Did I Miss Something? Where's Rob's Full Strategy?

[a2a3dseddie]

Wasn't he supposed to post his strategy and proof that it worked by the end of October?

[Alan Mendelson]

If I recall (and it's hard to keep track, by the way) he indicated that if not by the end of October then shortly afterwards -- say by the middle of November. Rob did post what he called his "SPS" but as many of us noted, what Rob wrote fails to adequately explain or justify the strategy including why he moves up in denominations.

The link to his text is listed at the bottom of the page here: http://www.alanbestbuys.com/id261.html

The discussion about it is here: http://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/showth...y-COMMENT-HERE Re-read it if you dare.

[arcimede$]

I expect to see his justifications for his system about the time we see a flock of pigs soaring overhead.

[Alan Mendelson]

I expect to see his justifications for his system about the time we see a flock of pigs soaring overhead.

Don't give up hope, yet. Amazing things could happen.

[redietz]

I think Rob needs to pull back and re-think this "posting of strategy" stuff. The better percentage thing to do would be to work out a deal with Alan for another interview or series of interviews wherein he promises to explain piece by piece how he wins. Then the interviews could be posted, and people would pay attention to him and listen, while not doing any math analysis or simulation.

I think that's much more in Rob's best interests than a black-and-white academia-esque posting of hard facts and clear strategies.

[Vegas Vic]

While I was out mulching leaves...

[slingshot]

IT'S ALL THERE! This is hilarious every time I see it. I'm an ole' country boy and I can figure that out. Prove it works? How could anyone do that without playing it? And if you're afraid, do as I do and start at nickels.. What's with you guys?

[Alan Mendelson]

...while not doing any math analysis or simulation.

What is ironic here, is that even Rob concedes that his special plays do not have a mathematical advantage. In fact, he has publicly stated that they are at a mathematical disadvantage to conventional play. Rob attributes his success to a combination of factors that includes "luck."

I don't know how luck can be quantified or explained. But I think he does owe us some other explanations to clear up the questions that popped up after we all read his SPS statement. I'm willing to wait and see what he has to say. But honestly, the guy is not under any pressure to post: he's not facing any book publication deadline, magazine or newspaper deadline.

In short, the "math" will never support him. The real question is how does he use "non math principles" (and I just pulled that phrase out of thin air) to explain how he won nearly a million dollars over ten years.

I've said this many times before: if Rob had simply said that he got lucky and beat the casinos for a million bucks and wrote about his exploits he would be a hero. But by calling it a system or method or program or whatever, he put a label on what he did which has opened him up to all sorts of challenges.

[arcimede$]

What is ironic here, is that even Rob concedes that his special plays do not have a mathematical advantage. In fact, he has publicly stated that they are at a mathematical disadvantage to conventional play. Rob attributes his success to a combination of factors that includes "luck."

Yeah right. A proven liar is a reliable source. It's all BS, Alan. Once you finally accept that it will be easier for you to see reality.

I don't know how luck can be quantified or explained. But I think he does owe us some other explanations to clear up the questions that popped up after we all read his SPS statement. I'm willing to wait and see what he has to say. But honestly, the guy is not under any pressure to post: he's not facing any book publication deadline, magazine or newspaper deadline.

Nope, he's only had 10 years to work out the details, let's not pressure him.

Come on, I've explained "luck" to you before. It's simple variance at work. This is trivial statistics. Don't try to make it out as something else.

In short, the "math" will never support him. The real question is how does he use "non math principles" (and I just pulled that phrase out of thin air) to explain how he won nearly a million dollars over ten years.

Bwah haha haha haha haha. Complete and total nonsense. VP is completely described by mathematics. There's nothing else.

I've said this many times before: if Rob had simply said that he got lucky and beat the casinos for a million bucks and wrote about his exploits he would be a hero. But by calling it a system or method or program or whatever, he put a label on what he did which has opened him up to all sorts of challenges.

That's right. He makes silly claims and tells one lie after another. What's not to like?

The man is a complete phoney as anyone could see who has read your forum over the last few months.

[Alan Mendelson]

The man is a complete phoney as anyone could see who has read your forum over the last few months.

