Frank Kneeland on Rob Singer?

[Alan Mendelson]

"assuming the machines are 100% random - which I don't believe they are "

Perfect example of not accepting the math. The math only applies when the games are random. So, if Singer does not believe the games are random then he doesn't accept the math.

"but did prepare my strategy as IF they are "

Which means he doesn't have a clue about the math. I already demonstrated in a previous thread that his system DOES NOT do what he claims it does, that is, his special plays do not lead to more session wins.

Alan, too bad you never read that thread, you might have learned something.

Again, you raise a good question. In particular you wrote: "his special plays do not lead to more session wins." Rob says he has won nearly a million dollars over a ten year period. Since he is playing negative expectation games (primarily 8/5 bonus) how do you account for his profits if not for "getting lucky" and his special plays? Or, are you saying he didn't win?

Another point you made is: "his special plays do not lead to more session wins." Well, is the objective here to make more session wins or to have a bigger net win? If I recall, Arc, you posted on the LVA site that you win something like 3 out of ten sessions, yet you are a net winner? Personally, I don't doubt that Rob is more likely a winner on more sessions because of his betting progressions. And, Arc, I think you also agree that a betting progression can make you a winner with or without Rob's system.

You see, Arc, I am not an advocate for either side here. I understand -- and actually play -- following what the math says to play. But I also can appreciate how violating the "math driven plays" (my term) can combine with a little luck to give you a win.

I appreciate that, but I don't necessarily follow it.

Let me again call your attention to how Rob justifies his special plays.

In one of the video taped interviews he did with me he said "if you give yourself more opportunity for that big winner to come you're going to have higher odds of hitting that winner" (at 01:28) and "I did a risk analysis for every one of these special plays" (at 2:04).

You can watch that interview again (first video on the page) at http://alanbestbuys.com/id194.html

Now, while I have not seen the actual studies that Rob did, it does make sense to me that if you give yourself the chance for the big win, you have a greater chance of getting the big win. If you hold AAAKK in 7/5 bonus, you will never draw the case ace for the quad jackpot. And that is one of Rob's special plays because he says a full house in 7/5 bonus isn't big enough to give up the chance for the quad aces. Yet, he says, in 8/5 bonus he would hold AAAKK.

Yeah, he violates the math, he ignores the math driven plays, but he is giving himself the chance for a big win. And holding the full house will never give you quad aces. You have to appreciate his thought process even if you don't follow it.