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

[Rob.Singer]

I understand you guys WANT it to be that winning very consistently with a high Net Win on -EV machines cannot happen, and I understand WHY you want it to be that way. But to me it is a moot point, because I've already done it for over 10 years. And as the only true expert on the strategy, I've also already said that almost everyone who wanted to play it exactly as written will also be a consistent Net Winner.

Where you're stuck is in the untrue and illogical simplified position that says play positive games and you should win, but play negative games and you WILL lose. I'll say it again, you all know you can win on a -EV machine today; then why can't you comprehend that it can happen tomorrow, the next day, and the next day etc. too? When you play vp, you are not taking a math test out of a prepared book. If it were intended to be that way, then we'd all be choosing perfect robots to go into the casinos to play the games for us.

[arcimede$]

I understand you guys WANT it to be that winning very consistently with a high Net Win on -EV machines cannot happen, and I understand WHY you want it to be that way. But to me it is a moot point, because I've already done it for over 10 years. And as the only true expert on the strategy, I've also already said that almost everyone who wanted to play it exactly as written will also be a consistent Net Winner.

Yeah, and you lived in a 4500 sqft house. We now know that was a lie, so why would anyone believe any of your claims? You are a typical narcissist that psychologically requires people to idolize you, so you make things up. It's all very, every simple.

Where you're stuck is in the untrue and illogical simplified position that says play positive games and you should win, but play negative games and you WILL lose. I'll say it again, you all know you can win on a -EV machine today; then why can't you comprehend that it can happen tomorrow, the next day, and the next day etc. too? When you play vp, you are not taking a math test out of a prepared book. If it were intended to be that way, then we'd all be choosing perfect robots to go into the casinos to play the games for us.

Why is it you have a high probability of losing on a negative machine? Why would anyone with any knowledge of math ask such a stupid question? It's called randomness. When dealing with a random distribution of results there will be a bell curve of possible outcomes. The more negative the ER the further that bell curve moves away from a winning result. Also, the more hands that are played the more the bell curve narrows moving more and more results out of winning territory. There is no debate about this from anyone familiar with mathematics. If anyone doubts this go to your local University and ask. Only someone selling a scam would try and fool people into believing it's not true.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, I have a couple of questions based on your last post. First, you said this:

Why is it you have a high probability of losing on a negative machine?

My first question is just how high is that probability? I am sure it has something to do with the amount of negative return. Well, 8/5 Bonus Poker pays 99.17% doesn't it? Add in 0.25% for free play and cash back and comps so just how negative is that? But even just at 99.17% how negative is that? Heck, it's a damn good "shot" compared to many other bets, and it doesn't seem to be so horrible either.

Let's move on to the next thing you wrote:

It's called randomness. When dealing with a random distribution of results there will be a bell curve of possible outcomes.

I'm not defending Rob here, but even you can concede that in the scheme of themes, he might have been one lucky SOB who was blessed by "random" and made him the million dollar winner on negative games.

Let's move on. Next you said:

The more negative the ER the further that bell curve moves away from a winning result. Also, the more hands that are played the more the bell curve narrows moving more and more results out of winning territory. There is no debate about this from anyone familiar with mathematics. If anyone doubts this go to your local University and ask. Only someone selling a scam would try and fool people into believing it's not true.

Well, this is again what I pointed out before. Bonus Poker at 99.17% really isn't that "negative" in the world of casino games. And Rob preaches not to play so many hands, and to quit when you reach a win goal, and even you concede that he can be ahead at some point, so his system seems to support your thought when you wrote "the more hands that are played the more the bell curve narrows moving more and more results out of winning territory,"doesn't it? Rob's entire strategy seems to be based on not playing so many hands.

For an observer it seems that you are spinning all of these mathematical principles and jargon just to say the guy can't win, when in fact even you concede and understand that people can win on negative games. So why don't you just say this:

It's better to play a positive expectation game to have a better chance of winning.

Why can't you say that instead of attacking him for having a system or strategy that just might provide a win when players get lucky and stop playing before they get unlucky?

Oh, I didn't want to get into the argument that people playing positive expectation games can lose -- but we all know that is possible as well.