Of course if they read everything you wrote, Arc, they could only come away thinking that he's a complete phoney.

But is a phoney about winning a million dollars? Is he a phoney that everything he wrote in his newspaper column was a lie and never verified and can't be verified?

I don't think anyone is going to argue the "math" here. But no one ever said it was a claim about "the math." Rob's entire system is based on one main idea: to give yourself a chance to hit a big win and then pocket the win and leave. And the funny thing is casino players (not you or redietz of course) do this every day.

[arcimede$]

Of course if they read everything you wrote, Arc, they could only come away thinking that he's a complete phoney.

But is a phoney about winning a million dollars? Is he a phoney that everything he wrote in his newspaper column was a lie and never verified and can't be verified?

Nothing the man says can be trusted. Absolutely nothing. That should be the starting point of anyone with any common sense.

I don't think anyone is going to argue the "math" here.

Nonsense, you argue with the math all the time. You usually start out with the words "no one argues with the math" and then you proceed to make arguments that really do conflict with simple math. Just because you claim you aren't arguing with the math doesn't make it so.

But no one ever said it was a claim about "the math." Rob's entire system is based on one main idea: to give yourself a chance to hit a big win and then pocket the win and leave. And the funny thing is casino players (not you or redietz of course) do this every day.

Yes, and more of them don't. Once again you are back arguing with the math. Variance will always allow a few winners along with more losers playing negative games. That doesn't mean there's a system "to give yourself a chance to hit a big win" that changes the fundamental reality of VP. The machines don't know what system you are playing. It simply provides cards in a random manner that lead to well known frequencies of results. No system will change that fact. Repeating silly phrases that have no real meaning only makes you look stupid. If you want to look stupid that is your choice. If you don't, then quit arguing with the simple math.

[redietz]

You know, there may be a very complex, unbelievable explanation for the perspective Arci and I take in most things gambling. Is it possible, now brace yourselves, folks -- is it just in the realm of possibility (not probability, of course) that we might possibly, conceivably, perhaps KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING?

Did I just say that out loud!?! Good lord, what hubris!

I notice that both Arci and I are old-timers and have probably seen every nook and cranny of advantage play and pseudo-advantage play over the years. We may possibly (not probably, of course) have figured out how to see the forests for the trees (I know, a really old cliche, but we're old).

The world is math (doesn't anyone watch Big Bang?). Turning non-advantage play into advantage play with win goals and special plays is like turning wine into water -- it works really well as long as nobody actually witnesses you doing it.

[Alan Mendelson]

I'm sorry guys, but saying things like I argue with the math is absolute BS. Nor does Singer argue the math. You guys are stuck on the idea. You just won't accept the fact that the only thing Singer says to do is to do something different than what the math says to do so that you can beat the expected return. That's all he says, and that's all he has ever said.

If you guys play a 99.5% return game, then over time you will get 99.5% return playing "by the math." But when you make different plays and different holds you will either do better or worse. Singer says his way gives you a better return.

When will you guys suck it up and realize what he is saying? And... stop your BS.

[arcimede$]

I'm sorry guys, but saying things like I argue with the math is absolute BS. Nor does Singer argue the math. You guys are stuck on the idea. You just won't accept the fact that the only thing Singer says to do is to do something different than what the math says to do so that you can beat the expected return. That's all he says, and that's all he has ever said.

"saying things like I argue with the math is absolute BS"
"do something different than what the math says to do so that you can beat the expected return"

Totally hilarious. Alan claims he doesn't dispute the math and then proceeds to dispute it in the same paragraph.

If you guys play a 99.5% return game, then over time you will get 99.5% return playing "by the math." But when you make different plays and different holds you will either do better or worse. Singer says his way gives you a better return.

And then does it again in the next paragraph. Sorry Alan, you are totally clueless.

When will you guys suck it up and realize what he is saying? And... stop your BS.

We are the ones who realize exactly what he is saying and simply pointing out it is nonsense. That you repeat that nonsense and claim it is valid only makes you look stupid.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, let me see if I can turn this into a "coin flip" example for you.

