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

[regnis]

[QUOTE=arcimede$;8157]

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.

[regnis]

[QUOTE=regnis;8201]

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.

So you only play a little yet you manage to achieve or even beat the long term expected return. You ARE luckier than you claim Singer must be.

[slingshot]

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.

Thanks-I had to read it about 6 times and THINK a little about all you've written to realize it was what you've said before-with a life application.

[arcimede$]

So you only play a little yet you manage to achieve or even beat the long term expected return. You ARE luckier than you claim Singer must be.

I've never said I beat the long term expected return. I've made money, there's a difference. Overall I've been below the ER but had a big enough edge to still make a profit.

[Alan Mendelson]

I've never said I beat the long term expected return. I've made money, there's a difference. Overall I've been below the ER but had a big enough edge to still make a profit.

Please explain this, if you could. If you have an edge of, let's say, one half of 1% from a combination of the payback on the game's paytable plus cashback, etc., and you've managed to win about $100,000 over eight years, just how much money have you cycled through? And based on your rate of hands played/hour, how much time did you have to devote to playing to attain that?

You never reported hitting some mega progressive so I am guessing that you won your money through a constant stream of playing your small but positive edge. Is that right?

[regnis]

Alan--Arci wants to have it both ways. When I calculated the number of hands playing 40 hours per week, and generously gave him a 1% return, and that only came out to $50,000, he said he doesn't play that much. So how does he achieve this great windfall that he claims to have made by only playing for short periods of time on a game that has no big winners other than the Royal.

And how can he espouse the merits of long term play by the math when he says he doesn't play for long periods?

Sheesh---Rob should be licking his chops on this one.

[Rob.Singer]

Regnis I've taken him to the woodshed over this misrepresentation time after time. You have to understand, arci is just another of those losing APers as I was only had no problem admitting as much, and he has been....for years. Then when he first got wind of me, my message, and how I've been able to win, well....losing players who think they have it all figured out just get irritated as hell reading about the success of another that they've never been able to attain. So his response? Just keep quoting math books as if his play is just another page, call me a liar on anything & everything, and expect the masses to believe everything he says. Only problem is, he occasionally gets caught by people like you, me, jatki, et al. And you see the result: what goes around comes around, and in such a righteous way. His life today is more of a punishment than anything else, for all the needless lies and disruptions he's caused throughout the years. Be prepared to be accused of being me.

[arcimede$]

Please explain this, if you could. If you have an edge of, let's say, one half of 1% from a combination of the payback on the game's paytable plus cashback, etc., and you've managed to win about $100,000 over eight years, just how much money have you cycled through? And based on your rate of hands played/hour, how much time did you have to devote to playing to attain that?

I rarely played with an edge of only .5%. For example, when I played at Tuscany I played a game called Double Bonus Plus. The return was 99.8%. I played almost exclusively on 10x points days which provided 1% cashback. The freeplay was .7% making the overall return around 101.5% or and edge of 1.5%. I played with bigger edges, like 2.5% at Sam's Town and around 1.6% at SouthPoint. I played a few closer to 1% like at Fiesta unless the progressives got real high but that was about the average.

I mentioned most of this before, I'm always somewhat amazed that you can ignore so much.

You never reported hitting some mega progressive so I am guessing that you won your money through a constant stream of playing your small but positive edge. Is that right?

That's right.

[arcimede$]

Alan--Arci wants to have it both ways. When I calculated the number of hands playing 40 hours per week, and generously gave him a 1% return, and that only came out to $50,000, he said he doesn't play that much. So how does he achieve this great windfall that he claims to have made by only playing for short periods of time on a game that has no big winners other than the Royal.

And how can he espouse the merits of long term play by the math when he says he doesn't play for long periods?

Sheesh---Rob should be licking his chops on this one.

I always get a chuckle out of the strawman nonsense that people make up. You make up some numbers and then claim I can't possibly have won so much using your imaginary numbers. This is getting quite tiresome. Maybe you should ask before making a fool out of yourself again.

[arcimede$]

Regnis I've taken him to the woodshed over this misrepresentation time after time. You have to understand, arci is just another of those losing APers as I was only had no problem admitting as much, and he has been....for years.

You'd think he'd learn. After making a fool out of himself last time with his silly claims, he comes right back and doubles down on it and sure enough, now he's a double fool.

Then when he first got wind of me, my message, and how I've been able to win, well....losing players who think they have it all figured out just get irritated as hell reading about the success of another that they've never been able to attain.

There's that massive ego again. No one cares if you've won or lost. The going odds are you lost big time and you have that bankruptcy to prove it. Now we know you lived in a tiny little little apartment while claiming you were making $100K a year and your wife more than that. Bwah haha haha haha

So his response? Just keep quoting math books as if his play is just another page, call me a liar on anything & everything, and expect the masses to believe everything he says. Only problem is, he occasionally gets caught by people like you, me, jatki, et al. And you see the result: what goes around comes around, and in such a righteous way. His life today is more of a punishment than anything else, for all the needless lies and disruptions he's caused throughout the years. Be prepared to be accused of being me.

