Setting Win Limitations

[arcimede$]

Now the example: I'll give you an easy one. Explain this important detail: There is a time when I will not go to the $100 machines after going thru the $25 games. Name it.

Let's see, you have claimed you always play 6 levels (your words, "It is a 6-level strategy, and it is not necessary to go up ANY level if the win goal (or even loss goal at times) is met at a lower level") unless you reach a goal. So, by your very words the ONLY reason you would not play is to reach a goal.

OTOH, you stated at one time that you lost 8 times at the $25 level and only played 3 times at the $100 level. So, more likely, it's all a pack of lies.

Edit to add: This was when you claimed to have played about 250 sessions if I remember correctly. So, you claimed only 8 losses at most. That would be a 97% win rate. Even you only claim an 85% win rate. As anyone can see, you made it up.

[Rob.Singer]

Let me think of why you would bother coming on so late making more stories up when you know you're the black sheep....um...GOT it! You'd never get to sleep!

So tell me, I thought we'd all get together sometime, you know, have a few laughs--crank down a few beers, and maybe the women can go shopping. Should be fun !

[Frank Kneeland]

This seems to be turning into an argument. I can only assume this is because you feel I'm attacking you in some way. If this is true, I'm sorry that was not my intent. I would only like for us to understand each other better and come to some sort detente. In the interests of better understanding I'll try to answer your comments below. You may need to refer to what your comments were in reference to for the reply to make sense.

Nope, I've simply repeated things you've already stated previously.

I am not aware of any comments I have made in reference to believing or not believing anything Rob has said. If I have made such comments in the past I don't remember making them. I thought I was going out of my way not to broach that particular subject. Without knowing the exact comment you are referencing I cannot reply with certainty.

I don't have a "case". I simply state facts. Now it appears you are "making comments about what I believe".

This comment is entirely about my opinion of how it appears from my POV that your posts are being received. It in no way references "what you believe". I'm not sure how you could have taken it that way. It is a comment about what I believe.

What evidence do you have to support this conjecture?

I was basing this on the overgrowing stable of negative private emails I have about you, that swells like the morning tide every time you make a negative post about Rob. If you have a similar number of negative private emails about Rob as a result of your posts then I retract the comment. I agree that my information source is biased. I was just trying to let you know that there was some negative blow-back from your efforts. I did not think you would try to shoot the messenger.

I think I can understand the things you have written. Maybe you need to go back and look at what you have written. But hey, feel free to point out where I have stated you wrote something that you haven't previously written.

The only thing I didn't remember talking about was the veracity of Rob's comments. I thought I had refrained from comment, for or against. I would like to stay neutral on that subject as it is too emotionally charged of a topic.

Hope this clears things up.

[Frank Kneeland]

Well, it's nice you admit you have ulterior motives. Can't say as I care one iota. Is it similar to asking questions on LVA, etc. where you already know the answer? Some might find that kind of activity arrogant without stating your goals ahead of time. But, maybe that's just me ... to each their own.

The problem here is I already know enough about Singer and his system to pass judgement. You can do whatever you wish, but don't expect me to stand around listening to you preach to me. Good grief.

And I guess this is the fundamental difference between us in a nutshell. In your own words, "You care not one iota for my motives." In my world view peoples motives are easily the most important thing by a long shot and far in advance of actions. I care about "why's" and you care about "other things"... apparently. I'll not speak for you and put words in your mouth.

As far as me preaching to you. I am sorry you took it that way. I did not mean it that way. And I'll refrain from offering advice to you in the future since you obviously don't want any.

This entire string of posts from you leaves me with one unanswered question. If not for advice or socialization, why exactly do you post?

[Frank Kneeland]

Well here he is again, trying to make non-believers believe he's a know-it-all and getting hot under the collar because people smarter than him aren't buying his BS.

