Setting Win Limitations

[Vegas Vic]

I never thought of it that way, but now that I'm a recreational player who'll play from time to time at lower limits, yes, I'll do just what you do.

So, in less than 3 hours, you went from this:

"Alan: I oppose doing anything that allows the casinos to control the player, and by allowing the casino to make you come in when they want you to because of this or that is them controlling you. Once you fall into that type of behavior, the pattern of them controlling you continues while players remain oblivious to it and its pitfalls. Over the years, the only times I've ever responded to all the offers is when I go on a trip for the specific reason of taking all the freebies without playing one dime of my own money."

To now admitting that the almighty casinos aren't really controlling you? It sure looks disingenuous to be so preachy on this topic and now "see the light". How many other tenets that you have been pushing are as flimsy as your stance against comps which just fell like a house of cards? While I can't totally support Arci, he certainly may be on to something when it comes to you being inconsistent.

[arcimede$]

I think some of your special plays make a lot of sense, and we have discussed these. And I think everyone should realize that you do follow "the math" 95% of the time, and the "special plays" only are made rarely.

Well, you must have ignored my analysis of several specials plays because the truth is they do not do what Singer claims. Most of them reduce the opportunity to win a session as well as lowering the ER. Lose-lose.

[arcimede$]

I hope that in the coming months I will understand better how Rob and I can have such different conclusions when we agree on the basic elements. It is currently a mystery to me.

Not a mystery to me. These facts have been presented to Rob many times. When faced with them he reverts to name calling. He has no answer and never will.

[Frank Kneeland]

Still waiting for a response to: Did you understand what I was saying about GA being both effective and not based on truth at the same time???

In the meantime I thought I would elaborate on why the disease model of addiction treatment has shown some efficacy. First the greatest error one can make when looking at problem gambling is thinking it is one illness with a single cure. Problem gambling is a spectrum of problems with a wide range of severity and an even greater spectrum of causes and as such has no one single cure.

The disease model has proven effective in breaking the guilt/punishment cycle of gamblers that fall into a broad category of self destructive behaviors. The more they gamble the more guilty they feel. The more guilty they feel the more they want to punish themselves. The more they want to punish themselves the more they gamble...and so on. By convincing these people that their gambling problem is outside their control and that they have "a disease" it lessens the cognitive dissonance and eases their guilt, and with it their desire to punish themselves.

Unfortunately it is a two edged sword, because by convincing them that their gambling is outside their control they will also be more prone to relapse and if they do relapse it may serve to increase the severity.

You have convinced them, "It's not your fault you can't control it". If they believe you and feel better about themselves, they are also admitting that they can't control it, and shortly their belief will become reality.

[arcimede$]

there are times when that big winner is indeed hit--with a payout that in most cases, will NEVER be overcome by all the tiny give-ups by making that particular special play when it didn't come through.

Nope, as I already proved in my analysis of many of your special plays. You've seen my analysis and now you know for a fact that your claim is false. What do we call people who continue to repeat falsified claims? Con men.

[Alan Mendelson]

Well, you must have ignored my analysis of several specials plays because the truth is they do not do what Singer claims. Most of them reduce the opportunity to win a session as well as lowering the ER. Lose-lose.

Arc, I think we are talking about "different special plays." The one "special play" I honestly believe in (and I don't want to sound like a broken record, but here I go again) is holding only the three aces and dropping a dealt kicker in TDB. I have to agree with Rob that I want two chances to draw the fourth ace, just as I would in DDB despite the different payoff on quad aces with a kicker.

And yes, there are other special plays I would never touch.

[Alan Mendelson]

Still waiting for a response to: Did you understand what I was saying about GA being both effective and not based on truth at the same time???

In the meantime I thought I would elaborate on why the disease model of addiction treatment has show some efficacy. First the greatest error one can make when looking at problem gambling is thinking it is one illness with a single cure. Problem gambling is a spectrum of problems with a wide range of severity and an even greater spectrum of causes and as such has no one single cure.

The disease model has proven effective in breaking the guilt/punishment cycle of gamblers that fall into a broad category of self destructive behaviors. The more they gamble the more guilty they feel. The more guilty they feel the more they want to punish themselves. The more they want to punish themselves the more they gamble...and so on. By convincing these people that their gambling problem is outside their control and that they have "a disease" it lessens the cognitive dissonance and eases their guilt, and with it their desire to punish themselves.

Unfortunately it is a two edged sword, because by convincing them that their gambling is outside their control they will also be more prone to relapse and if they do relapse it may serve to increase the severity.

