LUCK is almost EVERYTHING in Video Poker

[arcimede$]

Thanks for posting guys. But where has Rob Singer ever said "the math" is not correct? We have done "battle" over this question many times. Rob has never denied the "math" of the game, and he has never told me anything that says the "math" of the game is not correct. He even cites the math correctly in discussing his special plays.

When he says you can get lucky every day. Pure nonsense. Not only that, but he claims mathematically valid approaches will lose and a person will ONLY win by following his approach (unless they get lucky).

Go back and read his first comment on this thread ... the game is all luck and no skill. That's what he said.

What he has told me is that if he plays the game differently and "gets lucky" he will win more. He has also said that if he "times" his exits from the game properly (his win goal system) he will win more. None of that violates "the math" of the game, unless you want to say that "luck" is not part of the math, and "leaving the game" is not part of the math? And if you do, I have no disagreement and I'm guessing Rob won't disagree either.

idiotic nonsense. It doesn't address the issue. His system provides ZERO advantage. In fact, his special plays, his claims that the pay tables don't matter and claims anyone can win on negative games is all meant to encourage people to try his system. His system is designed to lead to HUGE losses for people who don't understand them.

Alan, you are allowing him to influence others to lose HUGE sums of money. You are aiding and abetting his lies.

That brings us to the core question: did he win more and is it because he did get lucky? And that my friends sums up the whole enchilada, magillah, and story.

If you want to challenge Rob's math, challenge how he balances out his wins and losses, because that's the only math to challenge here guys.

The math is simple and I provided you the PROOF. It doesn't matter if Rob won or lost. It only matters that he claims people will do better using his approach than proven mathematical approaches ... that is a LIE. It is a PROVEN LIE. By continuing to spread these lies you are aiding and abetting.