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

[Alan Mendelson]

Proof is very important, as Arc has pointed out. Perhaps Arc would like to provide to us the proof of his six figure net win over eight years? There aren't going to be a lot of W2Gs playing quarters through dollars, but a photo of them would be a start. Certified copies of tax returns showing taxes paid on the profits would be ideal. This proof could help all of us get to the bottom of various claims made here.

Since I only have a net loss, I don't have much to show. Except I do have photos of me with the machines showing the progressive royals.

[Alan Mendelson]

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.

A very well put observation. I think Rob should comment about this, as he has said he goes for his special plays about 5% of the time. Okay. How do you define that "5% of the time" when you utilize the special play vs making the conventional play?

I think we need that information before we jump all over him about the special plays.

Rob Singer isn't the only one who makes "special plays." I wonder how many of us even in a game such as Bonus have considered breaking up a full house with three aces, to just hold the three aces? I did it once -- on an 8/5 machine which is something Rob says he would never do. (His "special play" is for 7/5 machines.) And the one time I did it, because I was desperate for a big win, I drew the case ace for $2,000. I never tried it again.

I recall the lady at Rincon on a $1 progressive machine, who dropped the 9 in a king-high straight flush and drew the royal. That's a "special play" that did not come from Rob. Now, will you tell that lady she made the wrong play?

I was with my wife at MGM when she was playing $2 8/5 Bonus and she was dealt AK UNsuited and held only the ace, and she drew the royal for $8,000. Try telling her she made the wrong play.

When you look at the math, breaking up the straight flush, holding only the ace, and my breaking up the full house with three aces were all wrong. Except that when the error pays off big, can you argue?

Maybe the "pros" can argue. But to recreational players who don't "live by" the math... heck, a royal in the hand is worth a lot more than following the math.

[Rob.Singer]

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.

Vic if you took the time to actually understand the special plays rather than blindly critize them, you just might surprise yourself. The notion that they result in less overall hands played supposedly resulting in more money lost is entirely false--not as you're playing most of them, but the moment after a session-ending win occurs because of them. The hits create massive sized winners because of the climb in denomination, and because you immediately go down to your lowest level to begin the next session you play, it completely renders your argument irrelevant. Further, it's taking the lazy, easy way out by claiming making a special play that eliminates a push or the chance for a slightly larger winner will give the player less opportunity to hit the big win. That's totally false, because you do not get THAT many such opportunities in the first place, and by giving yourself more of them that do hit on occasion, you are more able to reach your goal and eliminate that slow monotonous death afforded by those otherwise meaningless little winners....unless, of course, you are addicted to slot club points and status more than you are to winning casino money.

[arcimede$]

Vic if you took the time to actually understand the special plays rather than blindly critize them, you just might surprise yourself. The notion that they result in less overall hands played supposedly resulting in more money lost is entirely false--not as you're playing most of them, but the moment after a session-ending win occurs because of them.

I already provided the math right here on this forum (last year) that proves this is a lie.

The hits create massive sized winners because of the climb in denomination, and because you immediately go down to your lowest level to begin the next session you play, it completely renders your argument irrelevant. Further, it's taking the lazy, easy way out by claiming making a special play that eliminates a push or the chance for a slightly larger winner will give the player less opportunity to hit the big win. That's totally false, because you do not get THAT many such opportunities in the first place, and by giving yourself more of them that do hit on occasion, you are more able to reach your goal and eliminate that slow monotonous death afforded by those otherwise meaningless little winners....unless, of course, you are addicted to slot club points and status more than you are to winning casino money.

As Alan indicated above there's many, many opportunities for "special plays" that Singer never mentions. Alan then proceeds to provide anecdotal evidence that these can be hit to provide big wins. So, what makes these special plays wrong and only the ones Singer thought of right?

The answer is .... nothing. On any hand where you are deal a 10-A you have a chance to hit a royal. Why not always go for the royal, the logic behind that "special play" is exactly the same ... you could hit big. What's good for the goose and all that.

Once a person sits down and thinks about it they should realize that Singer's "special plays" are no different, they are just credit sucking risks that rarely hit and over time increase that persons losses.

[Rob.Singer]

Proof is very important, as Arc has pointed out. Perhaps Arc would like to provide to us the proof of his six figure net win over eight years? There aren't going to be a lot of W2Gs playing quarters through dollars, but a photo of them would be a start. Certified copies of tax returns showing taxes paid on the profits would be ideal. This proof could help all of us get to the bottom of various claims made here.