Yes, Singer once again proves to everyone concerned that he will jump on any lie and repeat it. Stupid is as stupid does.

[Alan Mendelson]

I rarely played with an edge of only .5%. For example, when I played at Tuscany I played a game called Double Bonus Plus. The return was 99.8%. I played almost exclusively on 10x points days which provided 1% cashback. The freeplay was .7% making the overall return around 101.5% or and edge of 1.5%. I played with bigger edges, like 2.5% at Sam's Town and around 1.6% at SouthPoint. I played a few closer to 1% like at Fiesta unless the progressives got real high but that was about the average.

I mentioned most of this before, I'm always somewhat amazed that you can ignore so much.

It's not that I ignore it, it's just that it is "ancient history" and these "deals" no longer exist. Today, South Point has about the best video poker available in Vegas and it doesn't come close to anything like you mentioned. I even spoke to the marketing department there and they told me that even for players on par with 7-Stars with Caesars that free play offers would rarely top FIFTY DOLLARS per day -- which is far less than what I get at Rincon. (Caesars only gives free play offers for special dates, and lately I was reduced to $850-$1,000 per visit, while I used to get $2,500 per visit.)

The point is that the landscape is changing, and I am trying to figure out where or what is the best play today for someone trying to be an "AP" and except for your one-eyed jacks machine in Minnesota there doesn't seem to be a "best play" anywhere left.

[arcimede$]

Yes, it is old news, but the question was how did I win $100K. These were the games I played. I'm no longer playing in Vegas so it really doesn't matter what's available there. However, Frank indicated there were still plays and Dancer seems to be still playing quite a bit. So, my guess is there are still some good plays. Of course, you can always play FPDW in several places for a small profit.

[Alan Mendelson]

If there are "good plays" left, Dancer would be better off writing about those instead of telling us how much he lost chasing cars or slot jackpots.

No, I'm afraid the "good plays" no longer exist. Even Rincon which used to be the "jewel" of video poker play has decimated the game. Pala, which is near Rincon does have $1 DDB progressives at 9/5 and while Pechanga (the biggest casino in the Western US and bigger than anything in Vegas) has full pay games, it has no progressives to give players an edge -- and its full pay games are not positive games.

I'm afraid that the door has pretty much closed on advantage VP play.

[arcimede$]

Alan, you do realize the smart gamblers aren't going to be advertising the good plays. You didn't see me talking about the good plays I mentioned here when I was playing them.

[Alan Mendelson]

It's not about smart gamblers not advertising them. You can't keep these things a secret in the world of the Internet and with all of the gambling websites that exist today. Five and ten years ago the world was different.

Today it's all changed. When I went online and reported on this site that Harrah's Rincon reduced the paytables on its machines on the same day that it happened, within 24 hours people stopped going to play VP there and within four days, the paytables on most of the machines were restored. (9/6 jacks still has not been restored, and DDB remains at 8/5, but other games were restored and the non smoking games were brought up to the same paytables as the smoking games.)

If there were still "good plays" in Vegas, we would know about them. The "secret handshake crowd" could not dominate them.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, it is well known that any so-called +EV plays and the perfection at which they're played, is one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetuated upon the video poker-playing community. Just think of what kind of problem gambler it took for Bob Dancer to pretend to create, via some secret inside information known only between him and the South Point, something supposedly at "positive EV" out of a slot machine! In fact, he was so roped into this gambling session that he was willing to put his phoney reputation on the line, and he did a darn good job at that. But this is how these AP's act--dignity left the equation long ago.

[arcimede$]

Once again Singer shows us that mathematics is not his strong suit. I would guess he's whipping up and new brew of "luck" potion to get him through the winter.

I can see a few people around here lining up for a few shots. Some people will believe just about anything.

[Alan Mendelson]

Once again Singer shows us that mathematics is not his strong suit. I would guess he's whipping up and new brew of "luck" potion to get him through the winter.

I can see a few people around here lining up for a few shots. Some people will believe just about anything.

I don't understand what you mean by the comment about Singer and mathematics. Does it relate the the post immediately above, or something else?

[slingshot]

ANYHOW, after going over Rob's strategy-which BTW is more detailed than on his former site-I feel much more comfortable with the RTT and the ARTT strategies. For one, I won't have to save up for 2400 credits over a period of time. And these strategies are much more fun and relaxing while still giving a good chance to win in a shorter period of time so I can get outta there.

[redietz]

Interesting use of language by Rob. Technically, he is correct in that he has always "consistently won." I estimate he will win 80% of his sessions. That is, by definition, "consistent winning." Anyone who trains with him should also "win consistently."

Now, will anyone who trains under him generate an overall net win? Not on negative EV machines.

I think Rob is trickier than some people think -- Alan, you should appreciate the subtlety and legal correctness of his claims, while realizing that he hasn't said he will win in any net way, but that he HAS WON (historically) in a net way, which may indeed be true. And he WILL WIN CONSISTENTLY (in the future) but not NET.

Rob's a smart guy.