The math says that over time, a "fair coin" will show 50 heads and 50 tails. We know that the coin will not flip heads-tails-heads-tails over time. We know that there will be a distribution of heads and a distribution of tails but that over the long term the number of heads and tails will even out.

What Singer is basically saying is this: after a run of heads, or a run of tails, and you are ahead on a bet of heads or tails, you cash out your win.

He is not saying that the coin will show heads for the long term, and he is not saying that the distribution will not be even over the long term. He is saying, play the "runs" that put you ahead. He looks for short term spurts.

And you can have short term spurts in anything and everything including "special plays," "win goals," etc.

He doesn't challenge the "math" as you continue to argue. He simply says take advantage of the situations as they appear.

Now, you certainly need some luck to hit the "trends" or "runs" that will make you a winner. And Singer fully discloses that he got lucky. Okay, there is no mathematical proof that anyone will ever repeat what Rob did. His "method" can't be proven. The math will always be the math.

How can I put it in "math terms"?? How about this: of all the possible results, Rob played a certain subset of results, hit that subset, got lucky and cashed out while the going was good.

Now, do I think someone else might get equally lucky? I don't know. But I wouldn't say that he disagrees with the math.

I do know what your problem is, however. You reject the idea that anyone can play a limited amount of time and cash out a winner in a limited amount of time. As a long term player, you feel that someone must play the long term to see wins using a positive expectation game. Okay, if that works for you stick with it. But your criticisms of Singer for violating "math" are starting to be absolutely redundantly absurd. You can't be more wrong than you are. You are talking apples and oranges.

[arcimede$]

Arc, let me see if I can turn this into a "coin flip" example for you.

The math says that over time, a "fair coin" will show 50 heads and 50 tails. We know that the coin will not flip heads-tails-heads-tails over time. We know that there will be a distribution of heads and a distribution of tails but that over the long term the number of heads and tails will even out.

What Singer is basically saying is this: after a run of heads, or a run of tails, and you are ahead on a bet of heads or tails, you cash out your win.

Alan, that only works if you NEVER play again. If a person is not quitting then the next time they play tell me what happens. Can they repeat this every time?

Guess what, over time it all evens out and those few wins you want to believe in disappear in the sea of losses.

He is not saying that the coin will show heads for the long term, and he is not saying that the distribution will not be even over the long term. He is saying, play the "runs" that put you ahead. He looks for short term spurts.

And you can have short term spurts in anything and everything including "special plays," "win goals," etc.

He doesn't challenge the "math" as you continue to argue. He simply says take advantage of the situations as they appear.

Sorry, that is nothing but double-speak. You can't always "take advantage of the situations" because they don't always appear. That is the rub, and if you were listening to what you've been told by people who understand this issue you wouldn't be spewing such silly nonsense.

Now, you certainly need some luck to hit the "trends" or "runs" that will make you a winner. And Singer fully discloses that he got lucky. Okay, there is no mathematical proof that anyone will ever repeat what Rob did. His "method" can't be proven. The math will always be the math.

That's right and that's what we've been telling you for years. As for Singer getting lucky ... I doubt that very much. I prefer to look at the rest of his claims, such as living in a big house, and now that we know they were all lies, make the appropriate logical conclusion.

How can I put it in "math terms"?? How about this: of all the possible results, Rob played a certain subset of results, hit that subset, got lucky and cashed out while the going was good.

Now, do I think someone else might get equally lucky? I don't know. But I wouldn't say that he disagrees with the math.

He has disagreed with the math many times. Get your head out of your a** and pay attention. He claims advantage players will lose while anyone who plays his system on negative machines will win. Pure idiocy.

I do know what your problem is, however. You reject the idea that anyone can play a limited amount of time and cash out a winner in a limited amount of time.

Give me a break. I've stated exactly that many, many times and TOLD you over and over again about the bell curve. Why do you repeat these lies?

As a long term player, you feel that someone must play the long term to see wins using a positive expectation game.

More lies. I've never said anything even close to that. Anyone can win in the short term playing any system. They just can't count on any particular approach leading to wins consistently.