Since I only have a net loss, I don't have much to show. Except I do have photos of me with the machines showing the progressive royals.

Alan I've gone thru this proof question with arci for years and to no avail. When you ask him to provide proof of anything, it's like asking the president to explain why he didn't have adequate security in Benghazi or why he didn't send in help during the 7 hour assault and deaths: he deflects. Arci's claim of proof is he wants us to believe he achieves results according to the math, which means perfect play always and his condensed version of what the long term consists of--but only for him....and for now. Oh, and don't forget that the machines magically cooperate on royals too But at least he tries to rationalize the impossible. Bob Dancer always walks away from that question in order that his brand doesn't take a hit.

[arcimede$]

Proof is very important, as Arc has pointed out. Perhaps Arc would like to provide to us the proof of his six figure net win over eight years? There aren't going to be a lot of W2Gs playing quarters through dollars, but a photo of them would be a start. Certified copies of tax returns showing taxes paid on the profits would be ideal. This proof could help all of us get to the bottom of various claims made here.

I'd be happy to provide the information but it wouldn't convince anyone. I could easily create a fake tax form and provide whatever information I wanted. There's no way to verify it. That was why I agreed to meet with Singer in Vegas and show him my tax form just as I put it in an envelope and mailed it. Of course, he backed out. He obviously did not want to be put in a position to admit that I was a winner. Tells you everything you need to know about his honesty.

[regnis]

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.

Arci and Vic--you still don't, or at least refuse to understand. I am not going to miss that extra spin because I'm not there to pound away all day and night. I am there for a set time---like I have a meeting at 5 and I have to leave at 4 and so at 4 I am leaving--no matter how many spins I have left. So if I take a shot to get even or make a big lick (and it's not like this happens often--it is very rare occasions anyway)I don't care if over 1000 hands it costs 1 or 2 spins.

So for me, I would rather take the shot at a winner if the opportunity presents, because I am not playing any shorter or longer if it fails.

[arcimede$]

Regnis, it doesn't matter what you do today if you return to play another day. If you leave at 4:00PM you simply have a few more credits when you return next time. Over time you will hit big winners at the given frequency randomness allows.

[Rob.Singer]

A very well put observation. I think Rob should comment about this, as he has said he goes for his special plays about 5% of the time. Okay. How do you define that "5% of the time" when you utilize the special play vs making the conventional play?

I think we need that information before we jump all over him about the special plays.

No way you talk the poor guy out of it Alan. As I told you, he only goes thru all this jousting just to fill in down time and to console himself for not having been a vp winner when his math books told him he should. Adding salt to his wounds is how I DID win and really still do even though I now only use parts of what made me a very successful player.

That 5% I mentioned--it's not an in-stone number that I must use in my sessions. It's the approximate # of times the opportunity to make a special play arises from the deal, and it must be the appropriate hold for the particular game I'm playing as well as other minor factors. They have all been very carefully and very well-planned and have validity of purpose behind them for the circumstances in which I approach game success, just as explained in our videos.

[arcimede$]

That 5% I mentioned--it's not an in-stone number that I must use in my sessions.

Well Alan, there you go. Another question ... another evasion. How long before you realize you will never get any direct answers, you will never see that proof you were promised, you will never see any evidence of his claimed successes. Exactly what you would expect from a scammer.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc I already knew the answer to the "5% question" because Rob and I discussed it before. Actually this is one of the reasons you can't test Rob's system because there are variables that can be in every hand. That doesn't mean his method is wrong but it does mean that you can't simply plug numbers into a program to determine if what he does will work or not.

This is the art of video poker while you only go by the science of video poker.

I don't know any other way to explain it.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, I'm not reading the nonsense arci writes unless I catch a glimpse in a reply or another poster brings up a point he tries to forcefeed others. What I gather from your post above is that the critics are looking at the special plays one way and my intent has always been another. Someone like arci can only think of such plays in long term applications because that's what the books tell him, and at this point in his life he'd never see anything to be gained from the proper view no matter how sensible and correct.

I think most people understand that these plays were only developed for short term use, that is, when the opportunity arises in today's session you go that route because you are giving up very little, if anything, and you have a chance at your win goal because you never know. The math nutjobs might say they DO know what will result if you play tomorrow and on and on and on and on and on, but the only fact that matters is the one that says anything can happen at any time on any machine. This concept will never click to them because they just don't want it to, and they'll never accept that the ingenuity involved surpasses even the math, because when they hit--and they do hit--it renders their sacred math totally useless. Worse still, because of the denominational increases & stop-play win/loss goals involved, they know the win will never be turned upside down on them. This is what drives them crazy....that and the fact that a "tested genius" like arci is incapable of figuring this out.

