Setting Win Limitations

[arcimede$]

Let's refrain from the personal attacks. Instead, let's finish the discussion which is more beneficial. As I wrote above:

All of my statements are factual. Just because you have been covering your eyes and avoiding the truth does not change the truth. One wonders what it will take for you to finally read and study what has been written instead of ignoring it? You've been provided all the evidence. LOOK AT IT.

[Alan Mendelson]

All of my statements are factual. Just because you have been covering your eyes and avoiding the truth does not change the truth. One wonders what it will take for you to finally read and study what has been written instead of ignoring it? You've been provided all the evidence. LOOK AT IT.

We can present the facts and opinions without turning them into personal attacks.

Arc, I'm surprised you didn't raise Rob's contention that video poker machines may be rigged or fixed, although he has commented that hasn't kept him from playing video poker.

I'm not covering my eyes or covering up anything. I just want a civil environment so no one will be afraid or intimidated about posting here. Thanks.

[Alan Mendelson]

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.

Arc, Rob never said anything about quick winners. He said he was improving the chances to get the bigger wins with his special plays, arguing that once you got the big win you could reach your win goal and leave. It's really a totally different objective and mindset. And what's very important to remember is that these special plays are in special situations and are not used widely. Remember, Singer himself says he plays the same math strategy you do 95% of the time.

edited to add: I don't know what constitutes the other 1700 or so special plays. But perhaps they are just variations on how the cards are dealt (in what order)? Tell me this, how many different ways can you make a royal flush in clubs-- how many different ways can the five cards be arranged? It might be the same thing-- I just don't know. It's something we'll have to find out. And that's why I try to keep an open mind.

[Rob.Singer]

Arci: you're right--Frank is a HARD math guy who speaks leaps & bounds over someone who's come from the punch-card era like you. Why don't you just come right out and say it--you're not nearly as knowledgeable as he is, you're jealous he's from a younger generation and has made a name for himself, and you're outraged how he's actually doing what you obviously pretended to be doing the past 5 years: understanding my strategy in detail.

Vegas Vic: I played SPS to $100 as a professional player for over 11 years, now I'm a regular recreational player to $2, and at times I may go to $5, when I might find time to play because it isn't important to me any longer. 2 totally different methods.

Alan: I know Frank's seen thru arci's lies and I believe you have too. The funny part is, can you just FEEL arci's uneasiness as he wasn't able to post for 24 hours (I'd hate to be doing his "duties"--yuk!) in order to insert his lies and hate into this thread? I mean, look at how irritated and frustrated he's getting with Frank, and it's all because Frank's showing a much more in-depth knowledge of applied math, among other disciplines, than he could even dream of! I'm almost laughing myself off my chair right now!!

Good luck controlling the troll. We'll be furthering our discussion off-forum & in-person---something arci's set up with me and bagged on twice.

Remember what I said about poking the guy!!

[Alan Mendelson]

I have heard from Frank that he no longer wants to continue the discussion about this topic here. In a way, that might be good news because we really haven't broken any new ground or come up with anything substantial to help resolve or discount anything. This has turned into internet trench warfare with neither side giving ground and troops from both sides using mustard gas and other poisons to try to win.

So maybe it's best we give this subject a rest?

There is so much to discuss about Vegas besides Rob's system.

A lot is happening now with the business of Vegas -- the big Caesars project, and the CityCenter mess that I am sure will be followed by an Echelon implosion.

The Plaza opens this week and I look forward to seeing the first reviews. Thanks.

[arcimede$]

Arc, Rob never said anything about quick winners. He said he was improving the chances to get the bigger wins with his special plays, arguing that once you got the big win you could reach your win goal and leave. It's really a totally different objective and mindset. And what's very important to remember is that these special plays are in special situations and are not used widely. Remember, Singer himself says he plays the same math strategy you do 95% of the time.

You're reverting to wordsmanship. What do you think it takes to get "the big win [so] you could reach your win goal and leave"? A slow winner? I was referencing exactly what you are. To win QUICKLY and go home. Why would you not call that a quick winner?

edited to add: I don't know what constitutes the other 1700 or so special plays. But perhaps they are just variations on how the cards are dealt (in what order)? Tell me this, how many different ways can you make a royal flush in clubs-- how many different ways can the five cards be arranged? It might be the same thing-- I just don't know. It's something we'll have to find out. And that's why I try to keep an open mind.

If you read down in this thread you will see Singer reference his 1754 special plays. Of course, he never says what they are.

http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/forum...E=&STARTPAGE=1

As to your question about the permutations of cards. There are 120 ways to arrange cards in a RF.

