Setting Win Limitations

[arcimede$]

"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?"

5% is once in every 20 hands. If he played 4000 hands in a session that would be 200 special plays in one session. That's 200 hands that reduce the expected return and does not include his errors that are on top of the special plays. These plays will shorten most sessions and lead to less session wins (the exact opposite of what Singer claims (ie. his claims are a lie)).

[Frank Kneeland]

1. 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.

2. 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.

1. Let's be clear: Very little to none of what I have posted is original or something I am personally claiming. I'm only guilty of parroting what I've read in books written by people much smarter than myself. The issue is so complicated that when I brought it up to multiple practicing therapists, I succeeded in temporarily stumping them & dividing opinion down the middle. The only conclusion was that they would research it, think about it, and get back to me. Since then, one of the therapists has gotten back to me and believes that when looking at all the pros and cons the Singer system would be net negative and possibly contribute to addiction potential (in some people). The other two are as yet undecided. To think of this in completely black and white terms would be to belie the incredible diversity that is the human mind.

2. I would like to make a comment neither in defense or condemnation of Arci's second point--merely clarification.

I'm not entirely sure Rob is of the impression that his system has zero effect on long term results. I believe that he has made money playing his system, and that he perceives this as "proof" his system does impact results. In science this is know as anecdotal data. Unfortunately when dealing with data sets involving random variables, anecdotal data is not considered to be "proof" of anything, and it requires an underlying theory of causation to be considered. I didn't make up the rules of the scientific method, but I intend to follow them, because they are the best tool we flawed humans have for weeding out biases and distinguishing fact from fiction.

My goal is to replace Rob's anecdotal data with hard data, a supportive theory of causation, and then test it rigorously in a fashion that would be duplicable. If this turns out to be impossible, it means the hypothesis is unprovable. As I said when I started my RS eval, if I succeeded in proving the RS system it would be a really interesting result. If I fail to prove the system, it would be a great window into how such ideas are created and supported. With no "system" of my own, I have no particular emotional bias either way.

[Alan Mendelson]

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.

Look Arc, there is nothing illegal about Rob Singer's system or strategy. It is nothing like a Ponzi scheme. YES it goes against the math of the game. He admits it. The math is presented: conventional plays vs. the Singer plays.

You say Singer's system is promoting addiction? How about all the books and authors who say that the longer you play at positive expectation games the more you can win? If you ask me, that is more likely to lead to addiction.

[Alan Mendelson]

"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.

Thanks Arc, so you too have come out ahead because of "luck." That was the point I made. You got lucky and I got lucky. Gee, I guess we can both agree that luck happens.

[Alan Mendelson]

"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?"

5% is once in every 20 hands. If he played 4000 hands in a session that would be 200 special plays in one session. That's 200 hands that reduce the expected return and does not include his errors that are on top of the special plays. These plays will shorten most sessions and lead to less session wins (the exact opposite of what Singer claims (ie. his claims are a lie)).

Actually, you got this one wrong. Not every "special play" occurs at the same rate according to Singer. Singer said that he has seen three queens with three to the royal only twice in his lifetime. And only once he made the special play of holding the three to the royal instead of the three queens.

So try to answer this one again: how many hands of video poker would it take before you applied all 1700 of his special plays?

You're also going to have some other info which I don't think I know, or you know, or anyone knows. And that is, exactly when does Rob deviate from the conventional math play to make a "special play"?

He has said that special plays can be used when he needs a big win to reach a goal, or when he is in a deep hole. This is what happened, he said when he held the three to the royal discarding the three queens. He said he made that special play only because he desperately needed a royal.

I'm going to save you some computer time, Arc. The correct answer is we DON'T know the answer. Rob has still not revealed this part of his strategy -- the decision making for using special plays versus conventional plays. He has only told us that there are times when special plays are used (5% of the time he says) but we don't know what triggers those special plays.

Perhaps he has told you-- and if he did please report that here. I've asked Rob to do another video interview with me to explain that part of his system, because I don't know it. And I'm really not clear on his bankroll management either-- we didn't discuss that.

In the video interviews I did with Rob we looked at only a limited number of issues.

[Frank Kneeland]

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.

This is know in psychology as the hindsight bias and is related to outcome bias, which can lead to something called the gamblers fallacy.

Wiki isn't the best source of info, but if anyone would like to look it up here are the links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcome_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

I have read them and they do not deviate what I've read from more reliable sources. I've got a costume party to go to today, so I'll be back tomorrow.

~FK

[arcimede$]

Look Arc, there is nothing illegal about Rob Singer's system or strategy. It is nothing like a Ponzi scheme. YES it goes against the math of the game. He admits it. The math is presented: conventional plays vs. the Singer plays.

So, as far as you are concerned ... if it's not illegal then buyer beware. Another good reason to avoid your website.

