Setting Win Limitations

[Alan Mendelson]

"And it appears to me that your goal was solely to reach a particular "comp level" by scoring 10,000 points."

I suspect that point level leads to CB/BB/Freeplay ... in other words, cash. Singer has tried to claim in the past that things like CB were not real money. I assume you don't believe that malarkey.

"Sorry, I don't buy what you're saying. And I am surprised that someone such as you who talks about addictive gamblers fooling themselves would say such things."

Well Alan, I'm sorry that you can't understand this simple expansion of investment theory. If you could then this would be completely obvious. Have you ever invested in as stock that lost money? Have you made money investing? If the answer to both questions is yes then you are doing exactly what Frank (and most APers) do.

Arc this is nonsense. When you lose money on a stock, you lose money in a stock. There is no "advantage" in losing money. Even the $3,000 per year loss carryover on your taxes is still a loss. A loss is a loss, period. Don't tell me that losing can be winning, because it doesn't add up.

Now, I don't object to anyone playing to win comps or to earn cash back, but there comes a point when you have to look at the balance sheet and ask yourself did I make a profit or did I lose?

Let me explain it in terms of video poker: If you had to bet $5 on a 99.6% hand of 9/6 JOB and you got squat from the hand, but you got back $4 in free play, cash back, and food, you lost. But if you bet $5 and got a pair of jacks, plus $4 in free play, cash back and food, you won.

So what happened? Did you win or lose after playing through to earn 10,000 "points." What's the bottom line?

There is no room for nonsense. Thanks.

[Alan Mendelson]

"While you are concerned about gambling addiction, I am concerned that Joe Public Casino-goer will read reports of professionals such as yourself and think they can accomplish the same thing without appropriate bankrolls, partners and knowledge -- as well as the positive expectation games that are harder and harder to find as well as the cashbacks and promotions."

And yet you promote Singer's claims that the return of a machine is of little importance. Yup, I can really see your "concern".

Actually, Arc, I never promoted that. I did report on Singer's system but did not advocate it. You must learn to separate reporting from advocacy.

As you are well aware, I always try to play the best pay tables available. And I am sure you and I both agree that you are more likely to win playing a better pay table.

But in defense of Singer, you have taken his comment out of context. As we know a royal flush is worth 4,000 coins whether its played on a 6/5 bonus game or an 8/5 bonus game. Quad aces are worth the same on a 6/5 bonus game and an 8/5 bonus game.

So why does Singer tolerate playing a poor pay table? Because (and I am interpreting his comment here, I am not advocating his practice) when you adjust your strategy for the lower pay table. His case in point is a hand such as AAAJJ in Bonus. On an 8/5 machine he holds the full house. On a 6/5 machine he holds only the aces.

Arc, you wouldnt do it, and generally I wouldnt do it. But thats his "strategy."

I reported his strategy. And I don't play 6/5 Bonus and when I saw 7/5 Bonus at Caesars I didn't play that either.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, reread this statement by Frank:

"If I discard all previous results (for no other reason other than I went home and slept in my own bed and because I want to) and only look at how I've done during this completely arbitrary time span, I'm going to take a short break, because during this period of time I have experienced positive fluctuation, which reduces my lifetime losses and that I'm going to define as "winning" because I want to. I am neither truly ahead, nor do I intend to truly quit, but I'm going to disregard all logic and do something that my dysfunctional brain can use to convince myself I don't have a problem...and since this will result in me gambling slightly less, everyone (including myself, who really needs convincing) will hopefully agree that it isn't a bad idea."

Now consider Singer's system. It promotes doing exactly what Frank has stated, ignoring previous losses and viewing only the current day's results. Alan, you need to state whether you agree or disagree with Frank's description. Otherwise, you will talk in circles forever. It doesn't mean you can't look at a winning day with some satisfaction. It simply means you understand the reality of gambling and the true costs. Because, if you really do understand it, then you understand that Singer's system is just a method of ignoring/avoiding that reality.

I don't understand what the whole point is about this discussion because I am a recreational player who over his entire life has a net loss from gambling. Heck, I have never had a positive year gambling. But I'm not trying to earn money from it. I play craps and video poker for fun just as some people take a cruise. I get sea sick, so I can't take a cruise.

My point is simply that I like to go home with a profit when I can, so I can come back another time and play some more.