You have convinced them, "It's not your fault you can't control it". If they believe you and feel better about themselves, they are also admitting that they can't control it, and shortly their belief will become reality.

Frank, is every response necessary?

[Frank Kneeland]

Not a mystery to me. These facts have been presented to Rob many times. When faced with them he reverts to name calling. He has no answer and never will.

Very well, let's hear your explanation. Feel free to send it to me in private, if you would like to avoid an argument. You don't seem to mind them.

[arcimede$]

Arc, I think we are talking about "different special plays." The one "special play" I honestly believe in (and I don't want to sound like a broken record, but here I go again) is holding only the three aces and dropping a dealt kicker in TDB. I have to agree with Rob that I want two chances to draw the fourth ace, just as I would in DDB despite the different payoff on quad aces with a kicker.

And yes, there are other special plays I would never touch.

From looking at the special plays I believe about 1/2 of them will increase the chances of going home a winner and 1/2 will decrease the chances. So, you will be able to find some that work. However, they ALL reduce your EV. So, why bother? The system as written does not even support its own advertising.

[Alan Mendelson]

From looking at the special plays I believe about 1/2 of them will increase the chances of going home a winner and 1/2 will decrease the chances. So, you will be able to find some that work. However, they ALL reduce your EV. So, why bother? The system as written does not even support its own advertising.

This is the essence of our disagreement... you and me, and you and Rob:

Rob argues that if you do hit one or more of those special plays with a lesser EV you can reach your win goal and go home.
I understand and agree with that concept.
A couple of times Ive been dealt AAA with a kicker in TDB. Once I held the kicker and still just had trip aces, and I wonder if I had also dropped the kicker if I would have picked up the fourth ace which at the $5 level would have been worth $4K.

Two other times I was dealt AAA and the hand did not improve.

One time (my last trip to Caesars) I was dealt AAAA and didnt get the kicker.

On this particular special play I will take the lesser EV by always dropping the kicker when dealt AAA and improve my chances for the quad aces.

And another special play: when playing 7/5 Bonus (NOT 8/5 but 7/5) when dealt a full house with trip aces, I will do what Rob suggests and hold only the three aces. With 8/5 a $200 full house is too much to sacrifice for a shot at $2,000 for quad aces.

These are two special plays I like.

[arcimede$]

Very well, let's hear your explanation. Feel free to send it to me in private, if you would like to avoid an argument. You don't seem to mind them.

All you have to do is see Rob's claims about hot/cold machines, 5th card flip-overs, etc. All of it depends on non-randomness and non-independence of hands and is, therefore, complete nonsense. But it does feed into the paranoia of the typical gambler. Rob will say whatever he thinks with further his agenda. He knows you are a math person and is hoping to sway your analysis. That is all there is to it.

[Frank Kneeland]

Frank, is every response necessary?

No, certainly not. Actually, I don't usually require them at all. I had to adopt this policy of asking questions after each response to one of your questions, after you asked the question on Limits, but phrased it in such a way that it was unanswerable. Even though I have asked you about half a dozen times now, you refuse to provide a time frame to the limit to make the question answerable.

It is this frustration that you are sensing. The 400 pound gorilla in the room is: why you refuse to answer such a simple question.

I think I better just leave this forum before my stress level rises any higher. Feel free to email if you have any questions.

[arcimede$]

This is the essence of our disagreement... you and me, and you and Rob:

Rob argues that if you do hit one or more of those special plays with a lesser EV you can reach your win goal and go home.
I understand and agree with that concept.

The key phrase is "if you do hit". You will not hit very often and the negative of trying the special plays is you get fewer opportunities. The net result of fewer opportunities is fewer hits. In other words, you "reach your win goal and go home" LESS OFTEN.

So, real math says otherwise. Who you going to believe, the Tooth Fairy or mathematical analysis?

A couple of times Ive been dealt AAA with a kicker in TDB. Once I held the kicker and still just had trip aces, and I wonder if I had also dropped the kicker if I would have picked up the fourth ace which at the $5 level would have been worth $4K.

Two other times I was dealt AAA and the hand did not improve.

One time (my last trip to Caesars) I was dealt AAAA and didnt get the kicker.

On this particular special play I will take the lesser EV by always dropping the kicker when dealt AAA and improve my chances for the quad aces.

And another special play: when playing 7/5 Bonus (NOT 8/5 but 7/5) when dealt a full house with trip aces, I will do what Rob suggests and hold only the three aces. With 8/5 a $200 full house is too much to sacrifice for a shot at $2,000 for quad aces.

