Rob Singer didn't beat video poker

[kewlJ]

Here's why these ap's are hard to take seriously when they criticize what my strategy does: they never choose to understand whatever I explain about it.

Sling doesn't fully understand my play strategy, and that's only because I've never been able to sit down with him at a machine. But he's been smart enuf to know that I say playing your own variation of what I do is far better than strict optimal play or any other defined type of play. Why? Because it is an overall complex strategy, requiring the exact same circumstances as I have in order to be successful playing it. For instance, the player must have an above average aptitude for playing poker, and there must be no wavering from the key points. And this is just the start.

And this is what's even more interesting about these street people claiming what I say is impossible to do, and what they do is the only way to win at VP. I was an AP for 6 years, then I developed my own strategy that's grounded in optimal play. Have any of these guys ever even tried to fully understand the strategy....let alone PLAY it?

Until then their rage and envy will go on (and kew will keep on whimpering like a little bitch).

Complete bullshit!

Your strategy IS NOT grounded in optimal play. Completely the contrary. The rest nothing but 'fluff'. Do this and that, and this and that in this exact order and you can achieve magical results, completely void of all mathematics. It's all just complete nonsense. It's an illusion....like a magic trick.

You just continue to try to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. Phrases like "optimal play", "complex strategy", "key points" are all a bunch of nonsense intended to sound good. This might work when talking to a bunch of people without a clue, but when you are talking to AP's, people who understand the math, they immediately see you for what you are...nothing but a snake oil salesman, peddling a bunch of mathematically unsustainable bullshit. And all your insults and attacks can't and won't change that.

[Rob.Singer]

Here's why these ap's are hard to take seriously when they criticize what my strategy does: they never choose to understand whatever I explain about it.

Sling doesn't fully understand my play strategy, and that's only because I've never been able to sit down with him at a machine. But he's been smart enuf to know that I say playing your own variation of what I do is far better than strict optimal play or any other defined type of play. Why? Because it is an overall complex strategy, requiring the exact same circumstances as I have in order to be successful playing it. For instance, the player must have an above average aptitude for playing poker, and there must be no wavering from the key points. And this is just the start.

And this is what's even more interesting about these street people claiming what I say is impossible to do, and what they do is the only way to win at VP. I was an AP for 6 years, then I developed my own strategy that's grounded in optimal play. Have any of these guys ever even tried to fully understand the strategy....let alone PLAY it?

Until then their rage and envy will go on (and kew will keep on whimpering like a little bitch).

Complete bullshit!

Your strategy IS NOT grounded in optimal play. Completely the contrary. The rest nothing but 'fluff'. Do this and that, and this and that in this exact order and you can achieve magical results, completely void of all mathematics. It's all just complete nonsense. It's an illusion....like a magic trick.

You just continue to try to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. Phrases like "optimal play", "complex strategy", "key points" are all a bunch of nonsense intended to sound good. This might work when talking to a bunch of people without a clue, but when you are talking to AP's, people who understand the math, they immediately see you for what you are...nothing but a snake oil salesman, peddling a bunch of mathematically unsustainable bullshit. And all your insults and attacks can't and won't change that.

Sorry you silly little ferocious brute, but the majority of those who've come to me for advice/training have been failed ap's. Are you up for YOUR training?

[Alan Mendelson]

Hold it Rob. This is wrong about Arc's tax returns:

"he actually ended up being totally humiliated when Alan reported his pathetic results."

The truth is Arc only reported taxable W2Gs from royals. That actually meant he under reported his winnings. While it's true his reported earnings were only from $1 royals I would never say it was humiliating. For all we know One Eyed Jacks wasn't available at higher denominations and there's nothing wrong with being a $1 VP player.

You didn't send me your returns, period.

I think you should drop your criticism of Arc once and for all.

Regarding what I know about Rob's system: yes it is based on optimal play. Why can't his critics believe that?

Kewlj give us an example of this:

"Your strategy IS NOT grounded in optimal play. Completely the contrary. The rest nothing but 'fluff'. Do this and that, and this and that in this exact order and you can achieve magical results, completely void of all mathematics. It's all just complete nonsense. It's an illusion....like a magic trick."

