Rob Singer didn't beat video poker

[MaxPen]

Kewlj most video poker players sit down at a machine with their money -- let's say $300 -- and they play until they lose it all. That's what most VP players do. One thing that Rob does IS THE SAME THING that APs do when they "play through once" their free play.

The APs will run thru their $300 at $1 Jacks and maybe they'll get $280.

Rob will do the same thing. That $280 is a soft profit.

But Rob's bankroll is bigger. So now he takes $1000 and he goes to $2 VP and sets aside his winnings. This time he gets $920.

Next it's $5 VP for $3,000 and he gets back $2700.

So far Rob is in the hole for $400.

His next step is $25 VP and on Bonus he gets a full house paying $1000... and suddenly he's ahead $600.

So he goes back to $1 VP.

It's not fool proof. It doesn't always work but it prevents him from getting wiped out while he has the bankroll to get lucky at higher levels.

The math doesn't change and he's not trying to change the math. But he's trying to stay in the game for when the big winners come along.

I think you do a similar thing at blackjack. When the count is right you increase your bets.

Open your mouth and remove all doubt. MendelFOOL....lol

I am almost to the point that there is not even entertainment value in you and Singer's nonsense anymore. Just pity as I watch two short bus kids sucking the bumper on the way to school. You Alan are so fucked up. At one point you must have lost your helmet and fell off.

[mickeycrimm]

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.

I'll send you plenty of proof right after Rob sends in his proof. In other words, never.

[slingshot]

First of all, you need to have a plan on how you'll play, stick to it, not be greedy, and UNDERSTAND THAT TODAY'S SESSION IS COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO ANY SESSION THAT HAS COME BEFORE OR THAT HAS YET TO COME----JUST AS WE ALL KNOW THAT ANY SINGLE HAND OF VP HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY BEFORE OR AFTER IT. You must comprehend that once today's session ends at whatever denomination and game, the next visit will begin at the lowest denomination and least volatile game once again.

I could never describe all the idiosyncrasies of playing the strategy unless I were to talk to you in person. But the main point is, I have at least an 85% chance of winning every session, which is only close to 5% of the starting bankroll. Do you realize how easy that is? And, a losing session never means losing the entire bankroll, just as it is possible to walk away at the end of a session losing $50, $5000, $24,000 or whatever, or with "only" a profit of $400, $1300, $2200 or whatever....and still call it a "losing" session because the minimum win of $2500 was not attained. In other words, I play up to 6 denominations of 400 credits each, and once I've made my way thru all of them regardless of the number of soft profit 40+ credit cashouts along the way, my session ends then and there. I never play more than one of these a week because they're grueling at times, it takes tons of concentration and constantly keeping track of where I am vs. where I need to be, and because I win so often, it's enjoyable to savor the latest win for at least a short time.

Before you get back into the mode of +EV means win and -EV means lose over a lifetime, be smarter than that. We all know the converse of both of those can be true--albeit very infrequently. What is so hard to understand about, if I can win such a goal today somewhat easily--which I'm sure you get why that is based on my strategy, bankroll, and goal, then how is it you don't want to understand that this can happen over and over again? And where do you get lost over the fact that the large losing sessions are much more unlikely than the large winning sessions, while the larger winning sessions are mostly larger than the losing ones, thereby debunking any argument that "over time", the "math" takes over and I lose?? Then, if course, there are the numerous smaller winning sessions, which most or all critics overlook.

It has nothing to do with voodoo or magic or however else you would like it to be. It's just simple common sense when using a complex strategy. I am technically no luckier than the next guy. I just allow it to come into my play more often.

Rob- isn't one of the main reasons for sitting through a session with you is that a player has to keep up with where he/she's at in the strategy? Doesn't this affect the game you end up playing, some card selection, and really, when to quit? It's more than just punching buttons. As you say, I played it once-starting at nickels- and it was a grueling time before I won.

[redietz]

So Argentino plays sub-optimal video poker on purpose, but he's able to outperform optimal play via the use of his remarkable systems.

I keep repeating this. It seems to capture the essence of what's being claimed. Mr. Mendelson and Argentino refuse to state what is wrong with this simple, clear assessment of what's being claimed.