These are two special plays I like.

But we're not talking about a couple of special plays, we're talking about 1700+ special plays and the claims they will ALL improve your chances of going home a winner. They don't, therefore the claims are false and anyone making those claims is ....

[Frank Kneeland]

All you have to do is see Rob's claims about hot/cold machines, 5th card flip-overs, etc. All of it depends on non-randomness and non-independence of hands and is, therefore, complete nonsense. But it does feed into the paranoia of the typical gambler. Rob will say whatever he thinks with further his agenda. He knows you are a math person and is hoping to sway your analysis. That is all there is to it.

That is a completely inadequate answer. I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying I need far more. As a mystery solution this was about as good as saying the reason Atlantis hasn't been found yet is because it is lost.

I am leaving this thread, so if you want to talk more about this we'll have to do it another way.

[Alan Mendelson]

No, certainly not. Actually, I don't usually require them at all. I had to adopt this policy of asking questions after each response to one of your questions, after you asked the question on Limits, but phrased it in such a way that it was unanswerable. Even though I have asked you about half a dozen times now, you refuse to provide a time frame to the limit to make the question answerable.

It is this frustration that you are sensing. The 400 pound gorilla in the room is: why you refuse to answer such a simple question.

I think I better just leave this forum before my stress level rises any higher. Feel free to email if you have any questions.

Frank, I didn't respond to your time frame question for several reasons, including I had no time frame in mind. I was wondering if a player who is once "addicted" can be non-addicted in the future and you pretty much answered it. Thanks.

If I were trying to argue the point I might have felt compelled to come up with some time frame to debate. But there was no debate here. I was simply seeking your answer.

[Alan Mendelson]

The key phrase is "if you do hit". You will not hit very often and the negative of trying the special plays is you get fewer opportunities. The net result of fewer opportunities is fewer hits. In other words, you "reach your win goal and go home" LESS OFTEN.

So, real math says otherwise. Who you going to believe, the Tooth Fairy or mathematical analysis?



But we're not talking about a couple of special plays, we're talking about 1700+ special plays and the claims they will ALL improve your chances of going home a winner. They don't, therefore the claims are false and anyone making those claims is ....

1700 special plays? Really? Rob showed me 34 special plays for my website. I can only judge those that I know about. He did tell me that these 34 were representative of the others, but I don't know what the others are. Do you? If so, how? From my understanding the only time these 34 were discussed publicly in one place was on alanbestbuys.com and even on Rob's site and books he never went into the detail he used here in the videos.

[Alan Mendelson]

That is a completely inadequate answer. I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying I need far more. As a mystery solution this was about as good as saying the reason Atlantis hasn't been found yet is because it is lost.

I am leaving this thread, so if you want to talk more about this we'll have to do it another way.

Please don't leave now. The can of worms has been opened.

[arcimede$]

That is a completely inadequate answer. I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying I need far more. As a mystery solution this was about as good as saying the reason Atlantis hasn't been found yet is because it is lost.

I am leaving this thread, so if you want to talk more about this we'll have to do it another way.

Give me a break, Frank. I answered your question directly. The reason Singer says the things he does is to further his agenda. How much simpler can it get. There is no mystery once you accept that not everyone is telling the truth. You've done a lot of reading. I suggest you read up on NPD. You will see a precise description of Singer. You will also learn that most of these folks are pathological liars. And, they believe everyone is just like them, so they think there is nothing wrong with their behavior.

Once you understand WHO you are dealing with the mystery disappears. You're basing your conclusions on facts. Singer is basing his on whatever he thinks will make him look better. Like I said, it's very simple.

[arcimede$]

1700 special plays? Really? Rob showed me 34 special plays for my website. I can only judge those that I know about. He did tell me that these 34 were representative of the others, but I don't know what the others are. Do you? If so, how? From my understanding the only time these 34 were discussed publicly in one place was on alanbestbuys.com and even on Rob's site and books he never went into the detail he used here in the videos.

A con man does not give away the magical elixir. Look what happened when he documented 34. I proved most of them did not even do what he claimed, that is, produce quick winners.

Singer is the one that claims to have over 1700 special plays. I believe some of them are duplicates applied to different games. I doubt will see him publishing any of them any time soon. He now knows they can be proven worthless and will try to keep them quiet.

[Alan Mendelson]

Let's refrain from the personal attacks. Instead, let's finish the discussion which is more beneficial. As I wrote above:
Please don't leave now. The can of worms has been opened.