[redietz]

The phrase "based on optimal play" doesn't mean anything. If you use a system that is not optimal, then it's sub-optimal by definition, whether those differences are a tenth of a percentage point or three tenths or seven tenths or whatever. Sub-optimal means provably inferior to optimal. The problem with the Argentino systems is that they are not optimal. No matter what money is put into what pocket when or what denomination leapfrog is employed, they are provably sub-optimal. If anyone ever committed them to paper, of course.

There is nothing terrible about playing sub-optimally. The issue is the presentation of sub-optimal play as if it were superior to optimal play. That's an oxymoron. And that is what Argentino claims -- he has turned sub-optimal play into something superior to optimal play via his remarkable "systems."

[mickeycrimm]

Here's why these ap's are hard to take seriously when they criticize what my strategy does: they never choose to understand whatever I explain about it.

Sling doesn't fully understand my play strategy, and that's only because I've never been able to sit down with him at a machine. But he's been smart enuf to know that I say playing your own variation of what I do is far better than strict optimal play or any other defined type of play. Why? Because it is an overall complex strategy, requiring the exact same circumstances as I have in order to be successful playing it. For instance, the player must have an above average aptitude for playing poker, and there must be no wavering from the key points. And this is just the start.

And this is what's even more interesting about these street people claiming what I say is impossible to do, and what they do is the only way to win at VP. I was an AP for 6 years, then I developed my own strategy that's grounded in optimal play. Have any of these guys ever even tried to fully understand the strategy....let alone PLAY it?

Until then their rage and envy will go on (and kew will keep on whimpering like a little bitch).

Complete bullshit!

Your strategy IS NOT grounded in optimal play. Completely the contrary. The rest nothing but 'fluff'. Do this and that, and this and that in this exact order and you can achieve magical results, completely void of all mathematics. It's all just complete nonsense. It's an illusion....like a magic trick.

You just continue to try to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. Phrases like "optimal play", "complex strategy", "key points" are all a bunch of nonsense intended to sound good. This might work when talking to a bunch of people without a clue, but when you are talking to AP's, people who understand the math, they immediately see you for what you are...nothing but a snake oil salesman, peddling a bunch of mathematically unsustainable bullshit. And all your insults and attacks can't and won't change that.

Sorry you silly little ferocious brute, but the majority of those who've come to me for advice/training have been failed ap's. Are you up for YOUR training?

Where are these hundreds of "phantom students?" They are certainly not in the gambling forums.

[mickeycrimm]

Hold it Rob. This is wrong about Arc's tax returns:

"he actually ended up being totally humiliated when Alan reported his pathetic results."

The truth is Arc only reported taxable W2Gs from royals. That actually meant he under reported his winnings. While it's true his reported earnings were only from $1 royals I would never say it was humiliating. For all we know One Eyed Jacks wasn't available at higher denominations and there's nothing wrong with being a $1 VP player.

You didn't send me your returns, period.

I think you should drop your criticism of Arc once and for all.

Regarding what I know about Rob's system: yes it is based on optimal play. Why can't his critics believe that?

Kewlj give us an example of this:

"Your strategy IS NOT grounded in optimal play. Completely the contrary. The rest nothing but 'fluff'. Do this and that, and this and that in this exact order and you can achieve magical results, completely void of all mathematics. It's all just complete nonsense. It's an illusion....like a magic trick."

Because he varies from optimal play which gives a lower percentage.

[Alan Mendelson]

The phrase "based on optimal play" doesn't mean anything. If you use a system that is not optimal, then it's sub-optimal by definition, whether those differences are a tenth of a percentage point or three tenths or seven tenths or whatever. Sub-optimal means provably inferior to optimal. The problem with the Argentino systems is that they are not optimal. No matter what money is put into what pocket when or what denomination leapfrog is employed, they are provably sub-optimal. If anyone ever committed them to paper, of course.

There is nothing terrible about playing sub-optimally. The issue is the presentation of sub-optimal play as if it were superior to optimal play. That's an oxymoron. And that is what Argentino claims -- he has turned sub-optimal play into something superior to optimal play via his remarkable "systems."

Don't you think a system can be "based on optimal" but then have some exceptions? I think so.

The phrase "based on optimal play" stands on its own.

