Frank Kneeland on Rob Singer?

[Alan Mendelson]

Of course he hasn't. He made it all up to begin with. There was no risk analysis, there were no mathematicains that validated his system and, most likely, his claims of winning are bogus. He's taking advantage of folks who do not have the mathematical skills to analyze his system. And, while he will respond to this, he will not provide anything of value. It will just be more of the same nonsense.

Let me ask you this: Why must his strategy be proven by the math of the game? In craps, for example, the math tells you not to make hardways bets. Yet, within the last year, there was a player who parlayed $25 on the hard-10 to a win in excess of $40,000. This was written about on the LVA forum, and it's also not that unusual for the game of craps.

I personally know a player who parlayed $1 on 12 to more than $27,000 as the 12 hit three times in a row.

Crazy bets can win, but you have to bet them to win.

What Singer has laid out for us is some "special plays" as he calls them where you might decide to go for the crazy bet. For example, when to hold the full house with aces in 7/5 bonus, and when just to hold the aces.

Arc, no matter what you write, I still haven't seen Rob's information about when he plays by the math 95% of the time and when he makes his special plays. This is something I asked for him to talk about in another video-taped interview.

The funny thing is, if Rob's strategy was titled "How to win a video poker tournament" it might be called brilliant. Because even Bob Dancer in his articles about winning a video poker tournament has talked about making unconventional plays to hit a royal.

All of this controversy over Rob's system may never have developed if two things had happened:

1. He did title his strategy "How to win a video poker tournament with off-beat and wild plays."

2. Instead of calling it a system that others could use, he wrote books that were titled: "How I beat the casinos at video poker by playing it my crazy way"

[arcimede$]

Since I always stated I have no problem with Singer playing anyway he wants, all you did was just repeat what I've been saying for years. The problem is that is not what Singer did. He claimed standard math plays do not work while a person could win with his approach. He also made many other unsubstantiated claims that I have documented.

Deal with reality, Alan. Not some fantasy that never happened.

[Alan Mendelson]

Since I always stated I have no problem with Singer playing anyway he wants, all you did was just repeat what I've been saying for years. The problem is that is not what Singer did. He claimed standard math plays do not work while a person could win with his approach. He also made many other unsubstantiated claims that I have documented.

Deal with reality, Alan. Not some fantasy that never happened.

The "reality" that allows for AP to win at video poker is nearly extinct. Positive expectation games are almost impossible to find, cash back and bounce back money has been eliminated or greatly reduced, even Bob Dancer has written about how casinos are preventing APers from participating in certain promotions.

With the video poker deck now stacked against the concept of advantage play, perhaps you need something like Singer's system to make you leave a winner?

[arcimede$]

The "reality" that allows for AP to win at video poker is nearly extinct. Positive expectation games are almost impossible to find, cash back and bounce back money has been eliminated or greatly reduced, even Bob Dancer has written about how casinos are preventing APers from participating in certain promotions.

With the video poker deck now stacked against the concept of advantage play, perhaps you need something like Singer's system to make you leave a winner?

Pure nonsense. Silly strawman argument. Singer's system does not change the math and can't make more than a few lucky people winners. Sorry Alan, but this attempt to change the subject from the fact Singer's system does not even do what it is advertised to do is beyond obvious.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, this is what you will never understand. You continue to say "Singer's system does not change the math" and you are correct. Singer's system does not change the math. Singer will also tell you that according to the math, his "special plays" are all at a disadvantage.

But Singer does not play by the math exclusively. He says he only plays by the math 95% of the time. That is what Singer's system is all about. It's all about putting the "math plays" aside at certain times to try to get lucky to hit something bigger.

Now you can argue that trying to get something bigger might not work, and is destined to fail. And you might be right-- or you might be wrong.

Why could you be wrong? Because even in the bad math of a lottery, there are lottery winners. And even in the game of craps where the 12 is a bad bet, players hit the 12. And even in video poker when holding a single ace is a bad play when you have a pair of 9s, someone will hold the ace and get a royal or three more aces. That is what Singer's system is all about.