[arcimede$]

Arci: you're right--Frank is a HARD math guy who speaks leaps & bounds over someone who's come from the punch-card era like you. Why don't you just come right out and say it--you're not nearly as knowledgeable as he is, you're jealous he's from a younger generation and has made a name for himself, and you're outraged how he's actually doing what you obviously pretended to be doing the past 5 years: understanding my strategy in detail.

Rob, please explain the changes in simple mathematics over the last 50 years. Provide details as to all the "HARD math" changes.

Alan, these are the kind of claims that shows that Singer is not interested in the truth. Read it over again. It is absolutely hilarious.

Vegas Vic: I played SPS to $100 as a professional player for over 11 years, now I'm a regular recreational player to $2, and at times I may go to $5, when I might find time to play because it isn't important to me any longer. 2 totally different methods.

This is where it gets really funny. Singer claims he was making a hundred thousand dollar a year playing VP for only a few hours each year and then quit. Too funny for words.

Alan: I know Frank's seen thru arci's lies and I believe you have too. The funny part is, can you just FEEL arci's uneasiness as he wasn't able to post for 24 hours (I'd hate to be doing his "duties"--yuk!) in order to insert his lies and hate into this thread? I mean, look at how irritated and frustrated he's getting with Frank, and it's all because Frank's showing a much more in-depth knowledge of applied math, among other disciplines, than he could even dream of! I'm almost laughing myself off my chair right now!!

Good luck controlling the troll. We'll be furthering our discussion off-forum & in-person---something arci's set up with me and bagged on twice.

Remember what I said about poking the guy!!

I'm sure Singer is elated over Frank checking out of this thread. He realizes that Frank is being exposed to the truth and that is something he dreads. I'll be awaiting Rob's discourse on the changes to simple math over the last 50 years that completely changes minus signs to plus signs. I'm sure Einstein is rolling in his grave as all of his discoveries have been proven wrong by Rob Singer.

And, just to rub it in a little, the reason I didn't post is I was off to my weekly gambling run. Came out about $700 ahead.

[arcimede$]

I have heard from Frank that he no longer wants to continue the discussion about this topic here. In a way, that might be good news because we really haven't broken any new ground or come up with anything substantial to help resolve or discount anything. This has turned into internet trench warfare with neither side giving ground and troops from both sides using mustard gas and other poisons to try to win.

What ground do you expect to break? I've provided you with all the facts necessary to understand EVERYTHING you need to know about Singer. The problem you are having is you are hoping to find something that does not exist ... validity in what Singer has told you. I'm sorry you don't realize what is completely obvious to anyone who understands simple math.

So maybe it's best we give this subject a rest?

There is so much to discuss about Vegas besides Rob's system.

A lot is happening now with the business of Vegas -- the big Caesars project, and the CityCenter mess that I am sure will be followed by an Echelon implosion.

The Plaza opens this week and I look forward to seeing the first reviews. Thanks.

Right you are, in fact, there is nothing of value to discuss when it comes to Singer and his lies. Maybe you are starting to understand ...

[Rob.Singer]

Rob, please explain the changes in simple mathematics over the last 50 years. Provide details as to all the "HARD math" changes.

You're slipping arci. What is it--too much pressure on you around the homestead these days?? Your statement shows just how out-of-touch an old guy like you is compared to the newer generations, and why you just don't want it to be that there's yet another smarter poster than you on a forum. THAT'S the change. But keep it up--watching you squirm in front of someone you figured would listen to even one of your lies has more +EV in it than seeing you beat down by the majority of posters on LVA when you try sooo hard to impress them!

I'm sure Singer is elated over Frank checking out of this thread. He realizes that Frank is being exposed to the truth and that is something he dreads.

In case you missed it here, on LVA, and on videopoker.com, you dug your own hole with and have no credibility with Frank. As soon as you got frustrated when the tough questions and comments come your way & began jumping up & down while calling me, him, and Alan names, he's smart enough to know your real agenda - just as I always have. Let's see, you couldn't handle Dancer's intelligence on vpFREE--so what happened to you over there again? Now Frank's come into fame, he announces he's doing a detailed review of SPS, he's even got Dan Paymar staying with him as they discuss the strategy's various aspects, and we get to watch the inevitable as you lose it with him too!! Sounds like you're getting a little antsy all couped up with no future outside of Indian casinos. How does the word P-R-E-S-S-U-R-E grab you?

