Big Casino Wins and Jackpots

[Rob.Singer]

Is RS an SOB or what!? How DARE him make Dan look like a chump again!
It's really a sweeeeeeet picture, isn't it Dan, arci, mickey et al??

[Dan Druff]

Still having difficulty explaining why you remembered the wrong major details of the biggest hand of VP you've ever had in your life, right?

That would be like me telling you the story of the hand where I won my WSOP bracelet in 2005, and getting it completely wrong.

People don't forget major moments like that, especially within a short period of time.

Do you really need me to link the two posts where you completely contradicted yourself, within a few month period?

[Rob.Singer]

Not my biggest hand again, Dan, and if a hundred k is something you'll never see in your conflicted life, you have only yourself to blame. And what I held is so unimportant to me that seeing the two held Aces still doesn't mean anything because I hit them all the time. Oh wait!....I'm not a perrenial gambling loser without a wife or children like you So other people's successes CERTAINLY ARE memorable events for you.

You do a better job whining and whimpering about CET freebie-stiffing. And blaming innocents about not getting your bottle of Gatorade.

[arcimede$]

It's always humorous watching Singer sputter and flap in the breeze when he has been outed. As usual, his response makes no sense at all.

Hey Robbie, how's that trailer park living working out for you?

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob you told me and you posted here that the $100,000 won at Wynn TIES your biggest win which was a $100,000 Royal. Are you now saying you had a bigger win?

[mickeycrimm]

Is RS an SOB or what!? How DARE him make Dan look like a chump again!
It's really a sweeeeeeet picture, isn't it Dan, arci, mickey et al??

Not jealous at all, Rob. If you hit a $100,000 hand then I'm happy for you. Good luck in the future.

[Dan Druff]

Rob, I have a 4-year-old son and I'm still with the mother.

So once again you have no clue as to what you're talking about.

[Vegas Vic]

Without understanding the meaning you give to an ambiguous term like "lucky", there is no way of answering your question. That is why I gave you my use of the word and the answer based on that usage.

Let's see if you can be less evasive this time.

Here's the definition of lucky per the Merriam-Webster dictionary: "producing a good result by chance". .. a definition which is universally accepted and is the one I had in mind. I don't believe that lucky is at all ambiguous to anyone but you or has any qualifications attached to it, as in "lucky means above the expected return of the game.

Luck in gambling has no restrictions, limits, starting points or timetable nor does it play favoritism. Your game, OEJ, could have a pathetic 150/75/35 (96.02%) pay table and anyone, including you, could get lucky playing it.

So, I ask again...do you agree or disagree with this: "you have to be lucky (producing a good result by chance, which in VP, chance = whatever the RNG spits out) to win on ANY game...positive, negative, neutral ... slant top machine, upright machine, bar top....take your pick".

[Quad AAAA's]

Hey boys! $100 Grand looks sweet in any picture! Congrats to all of you who have hit one! Great job Rob! Your strategy is tops! Did you use it while playing that game?

[Rob.Singer]

Yes I did and thank you. If not for my strategy, which was 5-levels, dollars thru $25, I'd have been sitting there like an AP zombie, pounding away into the night on a single game/single denomination--and losing, probably even if I hit this hand on this game.

[Rob.Singer]

Rob, I have a 4-year-old son and I'm still with the mother.

So once again you have no clue as to what you're talking about.

Oh, so THIS was the lady you mistreated at Caesar's over the Gatorade? I hope you learned from that. Now get married, at least so your son never gets embarrassed.

[Alan Mendelson]

Yes I did and thank you. If not for my strategy, which was 5-levels, dollars thru $25, I'd have been sitting there like an AP zombie, pounding away into the night on a single game/single denomination--and losing, probably even if I hit this hand on this game.

You give yourself too much credit. The RNG trumps all strategies.

[Rob.Singer]

You give yourself too much credit. The RNG trumps all strategies.

When I see you say something like this it makes me believe you really do want to understand, learn, and use my strategy, but you either don't want to say so or you think you just wouldn't have the patience to go thru the learning process and the slower play process that requires much much more than just pounding away at the buttons as fast as you can.

We are all in the hands of the RNG for sure. What this strategy does is allow that one big win to not only wipe out all the prior losses as you worked your way towards it--it allows the player to quit a winner. Had I simply been playing a single $1 denomination and then hit this thing, I'd be lucky to have walked out with a $500 profit. Surely you see the difference. So here's where the AP's would come on, after shaking off the envy, to claim they know in the future that I'll lose at least as much as I won because the math, and not the RNG, says so. And that's as dumb as it gets, and why when I had a website, I never had to go begging for money as AP wizard had to.

[Dan Druff]

When I see you say something like this it makes me believe you really do want to understand, learn, and use my strategy, but you either don't want to say so or you think you just wouldn't have the patience to go thru the learning process and the slower play process that requires much much more than just pounding away at the buttons as fast as you can.

We are all in the hands of the RNG for sure. What this strategy does is allow that one big win to not only wipe out all the prior losses as you worked your way towards it--it allows the player to quit a winner. Had I simply been playing a single $1 denomination and then hit this thing, I'd be lucky to have walked out with a $500 profit. Surely you see the difference. So here's where the AP's would come on, after shaking off the envy, to claim they know in the future that I'll lose at least as much as I won because the math, and not the RNG, says so. And that's as dumb as it gets, and why when I had a website, I never had to go begging for money as AP wizard had to.

Rob Singer, everyone.

The only man alive who can win as a mathematical underdog over decades of regular video poker play.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob Singer, everyone.

The only man alive who can win as a mathematical underdog over decades of regular video poker play.

If you get lucky you can win. The "math" of the game (paytable) doesn't necessarily mean you will win or lose.

[arcimede$]

Let's see if you can be less evasive this time.

I answered your question with a very specific definition of the use of "lucky". How can that be "evasive".

Here's the definition of lucky per the Merriam-Webster dictionary: "producing a good result by chance". .. a definition which is universally accepted and is the one I had in mind. I don't believe that lucky is at all ambiguous to anyone but you or has any qualifications attached to it, as in "lucky means above the expected return of the game.

A couple of weeks ago I hit quad aces 5 times in one session. Was that "lucky"? I ended up losing the session overall by a good margin because those quad aces only return 75 credits on OEJs and I never hit a single wild RF which pays back 1000 credits. The odds of hitting quad aces are much lower than hitting a wild RF. So, was I "lucky" or not?

On my most recent trip I hit 5 natural straight flushes. Even though the odds of that are quite low, a natural SF doesn't pay back any more than a wild SF. Was I "lucky" or not?

Luck in gambling has no restrictions, limits, starting points or timetable nor does it play favoritism. Your game, OEJ, could have a pathetic 150/75/35 (96.02%) pay table and anyone, including you, could get lucky playing it.

So, I ask again...do you agree or disagree with this: "you have to be lucky (producing a good result by chance, which in VP, chance = whatever the RNG spits out) to win on ANY game...positive, negative, neutral ... slant top machine, upright machine, bar top....take your pick".

I already answered the question. You have to hit above the average expectation of the game (which by definition means "good results"). The worse the game, the more you have to hit above it. Since every game has a different set of paybacks, the hands it takes to hit above the average expectation are different. So, just because you hit a particular hand may or may not translate into having a "good result". That's why I specifically tied answer to the result when discussing VP.

[Alan Mendelson]

A couple of weeks ago I hit quad aces 5 times in one session. Was that "lucky"? I ended up losing the session overall by a good margin because those quad aces only return 75 credits on OEJs and I never hit a single wild RF which pays back 1000 credits. The odds of hitting quad aces are much lower than hitting a wild RF. So, was I "lucky" or not?

You were not lucky because you "ended up losing the session overall by a good margin."

And this game OEJs has what return? Isn't this the "positive" game you rave about?

After reading what you wrote how can you possibly disagree with any player who quits when ahead?

[arcimede$]

You were not lucky because you "ended up losing the session overall by a good margin."

And this game OEJs has what return? Isn't this the "positive" game you rave about?

After reading what you wrote how can you possibly disagree with any player who quits when ahead?

OEJs is modestly positive at 100.28%. Without a RF it only plays at 98+ % so one expects to lose lots of sessions (about 60% as it turns out). The variance is why worrying about individual sessions is beyond silly. Believing you can influence your long term result by the timing of when you cash out is the raving of a mathematically challenged mind. We all cash out at some point in time since none of us plays continually. I could care less when you chose to cash out. As always I simply point out it makes no difference over time.

[mickeycrimm]

AP's and the casino operate with the same theories and concepts. You establish that you have an edge in the game. You establish that you have the bankroll to cover the swings of the game. Beyond that the formula is "the recurring sum of net edge times volume equals the earn." The Singer "win goal" and "stop loss" is just pure nonsense. The casino don't win every day. They have days where certain games produce a net loss. They have days where a certain game produces a net win much larger than expection. But have you ever heard a pit boss say "Sorry, folks. We've hit our win goal for the day so we are shutting the blackjack tables down." Or "sorry folks, we've lost X amount of dollars on the craps table today so we are shutting it down for the rest of the day." When you have an edge the recurring sum of net edge times volume equals the earn and nothing Singer says will ever change that.

[Alan Mendelson]

The casinos have the edge so they don't have to shut down. Players who don't have the edge are wise to take the money and run. Even when you are at a positive game it doesn't mean you will win -- because you are not playing as many games as the casino is playing to spread out your risk. You guys are crazy. Any of you really making any money practicing what you preach?