Rob Singer didn't beat video poker

[mickeycrimm]

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.

Thats because you are not playing the Dancer method. You play negative EV. Thats not the Dancer method. He plays positive EV.

[kewlJ]

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.

Big, Big difference Alan. I increase my wagers in blackjack when I am playing with the advantage! Singer is never playing with an advantage. Each and every round is played at the same disadvantage or house advantage. Increasing wagers when at a disadvantage only serves to make you expected loss for that wager larger. Nothing Singer has ever said changes that. I am waiting for something, anything that that gives reason to why he is more likely to win in the later stages of the progression and recoup all his losses and then some, but there is nothing. And that is ALWAYS the problem with progression wagering.

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.

Now in the above quote from earlier today, Rob emphatically and correctly I might add, states that each round has nothing to do with rounds played prior to it. With this being true....and it is, what is it about the later segments of the progression that makes any kind of win to recoup earlier losses more likely?

And without some reasoning as to the above, then why play the lower levels of the progression? Why not just start with the higher levels (denominations) in which case you are simply playing higher denomination at the same negative expectation as every other player.


In short there is no mathematical reason why that higher level play is going to yield anything except the same losing expectation. The formula has not changed....it is amount wagered x expectation which with a -EV game will be a negative result. Anything and everything that came before that, including losses at lower levels of the progression do not change that mathematical formula.

[mickeycrimm]

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.

Just where did you find those +EV $100 machines? I've been around since 1996 and have never seen one. Of course, I know about the incident at Caesar's Palace, because it made the news, where this guy who was like the number 10 man with Microsoft requested they put in $100 denom Deuces Wild. There were over a dozen different deuce payscales then but which one did some slot tech put up? He put up Full Pay Deuce Wild, 100.76%. So when the guy beat them they 86'd him. They blamed it on him. All he asked for was Deuces Wild. He didn't say anything about Full Pay.. Their slot tech is the one that fucked up. Rob this was all over the news so don't start your lying bullshit about it.

[mickeycrimm]

I'm afraid you are all fussing too much about Rob's sub optimal plays. I've discussed these in detail with Rob. Let me give you an example of one and tell you why you are fussing over something that's actually insignificant.

The sub optimal special play is what to do when playing BONUS Poker and you are dealt a full house with three aces:

In 8/5 Bonus Rob holds the full house. So would Dancer.
In 7/5 Bonus Rob holds the 3 aces. Dancer still holds the full house.
In 6/5 Bonus Rob holds the 3 aces and Dancer also holds the 3 aces.

Now: Rob would never play 6/5 Bonus. That's point number one.

Point number two is how often are you dealt a full house with three aces in Bonus Poker?

Bonus Poker is the only game I play and I haven't been dealt a full house with trip aces in a year or longer.

Breaking up the full house on 7/5 BP has hardly any effect on the overall payback. Thats because you rarely see the hand. There are only 288 out of 2,598,960 combinations that make aces full. So the chance is 1 in 9024. Playing four hours a week you might see the hand 15 times a year at most. The chance of converting to four aces is 1 in 22.5 so Rob might convert the hand every year and a half average. And he is not making just a one unit bet at it. He's throwing away a hand that pays 7 bets for one that pays 3 bets and will only improve if he comes back with a full house or quads. All those multiple lost bets are accumulating as he misses those draws.

Alan, you talk about getting lucky like it is an easy thing to do. But the flip side is unlucky. That happens too. Rob could go four years without hitting that draw. But if you listen to Rob, he gets dealt aces full every day he plays and turns it into four aces everyday he plays.

[Alan Mendelson]

Well mickeycrimm if there weren't +EV $100 games then that's even more support for what Rob's been doing. He says to play the best available pay tables so it appears that's what he's been doing.

When Dancer is pumping hundreds on those fifty play machines to win a car he's not playing a +EV game.

[mickeycrimm]

Well mickeycrimm if there weren't +EV $100 games then that's even more support for what Rob's been doing. He says to play the best available pay tables so it appears that's what he's been doing.

When Dancer is pumping hundreds on those fifty play machines to win a car he's not playing a +EV game.

The highest I know of Dancer playing was $25 five-play 9/6 Jacks with 1% cashback. Thats $625 a hand. Yeah sure, 9/6 Jacks is a negative game but the 1% cashback makes it a positive play. Drawings can turn a negative game into a positive too but I just don't want to get into explaining a complicated play to you. You already ask enough dumb questions as it is. And with your ignorance of it you will think you have a lot of "gotcha" moments.

[mickeycrimm]

Well mickeycrimm if there weren't +EV $100 games then that's even more support for what Rob's been doing. He says to play the best available pay tables so it appears that's what he's been doing.

Well, theres a problem or two, Alan. Have you ever heard Rob brag about getting W-2G'd on a $100 machine. He's bragged about everything else. Why not the hundies? I doubt he ever played that big. He certainly has never claimed to have hit a $400,000 royal. If you didn't hit a royal on the hundies in ten years of play it means you didn't play that high or played very little at that level.

[Alan Mendelson]

If I recall, Rob said he was forced to play at the $100 level only twice in ten years. Otherwise he always met his win goal at lower levels.

Gosh, at $25 video poker you can easily be ahead $2500 without getting a single W2G.

[Rob.Singer]

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.

Big, Big difference Alan. I increase my wagers in blackjack when I am playing with the advantage! Singer is never playing with an advantage. Each and every round is played at the same disadvantage or house advantage. Increasing wagers when at a disadvantage only serves to make you expected loss for that wager larger. Nothing Singer has ever said changes that. I am waiting for something, anything that that gives reason to why he is more likely to win in the later stages of the progression and recoup all his losses and then some, but there is nothing. And that is ALWAYS the problem with progression wagering.

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.

Now in the above quote from earlier today, Rob emphatically and correctly I might add, states that each round has nothing to do with rounds played prior to it. With this being true....and it is, what is it about the later segments of the progression that makes any kind of win to recoup earlier losses more likely?

And without some reasoning as to the above, then why play the lower levels of the progression? Why not just start with the higher levels (denominations) in which case you are simply playing higher denomination at the same negative expectation as every other player.


In short there is no mathematical reason why that higher level play is going to yield anything except the same losing expectation. The formula has not changed....it is amount wagered x expectation which with a -EV game will be a negative result. Anything and everything that came before that, including losses at lower levels of the progression do not change that mathematical formula.

Kew, a player using my strategy is no more likely to hit a quad or special quad at higher denoms. than at the lower ones. However, the converse of that is true also. You saw my values when four Aces or Kings are hit at a high level. They're not that difficult to see, esp. when only holding one unsuited high card in SDBP (the smaller one, or the one without a suited card or two or the one with the least suited smaller cards). Of course, a lone Ace is held above any other high card except a suited one. The bottom line---eventually a quad or better will appear. My strategy prepares for it as well as taking maximum advantage of it.

[Rob.Singer]

I'm afraid you are all fussing too much about Rob's sub optimal plays. I've discussed these in detail with Rob. Let me give you an example of one and tell you why you are fussing over something that's actually insignificant.

The sub optimal special play is what to do when playing BONUS Poker and you are dealt a full house with three aces:

In 8/5 Bonus Rob holds the full house. So would Dancer.
In 7/5 Bonus Rob holds the 3 aces. Dancer still holds the full house.
In 6/5 Bonus Rob holds the 3 aces and Dancer also holds the 3 aces.

Now: Rob would never play 6/5 Bonus. That's point number one.

Point number two is how often are you dealt a full house with three aces in Bonus Poker?

Bonus Poker is the only game I play and I haven't been dealt a full house with trip aces in a year or longer.

Breaking up the full house on 7/5 BP has hardly any effect on the overall payback. Thats because you rarely see the hand. There are only 288 out of 2,598,960 combinations that make aces full. So the chance is 1 in 9024. Playing four hours a week you might see the hand 15 times a year at most. The chance of converting to four aces is 1 in 22.5 so Rob might convert the hand every year and a half average. And he is not making just a one unit bet at it. He's throwing away a hand that pays 7 bets for one that pays 3 bets and will only improve if he comes back with a full house or quads. All those multiple lost bets are accumulating as he misses those draws.

Alan, you talk about getting lucky like it is an easy thing to do. But the flip side is unlucky. That happens too. Rob could go four years without hitting that draw. But if you listen to Rob, he gets dealt aces full every day he plays and turns it into four aces everyday he plays.

More stupidity. The Aces full hand Alan brought up is HARDLY the only special play used for Aces. Hardly.

Wise up.

[Rob.Singer]

Well mickeycrimm if there weren't +EV $100 games then that's even more support for what Rob's been doing. He says to play the best available pay tables so it appears that's what he's been doing.

When Dancer is pumping hundreds on those fifty play machines to win a car he's not playing a +EV game.

The highest I know of Dancer playing was $25 five-play 9/6 Jacks with 1% cashback. Thats $625 a hand. Yeah sure, 9/6 Jacks is a negative game but the 1% cashback makes it a positive play. Drawings can turn a negative game into a positive too but I just don't want to get into explaining a complicated play to you. You already ask enough dumb questions as it is. And with your ignorance of it you will think you have a lot of "gotcha" moments.

You know very little mickey, as usual.

Ever watch Dancer play? I did--on the ten play $25 machine in the HL room at Bellagio.

If you weren't such a hermit you might have some credibility when talking about what ANYBODY actually does.

[Rob.Singer]

Well mickeycrimm if there weren't +EV $100 games then that's even more support for what Rob's been doing. He says to play the best available pay tables so it appears that's what he's been doing.

Well, theres a problem or two, Alan. Have you ever heard Rob brag about getting W-2G'd on a $100 machine. He's bragged about everything else. Why not the hundies? I doubt he ever played that big. He certainly has never claimed to have hit a $400,000 royal. If you didn't hit a royal on the hundies in ten years of play it means you didn't play that high or played very little at that level.

Another example of you knowing next to nothing about anyone. You live in a fantasy world that you make up about yourself, albeit a very very low class one. So who's not surprised that you continue to make up stuff about someone you're extremely jealous about.

[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.

Just where did you find those +EV $100 machines? I've been around since 1996 and have never seen one. Of course, I know about the incident at Caesar's Palace, because it made the news, where this guy who was like the number 10 man with Microsoft requested they put in $100 denom Deuces Wild. There were over a dozen different deuce payscales then but which one did some slot tech put up? He put up Full Pay Deuce Wild, 100.76%. So when the guy beat them they 86'd him. They blamed it on him. All he asked for was Deuces Wild. He didn't say anything about Full Pay.. Their slot tech is the one that fucked up. Rob this was all over the news so don't start your lying bullshit about it.

That's because you really HAVEN'T been around when it comes to gambling mickey. And you never read where I said fifty times that I don't and never have played any Deuces games except for 5c or 25c waiting for people?

Take this as a teachable moment....one your fatass suicide victim idol Tuna Fish Face should have been able to educate you on before jumping to end his miserable life. The Atlantis (Reno) ever heard of it? had two 5-credit $100 machines with 10/7 DBP and 10/6 DDBP. I played them both as needed multiple times.

[AxelWolf]

If I recall, Rob said he was forced to play at the $100 level only twice in ten years. Otherwise he always met his win goal at lower levels.

Gosh, at $25 video poker you can easily be ahead $2500 without getting a single W2G.

And easily down that amount +++. And even if he has a loss limit for the day there's nothing to say he won't lose on whatever denominations he plays at the next day/ session and then find himself moving up denominations and never being ahead. If you can witness 18 yos in a row Rob could also never have a winning session again.

You still never answered if you THINK Rob's system is overall a winning system. I know you haven't played it and you don't know it. That's beside the point. Given your best guess yes or no? I have a feeling you don't believe he has a winning system, but you won't admit it. Why do you follow conventional VP strategies? Why haven't you taken the time to learn Rob's system for free?

The only way Rob's system would be a winning system overall is if the machines are not random.

[Alan Mendelson]

AxelWolf you're beginning to talk in circles. You just wrote above:

"You still never answered if you THINK Rob's system is overall a winning system. I know you haven't played it and you don't know it."

If you know that I don't know it, and if you know that I haven't played it, how can I tell you if I think it's a winning system?

I can tell you what Rob's Special Plays are. I can also tell you that Rob has the math on his Special Plays and they have a lower EV than the conventional play. I can tell you that Rob plays various versions of video poker for his system that I know nothing about and never played. I can tell you what Rob told me he won but he never sent me his tax returns. I can tell you that the one time Rob watched me play he corrected me when I made a mistake on CONVENTIONAL strategy. I can also tell you that Rob told me that some of his Special Plays were only used ONCE in his entire life.

And you keep asking me if I think it's a winning system?

I DON'T KNOW.

What I do know is people who know nothing about what he does make claims about what he does and twist his statements and claims to fit their own agenda. If I interviewed Rob and he told me "X" I am not going to let someone lie about it and say "Z."

[Alan Mendelson]

One more thing AxelWolf. Rob told me there's nothing about his system that requires non random machines and he certainly hopes they aren't rigged and he plays them as if they're honest.

Did I just burst another of your bubbles?

[monet]

One more thing AxelWolf. Rob told me there's nothing about his system that requires non random machines and he certainly hopes they aren't rigged and he plays them as if they're honest.

Did I just burst another of your bubbles?

Fuck Off Mendlebread!

[RS__]

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

I'm not going to go on some wild goose chase trying to figure out how you supposedly did your math (or those mathematicians did it). LOL

[mickeycrimm]

Well mickeycrimm if there weren't +EV $100 games then that's even more support for what Rob's been doing. He says to play the best available pay tables so it appears that's what he's been doing.

When Dancer is pumping hundreds on those fifty play machines to win a car he's not playing a +EV game.

The highest I know of Dancer playing was $25 five-play 9/6 Jacks with 1% cashback. Thats $625 a hand. Yeah sure, 9/6 Jacks is a negative game but the 1% cashback makes it a positive play. Drawings can turn a negative game into a positive too but I just don't want to get into explaining a complicated play to you. You already ask enough dumb questions as it is. And with your ignorance of it you will think you have a lot of "gotcha" moments.

You know very little mickey, as usual.

Ever watch Dancer play? I did--on the ten play $25 machine in the HL room at Bellagio.

If you weren't such a hermit you might have some credibility when talking about what ANYBODY actually does.

So you seen Dancer betting $1250 a hand? And you think you are in his league? Get the fuck out.

[mickeycrimm]

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.

Just where did you find those +EV $100 machines? I've been around since 1996 and have never seen one. Of course, I know about the incident at Caesar's Palace, because it made the news, where this guy who was like the number 10 man with Microsoft requested they put in $100 denom Deuces Wild. There were over a dozen different deuce payscales then but which one did some slot tech put up? He put up Full Pay Deuce Wild, 100.76%. So when the guy beat them they 86'd him. They blamed it on him. All he asked for was Deuces Wild. He didn't say anything about Full Pay.. Their slot tech is the one that fucked up. Rob this was all over the news so don't start your lying bullshit about it.

That's because you really HAVEN'T been around when it comes to gambling mickey. And you never read where I said fifty times that I don't and never have played any Deuces games except for 5c or 25c waiting for people?

Take this as a teachable moment....one your fatass suicide victim idol Tuna Fish Face should have been able to educate you on before jumping to end his miserable life. The Atlantis (Reno) ever heard of it? had two 5-credit $100 machines with 10/7 DBP and 10/6 DDBP. I played them both as needed multiple times.

Alan says you played that high only a couple of times. Which one of you is lying? You've bragged repeatedly about a couple of $100,000 W2-G's and at least one $50K W2-G. On $100 DDBP the W2-G's would be 400K, 200K, 80K, 40K, 25K. I don't recall you ever bragging about those amounts.