Argentino plays sub-optimally by design, yet he employs systems that he claims allow him to outperform optimal play. Certainly this is the case, or he would simply play optimally.

Now what have I gotten wrong?

It could be that, presented thus clearly and simply, without error, the oxymoronic nature of what's being claimed sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb.

[Alan Mendelson]

There you go again redietz....

"So Argentino plays sub-optimal video poker on purpose,..."

[Alan Mendelson]

Kewlj most video poker players sit down at a machine with their money -- let's say $300 -- and they play until they lose it all. That's what most VP players do. One thing that Rob does IS THE SAME THING that APs do when they "play through once" their free play.

The APs will run thru their $300 at $1 Jacks and maybe they'll get $280.

Rob will do the same thing. That $280 is a soft profit.

But Rob's bankroll is bigger. So now he takes $1000 and he goes to $2 VP and sets aside his winnings. This time he gets $920.

Next it's $5 VP for $3,000 and he gets back $2700.

So far Rob is in the hole for $400.

His next step is $25 VP and on Bonus he gets a full house paying $1000... and suddenly he's ahead $600.

So he goes back to $1 VP.

It's not fool proof. It doesn't always work but it prevents him from getting wiped out while he has the bankroll to get lucky at higher levels.

The math doesn't change and he's not trying to change the math. But he's trying to stay in the game for when the big winners come along.

I think you do a similar thing at blackjack. When the count is right you increase your bets.

Open your mouth and remove all doubt. MendelFOOL....lol

I am almost to the point that there is not even entertainment value in you and Singer's nonsense anymore. Just pity as I watch two short bus kids sucking the bumper on the way to school. You Alan are so fucked up. At one point you must have lost your helmet and fell off.

What the fuck is wrong with you? What are you criticizing me for? Because you want to?

I've said on this forum a hundred times I don't play Rob's system. But I will do my best to make it clear what I know about Rob's system.

So fuck you asshole.

[Rob.Singer]

Kewlj most video poker players sit down at a machine with their money -- let's say $300 -- and they play until they lose it all. That's what most VP players do. One thing that Rob does IS THE SAME THING that APs do when they "play through once" their free play.

The APs will run thru their $300 at $1 Jacks and maybe they'll get $280.

Rob will do the same thing. That $280 is a soft profit.

But Rob's bankroll is bigger. So now he takes $1000 and he goes to $2 VP and sets aside his winnings. This time he gets $920.

Next it's $5 VP for $3,000 and he gets back $2700.

So far Rob is in the hole for $400.

His next step is $25 VP and on Bonus he gets a full house paying $1000... and suddenly he's ahead $600.

So he goes back to $1 VP.

It's not fool proof. It doesn't always work but it prevents him from getting wiped out while he has the bankroll to get lucky at higher levels.

The math doesn't change and he's not trying to change the math. But he's trying to stay in the game for when the big winners come along.

I think you do a similar thing at blackjack. When the count is right you increase your bets.

Open your mouth and remove all doubt. MendelFOOL....lol

I am almost to the point that there is not even entertainment value in you and Singer's nonsense anymore. Just pity as I watch two short bus kids sucking the bumper on the way to school. You Alan are so fucked up. At one point you must have lost your helmet and fell off.

What the fuck is wrong with you? What are you criticizing me for? Because you want to?

I've said on this forum a hundred times I don't play Rob's system. But I will do my best to make it clear what I know about Rob's system.

So fuck you asshole.

He knows what's wrong with him Alan. He's only here because he likes to get frustrated. Have you ever seen the moron get involved in anything other than being an irritated responder?

[redietz]

There you go again redietz....

"So Argentino plays sub-optimal video poker on purpose,..."

That seems to be an accurate assessment, yes. What's incorrect about it?

[Alan Mendelson]

So Argentino plays sub-optimal video poker on purpose, but he's able to outperform optimal play via the use of his remarkable systems.

I keep repeating this. It seems to capture the essence of what's being claimed. Mr. Mendelson and Argentino refuse to state what is wrong with this simple, clear assessment of what's being claimed.

Argentino plays sub-optimally by design, yet he employs systems that he claims allow him to outperform optimal play. Certainly this is the case, or he would simply play optimally.

Now what have I gotten wrong?

It could be that, presented thus clearly and simply, without error, the oxymoronic nature of what's being claimed sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb.