I know that what Rob says makes you cringe because it "violates the math" but reasonable people can accept that gambling is gambling and anything can happen -- including winning on negative expectation games. Even you say it's possible, but you say it's not probable. Well, make up your mind. In the world of casino gambling, when you sit down at the machine, possible and probable are kind of blurry in definition.

[arcimede$]

I used the term "random distribution" and there may be a few folks who don't understand what this means. If a machine is truly random then every card has an equal chance of appearing on each and every hand. Over time this means that all cards will appear an equal number of times. As a result of this, we can compute the percentages for certain deals, things like 2 pair, 3 of a kind, 4 to a flush, etc. In addition, we can also compute the percentages for specific draws, things like filling out a quad from holding a pair or 3 of a kind.

Hence, we can determine with a pretty good confidence exactly what kind of results a person will see over time. Then, by applying the pay table values to these hands we can compute an expected return (ER). There is nothing here that takes a lot of insight to understand. It's very similar to coin flips or rolls of dice. There are just more possibilities. Why would anyone expect they will see more tails than heads in an honest coin flip?

So, when Singer claims "you all know you can win on a -EV machine today; then why can't you comprehend that it can happen tomorrow, the next day, and the next day etc. too?", the answer is quite easy. It would require a person getting dealt hands that generate more good paying results every single time. They would need to be dealt more good paying hands like 3 of a kinds, etc. and they would need to fill them out more often than other folks and they would need to do this every time they play. Why would that occur? Just because they leave at some specific time?

Does anyone believe they could flip more tails than heads if they quit at some specific time one day and start flipping again the next day? Why would they flip more tails each and every day? Think about it, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There is simply no way a person can FORCE a machine to deal them better cards or cause a coin to come up tails rather than heads.

So what does this say about a person who claims that it can be done? Either they are stupid or they are intentionally trying to fool people. You can all decide which you want to believe.

[Vegas Vic]

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?

I think proof from you in any legitimate form (other than your internet say-so) would be a start. If providing me with your book is a start, I'll gladly peruse it FWIW.

[Alan Mendelson]

I used the term "random distribution" and there may be a few folks who don't understand what this means.

Arc, I think all of us understand what "random" means as it applies to video poker games and results. But that doesn't mean you have to be playing forever.

Don't you agree that someone who decides to quit when showing a gain on the credit meter is more likely to come out ahead on a negative expectation machine than someone who keeps playing the negative expectation game till infinity? Well, Rob preaches to get up from the machine when the credit meter shows it's time to go. I can't fault him for saying that. You do?

I think you are starting to throw arguments at the guy and at what he says just for the sake of arguing. We've heard nothing new from you... or from Rob!!

So you guys don't see eye to eye. We agree. Ho hum.... Don't forget to vote.

[arcimede$]

Arc, I have a couple of questions based on your last post. First, you said this:

My first question is just how high is that probability? I am sure it has something to do with the amount of negative return. Well, 8/5 Bonus Poker pays 99.17% doesn't it? Add in 0.25% for free play and cash back and comps so just how negative is that? But even just at 99.17% how negative is that? Heck, it's a damn good "shot" compared to many other bets, and it doesn't seem to be so horrible either.

No it's not horrible. But, it's not positive either and you often claim that people playing positive games can lose. You are correct but you appear to ignore that it's also possible for someone playing a slightly negative game to lose much more than the ER of the game. It's all a continuum. The better the return the better the chances of coming out ahead. A person playing a positive return game has a better chance of winning than a person playing a slightly negative game has a better chance than someone playing a highly negative game.

I'm not defending Rob here, but even you can concede that in the scheme of themes, he might have been one lucky SOB who was blessed by "random" and made him the million dollar winner on negative games.

Yes, as I've stated several time before there's a .03% chance he could be telling the truth.

Well, this is again what I pointed out before. Bonus Poker at 99.17% really isn't that "negative" in the world of casino games. And Rob preaches not to play so many hands, and to quit when you reach a win goal, and even you concede that he can be ahead at some point, so his system seems to support your thought when you wrote "the more hands that are played the more the bell curve narrows moving more and more results out of winning territory,"doesn't it? Rob's entire strategy seems to be based on not playing so many hands.