You say Singer's system is promoting addiction? How about all the books and authors who say that the longer you play at positive expectation games the more you can win? If you ask me, that is more likely to lead to addiction.

I'm not saying anything about addiction, I'm simply repeating things that have been stated previously.

My opinion has always been that the issue is gambling problems not addiction. Long term optimal play at a positive return game is not all that likely to lead to money related gambling problems even if the player is addicted. In addition, books that promote optimal play are at least working to get players to understand the real issues and the mathematical facts. All Singer does is wrap up a lie with several other lies and you promote those lies.

[arcimede$]

1. Let's be clear: Very little to none of what I have posted is original or something I am personally claiming. I'm only guilty of parroting what I've read in books written by people much smarter than myself. The issue is so complicated that when I brought it up to multiple practicing therapists, I succeeded in temporarily stumping them & dividing opinion down the middle. The only conclusion was that they would research it, think about it, and get back to me. Since then, one of the therapists has gotten back to me and believes that when looking at all the pros and cons the Singer system would be net negative and possibly contribute to addiction potential (in some people). The other two are as yet undecided. To think of this in completely black and white terms would be to belie the incredible diversity that is the human mind.

I think from a pure physiology point of view the idea that a dopamine response will act as a reinforcement for future gambling desires is on pretty solid ground. Of course everyone is different but I believe we are talking "average" in most of the discussions so far.

2. I would like to make a comment neither in defense or condemnation of Arci's second point--merely clarification.

I'm not entirely sure Rob is of the impression that his system has zero effect on long term results. I believe that he has made money playing his system, and that he perceives this as "proof" his system does impact results. In science this is know as anecdotal data. Unfortunately when dealing with data sets involving random variables, anecdotal data is not considered to be "proof" of anything, and it requires an underlying theory of causation to be considered. I didn't make up the rules of the scientific method, but I intend to follow them, because they are the best tool we flawed humans have for weeding out biases and distinguishing fact from fiction.

My goal is to replace Rob's anecdotal data with hard data, a supportive theory of causation, and then test it rigorously in a fashion that would be duplicable. If this turns out to be impossible, it means the hypothesis is unprovable. As I said when I started my RS eval, if I succeeded in proving the RS system it would be a really interesting result. If I fail to prove the system, it would be a great window into how such ideas are created and supported. With no "system" of my own, I have no particular emotional bias either way.

I don't know if Rob has won or not (nor do I care), but I do know your statement above is not a valid use of scientific method. The scientific method is invoked when a something is not completely understood. Singer's system can be completely analyzed mathematically. It is not a hypothesis, it is a mathematical supposition that has been PROVEN wrong.

I've explained this to Alan many times before but he does not have the capacity to understand what I'm saying. I know you have that ability Frank, I hope you don't get so bogged down in the nonsense Singer spews to miss this absolutely critical point.

[arcimede$]

Thanks Arc, so you too have come out ahead because of "luck." That was the point I made. You got lucky and I got lucky. Gee, I guess we can both agree that luck happens.

No one has ever said that luck doesn't happen although a better description would be positive random fluctuations. The point is these cannot be counted on IN THE FUTURE which is exactly what Singer is claiming. I hope we also agree on that point.

[arcimede$]

Actually, you got this one wrong. Not every "special play" occurs at the same rate according to Singer. Singer said that he has seen three queens with three to the royal only twice in his lifetime. And only once he made the special play of holding the three to the royal instead of the three queens.

No Alan, I did not get it wrong. I replaced your wild ass guess with the mathematical facts. Nothing was mentioned about any particular special play. 5% is the total that you have been using. Now you know what that means. Your response here is nothing but nonsense.

So try to answer this one again: how many hands of video poker would it take before you applied all 1700 of his special plays?

Doesn't matter. Even if he only used one special play but used it 5% of the time, my statement is still correct. The number of special plays is irrelevant to this discussion.

You're also going to have some other info which I don't think I know, or you know, or anyone knows. And that is, exactly when does Rob deviate from the conventional math play to make a "special play"?

Still don't care as long as it's 5% of the time. You are scrambling to avoid admitting that you had no idea the ACTUAL number of times Singer uses special plays.

He has said that special plays can be used when he needs a big win to reach a goal, or when he is in a deep hole. This is what happened, he said when he held the three to the royal discarding the three queens. He said he made that special play only because he desperately needed a royal.

So what, I've shown you that his claim ... that special plays improve the chances of reaching a win goal ... is a LIE. In almost every case I analyzed the special plays REDUCED his chances of reaching a goal. Once again you choose to ignore reality.

I'm going to save you some computer time, Arc. The correct answer is we DON'T know the answer. Rob has still not revealed this part of his strategy -- the decision making for using special plays versus conventional plays. He has only told us that there are times when special plays are used (5% of the time he says) but we don't know what triggers those special plays.