I also like to get bumped from airline flights so that when I get put on a later flight, I also get a voucher for a free flight. I still get to my destination plus I have a free ticket for "next time." I volunteer to be bumped all the time.

Whatever point you "APers" want to make about the logic or lack of logic of quitting or not quitting is OK with me. That's your job. My job is making television. I play in casinos to have fun. And if I happen to win some money it helps me to have more fun.

[arcimede$]

Arc this is nonsense. When you lose money on a stock, you lose money in a stock. There is no "advantage" in losing money. Even the $3,000 per year loss carryover on your taxes is still a loss. A loss is a loss, period. Don't tell me that losing can be winning, because it doesn't add up.

Truly amazing. No one said losing was winning. You missed the point completely. If you don't invest you cannot make money in the stock market. If you do invest you are going to have some losses. A good investor accepts this reality. That doesn't turn a loss into a win, it simply expresses the ups and downs of investing. If you want to profit, you accept this.

Now, translate this into VP (or any positive play). You realize that you will have some losses. You MUST have some losses if you are going to play. However, if you understand the business, just like an investor, you will see more wins than losses.

Now, I don't object to anyone playing to win comps or to earn cash back, but there comes a point when you have to look at the balance sheet and ask yourself did I make a profit or did I lose?

Absolutely. Most APers look at it on a yearly basis. However, if you are playing close to your bankroll limit you have to watch it even closer and make necessary adjustments.

Let me explain it in terms of video poker: If you had to bet $5 on a 99.6% hand of 9/6 JOB and you got squat from the hand, but you got back $4 in free play, cash back, and food, you lost. But if you bet $5 and got a pair of jacks, plus $4 in free play, cash back and food, you won.

So what happened? Did you win or lose after playing through to earn 10,000 "points." What's the bottom line?

There is no room for nonsense. Thanks.

The bottom line is the value of everything you take home. There are those like myself that never figure food/rooms/etc. into the equation. For others those things may be important. I know a couple that almost never eats at home. In their case the meals they receive save them a lot of money. Everyone is different. The point though is the 10000 points themselves are not important. They are simply part of the process of making a profit because they establish an improved expectation in the future. The thing that matters to most APers is the result at the end of the year.

[arcimede$]

Actually, Arc, I never promoted that. I did report on Singer's system but did not advocate it. You must learn to separate reporting from advocacy.

What part of "Alan's Best Buys" escapes you? If you think calling something a "best buy" is not "advocating it", then I guess you speak an entirely different language than I do. Good luck with that.

[Frank Kneeland]

My relies are in-line to Alan's comments. All this was written before Arci made his posts.

1. Alan: Frank, when you talk to Rob Singer next time... or better yet... the next time Rob reads this thread and posts here... I'd like him to comment about the "formula" you were following. Because I think he'll say it doesn't matter if you were playing a 99.6% return machine with a 1.5% sign up bonus and cash back. Rob, I think, will tell you that the only thing that matters is did you win or lose?

FK Reply: Well I hate to put words in other people's mouths, but from his videos I believe he might say something like that. It is unclear to me why why he thinks that the machine return doesn't matter. As far as the “formula” I was using, it's simple high-school combinational permutational math.

I agree that winning or losing is important, which is why I do not confuse myself by stressing on daily results. To me “winning” is only winning, if I'm ahead overall for my lifetime of play. What happens to me between sleep breaks or bowl movements is irrelevant. The one second pause between consecutive hands or the week long pause between hands played before and after a vacation are the same to me and get logged together in the continuous unbroken record of my play. I don't start and stop the tally at arbitrary times

Apparently, and I'm guessing at your thought processes, if you had the following results each day over a week:

-900, -800, -1900, -1500, -2000, -1500, +11,000

You would perceive it as 6 losses and only 1 “winning” day. I would perceive it as being ahead $2,400 for the week, and add it to my greater tally of monthly, yearly and lifetime earns. I would not think of the six negative days as losses, and I would not think of the $11,000 positive day as a $11,000 “win”, since it was not independent or irrespective of the other results, or in fact all my results.

Not only do you seem to be missing the forest for the trees, you are tree hugging what's right in front of you and aren't looking for the forest at all. (This is known as base rate neglect, results bias, and frequency blindness)

2. Alan: In fact, in one of the video interviews I did with Rob he discussed a case in point where he ignored "the math" to go for "the win."