Trying to tell me that Singer is trying to redefine math is silly. He's not, he never has. All he has tried to do with his special plays is set aside "small wins" for a chance to get "big wins."

What you might say is that he's a crazy gambler, instead of a disciplined video poker player.

Try this for an analogy: instead of investing in shares of IBM, he trades call options on IBM.
Here's another analogy: instead of holding AAAKK in 7/5 Bonus and taking the full house payoff, he holds only AAA to try for the quads, hoping to hit the case Ace enough times to meet his goal.

Arc, you will argue that the math says it is better to hold the full house, and Singer says the full house won't make him happy. And that's the difference between you and he. Singer knows his strategy of dumping the full house has a lower expected value, but his "special play" gives him the opportunity to hit quad aces, and when he plays, he says his goal is to hit quads and especially quad aces.

Simply it comes down to this: he has different goals than you have. He plays differently than you do. He is NOT trying to change the math.

With that said, you can criticize him all you want that your math plays are better than his non-math plays. And to that I would say best of luck to both of you.

So again returning to your last post above, where you say "Singer's system does not change the math and can't make more than a few lucky people winners," I would alter it slightly to say, instead, "Singer's system does not change the math and might make some lucky people winners."

[Rob.Singer]

This is something that Rob has not made clear -- in his books, in my conversations with him, in the interviews we did: when does he make his special plays and when does the follow the math that 95% of the time? Rob should comment about Arc's post.

First, thank you Alan for once again being the voice of reason by ASKING questions instead of making up how many so-called bogus "demonstrations" have been done that are factually lacking & nebulous enough to be able to draw unsupportable conclusions for only oneself in order to pretend to feel good about something you know little about. And special credit is given for getting arci to give up more of his time to this. Have you noticed how shaken he's getting and how simple it is to rattle the poor fellow? Video poker has found a way to put pressure on everything about his life. "Something to enjoy & behold" would not be giving this enough justice!

Vegas Vic was onto something reasonable, which only got under arci's skin. Good job there too. We'll look at this scenario from 2 perspectives. First, playing like I was at Terribles where I just felt like playing $2 ACES BP while I was also watching the game, if I always played like that without strategy and using special plays, yes, I would be on a faster track to being a loser than a winner. Still, with such an odd & lucky/big hit and if I only played at the $2 level, it would take a much longer time to be a loser and it may not even happen depending on what my royal frequency was. So arci is more right than wrong on his jealous criticism here.

Now back to my play strategy, where these type big hits have come many many times at crazy high denominations because of the progression. In such cases, the overall math distribution of expectation & profitting is severely interrupted because once one of these is hit, my next hand is at my lowest denomination when I return for a session. This is where arci and his emotional, helter-skelter, and never-math-analyzed BS becomes laughable.

What happens when I "miss"? Well, for one thing, there are many other winning hands that can occur that are totally ignored by such a critic--simply because he just doesn't want that aspect looked at by the readers. I've already explained the decrease in EV and why it's important to go for the opportunity when it exists and there's a reasonable give-up in expectation. Further critic obfuscation appears when they try to make it look like how all of the other times when the big hit isn't realized, how it's just going to tear apart my profiting.

Well, there just isn't that many hands that will be played like this at the higher levels because I play far less at these levels than the lower ones. Only a few hits--like the $25 RF at Bellagio, the $10 RF at Planet Hollywood by holding a lone Ace instead of a QK unsuited, the multiple $15,000 quad J's/Q's/K's on $25 SDBP at Aquarius, and the quad 2's on $100 DDBP at Caesar's from tossing the second pair of low cards, have always meant that I would never be a loser. Sure there were a lot more times these special plays didn't work. Big deal....and that's exactly how I developed it to work.