Yet, he plays year in and year out. I suspect he plays more than I do. Sorry, but while you might have a point for a single year, the longer he plays the less likely it is possible he is telling the truth. The hands keep adding up no matter when they are played.

For an observer it seems that you are spinning all of these mathematical principles and jargon just to say the guy can't win, when in fact even you concede and understand that people can win on negative games. So why don't you just say this:

It's better to play a positive expectation game to have a better chance of winning.

Why can't you say that instead of attacking him for having a system or strategy that just might provide a win when players get lucky and stop playing before they get unlucky?

Once again, I don't attack him for whatever he chooses to play or whatever system he plays. I couldn't care less. I simply point out that it is his claims that are wrong. Just like above where he says there's no reason a person can't win continually playing negative machines. And, his claims that APers all lose. Those claims are what I attack. I've told you this many, many times and yet here you are again misstating my position.

Oh, I didn't want to get into the argument that people playing positive expectation games can lose -- but we all know that is possible as well.

I know that what Rob says makes you cringe because it "violates the math" but reasonable people can accept that gambling is gambling and anything can happen -- including winning on negative expectation games. Even you say it's possible, but you say it's not probable. Well, make up your mind. In the world of casino gambling, when you sit down at the machine, possible and probable are kind of blurry in definition.

No, they are not "blurry". You do understand that it is "possible" to win power ball, right? You do understand that it is very "improbable", right? According to your statement above it should be easy to win. That is nonsense and you know it.

[arcimede$]

Arc, I think all of us understand what "random" means as it applies to video poker games and results. But that doesn't mean you have to be playing forever.

Don't you agree that someone who decides to quit when showing a gain on the credit meter is more likely to come out ahead on a negative expectation machine than someone who keeps playing the negative expectation game till infinity? Well, Rob preaches to get up from the machine when the credit meter shows it's time to go. I can't fault him for saying that. You do?

I think you are starting to throw arguments at the guy and at what he says just for the sake of arguing. We've heard nothing new from you... or from Rob!!

So you guys don't see eye to eye. We agree. Ho hum.... Don't forget to vote.

Already voted.

You claim you understand randomness and then you make a claim that shows you have no clue. You can't always get ahead in a session. Sometimes you will lose. Life is nothing but one long session and when you come back to play after quitting one session it's nothing but a continuation of your lifetime session. Only a person who quits FOREVER when they are ahead can claim quitting makes a difference.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, I just read your responses. I don't misstate your positions. It's just that there is so much flowing from your keyboard that I can't mention everything everytime I write something.

I just think this whole thing is silly.

So far, no one has given me or shown me the magic bullet that will make me win at video poker. And the bottom line is, no one can. All of you -- Singer, Dancer, Arcimedes, etc -- have good ideas. But whether or not they'll work for me or for anyone else is all left up to chance.

Thank you, Arc. Voting is good. Vote early and vote often. Go ahead, vote again.

[regnis]

Arci-here's the problem with your "math". Math is just a basis for determining odds or expected returns. But reality of gambling is that we are searching for BRIEF deviations. We all know the 7 will come 1 out of 6 rolls. But there are hours, days, or even weeks where the sevens stay away and craps players have some fun. So we try to maximize profits during those runs. The odds are still the same--the math still says the seven will come 1 of 6.

Now let's go to your coin flip. 50-50. But let's do a series of 100 flips 100 times. How many times do you think the result will be 50-50? I'm sure you can even tell me accurately, with a standard deviation, how many times that will happen or what the odds are of 53-47, or 45-55, or whatever. But the facts are only a few will wind up 50-50. And therein lies the fallacy (for lack of a better term) of a system that only looks at the math unless millions of hands or flips or rolls are made.And please note I didn't say fallacy of the math--so don't go off on me on the math--no one here has ever questioned math. I said a system based solely on math.

You keep saying that Rob's special plays, because they are not mathematically correct, will cost him extra spins in the long run, and that is true. But as I've stated several times before, most of us play until a certain time on the clock or until we have hit a big win--we are not there forever and we will never see those extra spins (which by the way still have the same minimal chance to produce the big win that Rob is looking for to hit his win goal). So if a special play is used to try for the big win, it may cost 3/100ths of a spin and so 10 hours later of play, a whole spin. i would rather be home in bed with the big win or having reached my set time to leave than stay there pounding away because the math says in a billion spins I'll PROBABLY make a few bucks.