Perhaps he has told you-- and if he did please report that here. I've asked Rob to do another video interview with me to explain that part of his system, because I don't know it. And I'm really not clear on his bankroll management either-- we didn't discuss that.

In the video interviews I did with Rob we looked at only a limited number of issues.

Alan, we DO know the answer. It's 5%. Try to understand WHAT THAT MEANS. If you gave me 5% of your yearly earnings and you sell 1700 products, it does not matter where that money came from. It could all come from one product or spread around all 1700. Think about it.

[Alan Mendelson]

No one has ever said that luck doesn't happen although a better description would be positive random fluctuations. The point is these cannot be counted on IN THE FUTURE which is exactly what Singer is claiming. I hope we also agree on that point.

You raised a very valid point here. And earlier today Frank and I had a long phone conversation and this particular issue came up.

The question I raised is this: what percentage of Singer's "special plays" win as expected or partially, and what percentage lose? For those not familiar, Singer could decide to hold a single ace and while he might not get quad aces or a royal he might still draw a pair of jacks. So in this example, Singer's special play for an "ace" might fail but he could still turn a winning hand.

I think Rob will come back and say that with his special plays he was able to have a net win of nearly a million dollars over ten years. But what we would all like to see is some sort of report about where his actual wins come from? Did they come from the special plays he makes 5% of the time, or from his conventional plays that are made 95% of the time.

It is very possible that he won his million dollars from his 95% of conventional plays plus a few of his special plays.

We really don't have that information and I hope Rob can help us with these questions.

In the meantime Arc, get over it... reporters sometimes report on unpopular things. You don't like it and I'm sorry you don't but you're not going to intimidate me to stop investigating and reporting on subjects that are of interest to me and others. And if Bob Dancer or Jean Scott or John Grochowski would like to make themselves available for an interview, I am happy to present their information as well. And you are still invited to start your own "Arcimede$ thread" here and use it as your own platform to discuss your methods and strategies, and if all you want to do is praise conventional play then please be my guest.

Video Poker is a huge business in America, and millions of people probably play it.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc you are being stubborn about how quickly Singer will go through all 1700 special plays. We don't know. We may never know, because each special play is not played at a uniform rate. Just as royal flushes don't always hit one out of 40,000 hands.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, you wrote: "I've shown you that his claim ... that special plays improve the chances of reaching a win goal ... is a LIE. In almost every case I analyzed the special plays REDUCED his chances of reaching a goal."

Well, this will be an easy one. Rob says he dropped three queens in bonus poker to hold three to the royal on a $25/coin machine at the Bellagio. He said he hit the royal, winning $100,000 and not only reached his win goal but surpassed it.

Okay, Arc, are you saying that is a lie?

Look, you and I both agree that we would never dump three queens for three to the royal. And Singer also says that in normal situations he wouldn't do it either. But in a special case he did. Why is that such a big issue for you, Arc? He took a long shot and hit it. I say, good for him. I also say, I wouldn't do it. Is there more to be said, Arc?

[arcimede$]

Arc you are being stubborn about how quickly Singer will go through all 1700 special plays. We don't know. We may never know, because each special play is not played at a uniform rate. Just as royal flushes don't always hit one out of 40,000 hands.

You are the one who has completely missed the point. It doesn't matter how quickly he goes through them. It only matters as to how often each one of them is used. You stated that Singer claims the total number is 5%. Hence, he will apply a special play about once every 20 hands on average. This is not rocket science.

[arcimede$]

Arc, you wrote: "I've shown you that his claim ... that special plays improve the chances of reaching a win goal ... is a LIE. In almost every case I analyzed the special plays REDUCED his chances of reaching a goal."

Well, this will be an easy one. Rob says he dropped three queens in bonus poker to hold three to the royal on a $25/coin machine at the Bellagio. He said he hit the royal, winning $100,000 and not only reached his win goal but surpassed it.

Okay, Arc, are you saying that is a lie?

It might be, it might not be. It doesn't matter. Once again you are confusing a lucky past result with claims as to how a system will perform in the future. One day I hit RFs about 2 hours apart holding 4RF each time. These were consecutive tries holding 4RF. Does this mean I will hit all 4RF holds in the future? Of course not. But that is exactly the logic you are using.

Alan, as long as you continue to confuse anecdotal past results with future expectation you will be lost in a world of nonsense. Pick yourself up and put that nonsense out of your mind. If you are promoting a system to use *in the future* then the only thing that should concern you is what the likelihood is for that system to produce good results. That is what my analysis did. It demonstrated what would happen on average *in the future*. And, it demonstrated that for most people the results are 180° opposite to what Singer has claimed.

[arcimede$]

You raised a very valid point here. And earlier today Frank and I had a long phone conversation and this particular issue came up.