[slingshot]

Arc I already knew the answer to the "5% question" because Rob and I discussed it before. Actually this is one of the reasons you can't test Rob's system because there are variables that can be in every hand. That doesn't mean his method is wrong but it does mean that you can't simply plug numbers into a program to determine if what he does will work or not.

This is the art of video poker while you only go by the science of video poker.

I don't know any other way to explain it.

Well said.

[arcimede$]

Arc I already knew the answer to the "5% question" because Rob and I discussed it before. Actually this is one of the reasons you can't test Rob's system because there are variables that can be in every hand. That doesn't mean his method is wrong but it does mean that you can't simply plug numbers into a program to determine if what he does will work or not.

This is the art of video poker while you only go by the science of video poker.

I don't know any other way to explain it.

Of course you don't. You don't understand it. Do you really think Singer's approach isn't capable of analysis? It's a finite game with a finite number of situations. In mathematical terms, it's computable. Now, why again is Singer dodging the question? Simple, he has no clue because he made it all up without any idea what he was doing.

Most people with a modicum of common sense would already have figured that out.

[Alan Mendelson]

It's a finite game with a finite number of situations.

Actually, it's not. Take a look at "Special Play #13" which is my favorite. See this page: http://www.alanbestbuys.com/id194.html

As Rob said he would almost never use this "special play" except in one very specific situation. And if any of the other variables were not exactly what he needed to make this special play, he would not. And how many variables are there? I will list a few based on my limited understanding:

1. denomination
2. losses
3. soft wins
4. bankroll
5. win goal

And there must be a dozen subsets within each of those variables.

Again, this doesn't prove that Rob is right, it just goes to show that you can't probe Rob is wrong.

What it really amounts to is this: you are arguing with a shadow, a ghost, or simply something that you can't pin down. In your world, you are absolutely correct. But in Rob's world he can also be absolutely correct.

And as long as there is an RNG, and as long as the machines are random, Rob can come out ahead.

Here's another way to look at the problem, Arc. You are playing video poker as if it is a "test" to see if you know the "correct play" to make. Rob, and his followers aren't taking a test to see if they can make the correct hold or the correct play -- but instead are making the play that they think might give them the best return.

Let me put it in pedestrian terms:
Arc listens to the radio in the morning and hears that the temperature will be in the 70s with clear skies. Arc dresses according to the forecast.
Rob listens to the radio in the morning and hears the same forecast but he also thinks that the forecast is wrong and carries an umbrella.

And when you come down to it, Arc, you're not willing to carry an umbrella on a sunny day.

[arcimede$]

Poor Alan, not a clue. If you can list the items then it is computable. You've never had to deal with real complexity, have you? It's not simple, but it is doable. It just takes more effort. You really need to quit trying to defend the undefendable. You only make yourself look bad.

[Alan Mendelson]

It is pointless to argue with you, because as I said before, if Rob says the sky is blue, you will say its red. And if Rob says dogs bark you will say they purr. And you will probably dig up some scientific research paper that shows the sky is really red, and dogs really purr.

[arcimede$]

It is pointless to argue with you, because as I said before, if Rob says the sky is blue, you will say its red. And if Rob says dogs bark you will say they purr. And you will probably dig up some scientific research paper that shows the sky is really red, and dogs really purr.

Nope, I just deal with the facts. If Singer decides to make a statement of fact, I would agree with him.

You just don't like the fact I have shown beyond any reasonable doubt that Singer is a scammer. Of course, that shows that you weren't too clever in supporting him many times. Now, you try to make it about me. Quite pathetic.

[Rob.Singer]

All he has to do is lie Alan, and he will believe it and expect others will believe it too. It all fits into his time-killing scenario. Me? I'm killing time by going back up the mountain to the Hyatt at Incline and collect my $400 in a moment, and I might even play some vp finally while I'm there!

[Alan Mendelson]

You just don't like the fact I have shown beyond any reasonable doubt that Singer is a scammer.

No. What you have done is made criminally libelous statements about him, and I warned you before to stop. If you have proof that he has committed a crime take it to the police. Do not accuse him of being a "scammer" here. You are accusing him of criminal activity. Without proof -- and without him being arrested -- I will ban you from posting here. Understood?

Now, if you want to say he is full of s--t, that's okay.