And by the way, my bookeeper here in the office has proven that 2 + 2=5 for years now!!!

[Rob.Singer]

Ho-hum....as I've already said, no matter how logical your argument, you're just feeding the troll and playing into the hands of someone who so desperately needs something to help occupy his time when you try to get thru to him. And don't for one second think that you haven't--and long ago at that. Remember where he's coming from....as a so-called vp "expert" who, like me when I was a foolish AP, could not and did not win. So it stands to reason how irritated and argumentative such a player would be when reading about how another AP woke up before he did and found great success doing something on his own. How frustrating it must be to someone so invested in the math to see another utilize math ALONG WITH the common sense side of gambling, actually do what he never could. And as if from a cruel tale, the successful person has a varied and enjoyable set of declining years whilst he has seen better days gone by in a great big puff.

So goes what goes around comes around in this life.....

[redietz]

I think we should all believe Rob because he says so.

Math is an illusion, after all. Just numbers. Human skill and ingenuity can overcome numbers all the time.

Just ask Caesars'.

[Alan Mendelson]

Redietz you and Arc and everyone else who stands by the math are absolutely correct: you can't overcome the math over the long term. Every video poker book, video, website, primer, strategy card says the same thing. Specifically they say that based on the paytable, "over the long term with expert play" you will have XXX return on XXX game.

I agree with that. So does Rob Singer. In fact, Rob Singer admits he went into bankruptcy trying to fight that "long term math." So Rob started to play the way Grandmas and poor people play -- when they hit a winner they quit and run off to the buffet with their bucket. Except Rob wasn't playing with a bucket full of coins when he decided to quit and run after a win because he started with a bankroll of $50,000+ and he was willing to go all the way up to $100/coin machines to hit his win goal (as crazy as that seems to be to me).

Rob is merely restating what "recreational players" and "grandmas" have known for a long, long time: the casinos didn't get built with machines that could be beaten, or with any games that could be beaten. So when you get lucky, you take the money and run.

Hopefully, you will be able to take the money and run more often than you go bust. Rob tells us that system has worked for him. I also think that system might also work for me because if my memory is not selective and is accurate, I've been ahead at some point during my play more often than all the times I busted out. And maybe if I quit when I was ahead I would be showing a profit today for my casino play instead of losses.

The math says all of us will lose... except for Arcimede$ who has a magical one-eyed-jack game to play plus promotions and incentives the rest of us probably will never see for the rest of our lives. So Arc is lucky in a different way. Heaven gave him an edge playing video poker so he can continue to play his way.

The rest of us have to play like grandmas and poor people. When we see the money show up on the credit meter, we take the money and run or else we hope that as a consolation prize the next casino tower will be named after us.

By the way, did I tell you that my middle name is Octavius??

Edited to add:

Ironically if we were having a discussion about craps I would be saying the same thing as you, redietz and as Arc. I would be saying you can't beat the game of craps because the math won't let you. The casino has the edge on every play of the game. I would say and I do say, you can't beat the game of craps using any system or formula. But there are two ways to win at craps:

1. you can influence the dice and change the distribution of random results of two dice.
2. you can quit after a positive run, and return to the table when you hope to catch another run.

In craps the dealers and pros (including me) will tell you craps is an unbeatable game -- and the math says so. Yet many of us try hoping that lightning will strike or that some magician who can influence or control the dice will perform as rehearsed.

Such is casino gambling.

[Rob.Singer]

I think we should all believe Rob because he says so.
Human skill and ingenuity can overcome numbers all the time.

This could just possibly be your most informative post ever. So please, let us indeed add it up using the math:

1. I have created, with a combination of math and a master dose of that ingenuity, a methodology of beating the irreproachable mathematical edge held by the casinos over every gambler who challenges them.

2. That 4-team NFL parley bet I made up here in N. Nevada last winter--no casino would have ever expected I'd have won such a gamble, yet with a combination of football knowledge, common sense, & more of that ingenuity, I showed just what the human mind is capable of when the mathematical odds say something entirely different.

