A challenge to Redietz

[Rob.Singer]

True. If you bothered to read my website I said I wanted to provide a record of Singer's Special Plays. That's all I set out to do. And that's what I did.

No where did I discuss soft profits though I did do another interview with Rob about his two books and his general beliefs about video poker. Did I question him about his actual play strategy? No.

As a matter of fact you and others continue to debate him about his play strategy without even knowing what it is. But I digress.

Redietz still has not responded to my questions in the original post, and I know he will not. He will dance around with reports about how Uri Geller was exposed and how Sports Illustrated blundered but he will not acknowledge the truth about what I did.

By the way, years ago I posted on this forum that if Bob Dancer wanted to be interviewed by me I'd be happy to interview him.

In fact, I'd like to extend an invitation to Robert Dietz. I would like to interview Mr Dietz about his business. Would you agree, Mr Dietz, to an unrestricted interview on your next trip to Las Vegas or any trip with 48 hours notice to me so I can have my cameraman available?

Robs "Special plays" will earn you LESS MONEY than optimal strategy will. That's all anyone needs to know about that nitwit.

As a matter of fact, Rob presented the math that shows that the expected return of his special plays is in fact less than the expected return of the comparable conventional plays. There is no surprise there. Thanks for reading the article. Rob said it. I reported it. Done.

Of course....only an armchair theorist like jbjb doesn't can't be bothered by the facts. He also has no idea when, how, or why the special plays that deviate from optimal strategy are used....and how much money they've made me over simple optimal play.

[Rob.Singer]

Redietz, in typical deflect and divert fashion, you answered none of my questions. I would enjoy being there to pin you down in any interview.

Your most foolish answer was, as expected, why you won't ever post any of your so-called accolades that you claim you can't find on the internet. That's some claim all by itself, yet when you realize that all these elusive newspaper articles, booklet columns, and what have yous COULD EASILY BE SCANNED AND POSTED RIGHT HERE instead of mailing some obscure package to another forum member from some homo friend's pad in California, then expecting Alan to cover your sorrowful ass.

[slingshot]

Here's something I hardly see talked about. Many times when I've tried special plays, and they "fail"- I STILL get-say- a full house when breaking up one to draw to 4 of a kind. On the other hand, I've seen where no matter which draw I chose- I wouldn't have gotten anything any who. So doing it doesn't bother me as much as it once did.

[Alan Mendelson]

V is asking if I had pity for Rob a hard question or is it your snarly way to insult Rob? Is questioning Jason about his "Daddy" a hard question or your snarly way to call Jason a child instead of showing a 38 year old businessman and father in his own right some respect?

Youre a trash talkin' troll.

[MisterV]

I'm not the one that gave Singer a podium, alan.

Why did you do it?

Millions of people would welcome free publicity: why'd you deign to shine your light on him?

The "hard question:" what was in it for you?

Be honest now: you must get tired of bullshitting yourself.

[Alan Mendelson]

Well V, why don't you ask me why I also have on my website articles and videos about an elementary school dance club which is run by volunteers at a school in Ventura County? Why don't you ask me about the articles I have about real estate and collecting coins and stamps and baseball cards? Why don't you ask me about the articles about the art market? I've also done videos and articles for two kidney transplant charity groups. I have articles about antiques and furniture repair and earthquake and hurricane tips.

There are more than 490 pages on my website and probably LESS THAN HALF are related to paying clients and advertisers.

Why are you just asking about Rob Singer?

[mickeycrimm]

The sad part is I'm just as guilty. I keep checking in for new info and instead of ignoring the obvious I type! Truly sad. The last interesting bit of info was the data sheet from a slot tech screen.

Sling, this should be some good information for your type of video poker play:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...6YuC3kk5FRuWbV

[mickeycrimm]

Of course....only an armchair theorist like jbjb doesn't can't be bothered by the facts. He also has no idea when, how, or why the special plays that deviate from optimal strategy are used....and how much money they've made me over simple optimal play.