Here I'll insert arci's guess and then continue to show him how wrong he is. Of course, he makes these uneducated criticizms because of envy and because he likes to lie. All it takes is simple reading skills to expose this trait: "However, the stated goal of the special plays is to improve your chances of reaching a specified win goal. It never says anything about a single hand. If you cost yourself additional play by making a poor choice of holds then those lost hands decrease your chances of reaching the win goal. One has to weigh the overall impact of the one approach with the other. With most of the special plays the player actually decreases their chance of hitting the win goal."

He got the first part right in that the purpose of making these plays is to reach a pre-determined win goal--and leave until I choose to play my next session starting at my lowest denomination. He put in the part about a "single hand" probably because he couldn't figure out how to attack my understood procedure. His sentence makes no sense. His next part is even more ludicrous. He says these special plays will cost me hands that if played, COULD get me to my win goal. Duh! So what does he think the special plays do--earn me a free cup of tea?? If my #of hands ARE reduced for the session because I tossed a second pair or a JQ unsuited for the Ace--and some of the time they are--then what about the times they are INCREASED because FH's hit anyway, or unexpected draw-4-quads appear, or trips pop up anyway.....on & on, and that's ignoring the dollar values of these hands along with the huge amounts win over the $2500 win goal when the plays word! Again, because he has no rationale for his criticizm other than a disdain for me, arci is applying long-term rules to short-term play, and he will never either understand the strategy or agree to it until he discusses it with me face-to-face--and he has ducked that opportunity twice in the past. Just like Dancer, he'd prefer to live in a world safely driven by contempt from behind the keyboard rather than face me knowing they'd get destroyed moments into any debate. I know a lot of players who would enjoy watching either or both of them squirm in my presence.

Alan, I just noticed where arci says there was no risk analysis done for these special plays. Are you laughing yet or what! He's probably watched our brief videos a dozen times because he loves to hate to love me. Now you know why this "man of numbers from the 50's" "missed" the calculations. Funny or what?

[arcimede$]

Arc, this is what you will never understand. You continue to say "Singer's system does not change the math" and you are correct. Singer's system does not change the math. Singer will also tell you that according to the math, his "special plays" are all at a disadvantage.

Absolutely hilarious. Did you read what you wrote? First you claim I "will never understand" and you say I am "correct".

But Singer does not play by the math exclusively. He says he only plays by the math 95% of the time. That is what Singer's system is all about. It's all about putting the "math plays" aside at certain times to try to get lucky to hit something bigger.

There's nothing wrong with him doing that himself. However, claiming it will lead to more wins when it does the exact opposite is the problem. You just went full circle and are now back arguing the same nonsense as before. Good grief.

Now you can argue that trying to get something bigger might not work, and is destined to fail. And you might be right-- or you might be wrong.

No, I'm not arguing a thing. I'm simply pointing out the mathematics doesn't support Singer's claims. It has nothing to do with me.

Why could you be wrong? Because even in the bad math of a lottery, there are lottery winners. And even in the game of craps where the 12 is a bad bet, players hit the 12. And even in video poker when holding a single ace is a bad play when you have a pair of 9s, someone will hold the ace and get a royal or three more aces. That is what Singer's system is all about.

More strawman nonsense. As has been covered umpteen times before, I'm talking about future expectation not what one lucky player might do if he spins around 5 times before pressing deal. You're right back to ignoring reality.

So again returning to your last post above, where you say "Singer's system does not change the math and can't make more than a few lucky people winners," I would alter it slightly to say, instead, "Singer's system does not change the math and might make some lucky people winners."

Of course, the same can be said about always holding the first 3 cards no matter what they are. Sometimes it will be the best hold. Or, maybe you prefer the last 3 cards? It "does not change the math and might make some lucky people winners".

[arcimede$]

You just have to love it. Singer has made me into the next coming of Carnac the Magnificent. Remember when I wrote this about Singer ...

"while he will respond to this, he will not provide anything of value. It will just be more of the same nonsense."

And what does Singer respond with ...

"instead of making up how many so-called bogus "demonstrations" have been done that are factually lacking & nebulous enough to be able to draw unsupportable conclusions for only oneself in order to pretend to feel good about something you know little about."

