You win. I'm finished. Really, I am. Vegas_lover was right. And so was jatki. And gee, so was Singer.
You win. I'm finished. Really, I am. Vegas_lover was right. And so was jatki. And gee, so was Singer.
A couple comments. Where arc says you can win a rf worth of credits in one hand but you sure can't lose them, there's something terribly inaccurate about that. You sure can lose them if you sit there long enough, I've done it.
I believe I used to know as much about Singer's strategy as anyone because of the interest he created about it in the paper. There's no way his play averages around the $2 denomination, it's more like the $5 - $10 denomination as far as averages go, and maybe even higher but not much. He used to write about his results each week, and I admit I called into his publisher more than once asking if they had seen proof of that huge taxable he claimed to have hit. They always confirmed, and they even put a lot of them in print next to his column with his personal info marked out. Now that doesn't serve as proof that he won anything, but it goes a long way and is certainly a lot more in that direction than any of the others have ever done.
I caught the comments about players being ahead most of their visits, I assume any amount, and arc saying that's not his experience. Then I respectfully submit he's posting from Mars, because it's most definitely been my experience. Ahead something on maybe 90% of my visits. It really is a game of discipline.
My last comment has to do with this never ending debate over if a player can win on negative machines over the long haul. I naturally know it's possible because it's a reality for me. What I don't understand is why there's even a question about if it's possible to continue to have winning visits on negative machines time and again. You go into a casino, you play and get ahead some amount of credits, you cash out and leave. Pay tables are of some importance but really mean very little in a one day visit. That happens all the time, who can dispute that? Then I'll ask the community this again, why is this scenario possible but it has to be that they just can't add up to a winner over whatever amount of time? Again, where is it written that the losses have to be more than the wins? That really makes no sense.
No, I didn't win a thing. You will be right back making the same illogical claims another day.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
This doesn't add up. I have to believe arc only posts when he believes he's in a 100%+ situation. If people don't see it his way, well, he used to name-call but now he claims everyone's illogical and silly.Originally Posted by arcimede$
My question is, how can it really be positive and arc DOESN'T WIN a thing?
So have I. I was just making the point that big wins make it easier to leave with a bigger session win. To get the same amount of losses requires a much longer time. Since I play sessions of a predetermined length this factor can come into play. However, it still does not overcome the return of a game.Originally Posted by jatki
We all hit big jackpots occasionally. Anecdotal evidence like that is worthless. I created a simulation of his system so I know what his average denomination comes out to. I just love it when people think their imagination is stronger than actual evidence.Originally Posted by jatki
I don't dispute that someone might get ahead a few credits on "most" sessions. In fact, I demonstrated that with another simulation that used 5 credit win goals. However, to get ahead any meaningful amount seriously drops that percentage very quickly.Originally Posted by jatki
Of course it makes sense. It is based on the frequency of the hands you are dealt. In order to win over time on a negative game you must be dealt better hands than everyone else. How exactly do you get the RNG to deal you better hands? The answer is simple .... you don't. Of course, there are always a small percentage of people who show up in the right hand edge of the bell curve. So, it is possible but it is not probable. Only fools believe they can overcome the odds and always get luckier cards than everyone else.Originally Posted by jatki
Last edited by arcimede$; 08-06-2012 at 07:40 PM.
Arc, you'll never understand how the game is really played if you don't want to get that no one needs better hands or better luck to show a long haul profit on a negative game if they get ahead and quit most of the time. You might be slick with the calculator but you show little in the realm of what really happens at the machins. Are you sure you play videopoker at all?
Your continuance on Singer's avg. denomintion being $2 does show what he's always said, that no one has even come close to understanding his strategy. I've seen your remarks about your simulation numerous times in various places, and as much as you may think you know what he does enough to do an accurate simulation, I'm believing him that you don't. Think about it, if he constantly had those tax forms published alongside his column that had to be on $5 and much higher at times (I saw one for $100,000, a few $40,000, and even a $50,000 or two and I'm sure I missed some over those years) then how in the hey is he averaging the $2 machine? That alone says to me that you are off by a factor of holy smokes!
I did follow the Frank saga with him and I was really rooting for Frank to learn his strategy so he could post his thoughts on it. When you think about it, wasn't that the purpose of what Frank was doing? How come he stopped and never did that?