FK Reply: Yes I saw that video as well. Since he does not state implicitly in the video why he does this, or why it would be better than the math play, it is impossible for me to comment. He clearly states what he does, but unfortunately he provides no testable or replicable reasoning behind it. I'm currently working with Rob to try to unravel the logic thread that lead him to his conclusions. Until I understand it better I'll have to reserve any final judgment. For now, all I can say is that it appears he has an untestable preference with no underlying theory of causation to support anecdotal data. I wish this wasn't so, because I have set myself the devil's advocate job of proving Rob's system, not disproving it.

I very much hope I can fix that and help him prove his theories. The task is proving difficult.

One thing may be creating misunderstandings on both sides: Rob (and perhaps you as well Alan) does not seem to be using the dictionary definition of certain words such as but not limited to:“win”, “edge”, “luck”, etc... It is really obfuscating our discussion and making intelligent communication difficult. Perhaps we should start a thread on word definitions.

3. Alan: I think Rob will also tell you -- as will many other gambling writers and experts -- that you should never play for comps. And it appears to me that your goal was solely to reach a particular "comp level" by scoring 10,000 points. Does this mean you had no regard whatsoever for your wins or losses? Does this mean you had no loss-limit? And I am sure you never had a win-goal because that would not be logical.

FK Reply: I define “comps” as free food and free rooms and such. I was playing for extra cash, you know the green stuff you can buy things with. I can't see the difference between getting cash for a Jackpot hit on the machine, or points earned on the machine. Cash earned on the machine is cash earned on the machine. Perhaps the one difference is cash for points is guaranteed, jackpots are not. Guaranteed cash-back is superior to machine pays that are dependent on random variables.



4. Alan: Since you think Rob Singer might be able to help curb gambling addiction, let me quote something from page 73 of his book The Undeniable Truth about Video Poker where he discusses having an $80 win goal:

"How important is knowing when to quit a machine? Let's say it's the single most determining factor for each session you play. You must possess the ability to picture yourself counting that $480 in your wallet or purse in your room or at home, and understand/feel just how wonderful this is in comparison to losing that $400."

FK Reply: Yes, for people unable to grasp the irrelevance of daily results (which might be a lot of people), I consider some sort of goal, better than nothing. This type of goal may, as I have said before, come with too much mental baggage to be net positive. It isn't clear either way at this time. I'm working on this point with my psych buddies.

5. Alan: Of course you tell us that you play with a team, so that one player's losses can be offset by another team member's wins. Well, I've seen teams play for progressives and the team didn't win, but Sally from San Diego did.

FK Reply: Yes, that sounds about right. Did you have a point? I said we hit 8 Royals at M just recently, I did not say we played for 8 Royals. We averaged getting about 5 seats out of the 20 machines and ended up hitting just shy of 1/4th of the Royals we played for over time (about 35 individual high progressive royals). We were surprised to have gotten so close to expected.

You really appear to have some sort of “only looking at tiny pieces of a huge puzzle and ignoring the BIG PICTURE” way of looking at things. I can't begin to comprehend how differently your mind must be from mine.

A single loss on a single play at a single casino would be a drop in the bucket to a progressive team and of no more concern than a single hand with no pay during a long session to an individual.

6. Alan: Sorry, I don't buy what you're saying. And I am surprised that someone such as you who talks about addictive gamblers fooling themselves would say such things.

FK Reply: I'm not sure what it is that you aren't buying. So I guess I can't reply.

EDITED TO ADD: While I was writing this post, and re-writing, and doing some research by looking through Rob's book again and finding the link to the video, you edited your original post and wrote another post about having some goals. So it appears our posts "crossed" in time.

7. Alan: I think it is important that you point out that you do have goals, but I also think it is very important that casino-goers who read your posts understand that you are playing as part of a team and because you play as part of a team your losses can be subsidized by another team member's wins, and likewise, your wins are also shared by other team members. And as you point out above:

"and because I partner and share plays like this with my team we tend to run very close to expectancy even in short time spans like a month. For an individual it would take half a year or longer to have the same nearly flat fluctuation curve we enjoy."

