Arc, let me say it again:

1. You are correct that Singer's system does not change the math of the game. And he's not trying to change the math of the game.

2. Singer says he doesn't always follow the math of the game. But he says he does 95% of the time.

3. Sometimes Singer will disregard the math and avoid the correct math play in an attempt to make a bigger win than what the "math play" calls for. He refers to it as a "special play" so that he will attempt to get lucky.

You because of your devotion to the math of the game cannot comprehend that someone would deliberately not make the "correct play" as dictated by the math. But that is exactly what Singer will do on occasion and as he said, about 5% of the time. And he says that by not following the math (the correct holds) he has managed to score some big wins.

Damn, I don't follow him and even I can understand what he's doing.

Let me put it a different way: YOU DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW THE MATH OF THE GAME TO WIN.

Playing video poker is not a test-- you are not scored by how many "correct plays" you make.

If Rob has success playing his way, then good for him. If you don't want to play his way, don't. And if you have success playing your way, then good for you.

We have been going around in circles over this for way too long. It's all been blown up out of proportion.

Those of you who are devoted to the perfect play and perfect math of the game -- go ahead continue your beliefs and continue doing what you're doing. I'm mostly with you.

Rob, on the other hand, is simply showing that sometimes you have to take a little extra gamble to score a big win. And since he's taking that extra gamble in a casino -- and not during open heart surgery -- it's OK with me that he's doing it.

And here's a bit of reality for you: all those books and programs that Ive bought over the years and thousands of other players have bought over the years written by the video poker "experts" haven't busted the casinos yet.