One thing we all saw in this thread: the mere fact that Frank is immersed in something arci doesn't have the math skills or the nerve to do, is driving him mad. It's not like arci doesn't have enough struggles on the homefront as it is, but this episode of Frank scolding him multiple times and dissing his input has got to be eating away at him something fierce!

As they say....God Bless America!

(psst--go ahead--poke him, then get ready for a barrel of laughs!)

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, you continue to argue "math" as it relates to Singer's system. I'm going to say this for the umpteenth time:

Even Rob says his "special plays" have a lower expected value than what the "math" or "conventional strategy" says to do. He doesn't dispute it or the math.

He suggests certain hands where you take your chances diverting from the "conventional strategy" that might provide a win.

The rest of us call it "taking a shot." On the LVA forum I made the analogy that what Rob does on video poker, craps players do the same thing by betting the long shots such as aces and boxcars-- and now the new "fire bet."

Rob's special plays and in fact his entire system is not an issue about math at all -- it's really an issue of preference or how you want to play. Do you want to take the "shots" or do you want to play the "grind"? (Rob do I have it right?)

Frank, I dont think, was agreeing with Rob's system because of "the math." I think he was interested in Rob's system to help players come up with some sort of rules of play because they do not "know" the math or the basic strategy that the math calls for. In other words, I think Frank was looking for a "Plan B" for those who didn't understand "Plan A," and his feeling was that some plan is better than no plan.

Arc, Ive sat next to vp players at the $5/coin level who dont have a clue as to what theyre doing. In one email exchange I had with Frank he said one of his goals was to come up with something that would help the masses who are in fact clueless when it comes to the math.

[arcimede$]

Arc, you continue to argue "math" as it relates to Singer's system. I'm going to say this for the umpteenth time:

Even Rob says his "special plays" have a lower expected value than what the "math" or "conventional strategy" says to do. He doesn't dispute it or the math.

He suggests certain hands where you take your chances diverting from the "conventional strategy" that might provide a win.

And, if you go back and read my analysis of his special plays you will see they DO NOT do anything to "provide a win". Come on Alan, try and read what I have been saying. I've provided you with a set of facts that completely obliterates Singer's claims that his special plays will lead to more wins.

The reason Singer's system provides more wins has absolutely nothing to do with the special plays. It has to do with it being a progression. Now, try and follow along and you will see why.

1) Assume a player on a single line would make a 50% increase in their investment 30% of the time.
2) In a 2-level progression that means they win 51% of the time. That is the original 30% ... plus 30% of the 70% they lose at the first level ... which is another 21% ... and 30% + 21% = 51%.
3) In a 3-level progression you have your 51% plus 30% of the remaining 49% ... which is 15%. So, now you are at 30+21+15 = 66% win rate.
4) In a 4-level progression you have 30+21+15+(30% of 34 = 10%) or a win rate of 76%.

This is why a player using Singer's system can go home a winner more often. It's all obvious once you consider the math. The special plays actually DECREASE the number of times a player will win. His pocketing of FH wins also DECREASES the number of times a player will win. The ONLY thing that increases the wins is the progression.

Now, none of this is difficult math. So, ask yourself why Singer advocates the rest of the nonsense. It would be far easier to simply describe a simple progression and be done with it. Now, ask yourself why Singer states that it doesn't matter what the return of the games are. Both you and I know it does matter. Once you think through this you will realize it's all a con. The complications are added so Singer can tell people they need to be educated and he will do it for free (and the use of his player's card).

This is not rocket science.

Rob's special plays and in fact his entire system is not an issue about math at all -- it's really an issue of preference or how you want to play. Do you want to take the "shots" or do you want to play the "grind"? (Rob do I have it right?)

Except, no one has to play any system to "take a shot". Anyone can do it at any time using whatever approach they choose. You see you fell for the con by accepting that the only other way to play is to "grind". That is nonsense. I play 6 hours a week, how is that a "grind"?

Frank, I dont think, was agreeing with Rob's system because of "the math." I think he was interested in Rob's system to help players come up with some sort of rules of play because they do not "know" the math or the basic strategy that the math calls for. In other words, I think Frank was looking for a "Plan B" for those who didn't understand "Plan A," and his feeling was that some plan is better than no plan.

I doubt Frank will find what he is looking for. I just demonstrated that a simple progression is all that is needed to increase session wins. The most obvious result of people winning more sessions is they will want to play more, at least until they hit one of those huge losses that negate all the wins. I suspect most people would then revert back to their old style of play. The bottom line is it is unlikely to solve any addiction issues.