While you are concerned about gambling addiction, I am concerned that Joe Public Casino-goer will read reports of professionals such as yourself and think they can accomplish the same thing without appropriate bankrolls, partners and knowledge -- as well as the positive expectation games that are harder and harder to find as well as the cashbacks and promotions.

FK Reply: Let me state it strongly then. It is not possible to do what I do, with what is termed a high equivalency assurance unless you work with partners as part of a medium to large team (6-20 members). As an individual you would have little to no guarantee of matching expectancy over anything under decade long time spans. One could run above or below expectancy, but the fluctuation is in my opinion too risky to be declared a good idea.

In addition to honest trustworthy partners, a large bankroll ($100,000+), you need an immense level of knowledge about VP strategy (30+ games) excellent hand eye coordination and flawless math skills. I rank the overall difficulty level of “my job” at about equivalent to playing piano at concert level, with more strain on the body, about 1/4th the income, and a lot less groupies.

I neither enjoy nor advocate playing VP professionally. By the time I realized I didn't want to be a pro gambler, I already was. It would be hard now in my mid forties to devote another 8 years to train for a serious profession. I'd be fifty three at graduation.

If I have a message it is this: If you were wondering, yes it's possible...now go do something else more worthwhile.

9. Alan: My personal example is Caesars Palace which has absolutely lousy pay tables and eliminated cash back about four years ago.

Forgive me for being cynical, but you and other successful players could entice others to play more than they should and ultimately to become addicted.

FK Reply: I think a lot of the VP authors do have promoting VP as a goal. I do not. A lot of people are attracted to gambling because of the mystery. It is my hope that by dispelling that mystery, people will be less attracted to it, or at least make their life choices with better information.

[Alan Mendelson]

What part of "Alan's Best Buys" escapes you? If you think calling something a "best buy" is not "advocating it", then I guess you speak an entirely different language than I do. Good luck with that.

You continue to make this mistake. Even newspapers and magazines have paid ads along with editorial content. Singer's information is presented as editorial content. He did not pay to be on my website.

Here are a few of the other pages of editorial content which may also include ad placements from advertisers including pay per click and display ads (much like newspapers and magazines). But the news and information coverage presented is strictly editorial content.

http://alanbestbuys.com/id103.html Vegas and Casino Stocks
http://alanbestbuys.com/id201.html Business Marketing Memo
http://alanbestbuys.com/id82.html Gold and Silver
http://alanbestbuys.com/id143.html Consumer Watch
http://alanbestbuys.com/id73.html Vegas Gaming / Travel News (Anthony Curtis did not pay either, nor did the Plaza)
http://alanbestbuys.com/id139.html Dice games, craps, card craps (Scossa and Red Rock did not pay)
http://alanbestbuys.com/id104.html California Casinos News (none of those casinos paid)
http://alanbestbuys.com/id88.html Stock Market Notes
http://alanbestbuys.com/id222.html Investing / Wealth Protection
http://alanbestbuys.com/id118.html Tax Help

As I mentioned so many times on the LVA site, I approached Singer to find out exactly what his so-called "special plays" were because no where -- not in his books, not in his articles, not on his website -- did he clearly explain them.

He graciously agreed to meet with me twice in Vegas to do the interviews. Once at the Hard Rock where they graciously allowed us to use their high limit slot room, and once in my suite at a hotel (which I will not mention here).

Anthony Curtis didn't pay me either -- and not only did I put Anthony on our website, but I also put Anthony on my TV and Radio shows, including about 40 minutes on my KABC radio show here in Los Angeles. Nor did the other Vegas authors pay. Nor the the Plaza Hotel pay for my report on their makeover. Nor did the creators of the new dice game at Red Rock pay.

I also offered Frank an opportunity for a video interview, and I would love to interview Bob Dancer too.

[Frank Kneeland]

Nope, I don't know any APers who don't follow the methodology Frank has described. Singer simply lies. He asserts what he wants to believe about APers. He doesn't know whether anyone wins or loses, yet he claims they all lose. In a way it is both silly and ridiculous. You should be getting an insight into Singer by now. He is a pathological liar. He can't stand that people win at VP while he has lost. So, he makes up stories to make himself feel better. This is a well known psychological approach by people who are in denial of their own problems.