3. There is no way I wanted Obama to win re-election today, and the country was probably evenly split, as extraordinarily confusing as that may sound given this president's poor economic record, constant lying, and bevy of broken promises....yet that little voice in the back of my head kept telling me that it is a vastly different world than the one in which I was brought up, and more and more people feel that the Government should be taking care of them. My ingenuity recognized this, and tomorrow I'll be collecting on that bet too.

So you see redietz, life and the ability to prevail is based on more than just numbers and pure math. Yet so many people, AP's among them, continuously fall into the traps set by "the other sides" where they talk themselves into thinking they can beat that other side at their own game. But as they all soon discover, only ingenuity and human motivation & abilities can do what they wish they could do.

[arcimede$]

1. I have created, with a combination of math and a master dose of that ingenuity, a methodology of beating the irreproachable mathematical edge held by the casinos over every gambler who challenges them.

So, where are those papers you promised last month showing everyone the mathematical basis for your system? Did the dog eat them?

Of course, as I predicted they have not materialized ... and they won't. They don't exist and all of your claims are nothing but lies. But hey, thanks for proving me right one more time.

2. That 4-team NFL parley bet I made up here in N. Nevada last winter--no casino would have ever expected I'd have won such a gamble, yet with a combination of football knowledge, common sense, & more of that ingenuity, I showed just what the human mind is capable of when the mathematical odds say something entirely different.

Let's see if I understand this, despite losing overall at NFL bets you are claiming that one single day makes you smart? Bwah haha haha haha haha

3. There is no way I wanted Obama to win re-election today, and the country was probably evenly split, as extraordinarily confusing as that may sound given this president's poor economic record, constant lying, and bevy of broken promises....yet that little voice in the back of my head kept telling me that it is a vastly different world than the one in which I was brought up, and more and more people feel that the Government should be taking care of them. My ingenuity recognized this, and tomorrow I'll be collecting on that bet too.

And, I also thought Obama was going to win based on the impetus he received from not quite Hurricane Sandy. And yes, I mentioned it to some friends. Of course, all the polls showed the jump as well making neither one of us very prophetic.

So you see redietz, life and the ability to prevail is based on more than just numbers and pure math. Yet so many people, AP's among them, continuously fall into the traps set by "the other sides" where they talk themselves into thinking they can beat that other side at their own game. But as they all soon discover, only ingenuity and human motivation & abilities can do what they wish they could do.

Where is that supporting evidence again, where is that 4500 sqft house, where is any evidence whatsoever that you won anything?

Yessiree, you done proved to everyone how you outsmarted those dumb casinos.

[arcimede$]

Redietz you and Arc and everyone else who stands by the math are absolutely correct: you can't overcome the math over the long term. Every video poker book, video, website, primer, strategy card says the same thing. Specifically they say that based on the paytable, "over the long term with expert play" you will have XXX return on XXX game.

I agree with that. So does Rob Singer.

Not according to his own words just below as once again he claims AP's can't win. Sorry Alan but Singer is making a fool out of you.

In fact, Rob Singer admits he went into bankruptcy trying to fight that "long term math." So Rob started to play the way Grandmas and poor people play -- when they hit a winner they quit and run off to the buffet with their bucket. Except Rob wasn't playing with a bucket full of coins when he decided to quit and run after a win because he started with a bankroll of $50,000+ and he was willing to go all the way up to $100/coin machines to hit his win goal (as crazy as that seems to be to me).

Yes, Alan ... and he also owns a 4500 sqft imaginary house. Have you always been this gullible?

Rob is merely restating what "recreational players" and "grandmas" have known for a long, long time: the casinos didn't get built with machines that could be beaten, or with any games that could be beaten. So when you get lucky, you take the money and run.

Yes they did, but there were only a few games and it took knowledge/skill to take advantage of it. I have no idea why you would choose to include information like this that is factually incorrect. You only make yourself look foolish. It's almost like you think casinos don't remove people who pose a threat when even you have been asked to leave. Is your memory failing you?

Hopefully, you will be able to take the money and run more often than you go bust. Rob tells us that system has worked for him. I also think that system might also work for me because if my memory is not selective and is accurate, I've been ahead at some point during my play more often than all the times I busted out. And maybe if I quit when I was ahead I would be showing a profit today for my casino play instead of losses.