The question I raised is this: what percentage of Singer's "special plays" win as expected or partially, and what percentage lose? For those not familiar, Singer could decide to hold a single ace and while he might not get quad aces or a royal he might still draw a pair of jacks. So in this example, Singer's special play for an "ace" might fail but he could still turn a winning hand.

And this is exactly what I did with my analysis in the other thread. You have the information. Use it!

I think Rob will come back and say that with his special plays he was able to have a net win of nearly a million dollars over ten years. But what we would all like to see is some sort of report about where his actual wins come from? Did they come from the special plays he makes 5% of the time, or from his conventional plays that are made 95% of the time.

It is very possible that he won his million dollars from his 95% of conventional plays plus a few of his special plays.

For the umpteenth time ... IT DOESN'T MATTER. Whatever Singer did will not be exactly repeated by others so why would you care. People could throw away a 4RF deal and get one on the draw in another suit. Yes, that is possible and again it's a big SO WHAT. However, we do have a means to determine what is the average case. It's called mathematics. I've provided you with that information. Why do you ignore solid fundamental mathematics and blindly repeat unverifiable, anecdotal claims. It's beyond ridiculous.

[Alan Mendelson]

You are the one who has completely missed the point. It doesn't matter how quickly he goes through them. It only matters as to how often each one of them is used. You stated that Singer claims the total number is 5%. Hence, he will apply a special play about once every 20 hands on average. This is not rocket science.

Okay, Arc, let me revise the question. Consider this: he uses special play #X whenever he has two pair, but only uses special play #Z when he is dealt three queens with three cards to a royal. Can you really tell me how many hands are needed to go through ALL 1700 special plays?

[Alan Mendelson]

It might be, it might not be. It doesn't matter. Once again you are confusing a lucky past result with claims as to how a system will perform in the future. One day I hit RFs about 2 hours apart holding 4RF each time. These were consecutive tries holding 4RF. Does this mean I will hit all 4RF holds in the future? Of course not. But that is exactly the logic you are using.

Alan, as long as you continue to confuse anecdotal past results with future expectation you will be lost in a world of nonsense. Pick yourself up and put that nonsense out of your mind. If you are promoting a system to use *in the future* then the only thing that should concern you is what the likelihood is for that system to produce good results. That is what my analysis did. It demonstrated what would happen on average *in the future*. And, it demonstrated that for most people the results are 180° opposite to what Singer has claimed.

Let me sum up my interest in Rob Singer this way: he has won a million dollars playing video poker. I want to find out how he did it.

[arcimede$]

Okay, Arc, let me revise the question. Consider this: he uses special play #X whenever he has two pair, but only uses special play #Z when he is dealt three queens with three cards to a royal. Can you really tell me how many hands are needed to go through ALL 1700 special plays?

Yes, it is computable, and once more, it doesn't matter. Why do you keep going back to this nonsense?

The math tells us everything we need to know. It tells us the best possible expected return. Note the word "expected". Essentially, that means average. Some people will do better some will do worse. That is the nature of random events. There is no way to predict random events and past history is meaningless. So, the only thing we have to go on to determine the best approach *in the future* is to use that average.

Since we can completely analyze all possible deal and draw situations we know exactly how to compute the averages. In addition, since all VPs hands are independent we understand that all of those deals are possible on the next hand. This allows to determine the value of each and every hand. Guess what. All special plays REDUCE the value to that hand. Therefore, Since our overall results are simply the sum of the results from individual hands, the only thing a special play can do is reduce the overall expected return. You don't need to work yourself up into a dither trying to understand when special plays will be used. All you have to know is that every one of them will reduce your results.

[arcimede$]

Let me sum up my interest in Rob Singer this way: he has won a million dollars playing video poker. I want to find out how he did it.

Do you believe everything you are told? If I told you you could hit a RF every time you are dealt 4RF by rubbing the screen 3 times just below the missing card and chanting arcimedes 3 times, would you believe that too? Oh yeah, you have to rub it just right and if you don't hit the RF it's because you didn't do it right.

BTW, as I've mentioned before I ran simulations of Singer's strategy. Out of 10,000 simulations of the 250 sessions he had played at the time there were exactly 3 that achieved Singer's claimed results or better (one was ahead $1.7 million). That means 9,997 did worse than Singer claims (IIRC, about 2000 won money). So, you have to ask yourself ... do you feel lucky? Because that is all you have going for you. In addition, the average return of the games was about 99.8% so likely much better than Singer has played. When I reduced the return of the games the number of winners dropped just like expected.

Now, on the other side of the coin we have people who have been trained by Singer that stated he insisted on using his player's card while they played. So, you can follow the money like a good reporter or you can believe unverifiable claims by a stranger. As they say, a fool and his money are soon parted.

However, if we assume Singer is being honest, the answer is simple. He was lucky. Would you put a gun to your head with a bullet in it and pull the trigger simply because someone else did it and lived?