Frankly even Rob admits that less than 5% of his strategy is not optimal. Okay. So what's the problem?

If you're telling me that only optimal play on 100%+ games is THE ONLY way to win at video poker then this argument will never end and it's pointless to continue.

[redietz]

The phrase "based on optimal play" doesn't mean anything. If you use a system that is not optimal, then it's sub-optimal by definition, whether those differences are a tenth of a percentage point or three tenths or seven tenths or whatever. Sub-optimal means provably inferior to optimal. The problem with the Argentino systems is that they are not optimal. No matter what money is put into what pocket when or what denomination leapfrog is employed, they are provably sub-optimal. If anyone ever committed them to paper, of course.

There is nothing terrible about playing sub-optimally. The issue is the presentation of sub-optimal play as if it were superior to optimal play. That's an oxymoron. And that is what Argentino claims -- he has turned sub-optimal play into something superior to optimal play via his remarkable "systems."

Don't you think a system can be "based on optimal" but then have some exceptions? I think so.

The phrase "based on optimal play" stands on its own.

Frankly even Rob admits that less than 5% of his strategy is not optimal. Okay. So what's the problem?

If you're telling me that only optimal play on 100%+ games is THE ONLY way to win at video poker then this argument will never end and it's pointless to continue.

You are ignoring the stated logic, which I will repeat:

Argentino claims to have turned sub-optimal play into something superior to optimal play via his remarkable systems.


No matter what hokum rephrasing anyone attempts, that is the bottom line logic, and even Argentino won't refute it:

Argentino claims to have turned sub-optimal play into something superior to optimal play via his remarkable systems.

[monet]

You are ignoring the stated logic, which I will repeat:

Argentino claims to have turned sub-optimal play into something superior to optimal play via his remarkable systems.


No matter what hokum rephrasing anyone attempts, that is the bottom line logic, and even Argentino won't refute it:

Argentino claims to have turned sub-optimal play into something superior to optimal play via his remarkable systems.

This isn't exactly true. He doesn't claim to have an across the board strategy for all Video Poker. He has claimed that "certain" machines have a glitch or cheat in them and he has figured out which machines his "strategy" works on. This is why he had problems with the "Scarecrow" or "Tin-Man" when put to the test on 100 or 50 play. His claims and math didn't work for that scenario and he blamed it on the machines stating that it might not work on those said machines. So basically he is a cheater who has found out that the "Casino" is cheating the players but "Singer" knows what they are up to and has exploited them for years once he figured the whole thing out. Of course that is after he learned all the Optimal Strategies and lost a fortune playing machines like an AP.

The truth is the Casino understands the math on VP and the Optimal Strategies and when they get hit by APs or Players who find the mistakes or promotions that are winners... the Casino takes action and either downgrades the games or cancels the promotions and or they also throw the players out or they just no mail them which is basically 86ing an AP because they are not going to play without that advantage. To prove this you only have to look at Video Poker for the last 30 to 20 years and you will see how it changed for the worse.

However, it is still clear that many of the employees working on the floor and perhaps even in promotions do not fully understand what they are doing because promotions still pop up. Eventually some bean counter who understands what is going on fixes the leak. It is getting more difficult in Vegas for machine players though because they are now going back and looking at the tapes linking up what time the player entered in the card into the machine and they are checking to see if that individual fits the description of the person on the card.

[AxelWolf]

Here's why these ap's are hard to take seriously when they criticize what my strategy does: they never choose to understand whatever I explain about it.

Sling doesn't fully understand my play strategy, and that's only because I've never been able to sit down with him at a machine. But he's been smart enuf to know that I say playing your own variation of what I do is far better than strict optimal play or any other defined type of play. Why? Because it is an overall complex strategy, requiring the exact same circumstances as I have in order to be successful playing it. For instance, the player must have an above average aptitude for playing poker, and there must be no wavering from the key points. And this is just the start.

And this is what's even more interesting about these street people claiming what I say is impossible to do, and what they do is the only way to win at VP. I was an AP for 6 years, then I developed my own strategy that's grounded in optimal play. Have any of these guys ever even tried to fully understand the strategy....let alone PLAY it?

Until then their rage and envy will go on (and kew will keep on whimpering like a little bitch).

