Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 131

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

  1. #21
    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    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.
    Far from the "only positive game known to mankind". If you start off being dishonest what can we expect from the rest of this comment? BTW, I play at about 700 hands/hour on the machines I play since they are quite slow. When I was in Las Vegas I could play over 1000 hands/hour. I believe Frank indicated previously he could play two machines at around 2000 hands/hour.

    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    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.
    Wong again. I have never said I made 6 figures every year. I made 6 figures over 8 years and one of the reasons it is that low is because I don't play that much. I can only wonder why you choose to make things up.

    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    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.
    See how easy it is to believe something when you create a strawman to attack it. Now, maybe you consider sticking to the facts and see where you end up.

    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    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.
    No, it can be proven mathematically that his approach provides no benefit. It's all random and as such your results can be better or worse than average (the bell curve). But, no betting method can help you. Sorry if you don't like the truth (as it appears from your previous statements), but if you look at everything rationally you will realize that no system (Singer's or anyone elses) will make a difference in a games' ER over time.
    Last edited by arcimede$; 11-04-2012 at 05:27 AM.

  2. #22
    Arc wrote: I believe Frank indicated previously he could play two machines at around 2000 hands/hour.

    I think Frank said he was able to play only the "older, slow machines" two at a time. The new, modern machines were fast enough that he played one at a time.

    Arc also wrote, in regards to Singer: it can be proven mathematically that his approach provides no benefit.

    This is absolutely true, and Rob even notes this in the explanation of his special plays. They do not provide the expected return that the conventional plays offer. However, when Rob gets lucky and his special plays happen to hit, he is able to reach a win goal and stop playing. There you go Arc. I said it again for the seven hundredth time and it still doesn't get through, does it?
    Last edited by Alan Mendelson; 11-04-2012 at 06:02 AM.

  3. #23
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Arc wrote: I believe Frank indicated previously he could play two machines at around 2000 hands/hour.

    I think Frank said he was able to play only the "older, slow machines" two at a time. The new, modern machines were fast enough that he played one at a time.

    Arc also wrote, in regards to Singer: it can be proven mathematically that his approach provides no benefit.

    This is absolutely true, and Rob even notes this in the explanation of his special plays. They do not provide the expected return that the conventional plays offer. However, when Rob gets lucky and his special plays happen to hit, he is able to reach a win goal and stop playing. There you go Arc. I said it again for the seven hundredth time and it still doesn't get through, does it?
    Alan, I posed a question to you earlier that I'll repeat here and maybe if Rob would would be so kind and respond to it as well.

    We are all in agreement that the theoretical hold / EV on every machine (positive or negative) inside of the casinos is a value based upon the billions or trillions of hands /spins that the RNG generates for that machine. Agreed? Well what makes you think that ANYONE could selectively play their 'short-term' number of hands within those trillions of hands and only play the ones that put you consistently ahead? Especially on the negative EV machines? You and Rob aren't arguing math? Then you and Rob are arguing that you can be luckier than everyone else. If this can be achieved by using ESP to detect hot and cold cycles, recognizing which machines are not random, quitting while you''re ahead or not tipping the cocktail waitress I'm all ears...

  4. #24
    Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie View Post
    We are all in agreement that the theoretical hold / EV on every machine (positive or negative) inside of the casinos is a value based upon the billions or trillions of hands /spins that the RNG generates for that machine. Agreed? Well what makes you think that ANYONE could selectively play their 'short-term' number of hands within those trillions of hands and only play the ones that put you consistently ahead? Especially on the negative EV machines? You and Rob aren't arguing math? Then you and Rob are arguing that you can be luckier than everyone else.
    I don't have ESP and I don't think Rob does either, but you pretty much stated it correctly right there. The expected return is based on "long term play" and if you play millions and gazillions of hands you will, in the end, get what the expected return says you will get. After all, that's what the math says.

    The problem is do you play enough hands to actually see the long term?

    So, if you don't play enough hands to see the long term, and if you happen to hit the right hands at the right time and get lucky, you will come out ahead of the expected return.

    Or, if you don't play enough hands to see the long term, and you don't hit enough winning hands, you will come out behind of the expected return.

    Rob in his books explains this as getting "lucky," and don't you agree it is a matter of luck? Unless of course you are sitting there for millions and millions of hands. Our friend Arc says he can play something like 1,000 hands per hour. Wow! I probably play 400-500 hands per hour, and I don't play as often as he does. I don't think I play 10% of the time that he does. The long term for me... and for probably 99.9% of video poker players... is a long, long, long way away.

    A simple example of the significance of this is being dealt 4 to the royal. In the long run you will get the royal card 1 out of 47 times. Some people get lucky and make the four card royal more often. And then I know players who have never had a royal in their life.