You too. You keep saying the same false information over and over again. Rob doesn't play sub optimal video poker by design. When will that sink in?

He could play loose deuces or any of the 100%+ Deuces games but he doesn't and for one reason: except for the royal and 2222 there's no money on it. I'm probably telling you that for the first time.

He will play video poker by the book with rare exceptions. And if you want to hang him over the rare exceptions then go fucking do it. Just stop lying.

And as I told AxelWolf I don't play Rob's way. But damn't I'm not going to let you lie about what he does and twist what he says. Maybe he's right because the Dancer method hasnt done me much good.

[Alan Mendelson]

There you go again redietz....

"So Argentino plays sub-optimal video poker on purpose,..."

That seems to be an accurate assessment, yes. What's incorrect about it?

He doesn't.

[Rob.Singer]

So Argentino plays sub-optimal video poker on purpose, but he's able to outperform optimal play via the use of his remarkable systems.

I keep repeating this. It seems to capture the essence of what's being claimed. Mr. Mendelson and Argentino refuse to state what is wrong with this simple, clear assessment of what's being claimed.

Argentino plays sub-optimally by design, yet he employs systems that he claims allow him to outperform optimal play. Certainly this is the case, or he would simply play optimally.

Now what have I gotten wrong?

It could be that, presented thus clearly and simply, without error, the oxymoronic nature of what's being claimed sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb.

What's you're implying is as stupid as you are. (I say "implying" because you are never clear about anything).

There is no "sub-optimal by design" play. When +EV games were available thru the $100 level in the very early 2000's I played them first after playing 8/5 BP. But have you found anything positive on dollars thru $100 since then? Nope---and the only people who say they do are the magic potion ones who "claim" their cash back, free play, comps, drawings/tournaments and free beanie with propeller hats all add up to make a play "positive and playable".

Well I've never included any of that nonsense into my results, because it has nothing to do with actual play. So the result is THERE ARE VIRTUALLY NO POSITIVE MACHINES AT MY LEVELS ANYMORE, and there haven't been in a very long time. So I had no choice but to play what was available, and my play strategy compensated for that shortcoming rather nicely.

Continue to parse words all you like. It only reflects on the phony you.

[redietz]

There you go again redietz....

"So Argentino plays sub-optimal video poker on purpose,..."

That seems to be an accurate assessment, yes. What's incorrect about it?

He doesn't.

Of course he does. That's what not following all of the prescribed holds is -- it's playing sub-optimally.

[redietz]

So Argentino plays sub-optimal video poker on purpose, but he's able to outperform optimal play via the use of his remarkable systems.

I keep repeating this. It seems to capture the essence of what's being claimed. Mr. Mendelson and Argentino refuse to state what is wrong with this simple, clear assessment of what's being claimed.

Argentino plays sub-optimally by design, yet he employs systems that he claims allow him to outperform optimal play. Certainly this is the case, or he would simply play optimally.

Now what have I gotten wrong?

It could be that, presented thus clearly and simply, without error, the oxymoronic nature of what's being claimed sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb.

You too. You keep saying the same false information over and over again. Rob doesn't play sub optimal video poker by design. When will that sink in?

He could play loose deuces or any of the 100%+ Deuces games but he doesn't and for one reason: except for the royal and 2222 there's no money on it. I'm probably telling you that for the first time.

He will play video poker by the book with rare exceptions. And if you want to hang him over the rare exceptions then go fucking do it. Just stop lying.

And as I told AxelWolf I don't play Rob's way. But damn't I'm not going to let you lie about what he does and twist what he says. Maybe he's right because the Dancer method hasnt done me much good.

If he purposefully doesn't make all of the correct holds, how is that not playing sub-optimally by definition?

[Rob.Singer]

First of all, you need to have a plan on how you'll play, stick to it, not be greedy, and UNDERSTAND THAT TODAY'S SESSION IS COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO ANY SESSION THAT HAS COME BEFORE OR THAT HAS YET TO COME----JUST AS WE ALL KNOW THAT ANY SINGLE HAND OF VP HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY BEFORE OR AFTER IT. You must comprehend that once today's session ends at whatever denomination and game, the next visit will begin at the lowest denomination and least volatile game once again.