Okay, if that works for you stick with it. But your criticisms of Singer for violating "math" are starting to be absolutely redundantly absurd. You can't be more wrong than you are. You are talking apples and oranges.

What a load of BS. Alan, you getting tiresome again. I don't know why I try to educate you when you refuse to pay attention and continue to repeat the same idiotic claims over and over again. Stupid is as stupid does.

[Rob.Singer]

Now that we're settled into our newest RV park in northern Nevada, I'll have some time to discuss my single-play strategy (SPS), other strategies I've developed, and answer any questions anyone may have about them or anything else I've written about in the past. In order to limit the nonsense and waste-of-time tactics we've come to know as commonplace on forums I've participated in over the years, I will not respond to any posts by arci. In case it hasn't been noticed , he has unlimited down time he uses to just keep repeating the same hateful & jealous nonsense & lies, perpetuated by his continuous claims over the years that I am a drunk who chases skirts and lives off his wife who he made live in a small apt. while providing videos of someone else's houses in Phx. & Hawaii yada yada yada. My guess is he's done a lot more checking into my background than he's leading on about, only you won't hear the rest of the results. The fact that I've been happily married for 34 years to the same woman I've supposedly been putting thru this abuse, kinda puts all of his claims into perspective about who's lying to whom. Remember, he's sitting there in his self-created mecca of depression and guilt, with no patience for people like myself and Cindy who are actually fortunate & very mobile in our retirement years. But if anyone really wants to know the answer to some dumb criticism or lie he brings up, please ask. Ignoring him will drive him up a wall, and he'd never be here if he didn't expect me to return. Keep that in mind as you witness his uneasiness.

First off: I've sporadically read some of the other threads and in fact I've only read 3 or 4 posts on this one, and I asked jatki to stay out of the discussion or at least not to get into it with arci when he displays his neverending envy. I'm going to start with some general comments to what I've seen Alan write after I provided my single-play strategy. It appears he expected a bit more than what I said I would provide initially. What I said was I'd submit my SPS, ie., the processes used to play it. I never said I'd explain why I did this or why I did that, and instead agreed to answer any and all questions pertaining to the strategy when I returned. So Alan, rather than make it sound like I've short-changed you or your readers, please accept that I am doing what I said I would do in the order I said I would do it. Whether or not the strategy's procedure tells people why I do anything is not relevant to the steps identified in playing it, until now. As far as the math details that went into the development, the number one item in my life today is enjoying retirement with my wife. Our plans changed from staying in Pahrump to staying near Tahoe as well as on our going to Phoenix for the holidays and thus my trip to Casa Grande was postponed, because my children and grandchildren wanted to come up here and stay on the Lake for a week over Thanksgiving and that's what we're going to do. There'll be the usual lies and criticisms from those who have little or no family and/or live lonely or loner lives, but "I think I can handle" that. I did read a post by redietz that made some sense if Alan is interested, and I'll be happy to entertain it on his terms when I'm able.

Alan, you've asked why I don't simply play at the $10 level with a large bankroll in order to make at least $2500/session. That would be foolish. I would then be playing like any other regular or advantage player, doing nothing more than pounding away aimlessly at the same game hoping to accumulate as many points as possible so that I can hopefully, but not probably, end up ahead a per cent or two by day's end. You ask why bother playing at the lower denominations when, esp. at dollars, only a royal would allow me to quit and go home? And closely related to this, you ask what the purpose of the soft profit pool is?

Someone here said the soft profits can add up to the required $2500 minimum for me to quit and go home. That's correct and it has happened, but infrequently. It's significance lies in being there to either REDUCE the amount needed from a single winning hit to reach my $2500 win goal, or to ADD to the big winning hit which in turn produces a session win more or much more than the $2500 goal (which I showed in my example session I sent in). This all ties into why I play at the "lower levels" as you put it, and if you had followed my weekly column when I wrote for Gaming Today, you would have seen many instances of it at work. And BTW, good call on questioning whether GT would have purposely published known lies. In fact it was just the opposite--Chuck DiRocco (the paper's insightful publisher) came with me on one session, and most of my big $20,000+ winners were posted as well. His success was built on always telling the truth in what he published, and he did everything possible to relay all of it to his readers.