    I sure wish I had ESP for all of those 4 card royals that involved a flush or a straight or a high pair that I broke up trying to get the royal that "missed." If I had ESP and knew the royal card was not coming, I would have gladly kept those straights and flushes and paying pairs that I gave up and I would have more money today.
    Last edited by Alan Mendelson; 11-04-2012 at 09:25 AM.

  5. #25
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    This is absolutely true, and Rob even notes this in the explanation of his special plays. They do not provide the expected return that the conventional plays offer. However, when Rob gets lucky and his special plays happen to hit, he is able to reach a win goal and stop playing. There you go Arc. I said it again for the seven hundredth time and it still doesn't get through, does it?
    Your problem is you stop there implying that it will make a difference. You never say when he doesn't hit the special play that he loses faster and plays less hands. You also never mention that playing fewer hands reduces his chances of hitting a win goal. Why are you selective, Alan? Some people would call it dishonest.

    The bottom line is the special plays overall actually do reduce ones ability "to reach a win goal and stop playing". Overall they do the opposite of what you stated. Why do you choose to ignore the facts and repeat these lies when you've been told over and over again that you are wrong?

    Maybe if you actually take the time to consider the facts you won't have to repeat this nonsense a 701st time.

  6. #26
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    Your problem is you stop there implying that it will make a difference. You never say when he doesn't hit the special play that he loses faster and plays less hands. You also never mention that playing fewer hands reduces his chances of hitting a win goal. Why are you selective, Alan?
    Okay, you just said it for me, and I agree. If the special plays don't hit you can lose faster, and play fewer hands. And playing fewer hands could in fact lessen your chances for hitting big winners.

    It's said.

  7. #27
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
    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.
    Life, like video poker, overall is a series of applied mathematical probabilities. But when you take a much closer look at it INDIVIDUALLY, you find that it is much more likely you will find yourself in an outlying area of possibilities. As such, good fortune is required in order to succeed at anything at any time. That is why my strategy was developed with luck being a factor. And although AP's will argue fruitlessly against this truth, they get nowhere without the same type of lucky hits I require in order to win and/or in order to attain anywhere near the tiny win % they so depend upon. The difference is, of course, all the other factors I utilize in order to maximize opportunity.

  8. #28
    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    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.
    And there's more. Ask arci how that Indian casino in Minn. can allow him to just walk in, sit down at those mystical machines, year after year after year and do nothing but win win win, and he'll tell you how he's been outsmarting them (there's that self-tested genius again....) by somehow knowing exactly when the big winners are coming so he can pull his slot card out before the draw. Then, with even more magical powers, they just so happen to have the type of 20-year-old slot club where he KNOWS (yes, just like Bob Dancer and his "inside information" on the South Point slots) that pulling slot cards before the draw erases the hand from memory . Better still, these blind Indians never ever bother to watch this occur via camera or the floor in over 12 years of his constant play & winning! Yes, add all that up and you really DO see how well it does work.

  9. #29
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Arc wrote: I believe Frank indicated previously he could play two machines at around 2000 hands/hour.

    I think Frank said he was able to play only the "older, slow machines" two at a time. The new, modern machines were fast enough that he played one at a time.

    Arc also wrote, in regards to Singer: it can be proven mathematically that his approach provides no benefit.

    This is absolutely true, and Rob even notes this in the explanation of his special plays. They do not provide the expected return that the conventional plays offer. However, when Rob gets lucky and his special plays happen to hit, he is able to reach a win goal and stop playing. There you go Arc. I said it again for the seven hundredth time and it still doesn't get through, does it?
    In regards to Frank's speed, that is what he also told me in person. I take it with a grain of salt though. I once tested my own speed when the Reserve in Henderson opened and they had all their machines set to super high speed (and all bartops had all full-pay game like FPDW, 10/7DB, and 10/6DDB right thru dollars except on FPDW). I played one hour @ 1400 hph and I had no idea how many mistakes I made--JUST LIKE EVERYONE WHO PLAYS FAST. And I can attest that it is impossible to play any faster than I played. When I worked for the Government out of college, during the training phase I tested faster than all but one other person (a female) in short-term eye-hand coordination, and I tested faster than her in the long run (3 hours). It is also a myth that anyone can play faster with any meaningful accuracy on two machines. These "pros" only go around saying that to build their brand. It is complete and utter baloney.

  10. #30
    Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie View Post
    Alan, I posed a question to you earlier that I'll repeat here and maybe if Rob would would be so kind and respond to it as well.