I could never describe all the idiosyncrasies of playing the strategy unless I were to talk to you in person. But the main point is, I have at least an 85% chance of winning every session, which is only close to 5% of the starting bankroll. Do you realize how easy that is? And, a losing session never means losing the entire bankroll, just as it is possible to walk away at the end of a session losing $50, $5000, $24,000 or whatever, or with "only" a profit of $400, $1300, $2200 or whatever....and still call it a "losing" session because the minimum win of $2500 was not attained. In other words, I play up to 6 denominations of 400 credits each, and once I've made my way thru all of them regardless of the number of soft profit 40+ credit cashouts along the way, my session ends then and there. I never play more than one of these a week because they're grueling at times, it takes tons of concentration and constantly keeping track of where I am vs. where I need to be, and because I win so often, it's enjoyable to savor the latest win for at least a short time.

Before you get back into the mode of +EV means win and -EV means lose over a lifetime, be smarter than that. We all know the converse of both of those can be true--albeit very infrequently. What is so hard to understand about, if I can win such a goal today somewhat easily--which I'm sure you get why that is based on my strategy, bankroll, and goal, then how is it you don't want to understand that this can happen over and over again? And where do you get lost over the fact that the large losing sessions are much more unlikely than the large winning sessions, while the larger winning sessions are mostly larger than the losing ones, thereby debunking any argument that "over time", the "math" takes over and I lose?? Then, if course, there are the numerous smaller winning sessions, which most or all critics overlook.

It has nothing to do with voodoo or magic or however else you would like it to be. It's just simple common sense when using a complex strategy. I am technically no luckier than the next guy. I just allow it to come into my play more often.

Rob- isn't one of the main reasons for sitting through a session with you is that a player has to keep up with where he/she's at in the strategy? Doesn't this affect the game you end up playing, some card selection, and really, when to quit? It's more than just punching buttons. As you say, I played it once-starting at nickels- and it was a grueling time before I won.

The main reason it's so important for a player to sit with me in training is so that I can explain everything in real time face to face, and for me to get a feel if the player has the right aptitude for kicking their game up to a complex level.

[Alan Mendelson]

So Argentino plays sub-optimal video poker on purpose, but he's able to outperform optimal play via the use of his remarkable systems.

I keep repeating this. It seems to capture the essence of what's being claimed. Mr. Mendelson and Argentino refuse to state what is wrong with this simple, clear assessment of what's being claimed.

Argentino plays sub-optimally by design, yet he employs systems that he claims allow him to outperform optimal play. Certainly this is the case, or he would simply play optimally.

Now what have I gotten wrong?

It could be that, presented thus clearly and simply, without error, the oxymoronic nature of what's being claimed sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb.

You too. You keep saying the same false information over and over again. Rob doesn't play sub optimal video poker by design. When will that sink in?

He could play loose deuces or any of the 100%+ Deuces games but he doesn't and for one reason: except for the royal and 2222 there's no money on it. I'm probably telling you that for the first time.

He will play video poker by the book with rare exceptions. And if you want to hang him over the rare exceptions then go fucking do it. Just stop lying.

And as I told AxelWolf I don't play Rob's way. But damn't I'm not going to let you lie about what he does and twist what he says. Maybe he's right because the Dancer method hasnt done me much good.

If he purposefully doesn't make all of the correct holds, how is that not playing sub-optimally by definition?

Okay, you want to hang him for increasing his chances for hitting quads when he's in a hole. Fine. Discussion is over.

I guess it's better in your book to finish with a loss and a full house than to try for quad aces to get ahead.

Yeah. If that's the sub optimal play that's got you in a twist you're right. Discussion is over.

[Rob.Singer]

Let me start by saying I appreciate the tone of civility in your reply Rob. I hope we can keep that tone as discussion continues.

Now you are not going to like this but I see no substance to your reply. I was hoping for quite a bit more detail.

"Have a plan and stick to it"?

Complete fluff! No meaning nor value. Every player has a plan. The roulette player has a plan that his number is going to come out more than statisticly "normal". The horse player has a plan to hit more exactas. It's just silly and has no meaning or value.

"I could never describe all the idiosyncrasies of playing the strategy unless I were to talk to you in person."