Arc, Ive sat next to vp players at the $5/coin level who dont have a clue as to what theyre doing. In one email exchange I had with Frank he said one of his goals was to come up with something that would help the masses who are in fact clueless when it comes to the math.

So, you think an overly complex system is going to help? 1700+ special plays is right up the alley for the masses? Give me a break.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan: You'll never get through to arci on special plays because he is incapable of thinking on a per-hand basis. Yes the optimal hold for a hand may be worth $2.38 and my hold may be worth $2.12, but all that means is while he's hoping to get a straight out of it, by holding a lone Ace I can get just about anything. To him and his ilk, that straight means 4 more hands to build up the points and therefore the part of the game that adds a tiny % to game EV that gets those people all giddy. To me, a straight is OK, but when there's the reasonable risk-analyzed possibility for a big session-ending winner along with any number of other of quads and smaller winners, it's easily worth the risk, because getting out of the casino is the most important part of my trip.

I think I told you of the hand I had at Bellagio, where I was dealt AQJQQ on $25BP including 3-to-the-royal, and I held the royal cards because of a special play (valid only on the $25 & $100 levels, which is another of the many parts of the strategy arci has no clue about and has no idea how to program it into a simulation) that says if the quad doesn't get me back at least one level to BP AND there are 3 royal cards in the deal, I go for the Royal. After I hit the RF and posted proof/wrote about it in my Gaming Today column, the famous names and AP's were calling into GT saying how I really didn't win anything on that hand, but in fact LOST money because if I were to repeat that play over & over again into the laughable "long-term" I'd be a loser for sure. And this nonsense, as I sit and count out my $94,000+ profit for the session in front of the GT staff! If you enjoy seeing a bunch of people laughing uncontollably at incloming phone calls (and Jeffrey Compton even came in jumping up and down like a punished little boy) you'd have REALLY enjoyed that--especially if you just hit the big royal!

You see, AP's can only think in distorted terms for each hand--that it's gonna appear many many times over & over again, so you MUST use only the optimal hold to realize it's optimal theoretical value. And that's where the disconnect is. I go for REAL value that's only calculated after the hand is played out, and it is good that one time only. Therein lies the reason arci can never scratch the itch on his butt that is RS. He has never found a way to ACTUALLY win (which is why he always tells of winning $1000 dollars today or yesterday or whatever when he gets frustrated like he has with Frank here) and he can't stand that someone like me wins doing something he can't figure out.

Now you see how much fun it is to keep poking the poor guy!

[Rob.Singer]

Arci says: "I play 6 hours a week, how is that a "grind"?"

I wouldn't call that a grind--that's an ADDICT!

arci says: "The reason Singer's system provides more wins has absolutely nothing to do with the special plays. It has to do with it being a progression. Now, try and follow along and you will see why."

See Alan, here's a reason he and Frank don't get along--he's constantly in denial unless you accept his funny math. Let's see....I'm om $10 TBP+, I make a special play that holds an Ace over four to the straight, I hit the four Aces for $12,000 and a trip home. But....arci says that win was only because of a progression and not because of the special play!!

Go ahead, poke him a couple times. He asks for it!

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, I think you've answered Arc's objections to your system pretty well. If he doesnt want to play your way, that's okay with me and Im sure its ok with you too. And you know, Rob, that I don't play your special plays either with a couple of exceptions which I wrote about earlier.

But maybe you can clear this up. Arc wrote: So, you think an overly complex system is going to help? 1700+ special plays is right up the alley for the masses? Give me a break.

Are there really 1700+ special plays? Or are they just variables of the 34 that you and I presented on my website?

And one more question: out of let's say 1,000 hands, how many times will you elect to make a "special play"??

thanks.

[arcimede$]

Rob, I think you've answered Arc's objections to your system pretty well. If he doesnt want to play your way, that's okay with me and Im sure its ok with you too. And you know, Rob, that I don't play your special plays either with a couple of exceptions which I wrote about earlier.

But maybe you can clear this up. Arc wrote: So, you think an overly complex system is going to help? 1700+ special plays is right up the alley for the masses? Give me a break.

Are there really 1700+ special plays? Or are they just variables of the 34 that you and I presented on my website?

And one more question: out of let's say 1,000 hands, how many times will you elect to make a "special play"??

thanks.

Well, there you have it Alan. Singer hits his special plays 100% of the time or so it appears from his comments. That's all anyone has to do. You simply throw away 3 queens or better and you will always hit a RF. Nothing to the game ... unless, of course, you would rather accept that 3 queens pays over 21 coins on average and 3 to a RF pays 6.5 coins (8/5 BP).