May I ask what years you were an AP and what type of plays/machines you were playing during that time?

If you had a friend who happens to find a situation where your system was not possible for whatever reason, but the casino had a $2 bonus poker machine and he was getting 20x points with a card that is normally worth .33 in free play back. What/how would you advise him. Let's assume he has enough to play if he wishes to.

Can you explain what the key points of your system are? Yes, I know, according to you most of us are too dumb to understand it, but please humor us.

Whats the main reason you think your system works? I was under the impression you believe your system works because the machines are not as random as many of us believe.

Do you believe non-AP betting systems work on table games?

[Alan Mendelson]

When I interviewed Rob about machines not being random he said he only suspected it, he had no concrete proof of it and it wasn't clear if the non-randomness helped or hurt the player. That's what he told me ON VIDEO. I am sure that over the years his statements have been embellished and misquoted. The latest example of this comes from redietz:

"Argentino claims to have turned sub-optimal play into something superior to optimal play via his remarkable systems."

No. His suboptimal play gives him a chance to get lucky with a bigger win. He's not changing the optimal math, but hoping to do better than what's expected.

In fact a lot of what he's said has been embellished and misquoted.

I only wish there were a true Q and A with Rob with EVERYONE refraining from attacks.

[redietz]

When I interviewed Rob about machines not being random he said he only suspected it, he had no concrete proof of it and it wasn't clear if the non-randomness helped or hurt the player. That's what he told me ON VIDEO. I am sure that over the years his statements have been embellished and misquoted. The latest example of this comes from redietz:

"Argentino claims to have turned sub-optimal play into something superior to optimal play via his remarkable systems."

No. His suboptimal play gives him a chance to get lucky with a bigger win. He's not changing the optimal math, but hoping to do better than what's expected.

In fact a lot of what he's said has been embellished and misquoted.

I only wish there were a true Q and A with Rob with EVERYONE refraining from attacks.

The post above is so wrong on so many levels, it's almost funny. Let's go through this, step by step:

1) Definition of the word "hope": Want something to happen or to be the case.

Argentino does not simply "HOPE" to do better than what's expected. He says he WILL do better than expected, going forward. Saying one "hopes" a system wins and saying a system wins are, obviously, two completely different things.

2) Definition of the word "luck": Success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than one's own actions.

Argentino claims his winning is due to his own actions, which can be taught. Luck, by definition, cannot be taught.

3) Argentino is playing sub-optimally. He says he has done and will do better than optimal play. He claims his systems are the means of doing that.

Nothing in the line above is factually incorrect. It states the reality of what Argentino is saying.

[MisterV]

Has Singer ever clarified his claim the he won over a million playing VP?

I recall someone asked whether that was his winnings before subtracting losses, which is what I'd suspect.

Sure, any lump can win that amount if they bet enough long enough, but the claimed win must, in the interest of truth, justice and the American way, also factor in total / offsetting losses.

Frankly the idea that his actual net winnings (after offsetting losses) exceeded a million dollars is quite hard if not impossible to accept, given his inablility to prove he was playing a +EV game.

Hello, long run: gonna getcha!

[Rob.Singer]

Red you have no clue of what is--only what you want to be. And it's all because of a very poor understanding of the facts and a hatred towards me. You are, in effect, kew's daddy.

I've been successful for almost exactly the reason stated by Alan (and everything he just wrote is true): my play strategy gives some hands that would be a push or smaller winner the opportunity to be bigger winners, by using a small trade-off in EV after careful risk analyses have been performed. Most of the time they do not work. Sometimes they do, and for the simple fact that you never know what's going to happen on a VP machine when the draw button is pushed. And because my play increases in both denomination and game volatility, when these "sometimes" come it makes for a very nice payday.

You're problem seems to have always been that I say success using this method is being taught to others as if it is assured to continue. Well it is, and it is because I know it works from having had it work just as I developed and expected it to, over all these years. That's called prediction based on historical data. It's not defying any of your sacred math. It's simply using common sense with a whole lot of math and money mgmt./proper bankroll/absence of greed to accomplish win goals and then utilize extreme discipline and determination to keep the profits.

None of your university math professors would ever think of disagreeing with any of this. How do I know this? Because they have the same education I have.