For example, when I played at SouthPoint they had A and A+ levels of play. My wife an I played to the A level which had a better percentage return. We would play around 10K points every month. It only took a couple of hours and we had to stop by once a week and collect free play and often take in a free meal as well. This is how true advantage play works. I also played at many other casinos and only played to a level that maximized return. I think I played at 8-10 casinos every month.

This type of play provided an edge that was usually over 1%.

While there may be people who simply find a positive machine and play as much as possible, I don't personally know of one. They are a figment of Singer's imagination. Now go back and read Singer's last few posts. You will see they are simply one lie after another. This is how Singer operates and how he will always operate. Do you really want anything to do with type of person?

You may not know any AP's that match Singer's description of playing till you drop, but I do. I know at least two, perhaps three. Of course that's out of quite a large sample. As pure anecdotal biased conjecture, I'd place the percentage at around 5%-10% with a 10% error margin. (Hay that's funny stuff if you know statistics).

I think one of the real problems in the ongoing Singer vs. Arci debate is the black and white polarization by which each assumes that if the other is wrong on a particular point they must be wrong about everything.

Remember back to the beginning of this thread when I talked about Newton. Great ideas on calculus, gravity, and motion...not really feeling his love of nun torture and alchemy.

People are rarely all wrong or all right about everything...and I'm sure I'm all right about that...now if I could just match my socks.

[Frank Kneeland]

So what happened? Did you win or lose after playing through to earn 10,000 "points." What's the bottom line?

There is no room for nonsense. Thanks.

I am desperately trying to get you to look only at the BOTTOM LINE yet you insist on focusing on each individual daily result line by line. You appear to be using my argument of looking at total results, to in some way advocate doing the opposite. I find this bizarre in the extreme.

Yes bottom line is what is important...and bottom line is not what happens to you only on Tuesday, in one casino, with your lucky hat on, between sleep periods and underwear changes.

The 10,000 points I earned at that one casino on that one particular day are a drop in the bucket when taken into context, and put on the bottom line of my total accounting which includes many thousands of lines. I just checked with my partner and he said my result for that day happened to be +$345 (not including free food and comps). That does not mean I "won" $345 nor is it proof I was doing anything right or wrong, nor is it in anyway I can think of, relevant.

Great "bottom line" yes, couldn't agree more, now practice what you preach and stop discarding your results of the last twenty years every single time you claim a loss reduction as a "win". Until your bottom line is net positive for your life, you don't get to use the word "winning" without butchering the dictionary definition, which has no time limits or statute of limitations on results. You seem to have seen that little screen message on your machine that tells you that you are "wining" after every pay, once too often, and now believe the lie.

[Frank Kneeland]

Actually, Arc, I never promoted that. I did report on Singer's system but did not advocate it. You must learn to separate reporting from advocacy.

I watched the same videos and to me it seemed like Alan was reporting on Rob's system more than advocating it. He even seemed to question some of what Rob was saying, and of course his site states the math plays with their higher return right by the Singer Special Plays with lower mathematical return. One could argue that merely presenting Rob's system at all was in some way positively biased towards it. I did not feel that this was the case, and I support Alan's decision to report on what is a very interesting topic. Even if it is wrong, I find it fascinating how other people think, and without windows into contradictory thought processes like this one, our/my understanding of the world would suffer.

I'll be happy to do that video for you whenever you want.

[Frank Kneeland]

On a really funny note I just realized I did have a "win limitation" or goal. I plan on retiring when I get half a mil saved up, chipping in with some partners, buying land somewhere green and stating a winery for mead. Home brewing has always been a hobby of mine and I have seven first places for mead making.

Thought that was funny. Of course, I will really be "quitting" to start another career, and I will really be "ahead" for my lifetime of play.

~FK

[Alan Mendelson]

I watched the same videos and to me it seemed like Alan was reporting on Rob's system more than advocating it. He even seemed to question some of what Rob was saying, and of course his site states the math plays with their higher return right by the Singer Special Plays with lower mathematical return. One could argue that merely presenting Rob's system at all was in some way positively biased towards it. I did not feel that this was the case, and I support Alan's decision to report on what is a very interesting topic. Even if it is wrong, I find it fascinating how other people think, and without windows into contradictory thought processes like this one, our/my understanding of the world would suffer.

I'll be happy to do that video for you whenever you want.