So your conclusion is you get a bigger return by making the sub-optimal hold than if you would have made the optimal hold....but only in certain situations? I assume you have hard data to back up this conclusion? In order to come with such a conclusion you would need empirical data from both type of draws. What evidence do you have that the sub-optimal hold pays better than the optimal hold? Or I should say, what evidence do you have that the optimal hold doesn't return as much as the sub-optimal hold?

PS: Ignorant blather is not evidence.

[Alan Mendelson]

Hang on a second mickeycrimm. All Rob is saying is that sometimes the sub optimal hold will come through with a bigger paying hand. For example, sometimes dropping the full house and going for the quads will give you the quads. That's all he's saying. Don't blow it up out of proportion. As he has said he doesn't do it all the time.

Remember his $50k win when he did NOT use a special play and followed conventional strategy.

[slingshot]

The sad part is I'm just as guilty. I keep checking in for new info and instead of ignoring the obvious I type! Truly sad. The last interesting bit of info was the data sheet from a slot tech screen.

Sling, this should be some good information for your type of video poker play:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...6YuC3kk5FRuWbV

The "Voodoo" you're referring to is always making these plays believing they will make one a magical winner. I won't go thru all the qualifiers for even attempting these plays, as you say you've studied his strategies- and frankly it would be futile to a diehard critic.

[slingshot]

The sad part is I'm just as guilty. I keep checking in for new info and instead of ignoring the obvious I type! Truly sad. The last interesting bit of info was the data sheet from a slot tech screen.

Sling, this should be some good information for your type of video poker play:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...6YuC3kk5FRuWbV

The "Voodoo" you're referring to is always making these plays believing they will make one a magical winner. I won't go thru all the qualifiers for even attempting these plays, as you say you've studied his strategies- and frankly it would be futile to a diehard critic.

[redietz]

Redietz, in typical deflect and divert fashion, you answered none of my questions. I would enjoy being there to pin you down in any interview.

Your most foolish answer was, as expected, why you won't ever post any of your so-called accolades that you claim you can't find on the internet. That's some claim all by itself, yet when you realize that all these elusive newspaper articles, booklet columns, and what have yous COULD EASILY BE SCANNED AND POSTED RIGHT HERE instead of mailing some obscure package to another forum member from some homo friend's pad in California, then expecting Alan to cover your sorrowful ass.

I answered all of your questions. I also, on multiple occasions, offered to meet you in Las Vegas to provide all of the print materials previously mentioned. You declined. I offer once again. Surely you could examine the materials with a fine tooth comb and debunk me in a quick and easy fashion.

Name the date (after football season or in December), and I'll travel to LV and hand over the material directly to you for your brilliant perusal. Just not at the G2E conference -- I know you'll be busy (that was a joke).

[Rob.Singer]

Of course....only an armchair theorist like jbjb doesn't can't be bothered by the facts. He also has no idea when, how, or why the special plays that deviate from optimal strategy are used....and how much money they've made me over simple optimal play.

So your conclusion is you get a bigger return by making the sub-optimal hold than if you would have made the optimal hold....but only in certain situations? I assume you have hard data to back up this conclusion? In order to come with such a conclusion you would need empirical data from both type of draws. What evidence do you have that the sub-optimal hold pays better than the optimal hold? Or I should say, what evidence do you have that the optimal hold doesn't return as much as the sub-optimal hold?

PS: Ignorant blather is not evidence.

Calm down mickey--it's not the end of the world.

What you want this to be about is how using a special play that deviates from optimal strategy over a long-term scenario might produce an overall inferior result. But it's not Einstein. It's about the possibility of a special play ending any particular session.

Wise up.

[Rob.Singer]

Redietz, in typical deflect and divert fashion, you answered none of my questions. I would enjoy being there to pin you down in any interview.