Why? this was your platform to do that. Why can't you do it?

"I have at least an 85% chance of winning every session, which is only close to 5% of the starting bankroll."

These are great numbers. Sounds good. Where did these numbers come from? Where is the math? Without the math, these numbers are meaningless. Phantom phrases that sound good, but with no meaning.

"I play up to 6 denominations of 400 credits each, and once I've made my way thru all of them regardless of the number of soft profit 40+ credit cashouts along the way, my session ends"

This is a good one. No specifics, but sounds like a very vague way of saying it is a progression betting system. I certainly understand why you didn't want to use those words...Progressive betting system, because it has been mathematically proven beyond contestation that betting systems, including progressive betting systems can NOT overcome a house advantage long-term.

I am sorry, Rob, I don't see anything here, except a bunch of hocus pocus nonsense.

For vp players--and what gambler isn't one--most find it virtually impossible to start playing when they've told themselves they're gonna stop if and when they make a few hundred dollars, or they won't go to cash a check or go to the ATM, or if they hit a jackpot they'll march right home---and then actually do what they said they were gonna do. This is the #1 aspect of professional or recreational gambling: people just cannot resist the temptation to win more after winning or to stop after losing the amount they said they would not lose more than. This is not anything like the "fluff" that you mentioned.

Explaining how the strategy works exactly would get people lost on a forum. But remember this: there are 2400 credits in my bankroll. But because there are numerous times my mini-win goals, when reached, bring me back down a denomination or two or three where I start all over again at that particular lower level of another 400 credits etc. after pocketing multiple soft profits, 2400 total credits is a very misleading number to people who don't understand the strategy to its fullest.

I never started out with a calculation that expected at least an 85% win rate. It just makes sense that it's not difficult winning $2500 min. starting with a bankroll 20X that size. Where my number came from back when I did a cumulative report on it in my weekly GT column, was from actual results. As the years went on there was more and more data, and it always ran between 85% & 90%. Nothing beats historicals, esp. when I'm using a method that incorporates EV-reducing special plays that of course, turned out to be actuals-increasing results.

I've seen the Martingale comparison my whole career, and it's nothing of the sort. Does Martingale--or do progressive betting systems--move partway down after a middle of the road win where at least 40 credits at that original higher denomination are pocketed as soft profit towards an overall session win goal, and then begin the 400 credits over again? No, Martingale says a win means you go back to GO. In fact, the chief reason for my denominational and game volatility progression is to allow either a successful special play or successful standard optimal play lucky big winner, do their things. Four Aces on $10 TBP+ is a $12,000 winner. Four K's on $25 SDBP = $15k. A SF on $100 BP means $25,000. Think about that, and not just in terms of "did he really attain his win goal with that hand this late in the game?" Think about it in terms of, did that hit, COMBINED WITH ALL THE SOFT PROFIT 40+ CREDIT CASHOUTS, allow him to reach his pre-set win goal which means he quits for the week?

Not many can follow the complexities, but many could if they tried. The LV AP I went 50-50 on for the Revel promo had the same denigration and doubts you have today, until I spent about 3 hours at a machine explaining it to him. He doesn't play my system exactly as I showed him, but he incorporates much of it into his vp play.

[RS__]

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.

Care to show us any of that "whole lot of math"?

[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.

Care to show us any of that "whole lot of math"?

You know how optimal play was figured? Start with that.

[regnis]

While redietz is technically correct that the special plays are "sub-optimal" plays, I would guess that the number of times that the special plays occur and are used are so minimal as to make this argument moot. If you look at the percentage of hands that will contain aces full and then the number of times that Rob will discard the other pair, I think the "sub-optimal" effect is next to nothing.

So let's agree that he otherwise uses optimal play. Now we can still argue about the system and whether it can work. Maybe he is just a lucky SOB!!!

[Alan Mendelson]

While redietz is technically correct that the special plays are "sub-optimal" plays, I would guess that the number of times that the special plays occur and are used are so minimal as to make this argument moot. If you look at the percentage of hands that will contain aces full and then the number of times that Rob will discard the other pair, I think the "sub-optimal" effect is next to nothing.

So let's agree that he otherwise uses optimal play. Now we can still argue about the system and whether it can work. Maybe he is just a lucky SOB!!!

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.