Thank you Frank. Not only do I question Rob's plays but there are multiple other articles on my site about correct strategy.

We are scheduled to talk on the phone, and I look forward to doing the video interview with you.

Most importantly, Rob's system is entitled to coverage and presentation so all can make an informed decision about it. He is an author, a columnist and an advocate for his system, and getting the information out about it is what journalists do so the public can intelligently and objectively decide.

I personally see some value in what Rob advocates in certain situations such as... (OMG here he goes again!) quitting and taking home the win to enjoy, and when you might want to deviate from accepted or so-called "correct strategy."

I honestly follow this particular "special play" of his and I have discussed this before: when dealt a full house with three aces and two paired kickers (pair of 2, 3, 4) or even just one kicker in TDB only hold the aces to maximize the chance for quad aces. "Correct strategy" says to hold a kicker.

His other special plays Im not inclined to follow, especially breaking up trip queens when given three to the royal.

[arcimede$]

You continue to make this mistake. Even newspapers and magazines have paid ads along with editorial content. Singer's information is presented as editorial content. He did not pay to be on my website.

You must be kidding. You really think people go to your website and analyze exactly what is editorial and what is promotions? Do you analyze every detail of the websites you visit?

[Lucky(St)Louis]

I'll try to provide some insight into this thread topic through the perspective of non AP'ers and possibly unsuccessful AP'ers. I've read and understand as best I can that Frank believes there is distortion in the brain of some players which put them at a greater risk of severe negative consequences of gambling. I'll tie into this via the "quitting when your ahead" mentality.

People I know who do this first of all aren't professional poker players, VP players, or dice influencers, or BJ geniuses so they know know they're playing losing games and still play. But what I'm going to say applies to some members of the 4 groups above as well, I suspect. People have told me they quit when they're ahead, not so much for the money, but because leaving as a loser in their words has a negative aspect on every cell in their body, or at least they feel that way.

Now I'll anticipate Frank's response which is these people have a problem and shouldn't be gambling.

May be, but that's why some people want to and need to leave ahead.

[Frank Kneeland]

I'll try to provide some insight into this thread topic through the perspective of non AP'ers and possibly unsuccessful AP'ers. I've read and understand as best I can that Frank believes there is distortion in the brain of some players which put them at a greater risk of severe negative consequences of gambling. I'll tie into this via the "quitting when your ahead" mentality.

People I know who do this first of all aren't professional poker players, VP players, or dice influencers, or BJ geniuses so they know know they're playing losing games and still play. But what I'm going to say applies to some members of the 4 groups above as well, I suspect. People have told me they quit when they're ahead, not so much for the money, but because leaving as a loser in their words has a negative aspect on every cell in their body, or at least they feel that way.

Now I'll anticipate Frank's response which is these people have a problem and shouldn't be gambling.

May be, but that's why some people want to and need to leave ahead.

I can't tell you how pleased I am that anything I have said is provoking thought.

As bizarre as this may sound, I actually have no objection to nor do I think "Leaving Ahead" is a problem in and of itself. From what I have read on the subject, it is the accompanying belief system that comes with the practice as unwelcome baggage that is of concern...not the act itself.

It is simply safer (avoiding a risk factor) to think of your overall play, rather than compartmentalizing daily results independently and irrespective of previous action...which is required for the "leaving ahead" practice to make sense. One cannot leave "ahead" if they are behind for their lives and include all their results in the tally. They would never be ahead, and would never be able to leave.

The real issue is therefore the disregard of past results. Secondarily, the redefinition of "taking a break" as "quitting" is of some moderate concern (like smokers that have "quit" smoking lots of times).

Is that clearer?

The most logical reason for taking a break from gambling and getting out of the casino is because you want to. If you need to come up with additional "reasons" to leave something is wrong. I've never needed to set watch limits for NOVA. If it's really just entertainment no self imposed limits should be necessary.

[arcimede$]

People have told me they quit when they're ahead, not so much for the money, but because leaving as a loser in their words has a negative aspect on every cell in their body, or at least they feel that way.

Now I'll anticipate Frank's response which is these people have a problem and shouldn't be gambling.

May be, but that's why some people want to and need to leave ahead.