So, it only cost 14.5 coins to find out if you are as lucky as Singer. Since the RF hits once every 1081 tries for most normal humans, it will only cost you 14.5*1081 = 15,675 coins which is over $78K at the $5 level.

Also, note Singer's personality is emerging. He has increased his name calling of people that have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion (Jeffrey Compton).

And, note how he claims Frank and I don't get along which is another pure lie. Just because we don't see eye-eye on this issue doesn't mean much at all. I suspect Frank and I would get along just fine.

So, now you are starting to know the real Singer. He feels he must lie, attack people and claim that just because he hit a special play once it negates all the times he has failed (which he never mentions).

PS. Tell me Alan, do you gamble once a week? ... You addict!

[arcimede$]

See Alan, here's a reason he and Frank don't get along--he's constantly in denial unless you accept his funny math. Let's see....I'm om $10 TBP+, I make a special play that holds an Ace over four to the straight, I hit the four Aces for $12,000 and a trip home. But....arci says that win was only because of a progression and not because of the special play!!

Go ahead, poke him a couple times. He asks for it!

Thank you for pointing out once again that you hit your special plays 100% of the time. Or, maybe you might think about being honest and tell Alan that you don't hit the special plays every time. How about it, Rob. Are you going to be honest or are you going to continue to exaggerate beyond comprehension?

In addition, Rob's poor understanding of simple math ignores the fact that the extra coins he will win for holding 4 to a straight is likely to lead to more hands played which increases the chances of hitting, not only 4 aces, but several other jackpots as well. How often will he hit 4 aces holding just one ... once every 4000+ times he is dealt this combo. The truth is the average person would NEVER run into this play often enough to ever hit it.

[Rob.Singer]

When you have arci rushing on to try and convince someone who he's called every dumb name in the book about something, you know he's having a tough time lining things up. See how much fun poking this guy can be?

There's 1700 special plays, but as has been explained many times for arci, that's across the spectrum of all games I play and have played in the strategy. Many times a play is not common across the spectrum, and many times it is. Many times a play is not denomination-specific, and many times it is. But I count each single play on each individual game as one. Baseline, there's nowhere near 1700.

I suspect Alan gambles more than arci does right now, and yes, he is addicted to the machines also. But arci only does it once because at this point in time, he's kinda tied down to the homestead more than he likes (if you know what I mean ). I'm sure he's looking forward to the day when no more strings will be attached! Then maybe he'll finally be able to get back to LV, where he made the mistake once already of moving there and losing nearly everything he had, then had to move back to Minn. so he couldn't play every day any longer for his own financial sanity. Hmmm....wasn't that about the same time the vpFREE administrator permanently banned him for being overly disruptive while he bad-mouthed Bob Dancer time and again? At the same time I was poking fun at him on FREEvpFREE. HA! And nothing I say ever bothers the guy....

Next!

[arcimede$]

I suspect Alan gambles more than arci does right now, and yes, he is addicted to the machines also.

Looks like poor Rob has recognized that he is defaming Alan with his comments. Isn't it strange that everyone who gambles is addicted except Singer? Or, is the truth pretty much the opposite. Singer realizes he is the addict and he hates anyone that can play as they like.

But arci only does it once because at this point in time, he's kinda tied down to the homestead more than he likes (if you know what I mean ). I'm sure he's looking forward to the day when no more strings will be attached! Then maybe he'll finally be able to get back to LV, where he made the mistake once already of moving there and losing nearly everything he had, then had to move back to Minn. so he couldn't play every day any longer for his own financial sanity. Hmmm....wasn't that about the same time the vpFREE administrator permanently banned him for being overly disruptive while he bad-mouthed Bob Dancer time and again? At the same time I was poking fun at him on FREEvpFREE. HA! And nothing I say ever bothers the guy....

Next!

Also note all the lies in this comment (for example, I never moved to LV. I was there in the winter as a snowbird). This is the real Singer. He is now demonstrating his malignant narcissism for all to see. Thanks Rob for showing everyone that I was right.

[Alan Mendelson]

Well, Arc, now we have a new discussion based on Rob's post: what constitutes addiction? I will admit to one thing: I've been playing video poker longer than any of my marriages lasted.

[Vegas Vic]

Well, Alan, I'm out of this thread now too. From what Rob has submitted here (and the refresher course found in the LVA link), his pomposity is just too much. His bad mouthing of you was in extremely poor taste. I'll continue in the forum, but if Rob enters any discussion, I'll exit.