No, I just make it all up ... well, me and all the other mathematicians in the world. We just love to kid you guys. As for all those electronics and things that work because they use math, well they really only work because of some voodoo incantations made by the manufacturers. The math really doesn't work.Originally Posted by jatki
Look, you are saying that you can win when you are dealt the same frequency distribution of cards as any other player. Somehow your credits add up differently because of when you leave. What can I say when someone makes such a completely illogical claim. You are missing a basic grade school understanding of math. Quit while you are behind.
Coming from you that is completely useless. We already know you think credits add up differently for you.Originally Posted by jatki
He didn't stop. He was hoping there was something good would come from Singer's strategy. He soon realized that Singer was just full of it so he did what Frank always does. He tried not to say anything negative. I'm not like Frank. I tell you the truth.Originally Posted by jatki
Frank found out what the rest of us found out: there is no way to test Rob's system. There are too many variables. You cannot prove the overall system. At best you can test some of the elements in it.
Ironically, the elements can fulfill Rob's goals:
You can hit a $2500 win goal when you play at higher levels. Rob says most of his "wins" occur at the $10 level.
You can cash out and quit when you are ahead and avoid giving back your wins.
Special plays violate the traditional strategy but they can provide a win to reach a win goal.
You can't prove it but Rob did it. I said all along if Rob wrote a book that says "this is how I beat the casinos" instead of saying "this system will beat the casinos" he would be a hero.
Arci...I believe your game of choice is OEJ? Are there multiple casinos where you find this?
Careful, Jatki. You may be accused of being a Singer follower, like me. LOL> I play regularly, and the PLAYING actually follows all that Rob talks about.Originally Posted by jatki
I really don't get why you constantly have to try and give the impression that you know more than others do and are better than others here, just like on LV A. We're all just regular people arc. From the posts I've read throughout, you're not the richest, not the smartest, and you may not even be the most knowledgeable about videopoker. You never seem to want to learn anything, new or otherwise. And I thought I was old.Originally Posted by arcimede$
Videopoker is only part math. We all know that. It is so easy to throw the expectation off, either by making stupid holds in order to lose, or as Singer does at times (which you or I or anyone else really do not know when) by making slightly risky holds that at times make big huge winners out of it. The math is there, but only a fool would believe that human input cannot overpower what's expected. I believe that's why we've been given the supreme intelligence on this earth, and why it is we who created the computers and because of that, we are always one step ahead of them. To think a human developed rng can do better than the human mind is almost painfully funny.
I didn't see a reply about how you could be so far off when you I'm guessing made up how Singer only plays $2 on average after I told you what I read in the paper, and why is that information useless? And what's this about credits adding up differently for me? For someone who professes to only supply the facts and retort nonsense, what do you think such a pair of answers does to your image here? I keep on shifting back and forth between how you may be a super expert, and how you may equally be what you called me earlier, a troll.
Frank didn't stop, is he still going with it? As stated, I kept up with the Frank saga, and I see nowhere that supports what you say. Why would you say something that has no basis in fact? If you identified that as an opinion then it would mean something. I have to ask anyone who knows and not just wants it to be some agenda-pleasing way, where does it originate from that Frank was hoping something good would come of a Singer review? I never saw it that way, only that he wanted the truth, otherwise why bother. It seems to me that for Frank to quit whatever he was doing without knowing anything about what Singer does, something else was in play. You just say he realized Singer was full of it because that's what you prefer to believe, but the rest of us see it differently, I'm certain. I just find it awfully strange and frustrating that no one has ever wanted to meet with the guy and follow through on learning what he does well enough to confirm it with the rest of us. I watched him try damn hard to do it on that Shack forum, and he didn't even attach a bet to it, then it was the Shack experts who tried to get him to pay them to review it. Everywhere else there were bets and they never work. That's why many of us got our hopes up with Frank but he fizzled away. He's a strange cat for sure, but it looked mighty good for a while anyway.
Slingshot, I only now read your post. I don't really support Singer's strategy because it's too difficult to understand for one thing, and the limits are not my bag anyway. But you're right, I got banned on two forums for saying some things that defend what he does and says, and I've been accused of being him more than that. All in a days work, but I respect the guy and it isn't right to say something mean about anyone. Singer does that a lot, but he's not here right now and it's not helpful slamming him or lying about him at will.