    We are all in agreement that the theoretical hold / EV on every machine (positive or negative) inside of the casinos is a value based upon the billions or trillions of hands /spins that the RNG generates for that machine. Agreed? Well what makes you think that ANYONE could selectively play their 'short-term' number of hands within those trillions of hands and only play the ones that put you consistently ahead? Especially on the negative EV machines? You and Rob aren't arguing math? Then you and Rob are arguing that you can be luckier than everyone else. If this can be achieved by using ESP to detect hot and cold cycles, recognizing which machines are not random, quitting while you''re ahead or not tipping the cocktail waitress I'm all ears...
    I've always said I am no more or less lucky than anyone else who plays. The infrequent times my special plays hit do not make me any luckier--it's simply that I gave good luck a higher probability of occuring. If it occurs within the overall structure of the "outside the box" part of my strategy, it is simply a part of the overall game.

    Your question about my sitting at the machines for short-term bursts that also happen to be in the middle of I guess winning streaks? Irrelevant. I've sat thru good as well as bad streaks and most of the time still prevailed in my win goal. Why? That's what the increase in denominations, the higher volatility games, and the increase in the number of credits played at the higher volatility games is for. Where some clueless AP might be sitting at a single denomination machine banging away at the same boring game for 6 long hours and hits Aces twice while losing, the first time I hit Aces is usually more than enough to go home with my win goal. So you see, even if my machine was in some bad streak at the time and if I chose to stay at it, it has never been overly difficult to beat them. Then there of course are the good streaks and those speak for themselves.

    Your point about the + or - EV of the games is also meaningless. I've proven that my strategy can beat any paytable, consistently.

  11. #31
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    I've proven that my strategy can beat any paytable, consistently.
    Rob, I think if you said "I've proven that I can leave a winner regardless of any paytable" that it might be more palatable to the math guys who think the paytable is the end-all of video poker. Even Arc concedes you can win on negative paytables. So just say "using my strategy I have won on negative paytables" and you might undo that knot in their stomachs. Saying you "can beat any paytable" makes them fall back on their adherence to paytable math.

  12. #32
    Yes that is stated more elegantly, but that knot in their stomach turns into an ulcer when they read "consistently". But it is true that the strategy is a consistent winner on negative EV games, and for redietz, anyone else who I would train to play exactly the same way as I, will also win consistently.

  13. #33
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    I've proven that my strategy can beat any paytable, consistently.
    Where's the proof? Simply saying this ad nauseam is not proof.

  14. #34
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    I've always said I am no more or less lucky than anyone else who plays. The infrequent times my special plays hit do not make me any luckier--it's simply that I gave good luck a higher probability of occuring. If it occurs within the overall structure of the "outside the box" part of my strategy, it is simply a part of the overall game.

    Your question about my sitting at the machines for short-term bursts that also happen to be in the middle of I guess winning streaks? Irrelevant. I've sat thru good as well as bad streaks and most of the time still prevailed in my win goal. Why? That's what the increase in denominations, the higher volatility games, and the increase in the number of credits played at the higher volatility games is for. Where some clueless AP might be sitting at a single denomination machine banging away at the same boring game for 6 long hours and hits Aces twice while losing, the first time I hit Aces is usually more than enough to go home with my win goal. So you see, even if my machine was in some bad streak at the time and if I chose to stay at it, it has never been overly difficult to beat them. Then there of course are the good streaks and those speak for themselves.

    Your point about the + or - EV of the games is also meaningless. I've proven that my strategy can beat any paytable, consistently.
    Thank-you for taking the time to reply Rob. I have a few more questions for you.

    1. Can your proven unbeatable strategies be adopted and applied to non-video poker games such as the Megabucks slot machines?
    2. Are you really teaching and training people for free? You aren't charging a training fee, trying to get others to use your player's card or get people to buy your book? You're really doing all of this because you're really a nice guy?
    3. Is "Rob Singer" just a "pen name" or persona you invented? Does that mean some of the details you write about are fictious?

  15. #35
    Originally Posted by Vegas Vic View Post
    Where's the proof? Simply saying this ad nauseam is not proof.
    Vic, what would you like for proof that I've won? Are you asking for the same type of proof AP's like redietz, Dancer & arci have provided?

  16. #36
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    And there's more.
    Yes, we've become accustomed to your unending series of lies.

    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Ask arci how that Indian casino in Minn. can allow him to just walk in, sit down at those mystical machines, year after year after year and do nothing but win win win, and he'll tell you how he's been outsmarting them (there's that self-tested genius again....) by somehow knowing exactly when the big winners are coming so he can pull his slot card out before the draw.
    It's always humorous when Singer jumps up and down thinking he's smart only to get smacked down yet again. One of the reasons those machines are slow is because they allow a double on every hand (can't be turned off). All it takes is pulling the card before declining the double and the result is lost. You just have to laugh .... at Robbie the clown.