Wise up.

[MaxPen]

"Use extreme discipline and determination to keep the profits."......lol....Classic BS
Go mooch some more internet to offset the losses fuckstick.

[redietz]

Red you have no clue of what is--only what you want to be. And it's all because of a very poor understanding of the facts and a hatred towards me. You are, in effect, kew's daddy.

I've been successful for almost exactly the reason stated by Alan (and everything he just wrote is true): my play strategy gives some hands that would be a push or smaller winner the opportunity to be bigger winners, by using a small trade-off in EV after careful risk analyses have been performed. Most of the time they do not work. Sometimes they do, and for the simple fact that you never know what's going to happen on a VP machine when the draw button is pushed. And because my play increases in both denomination and game volatility, when these "sometimes" come it makes for a very nice payday.

You're problem seems to have always been that I say success using this method is being taught to others as if it is assured to continue. Well it is, and it is because I know it works from having had it work just as I developed and expected it to, over all these years. That's called prediction based on historical data. It's not defying any of your sacred math. It's simply using common sense with a whole lot of math and money mgmt./proper bankroll/absence of greed to accomplish win goals and then utilize extreme discipline and determination to keep the profits.

None of your university math professors would ever think of disagreeing with any of this. How do I know this? Because they have the same education I have.

Wise up.

[redietz]

On some level, I actually liked (past tense) you, Argentino. You had some very useful observations to make about gambling in general and the comp systems and hosts and all that. Why you persist with this vp martingale system nonsense and an origin story that has a bunch of holes, I have no idea. So let's try it again:


Argentino claims to have turned sub-optimal play into something that outperforms optimal play via his remarkable systems.

Now which part of this statement is incorrect? All of the gobbledygook in your last post seems to be in agreement with this statement.

[kewlJ]

Has Singer ever clarified his claim the he won over a million playing VP?

I recall someone asked whether that was his winnings before subtracting losses, which is what I'd suspect.

Sure, any lump can win that amount if they bet enough long enough, but the claimed win must, in the interest of truth, justice and the American way, also factor in total / offsetting losses.

Frankly the idea that his actual net winnings (after offsetting losses) exceeded a million dollars is quite hard if not impossible to accept, given his inablility to prove he was playing a +EV game.

Hello, long run: gonna getcha!

Yes MrV he has....a number of times here is two in the last week.

My total VP win from over all years is about $1.5mil. Are you still shaking?

More silly making it all up because you're so upset with the way things go. But a bum like you has no other option, right?

It's very close to $1.5mil...and climbing. I don't include my waste-of-time AP years--irrelevant.

Funny thing about Singer's numbers is that he has magically "upped" them recently. He used to use a number of $984,000. But Mickey and Myself are both now in the million dollar range in AP earnings. (My AP earning is actually over 1.2 million, but blackjack which is what I really consider myself is currently at 944k). So with Mickey and myself sharing our REAL results of earnings from advantage play (note advantage), Singer felt the need to magically up his alternative reality fantasy claims of earnings from -EV play.

And as you note MrV, this is just not possible. It is not possible to grind away to huge winnings playing -EV and all the double talk progressions and nonsensical phrases he throws trying to muddy the waters isn't going to change that math.

Now you do make an interesting point about a one time huge lump sum win. That is always possible, especially with slot players, less so with VP as the top payout is 4000-1. So lets see, IF singer was playing a $500 denomination machine, that would be $2500 a spin and hit a royal, well there is your 2 million dollar payout, less whatever was lost prior to the royal. BUT THAT IS NOT SINGER's....um....story.

[MisterV]

Unless Singer defines the term "total win from over all years" as being his NET win, i.e. the amount left after subtracting all losses from all wins, I submit that the smoke still occludes one's view of the mirrors in Singerland.

[Alan Mendelson]

Let me be clear about this and even though Rob is my friend I am totally objective about this:

Rob has never proved his claim about winning almost one million dollars while a professional player over ten years (a little less than $100k per year) nor has he proved $1.5-million won including his post professional years.

Also, I have never seen any proof by anyone else about their claimed profits with the exception of Arcimede$ who actually had the IRS send me his tax returns.

So before anyone else says they want proof of Rob's claims be prepared to show us your proof.