci will say that those extra hands offer extra chances for the big hand. But there is no certainty that those couple extra hands will even be playable. So like Singer, I sometimes take the shot NOW, cause I want to go home or I need the big hit to get out. How that decision effects my long term results I'll never know because I will never attain "long term".

I don't dispute the math--I'm sure Arci's calculations are correct. But the math and my win goals and time frames don't always coexist.

I have asked Arci and any other math guys for some kind of plan to play the inferior games offered where I play. Other than "don't play", nothing has been suggested. So I guess they feel I have to lose because the games have poor paybacks. I'd rather try Singer's methods if that's the case.

[Alan Mendelson]

Post number 61 was the one where you started it again after your forum went silent for a little while. The first thing you did is refer to Arci's analogy (2 + 2 = 5). Did you think there wouldn't be a reply to that? So yes, you started it. If you don't like to be criticized on your own forum, don't be the number one poster....

This is very interesting, Vegas_lover. You reference post #61. Well, how about post # 57 ??