Your most foolish answer was, as expected, why you won't ever post any of your so-called accolades that you claim you can't find on the internet. That's some claim all by itself, yet when you realize that all these elusive newspaper articles, booklet columns, and what have yous COULD EASILY BE SCANNED AND POSTED RIGHT HERE instead of mailing some obscure package to another forum member from some homo friend's pad in California, then expecting Alan to cover your sorrowful ass.

I answered all of your questions. I also, on multiple occasions, offered to meet you in Las Vegas to provide all of the print materials previously mentioned. You declined. I offer once again. Surely you could examine the materials with a fine tooth comb and debunk me in a quick and easy fashion.

Name the date (after football season or in December), and I'll travel to LV and hand over the material directly to you for your brilliant perusal. Just not at the G2E conference -- I know you'll be busy (that was a joke).

Do you know what a scanner is?

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob I think you have to use different terminology to get your point across.

Instead of saying you use a special play for "ending a session" you should say you use a special play hoping that you will hit a big winner. They might understand that.

[mickeycrimm]

Hang on a second mickeycrimm. All Rob is saying is that sometimes the sub optimal hold will come through with a bigger paying hand. For example, sometimes dropping the full house and going for the quads will give you the quads. That's all he's saying. Don't blow it up out of proportion. As he has said he doesn't do it all the time.

Remember his $50k win when he did NOT use a special play and followed conventional strategy.

But according to Rob you can't win using conventional strategy.l

[mickeycrimm]

Of course....only an armchair theorist like jbjb doesn't can't be bothered by the facts. He also has no idea when, how, or why the special plays that deviate from optimal strategy are used....and how much money they've made me over simple optimal play.

So your conclusion is you get a bigger return by making the sub-optimal hold than if you would have made the optimal hold....but only in certain situations? I assume you have hard data to back up this conclusion? In order to come with such a conclusion you would need empirical data from both type of draws. What evidence do you have that the sub-optimal hold pays better than the optimal hold? Or I should say, what evidence do you have that the optimal hold doesn't return as much as the sub-optimal hold?

PS: Ignorant blather is not evidence.

Calm down mickey--it's not the end of the world.

What you want this to be about is how using a special play that deviates from optimal strategy over a long-term scenario might produce an overall inferior result. But it's not Einstein. It's about the possibility of a special play ending any particular session.

Wise up.

Oh, that's right. You play the short term....over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

[slingshot]

So your conclusion is you get a bigger return by making the sub-optimal hold than if you would have made the optimal hold....but only in certain situations? I assume you have hard data to back up this conclusion? In order to come with such a conclusion you would need empirical data from both type of draws. What evidence do you have that the sub-optimal hold pays better than the optimal hold? Or I should say, what evidence do you have that the optimal hold doesn't return as much as the sub-optimal hold?

PS: Ignorant blather is not evidence.

Calm down mickey--it's not the end of the world.

What you want this to be about is how using a special play that deviates from optimal strategy over a long-term scenario might produce an overall inferior result. But it's not Einstein. It's about the possibility of a special play ending any particular session.

Wise up.

Oh, that's right. You play the short term....over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Like I said-futility talking to a die hard skeptic.

[mickeycrimm]

Calm down mickey--it's not the end of the world.

What you want this to be about is how using a special play that deviates from optimal strategy over a long-term scenario might produce an overall inferior result. But it's not Einstein. It's about the possibility of a special play ending any particular session.

Wise up.

Oh, that's right. You play the short term....over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Like I said-futility talking to a die hard skeptic.

Rob's short terms add up to one big long term. You've got to be really stupid not to understand that.

[slingshot]

Oh, that's right. You play the short term....over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Like I said-futility talking to a die hard skeptic.

Rob's short terms add up to one big long term. You've got to be really stupid not to understand that.

I am too impatient to remain in a casino over 2 hrs- notwithstanding the smoke and cold temps. Usually 2 artt sessions is enough. I've tried more, but most of the time end up going backwards and getting bored.