Alan you asked why I change denominations. It should be fairly obvious: the crude critics would say it's chasing losses, when in reality it is a changing pathway of opportunity based on results thus far. This is illustrated by how I not only go UP when nothing is hit, but DOWN when certain goals are met on the way to an overall win goal. But the reason I say crude is because those people just don't have the intelligence to first of all read the entire story, and most of all because their gambling IQ resides well below mine.

So this is a start. I'll have time to discuss anything valid on and off until about the 17th when my family arrives, then after they leave on the 27th. The only post I'll make during that time will be on my annual (just thought of that) football betting for one upcoming weekend. Last year everyone would have made money if they had copied my bet. I'll be giving everyone another chance at easy money this year too, so if you're smart you'll take advantage of it. And by taking advantage, I DON'T mean following Bob Dancer down the toilet of another balls-on sure-thing positive-play on slot machines of all things. Has he ever met a gaming machine he wasn't lured into playing?

[slingshot]

Rob, glad to hear from you and best of luck to you and your family in retirement. I would only have one question-since I've read and reread the strategy so many times. I keep hearing math, math, math. It's great for space travel, economics, science, etc.... but when it comes to gambling, isn't it just a GUIDELINE instead of "etched in stone"? I actually feel silly asking the question, but it seems so obvious to me. Thanks.

[regnis]

sling--let's do a little math. Let's say Arci plays $1 VP 40 hours a week. If we assume 10 hands per minute, that's 600 per hour. But you go p and eat etc. and the math is easier at 500 hands per hour. So let's use 500. If Arci plays full time--40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year, that's 1 million hands per year. 5 coins per hand so he's got cash in of $5,000,000. He has the only positive game known to mankind--so give him a 1% positive return.

Arci makes $50,000 per year. Now, we know he isn't playing that many hours or hands---I am being generous. Yet he says he makes 6 figures every year. And besides the Royal, there really are no winners on his game of choice. And he has no cold streaks either--the math just magically comes out exact.

So how's that math looking to you. When I was a kid and we moved from the city to the suburbs we had to learn something called "the new math". I guess Arci is using some form of new math himself.

The point I hope I'm making is that not even considering the ebbs and flows--the hot and cold streaks--the whole idea of playing endlessly because the math says so is not realistic. So not to speak for Singer because he is more than able to do so, but his system recognizes that the long term grind is just that, and he uses changes in denomination, some variances in play, and win goals to achieve a better reuslt. That result cannot be proven mathematically, and there lies the issue.

[arcimede$]

Rob, glad to hear from you and best of luck to you and your family in retirement. I would only have one question-since I've read and reread the strategy so many times. I keep hearing math, math, math. It's great for space travel, economics, science, etc.... but when it comes to gambling, isn't it just a GUIDELINE instead of "etched in stone"? I actually feel silly asking the question, but it seems so obvious to me. Thanks.

Do you think the game of tic-tac-toe can be won by using a specific strategy? Why not? Could it be because every possible move in the game can be analyzed and an optimum strategy exists to counter any move you make? Guess what? VP is exactly the same just a little more complex. Every play in VP can be analyzed (and has) for any game. That is what expert play is all about.

You should consider trying to understand what went on in this analysis. Every single possible dealt hand is played with every single possible draw. As each hand is played in 32 possible ways, the total amount of credits won by the various draws is added up. Then, those credits won are compared to the credits won by other possible holds. The one that achieves the highest number is then considered to be the expert play strategy. What math was used? Simple addition and then a comparison. This is about as simple as it gets.

Given this approach it then gets down to the question of whether any particular draw is more likely. If they are all random then why would anyone choose to choose an approach that generates fewer credits?

So, it all gets down to whether a VP machine is random or not. If you believe they aren't random then you would need to know how they differ from randomness in order to find a better strategy than expert play. If you believe they are random then the best plays have been computed using simple math.

This is all there is to it. There is no complex math going on. And, if you believe that simple addition is a "etched in stone" (that is, it always provides the same answer) then you should believe that expert play is simply the best approach you can take.