    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Then, with even more magical powers, they just so happen to have the type of 20-year-old slot club where he KNOWS (yes, just like Bob Dancer and his "inside information" on the South Point slots) that pulling slot cards before the draw erases the hand from memory .
    Doesn't take inside information as almost anyone with a couple of working neurons could figure out. All it takes is getting a copy of ones win/loss statement. So simple a cave man could do it ... what's your problem? Are you really this clueless? And to think that some people will actually listen to this person who couldn't think himself out of a paper bag.

    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Better still, these blind Indians never ever bother to watch this occur via camera or the floor in over 12 years of his constant play & winning! Yes, add all that up and you really DO see how well it does work.
    Have you ever been in a casino. The ploppies like yourself are constantly pulling and reinserting their cards. The fact you weren't aware of this says a lot about you. Have you ever been in a casino and actually gambled? If casinos spent their time looking at every gambler who pulled there card they'd be too busy to do anything else. Bugs Bunny's creators must have had Singer in mind when they came up with this line ... "what a maroon".

  17. #37
    Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie View Post
    Thank-you for taking the time to reply Rob. I have a few more questions for you.

    1. Can your proven unbeatable strategies be adopted and applied to non-video poker games such as the Megabucks slot machines?
    2. Are you really teaching and training people for free? You aren't charging a training fee, trying to get others to use your player's card or get people to buy your book? You're really doing all of this because you're really a nice guy?
    3. Is "Rob Singer" just a "pen name" or persona you invented? Does that mean some of the details you write about are fictious?
    1. No.
    2. Good question to ask. I have always trained people at machines & given advice over the phone/in person/& via e-mail @ no charge--ever. I have also enjoyed giving away my books to the extent my publisher allowed me to. And no, contrary to common lies, I have never required any of my hundreds of students to use my player's card anywhere at any time, and I have in fact taken many of them out to dinner--some more than once.

    Why do I do all this on my dime? Am I simply a nice guy? I certainly hope people see me as that, but that was not top on my list. What I intended was to,show the vp community that a professional player who actually wins has zero need to take money from other players for helping them out to the extent possible. Since I've always won as I said I did, that's how I made my money.

    3. RS is my pen name, like all or at least most authors use. Off hand I can honestly say the details are provided over the years are truthful, although I have spun a few minor points at times. Nothing of importance for here, however.

  18. #38
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Yes that is stated more elegantly, but that knot in their stomach turns into an ulcer when they read "consistently". But it is true that the strategy is a consistent winner on negative EV games, and for redietz, anyone else who I would train to play exactly the same way as I, will also win consistently.
    What do you mean by "consistently"? You, yourself, have written about sessions where you have lost $35,000. Here's where we have to be more exact. Are you talking about annually, as presented on your tax return? If so, you should say that. The claim of "consistently" makes it seem that each and every time you sit down at a machine you come away a winner.

  19. #39
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    What do you mean by "consistently"? You, yourself, have written about sessions where you have lost $35,000. Here's where we have to be more exact. Are you talking about annually, as presented on your tax return? If so, you should say that. The claim of "consistently" makes it seem that each and every time you sit down at a machine you come away a winner.
    Alan, this is just Singer being dishonest again. When a person plays a progression with a low win goal they will have more session wins as I've mentioned many times. Of course, those extra session wins are all offset by the big losses like the $35K one you keep mentioning. The net result is his system provides no monetary advantage. When he says "wins consistently" that is to trick the suckers out there into believing they can actually win money with his system. And, if they complain after the losses mount he can always come back and say he didn't claim they would win money.

    As I've always told you, it's a scam.

  20. #40
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    What do you mean by "consistently"? You, yourself, have written about sessions where you have lost $35,000. Here's where we have to be more exact. Are you talking about annually, as presented on your tax return? If so, you should say that. The claim of "consistently" makes it seem that each and every time you sit down at a machine you come away a winner.
    By consistently I mean on a consistent basis, meaning in this instance at an 85% success rate. Annually, yes, that does mean each and every year. I always maintained winning about 85 out of every 100 sessions played, and as I've explained, there were some large losers, but in addition to the many $2500 - $4000 winning sessions, there were more and larger wins than most of the larger losses. For instance, thru the years I had in addition to the $35k loss, about 3 or 4 other losses between $10k and $20k. These were very easily offset and rendered irrelevant by about a dozen $5 royals, two at $10, one at $25, and a $50k AAAA2 on $25 ddbp at your hangout--Caesars. Not to mention all the $10k thru $15k hits. These wins were not full amount net, but they were huge nonetheless.

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
  •