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.
Reply With Quote