You mean like leaving with $2200 instead of $12,000? I think you might have some memory problems ... but you certainly have little to no logical capabilities.

The math says all of us will lose... except for Arcimede$ who has a magical one-eyed-jack game to play plus promotions and incentives the rest of us probably will never see for the rest of our lives. So Arc is lucky in a different way. Heaven gave him an edge playing video poker so he can continue to play his way.

It has nothing to do with luck. It is just the application of simple mathematics and, unlike your claims above, these opportunities exist in more places than you think. You are just not motivated to find them. You are more than willing to lose money playing negative games.

[arcimede$]

Arci-here's the problem with your "math". Math is just a basis for determining odds or expected returns. But reality of gambling is that we are searching for BRIEF deviations. We all know the 7 will come 1 out of 6 rolls. But there are hours, days, or even weeks where the sevens stay away and craps players have some fun. So we try to maximize profits during those runs. The odds are still the same--the math still says the seven will come 1 of 6.

Now let's go to your coin flip. 50-50. But let's do a series of 100 flips 100 times. How many times do you think the result will be 50-50? I'm sure you can even tell me accurately, with a standard deviation, how many times that will happen or what the odds are of 53-47, or 45-55, or whatever. But the facts are only a few will wind up 50-50. And therein lies the fallacy (for lack of a better term) of a system that only looks at the math unless millions of hands or flips or rolls are made.And please note I didn't say fallacy of the math--so don't go off on me on the math--no one here has ever questioned math. I said a system based solely on math.

You keep saying that Rob's special plays, because they are not mathematically correct, will cost him extra spins in the long run, and that is true. But as I've stated several times before, most of us play until a certain time on the clock or until we have hit a big win--we are not there forever and we will never see those extra spins (which by the way still have the same minimal chance to produce the big win that Rob is looking for to hit his win goal). So if a special play is used to try for the big win, it may cost 3/100ths of a spin and so 10 hours later of play, a whole spin. i would rather be home in bed with the big win or having reached my set time to leave than stay there pounding away because the math says in a billion spins I'll PROBABLY make a few bucks.

And by the way, my bookeeper here in the office has proven that 2 + 2=5 for years now!!!

We'd all like to hit the big wins. However, just because you try for the big hit does not mean you will hit it. And, in many cases the credits you lose going for the big win gives you fewer opportunities where you might have a better chance of hitting that big win. So, the truth is you are only cheating yourself and then telling the world how you think that is smart. Amazing.

PS. You should nominate your bookie for a Nobel prize.

[slingshot]

The "math" is like a prison-enchaining you to restricted thinking where there's only one "logical" way to do anything. The concepts contained in Rob's strategies allow freedom of thinking-like thinking "outside the box." Freedom like this cuts through the boredom, freshens the thinking process, keeps one mentally alert, and gives one sense of achievement. Just my thoughts.

[arcimede$]

The "math" is like a prison-enchaining you to restricted thinking where there's only one "logical" way to do anything. The concepts contained in Rob's strategies allow freedom of thinking-like thinking "outside the box." Freedom like this cuts through the boredom, freshens the thinking process, keeps one mentally alert, and gives one sense of achievement. Just my thoughts.

Yes, the exact "thinking" that has made casinos billions. The idea that using popular phrases somehow changes the facts is about as silly as it gets. You can think outside the box all you want. In this case the box is air tight. All you will do is suffocate.

Here's another box, only jump out of an airplane with a parachute. So, go ahead, think outside the box.

[Vegas Vic]

We'd all like to hit the big wins. However, just because you try for the big hit does not mean you will hit it. And, in many cases the credits you lose going for the big win gives you fewer opportunities where you might have a better chance of hitting that big win. So, the truth is you are only cheating yourself and then telling the world how you think that is smart. Amazing.

PS. You should nominate your bookie for a Nobel prize.

Exactly. Going for the big hit and bypassing even a push will be costly in most cases. Those pushes keep you in the seat for another spin. THAT next spin could be a winner (or even the elusive royal). Certain situations dictate going for the whole enchilada (such as being dealt a FH in DDB with 3 aces), but unstructured "special plays" are fraught with failure.