Last edited by jatki; 08-06-2012 at 11:14 PM.
As I've said before, I'm just providing the views that have been developed long before me. I've never claimed those ideas were mine. However, when I decided to play VP I did the research necessary to understand the topic at hand. One wonders why you trying to make this about me and not about the facts themselves. You once again sounds extremely envious.Originally Posted by jatki
Silly nonsense. Once again and I'll say it slow as I can. The strategies developed for VP are for optimal play. There is no way for the human mind to "overpower" them. The fact is the human mind discovered them and we use computers as needed as a tool. Saying this kind of ridiculous BS only shows you are completely clueless. Quit while you are behind.Originally Posted by jatki
Well, maybe you should read my replies more closely. The $2 and change average is from the simulations. And, it makes perfectly logical sense if you think about his strategy. I won't waste any of my time explaining it to you as you've shown a resistance to understanding simple facts.Originally Posted by jatki
The math is quite simple, if you believe you can beat a negative machine by cashing out based on win/loss goals then you must believe that credits somehow add up differently for you. The math tells you it can't be done so that's about the only thing that can lead a person to such a wrong conclusion.Originally Posted by jatki
Well, all of Frank's comments are here for you to read. Instead of making claims about what I said why don't you go back and read them. Of course, what you'll find is Frank got frustrated with Alan when Alan wouldn't accept the simple reality Frank provided. More or less what Alan does with his comments to me. The reality Frank provided is the exact same one I provide. He just does it less directly.Originally Posted by jatki
Whatever happened to Frank, anyway? Does he still run a website and/or is he still doing AP'ing?
Is that what makes you feel better arc, more of the nonsense and silly things along with being purposely vague on your incorrect claim about what denomination Singer averages? I'll bet you don't think anyone has caught onto how you've avoiding this issue either.
What's how Frank and Alan related have anything to do with why Frank quit his review? Are you comfortable leaving that one with loose ends too? I guess so.
I saw he put up a few posts on vpfree in the last week or two. Something about the plight of a friend's child taking him away from everything for a while. But wasn't he doing some kind of model for players to test the machines in some way? That part I'm lost on.Originally Posted by Count Room
Yessiree, you are really on top of your game. I've now answered it twice and you missed it both times. However, it does make it obvious you are not reading my comments. That is exactly what trolls do. What a loser.Originally Posted by jatki
You haven't answered anything arc, and you can't hide behind your simulations either because you haven't explained them. It is so simple, you claim singer plays at the $2 level and I showed how that's not possible. But I see you are into calling people names instead of answering the hard ones. How wonderful, and I'm sure you're surrounded by people who enjoy that type of thing.
When Singer goes to a casino with his $50,000+ bankroll with a $2,500 win goal he starts with play at the $1 level and moves up from there. He told me that the bulk of his play ends up at the $10 level. He has sometimes played at the $25 level when he got into a big hole. I think he said he played at the $100 level only once, or maybe twice.
The bulk of his play does not end up at the $10 level if his description of his system is accurate. It can't. He's playing a progression which causes him to reset back to previous levels when he hits a jackpot that doesn't make his win goal. Also, if he hits his goal early he may never reach any of the higher denoms.
For example, say he played through the first two levels and then hits quad Kings playing SDB. That is 600 credits at $5 or $3000. If he was early in that play his total investment from the previous levels was only $1200. He would reset to the $1 level most times and to the $2 level other times depending on exactly when he hits the quad.
As a result of small quads he may reset to the $1 level several times during a session. Each time he will play both $1 and $2 before he ever gets any higher. His hands at those level pile up while at higher levels he may only play through once quite often. This means his average play is usually $2+. Also note that Singer only played his full 6 levels like 3 times and didn't even play 5 levels all the time. As a result he rarely played at the $25 level.
Now, if Singer actually said most of his play was at the $10 level then either he lying about how his progression works or he was lying about his play. I suspect he meant he quit after the $10 level playing only 4 levels of the progression. Once again this would reduce the average denom significantly.
Arc, here's where I suggest you talk to Singer. I'm just telling you what he told me. He told me the bulk of his play is at the $10 level.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote