Increasing denominations anomoly

[Rob.Singer]

Alas, I find myself writing this once more: THOSE 100 HANDS INDICATING THAT A COLD CYCLE IS STARTING, MUST INCLUDE THE HANDS I'VE MENTIONED, BUT THE OTHER HANDS THAT OCCUR WITHIN THOSE OVERALL 100 HANDS CAN BE ANY COMBINATION OF WINNERS AND/OR LOSERS. After those 100 hands are completed, they may yield an overall winning 100 hands, an overall losing 100 hands, or even an overall push. IT DOESN'T MATTER, BECAUSE THOSE 100 HANDS ARE NOT THE ENTIRE COLD CYCLE AND THEY MAY NOT EVEN BE INCLUDED IN THE COLD CYCLE. They simply serve to indicate that you are ENTERING one.

Those 20 or whatever hands you mentioned, if they are all losers, only identify random bad luck and have nothing to do with an officially programmed-in cold cycle. That is something that occurs only one way.

[redietz]

If I may add, I suggest "the regular Joes" get a bigger bankroll.

I just want to put an emphasis on something here -- whether Rob has stated this in these terms, I do not know. The "regular Joe" experience and thought process in a casino is completely and utterly different in a logistical way from the "Singer method" recommendations. Let me explain:

"Regular Joes" are in a "small bankroll/maybe hit something big/usually lose" mentality in the casino environment. These are their expectations. What "Singer system" emphasizes is "big bankroll/win something small/usually win." This is radically different. The "regular Joes" see more hands as something good -- as a chance to hit something big. The "Singer" guys see more hands as neutral at best.

These are two utterly different ways of behaving and completely different mentalities.

[Rob.Singer]

I 100% agree. I've been on all sides of the formula and most certainly am the only one who has ever been there.

[Alan Mendelson]

Redietz let me add something: a small player, a "regular Joe" can also leave a winner if they set realistic win goals. This I think is the #1 lesson of Rob's system.

I dont have the kind of bankroll that Rob has, yet there are countless sessions where I had a solid "win" but gave it all back because I did not sit to a modest win goal, and it is the "modest win goal" which I think is the strongest part of Rob's system.

When you look at Rob's system, he really is setting a 5% win goal. Most "regular Joe players" can't quit with only a 5% gain as it doesnt even fill up the gas tank.

But with Rob that 5% win goal is $2500.

[Rob.Singer]

If you start with a bankroll of X and aspire to win 5%, it still won't regularly happen without the correct strategy. For instance, if you go to a casino with $5000 and have a win goal of $250, you will never consistently do that by playing a single denomination. the result will be more losing than winning without extraordinary good luck. And that overwhelmingly rarely occurs.

[Vegas Vic]

Cold cycles are not really that difficult to detect as one might think, but only individuals who are totally aware and have the proper capability/mindset can do it right. And it's not something I made up or discovered on my own. I was TOLD what to look for by a machine programmer, and I found him to be absolutely right.

What if I said a machine programmer told me that "cold cycles" are merely a product of randomness and cannot be predicted. That makes your programmer wrong.

[Alan Mendelson]

If you start with a bankroll of X and aspire to win 5%, it still won't regularly happen without the correct strategy. For instance, if you go to a casino with $5000 and have a win goal of $250, you will never consistently do that by playing a single denomination. the result will be more losing than winning without extraordinary good luck. And that overwhelmingly rarely occurs.

Rob, by your own admission even your own system is not consistent, though you have had many more wins than losses. I suggest that nearly 100% of the time I've played VP there was a time when I was ahead by 5%.

For a $100 buy-in on a $1 game, a 5% win could simply be hitting two pair on a Jacks or Better or Bonus game. But how many players will quit after winning one hand?

I would rather put more faith into your system of quitting after reaching a 5% win goal then believing in hot and cold cycles that have been "programmed" into the RNG.

[Alan Mendelson]

There is nothing corrupt about the programmed-in cycles. They're not only allowed by the regulations--you can see that they are absolutely necessary for business sense.

I was reading back over this thread and this quote of Rob's caught my eye. I'm sorry I missed it the first time.

Where in the Nevada gaming regulations does it say programmed cycles are allowed? The only statement I found in the Nevada gaming regulations was this:

"For gaming devices that are representative of live gambling games, the mathematical probability of a symbol or other element appearing in a game outcome must be equal to the mathematical probability of that symbol or element occurring in the live gambling game."

And what that quote says mentions nothing about programmed cycles.

This same quote has been referenced not only in an article I wrote after my initial interview with you, Rob, but in many other articles as well. Check the Google results for this quote:

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-a...w=1366&bih=643

Further, on page #2 of the Google results you will find the statement in Regulation 14.

If there is a regulation allowing "programmed-in cycles" please show it. Thanks.

[Rob.Singer]

What if I said a machine programmer told me that "cold cycles" are merely a product of randomness and cannot be predicted. That makes your programmer wrong.

I'd say you really don't know what you're saying because, unlike me, you didn't write an article about it in Gaming Today and then get called to the manufacturer and asked to sign an agreement not to publish anything further about it in the paper or talk about it on radio or TV.

[Rob.Singer]

[QUOTE=Alan Mendelson;2417]Rob, by your own admission even your own system is not consistent, though you have had many more wins than losses. I suggest that nearly 100% of the time I've played VP there was a time when I was ahead by 5%.

For a $100 buy-in on a $1 game, a 5% win could simply be hitting two pair on a Jacks or Better or Bonus game. But how many players will quit after winning one hand?

Your first sentence is contradictory. At an 85% win rate, my strategy certainly is consistent.
Your second sentence (suggestion) is very unlikely because not even I have experienced that when playing with a large bankroll.
Your 3rd sentence is how I trained myself to quit after winning very little. Most people can't or don't want to quit, and that's exactly how the casinos want and expect players to react.
Your last sentence is misleading. My win goal IS around 5%, but I would not have reached it nearly as many times had I not adapted to when the cold cycles appear. It is not a matter of believing in them or not. It's a matter of whether or not you want to be a better player by knowing they are there. As I said, most players are more interested in getting that intermittent satisfaction supplied by winning hands than they ever are in working a little harder at the machines. It is all part of being overly addicted to the game and allowing the casinos, their ambience, and the gaming fix one gets from playing video poker, to control you as soon as you walk thru those doors and sit at your very inviting machine.

[Rob.Singer]

I was reading back over this thread and this quote of Rob's caught my eye. I'm sorry I missed it the first time.

Where in the Nevada gaming regulations does it say programmed cycles are allowed? The only statement I found in the Nevada gaming regulations was this:

"For gaming devices that are representative of live gambling games, the mathematical probability of a symbol or other element appearing in a game outcome must be equal to the mathematical probability of that symbol or element occurring in the live gambling game."

And what that quote says mentions nothing about programmed cycles.

This same quote has been referenced not only in an article I wrote after my initial interview with you, Rob, but in many other articles as well. Check the Google results for this quote:

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-a...w=1366&bih=643

Further, on page #2 of the Google results you will find the statement in Regulation 14.

If there is a regulation allowing "programmed-in cycles" please show it. Thanks.

Did you read the statement I've written here several times about how there are proprietary/confidential regulations not allowed to be published on the Internet by the NGC, the manufacturer or the casinos because of obvious reasons? If you've ever done contractual business with any governmental entity, you'd know that this is very common practice. In this case, huge tax revenues are at stake and neither of those 3 parties will ever break their agreement. Instead, they have included wording into their publications for public scrutiny that satisfies intent while leaving back doors open.

I did not understand this at first because I was such a brainwashed purist AP. But after talking to my programmer friend multiple times, looking for and discovering certain machine patterns when playing, and testing a machine at my home for several billion hands as it ran on a test equipment suite, it all made sense.

[redietz]

Some interesting questions arise here.

Take a thousand new machines. Let 'em be played for a month. Now, some will be at the far end of the distribution both losing and winning. SInce regulations require that they win a certain bracketed percentage of the time, would they be programmed to then provide results that "pull them back into" the bell curve and their required percentages?

Another way of putting it -- after what number of hands is a newly programmed machine required to be in the proper percentage range? If it "random walks" for 10,000 hands and is way on the losing side, is it then required to bob back up into "normal" range by firing off winners for awhile?