Pretty much content free wouldn't you say? And that was about the best Singer could do. The rest of his rant provided none of the items I stated he would not provide. No risk analysis, no refutation of the fact his claims don't do what he states. Nothing. Just as I said.

[Alan Mendelson]

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.

[arcimede$]

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.

Alan, why do you continue to repeat the same BS? I've explained the situation numerous times yet you always incorrectly state my position. I have no problem with anyone going for big wins.That is not nor has ever been the issue. What Singer has claimed is his special plays will allow him to reach his win goal quicker when IN FACT they do just the opposite.

So please Alan, quit redefining the problem. It has nothing to do with with any of your 3 points. I stated it above yet again. Either read it over and over again until you understand it, or simply give up.

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

Obviously not. You clearly haven't caught on that what he's doing is not the same as what he claims.

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

Strawman

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.

The only reality is you are not taking the time to understand the situation.

[Alan Mendelson]

I understand the situation: You just disagree with Rob's system and you have every right to do that. And, for the most part, I wouldn't make many of the "special plays" that Rob makes either.

On the other hand, he still hasn't made clear what his "progression system" is, nor has he defined when he deviates from the math for that 5% of the time when he chooses to make special plays. And I hope that soon he will write about it here or that we can do another video interview about it.

In the meantime, I look forward to Frank's report. But I think we're not going to see anything that's unexpected. From what Frank has said publicly already, I think he is going to lay out the problem and the situation without making any judgment himself.

Those who thought he would sit as judge and jury will be disappointed.

[arcimede$]

I understand the situation: You just disagree with Rob's system and you have every right to do that. And, for the most part, I wouldn't make many of the "special plays" that Rob makes either.

Obviously you don't understand. It has nothing to do with "disagreeing with Rob's system". It is very simple. His special play claims are not supported by a simple analysis. All you've done once again is prove you refuse to try and understand the problem.

He claims his special plays will lead to reaching his win goal more often. This would mean the special plays should INCREASE session wins. However, most of them don't. They DECREASE session wins. That's it, Alan. Nothing to do with whether his system will win or lose overall. That is a strawman you keep repeating.

[Alan Mendelson]

Obviously you don't understand. It has nothing to do with "disagreeing with Rob's system". It is very simple. His special play claims are not supported by a simple analysis. All you've done once again is prove you refuse to try and understand the problem.

He claims his special plays will lead to reaching his win goal more often. This would mean the special plays should INCREASE session wins. However, most of them don't. They DECREASE session wins. That's it, Alan. Nothing to do with whether his system will win or lose overall. That is a strawman you keep repeating.

Here's where you are still missing his concept. You are looking at the long term play as dictated by the math. He is not. He looks at short term goals per session or trip.

As an experiment, do this, because I think it's a good example of what Rob is doing.

Say you are dealt AAAKK 47 times in 7/5 Bonus Poker.

Arc: you and I would hold the full house, but Rob would only hold the 3 aces in 7/5. (In 8/5 he holds the full house.)

Now, using your math figure for me his possible outcomes when drawing two cards holding 3 aces in 7/5 bonus.

Here's an illustration of what I think his reasoning is:

A. On each and every hand he will always have at least three of a kind. There is no loss, but he is giving up the payoff of a full house.

B. He doesn't care about a full house. That is what his strategy is all about. You care about a full house. He wants the quad Aces. That's the difference between you and how you play and the Singer Strategy.

C. He will gladly take the gamble to get the fourth ace because that fourth ace (on a $5 machine which he usually plays) would return $2,000 and remember his win goal is $2,500 and he leaves.

D. You will argue that holding the full house will give him more money over time (and it will) but it will never give him the four aces he needs to stop playing and get out of the casino.

Different goals and different methods to reach those goals. That's all this entire argument has been about. Singer has been painted as a great evil but he's not. He simply is playing video poker in a different way with a different objective.

Now some math questions for what I would describe as a perfect world scenario.