Yes, to me this completely verifies Frank's claims. When people leave ahead it reinforces their desire for gambling because they don't leave with "a negative aspect on every cell in their body". In fact, they feel great and probably want to come back very soon. The more this happens the more likely they are to become completely addicted.

And, of course, this emphasizes that a system like Singer's that increases daily wins while having zero impact on long term results is the worst possible system as it leads to increasing addiction.

[arcimede$]

Most importantly, Rob's system is entitled to coverage and presentation so all can make an informed decision about it. He is an author, a columnist and an advocate for his system, and getting the information out about it is what journalists do so the public can intelligently and objectively decide.

Do you also carry "editorials" on the proper methods for making meth or farming weed? You see, it all comes down to presenting facts. Singer lies about the benefits of his system. He lied on your tapes. Any competent math person will tell you they are lies. So, exactly what do you expect of the people who view the tapes? Do you expect them ALL to be competent at math? If not, then you are leading them astray. At best you are neutral on the subject when simple mathematics shows there is no neutrality.

I personally see some value in what Rob advocates in certain situations such as... (OMG here he goes again!) quitting and taking home the win to enjoy, and when you might want to deviate from accepted or so-called "correct strategy."

Then you should have a discussion of win goals. These have nothing to do with Singer's system per se. Anyone can set win goals using any strategy they want. You need to understand this first. It appears you are still confused.

I honestly follow this particular "special play" of his and I have discussed this before: when dealt a full house with three aces and two paired kickers (pair of 2, 3, 4) or even just one kicker in TDB only hold the aces to maximize the chance for quad aces. "Correct strategy" says to hold a kicker.

His other special plays Im not inclined to follow, especially breaking up trip queens when given three to the royal.

So, you follow one special play about of 1700+ and that somehow validates them all? Pure nonsense.

I wouldn't have a problem with this if you specifically state in the videos or on the web pages that following the special plays will generally result in bigger losses and going home a loser more often. That is a fact whether you like it or not. The special plays do not work as advertised. The ONLY thing that leads to increased session wins is the progression itself. Everything else Singer advocates decreases those wins.

[Alan Mendelson]

Okay Arc, let's see if I can give you some answers and responses here.

First you asked this: "Do you also carry "editorials" on the proper methods for making meth or farming weed?"

My answer is: no, we don't.

Next, you said this: "Singer lies about the benefits of his system. He lied on your tapes. Any competent math person will tell you they are lies."

My response: I'm not sure it is correct to categorize them as lies, but I do accept them as his beliefs. Rob was very upfront about presenting the facts that his special plays have a lower expected value than the conventional plays. He's not fighting that math. He is only suggesting that there are times when making a different play could return more.

If you recall our conversation on the LVA board I suggested that Rob's video poker "special plays" were no different from a craps player who only made the difficult to win "horn bets," but when the 2, 3, 11 and 12 hit they pay much better than the safe, conventional inside numbers of 6 and 8. You could say that Rob is an advocate for long shots in certain situations. Okay, he's willing to take a gamble. You play more conservatively. Oh, and Rob does say that he plays the conventional way something like 95% of the time.

(By the way, every so often one of those renegade horn bet players parlays $1 on the 12 and walks away from the table with $27,000+ and you know what, I know guys who have done it.)

Your next comment: "Then you should have a discussion of win goals. These have nothing to do with Singer's system per se. Anyone can set win goals using any strategy they want. You need to understand this first. It appears you are still confused."

My response: I agree, and I am not confused. Win goals are not uniquely part of Rob's system, but Rob does have them as part of his system, and that is good. There are also win goals in sports. When I played basketball in school, and we were just clobbering the other team, our coach would put in the second and third string to play to give them experience in a game. We had met our "win goal" with a comfortable lead. In pro sports they do the same thing. Once a "comfortable lead" has been met, secondary units are brought in to minimize the risk that a primary player could be injured when it is not necessary to risk an injury. I hope that information about sports management doesn't confuse you.

Your next statement: "So, you follow one special play about of 1700+ and that somehow validates them all? Pure nonsense."

What is nonsense, Arc, is your allegation that because I follow one play that it somehow means I am validating them all. Where did I say that? I said I follow one play. I also said it is important that with all of the discussion about Rob's special play system that someone should make it public so we all know what it is we are talking about. I did that. And until I did it was never in one place for the public to see. Perhaps in bits and pieces here and there you could find a discussion of a particular play, but Rob spent a lot of time to fulfill my request that he present "special plays" that would represent his overall strategy. I don't know what these other hundreds of "special plays" might be. There are only 34 presented on the site with video explanations. Rob told me that these were the basis for all of his plays.