[Alan Mendelson]

redietz: I don't think the random test for VP games and slot games is the same. I think the test for VP is that all 52/53 cards have an equal chance of being chosen. I think the test for slots is based on the Par Sheets for the game. Here is an article about it: http://robison.casinocitytimes.com/a...ar-sheet-58060

Rob: what you describe here if reported would win a Pulitzer Prize and probably a lot of money for a whistleblower:

Did you read the statement I've written here several times about how there are proprietary/confidential regulations not allowed to be published on the Internet by the NGC, the manufacturer or the casinos because of obvious reasons? If you've ever done contractual business with any governmental entity, you'd know that this is very common practice. In this case, huge tax revenues are at stake and neither of those 3 parties will ever break their agreement. Instead, they have included wording into their publications for public scrutiny that satisfies intent while leaving back doors open.

What evidence do you have?? And not hearsay either.

[Rob.Singer]

What I'm seeing Alan is your unfamiliarity with how governments work private contracts. None of this is Pulitzer Prize worthy simply because there's nothing unusual going on. Yes YOU and many other vp players might think it's a big deal, but it's no different than anything else that goes on in confidential agreements.

You say you want evidence, which I've told you is only something I've investigated thru testing and playing after being told about it by a gaming authority. So why, if you have no problem risking a lot of your money playing video poker, have you never asked any entity for evidence that the machines are totally random? The answer of course, is elementary. You've read about it, you WANT it to be true, and at the same time you don't have the desire or drive to look at any other possibilities because all you really want is to win when playing. All this other stuff is just an annoying distraction that may take some of your time away from chasing intermittent satisfaction.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob there are several great mysteries in life:

1. How did the Universe start?
2. Where is Jimmy Hoffa?
3. Who really killed JFK?

and now...

4. Are video poker machines really random?

[Rob.Singer]

Not so. Those first three may be, but there's more people than just me who know the exact answer to the 4th.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, I believe in a lot about what you say. I think your win goal/loss limit planning is excellent and by itself can turn people into winners if they have the discipline. I think some of your special plays -- though they violate accepted strategy -- can really make a lot of sense in certain situations and in certain games. I just can't "buy" into your belief that cold and hot cycles in video poker are "programmed," though I do believe there are cold and hot cycles which result from random chance.

To "know the exact answer" about video poker machines not being random requires proof-- and proof that would hold up in a court of law, as well as the court of public opinion. I can believe that certain machines have been rigged -- but I hope I'm not playing one. I know what I read in the NGC's gaming regulations and if you have proof of some "side deal" or "secret deal" or "secret handshake" I will be the first to give you all the publicity you want. Heck, I'll devote a full half hour of my weekly TV show to showing the proof if you have it.

[Rob.Singer]

There's nothing secret about it Alan. It's simple business where the agreement only allows the public to see what all parties agree the public should see. When you keep putting up the regs you're allowed to see, you're only doing exactly what you've been expected to do by the gaming people.

The reason why I know the exact answer is because a programmer explained it to me and I wasn't lazy enough to make believe it wasn't so because of how the casinos and websites always led me to believe. I've proven it to myself, and all I can do is share my knowledge knowing full well most players are much too in need of just sitting down to play for more intermittent satisfaction as quickly as they can get it, than to put in the necessary work to prove it to themselves.

[Alan Mendelson]

Unfortunately Rob, your testimony would not be allowed in court. Produce your programmer with credentials and testimony that he was personally responsible for violating the rules and regulations of the NGC. Then we have something.

[Rob.Singer]

When did we start talking about what's allowed in court? This is about who wants to know everything they possibly can in order to have the best opportunity possible against the vp machines. People in the business world do indeed look for every advantage and that's all this is. As a professional gambler my livelihood depended upon my ability to do that, and the result has been, as you've seen over and over again, incredible jealousy from those who prefer to believe the math books will come thru for them and are too lazy and afraid to really know what the machines are all about.

Either you're interested in doing better by learning what I bring up, or you're interested in making some sort of story out of all this with absolute proof that the system will never allow to happen. And you never answered the question: Why have you never demanded absolute proof that the machines are totally random--opting so far instead to just accept that which you have read?