He holds 3 aces for 47 hands at a $5/coin 7/5 Bonus game:

1. Guaranteed minimum return: 3 of a kind X 47 hands = $3525. Cost for those 47 plays: 47 X $25 = $1175. Net profit = $2350.

2, Guaranteed return if he holds the full house: $175 X 47 hands = $8225. Cost for those 47 plays: $1175. Net profit = $7050.

3. Possible return when he holds the 3 aces over 47 hands? If the math is with him he gets the quad ace 1 time for $2,000. His net win now becomes 1 X $2,000 + 46 X $75 = $5,450 and this assumes no other full houses when he holds the three aces.

The difference between the conventional play vs the Singer play in this perfect world scenario is $1,600. The "conventional play" obviously comes out ahead. There is NO question about it. Singer will tell you this himself, just as I am showing it to you here.

But I think what Singer will argue is this (and Rob, I hope you will please comment):

If you always hold the full house, you will never have a chance for the quad aces, and the $2,000 win. And while holding the full house will return more money over the long term -- he doesn't want to be in the casino for the long term. He wants to hit his quad aces once and leave. And in the meantime, holding the three aces ain't so bad, and you still might get a few full houses along the way.

That sums up the Singer system.

Arc, he knows his system is at a mathematical disadvantage. He doesn't care, however, because his stated goal is not to play for a long period of time. His goal is to make a big hit and stop playing and enjoy the rest of the trip.

Now, Frank Kneeland has argued that there is no logic in quitting if you are going to return to the casino later. And I'm not going to touch that. I'll let Rob debate that with Frank.

So to get back to your point: YES according to the math, the Singer system will decrease session wins. But Singer's system allows for the big session win that will allow him to reach his $2,500 win goal and leave.

Its not my system -- so please don't attack me. I'm just trying to make sure everyone understands it. And let me say this: I hope I have explained it properly here. I think I have. Thanks.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, if you think you're going to get anything other than frustration and personal attacks from arci, you're mistaken. Aside from all his ranting about your posts, look how he selected two statements from my post that scored direct hits against his claims, and then he tried to make you believe they "ain't nothin'"! Precious, isn't it? The pressure he's under up there IS showing.

You're analysis above is correct, except that if the 7/5 FH does get me to a mini-win goal I do keep it no matter what--and that has happened quite a few times across all the denominations. But just prepare yourself for more name-calling by arci because other than him claiming to have done phantom "demonstrations", he does that the best.

[arcimede$]

Here's where you are still missing his concept. You are looking at the long term play as dictated by the math. He is not. He looks at short term goals per session or trip.

Absolutely hilarious. I say "Nothing to do with whether his system will win or lose overall." and you come back and claim "You are looking at the long term play". Are you capable of reading and understanding simple English? Doesn't appear to be the case.

I'm talking about individual sessions, Alan. That's it. Nothing to do with long term. I'm talking about "short term goals". What I'm telling you is his special plays DO NOT increase the likelihood that he will meet those goals. Got it?

[Alan Mendelson]

Absolutely hilarious. I say "Nothing to do with whether his system will win or lose overall." and you come back and claim "You are looking at the long term play". Are you capable of reading and understanding simple English? Doesn't appear to be the case.

I'm talking about individual sessions, Alan. That's it. Nothing to do with long term. I'm talking about "short term goals". What I'm telling you is his special plays DO NOT increase the likelihood that he will meet those goals. Got it?

I find it ironic that you, a long term player, who admits to winning only 4 out of 10 sessions, is really this concerned about how Rob Singer does on individual sessions.

I think the discussion of this subject is exhausted.

[arcimede$]

I find it ironic that you, a long term player, who admits to winning only 4 out of 10 sessions, is really this concerned about how Rob Singer does on individual sessions.

I think the discussion of this subject is exhausted.

I'm not concerned with "how Rob Singer does". I don't give a hoot. What I'm trying to do is help you understand that you're advertising a lie. Singer claims his special plays will increase wins at the cost of a small penalty in long term ER. You've continued to support that claim. Well, they don't. At least most of the ones I looked at. At least you're starting to understand what I'm telling you. I guess that's something.