You know Arc, if there are 1700 plays, and he makes special plays perhaps only 5% of the time, how many thousands of hands of video poker would he have to see before each "special play" was made? As Rob pointed out in the special play with the hand with 3 queens and three to the royal (special play #13 on this page: http://alanbestbuys.com/id194.html ) he has only seen this situation twice in his life.

Your final statement is this: "I wouldn't have a problem with this if you specifically state in the videos or on the web pages that following the special plays will generally results in bigger losses and going home a loser more often. That is a fact whether you like it or not. The special plays do not work as advertised. The ONLY thing that leads to increased session wins is the progression itself. Everything else Singer advocates decreases those wins."

My response: Well, you might be right about this but it is something I can't and shouldn't pass judgment on. My goal was to present the information so that you and others could come to your own decision. I've already told you about my decision. I follow one of his "special plays" about the trip aces in TDB and I don't follow the others, though I do see some merit in breaking up a full house with 3 aces in bonus poker with paytables less than 8/5. Have I done it? No, but I can understand his thinking. (See #14 on http://alanbestbuys.com/id194.html )

And by the way, on the LVA forum I once reported how I did break up a full house in 8/5 bonus to hold only the three aces and I got the quads for a $2,000 win. I made that outrageous play because I was deep in a hole and only getting quad aces would get me out of the hole I was in. I got lucky, yes. And isn't that what Rob's system is all about -- getting lucky??

Rob is also very honest and forthcoming that his special plays have a lower expected value. How much more truthful can the guy be? He says it plain and simple: you play the conventional way and you'll get conventional results. You play my way, and you might win big.

Like I said before, he's like the renegade craps player who only bets the horn when all of the smart "math guys" are just betting 6 and 8.

And do the special plays work as advertised? I don't know. But I do know that I presented with Rob's cooperation a good explanation of what his "special plays" are. Now you have something to study, analyze and rip apart. Go to it. And as I suggested, why don't you create another thread here on this forum, and post all of your criticisms "special play by special play" and even pick apart the other interviews I did with him about his other beliefs about the game and regulations.

And if you happen to think the idea of a progression works, and will also work with other VP games and strategies, then please, go ahead and tell everyone about that too.

Use of this forum is open and free. I don't charge anything. So you can do it on my dime. And I welcome the discussion.

[arcimede$]

Alan, if someone told you that they had some great investment advice would you carry it on your website? Now, if that advice turned out to be a classic ponzi scheme would you remove it from your website?

I'll assume you would remove it once you understood it was not a good investment. Now, I can see you not understanding the math behind video poker. So, I can see you placing information that goes against the mathematics. However, now you have been given essentially the same type of information that you'd get about a ponzi scheme. However, instead of removing the bad information you continue to promote it.

In addition, you are now being made aware that this type of system could easily promote addiction.

Overall, this approach you are taking significantly reduces your credibility. If you can't accept this math why would anyone believe anything else they see on your website? Personally, I've not investigated any other part of your site for this very reason.

BTW, if you can't see the lies Singer stated on the videos and repeats in his posts then I guess I shouldn't be surprised you are so easily fooled.

[arcimede$]

"on the LVA forum I once reported how I did break up a full house in 8/5 bonus to hold only the three aces and I got the quads for a $2,000 win."

Once I was dealt two pair and kept only the aces because I didn't realize the other pair was in a position that made holding the two pair correct (DB+). I caught the other two aces for $800. Would I make the hold again? Nope. Have I made many, many other mistakes that cost me money? Yup. Am I ahead or behind on my mistakes? Behind!!!!!! ... as I bet you are as well.

What you are doing is using hindsight to justify your actions when the hindsight is useless as a representation of future results. Frank has told you this many times.

Once I accidentally hit a golf ball into some trees next to the green. The ball bounced out of the trees and onto the green very close to the pin. Do I use this as a reason to promote aiming at the trees instead of the green? Of course not, that would be silly. But, that is precisely what you are doing when you justify plays by citing the one or two examples of where it worked.