[Alan Mendelson]

I'm not concerned with "how Rob Singer does". I don't give a hoot. What I'm trying to do is help you understand that you're advertising a lie. Singer claims his special plays will increase wins at the cost of a small penalty in long term ER. You've continued to support that claim. Well, they don't. At least most of the ones I looked at. At least you're starting to understand what I'm telling you. I guess that's something.

Arc, I appreciate your comments but we've gone over this many times... in fact, too many times. I think I summed it up by saying your goals and Singer's goals are different. And in fact, the math supports your way of playing. But Singer's way of playing fits his goal of trying to play less and reach (win) a particular goal.

There is no lie. He is very upfront about what the math says and what chances he is taking. If you don't like his system, don't play by it. Quite frankly, I don't and I know that you don't.

I have never heard Singer claim anything about increasing wins "at the cost of a small penalty in long term ER." The only numbers Rob has offered are detailed in the discussion of his special plays and there they are all there for all to see.

And, for the record, there is no advertisement. Rob paid me nothing for my inquiry into his system. On the contrary, it cost me a lot of money to present his system publicly for all to see and judge for themselves.

Now, you've seen his system and you've made your judgment of it, and you're welcome.

[arcimede$]

Arc, I appreciate your comments but we've gone over this many times... in fact, too many times. I think I summed it up by saying your goals and Singer's goals are different. And in fact, the math supports your way of playing. But Singer's way of playing fits his goal of trying to play less and reach (win) a particular goal.

Nope. Most of the time they do not.

There is no lie. He is very upfront about what the math says and what chances he is taking. If you don't like his system, don't play by it. Quite frankly, I don't and I know that you don't.

Yes, it is a lie if the special plays do not give him a better chance of winning. That is the point. Most of them do not. Sure, holding 3 aces over a FH does. But that is only one. Most of the special plays DO NOT increase his chances of going home a winner.

I have never heard Singer claim anything about increasing wins "at the cost of a small penalty in long term ER." The only numbers Rob has offered are detailed in the discussion of his special plays and there they are all there for all to see.

Sure you have. Whenever he says he's taking a chance to go home a winner.

And, for the record, there is no advertisement. Rob paid me nothing for my inquiry into his system. On the contrary, it cost me a lot of money to present his system publicly for all to see and judge for themselves.

Now, you've seen his system and you've made your judgment of it, and you're welcome.

The problem is you should now understand that his claims are a lie. I've shown you several examples. It's not a matter of judgement. It's mathematical fact.

[Rob.Singer]

This is funny. Notice how arci continues to make believe the special plays don't give me more opportunity to go home a winner, yet he has no reasoning behind it other than disdain and envy. Sure is a fine analytical methodology!

And at the same time he's not wanting to see the expectation calculations we put up with the videos which clearly show how a risk analysis works. I know it's not something out of the 50's and they weren't worked with a slide rule, which may be where the disconnect is. Now you can see why he brings his unimpressive views & turns them into baseless arguments onto the forums. All he wants is something to do....something to kill all that lonesome time he has while everyone else is out enjoying themselves. Using personal attacks to do that might give him a touch of satisfaction, but it sure didn't do him any good when he got permanently banned from vpFREE for it.

BTW Alan, as you've made clear, ALL of the special plays increase my chance of going home a winner. That's 100% for those who are mathematically challenged or are from the punch card era. And arci keeps asserting he's done some sort of "analysis" or "demonstration" of on my strategy, while at the same time purporting to understand the special plays and his having included those into his phantom reviews. Ask him to show you any of that and all you'll get is his corrupt interpretation to fit is agenda, because when he's had chances to meet with me while he made the now HUGE mistake of moving to LV, he was a no-show on at least 2 occasions. If he understands even 50% of what I've developed and how it was developed, I'd be surprised. As the Wizard of Odds has said, only those who fear the truth about something will not want to face it.