Arci, keep it up--please! All you're doing is exposing yourself further and burying yourself with every post. (Oops!--maybe I shouldn't have used the word "bury"

I don't think it's fair to make reference to Arci's intelligence. I have no idea what his IQ is, and arguments like this raged between the great minds of physics when Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics first fought it out. I heard Einstein nearly got in a fist fight with Niels Bohr. Smart people are not immune from disagreement, because intelligence is no protection from what Michael Shermer calls, "belief dependent realism". Turns out all the evidence points to intelligent people being even more deluded than lower IQ folks because they are better at justifying their beliefs.

It's a complicated subject.

How about we all bury the hatchet for now?

[Rob.Singer]

Frank, you do know you're wasting your time with him. His M.O. is always to try and outlast-with-insults anyone who either questions his word in the slightest or doesn't say something negative about me. As long as you won't simply call me names and say I'm a pathological liar, arci won't ever let anything go. And don't be surprised if when he gets backed into his usual corner -- and he always does -- how he'll eventually accuse you of being one of my "aliases". Yes it's funny, but it's a sickness with him and he's used it on every forum imagineable.

Bury the hatchet? Certainly! I've even just asked him if he and his wife would like to get together for us on "their" next trip to anywhere in the Western US. I hear they're just lovely people in person.

[Rob.Singer]

[Frank Kneeland]

I ask this because of Frank's comment... and have you told him that you remain to play for another session in the same trip even after hitting your win goal?

Alan, I don't know what's going on, but you are not reading what I'm writing. I did NOT say that Rob said, that he remains to play for another session in the same trip even after hitting his win goal?

The direct quote from Rob is: "I can (but never have) started another session right away, in an hour, a day, or whenever. Technically it makes no difference when I do"

He's saying that he leaves after he hit's his win goal. But he is not saying YOU HAVE TO LEAVE, when you hit your win goal.

Why are you having such a hard time distinguishing between what Rob does as personal preference, and his system. And why do you care?

Rob, myself and even Arci have all told you that if you want to leave after a win go ahead. It may well be the only thing we all ever agree on...ever!

You seem to want there to be a reason for leaving beyond your own desires, or you want it to be part of a system so you can feel justified. I do not think this is a good sign and that it could be a tip of the iceberg issue. I'm concerned to the point where I do not wish to make anything worse, and so I am bailing on the thread.

Good luck. I'll leave you all to it. I hope you resolve it.

[Alan Mendelson]

Thanks Frank for this, you wrote:

He's saying that he leaves after he hit's his win goal. But he is not saying YOU HAVE TO LEAVE, when you hit your win goal.

Why are you having such a hard time distinguishing between what Rob does as personal preference, and his system. And why do you care?

Yes, it's been my understanding that he leaves after he hits his win goal and that is his strategy. He doesn't say you HAVE to leave but he says he does so that he can enjoy the fruits of his win. We confirmed that in a phone call we had Friday evening.

And why do I care? Because I'm a reporter, a journalist, and getting the story right is our professional goal. If I got it wrong I would correct my report and be sure never to make the same mistake again.

During our phone call I expressed my interest to Rob about creating that half hour TV program about video poker. Because I'm in the TV infomercial business I certainly have the resources to complete the project and I might foot the bill myself even if I can't find sponsors (advertisers) to cover the costs. And if I were to do a TV program on the subject including his method of play, I would certainly want to be sure I present the correct information.

[arcimede$]

This seems to be turning into an argument. I can only assume this is because you feel I'm attacking you in some way.

Not attacks, just unsolicited advice. I've dealt with Singer for 7 years and you for a couple of months. I think I know just a tad bit more about him. Those references to things he has previously stated on freevpfree are his own words. I don't make anything up, I just relate the facts. I can always provide references.

I am not aware of any comments I have made in reference to believing or not believing anything Rob has said. If I have made such comments in the past I don't remember making them. I thought I was going out of my way not to broach that particular subject. Without knowing the exact comment you are referencing I cannot reply with certainty.

The only thing I have stated about your opinion is where you've stated to Alan the facts about the math. If the math applies to Alan it also applies to Singer. Singer states the math does not work and has many times. So, in fact, you have stated you do not believe Singer ... just not in so many words.

This comment is entirely about my opinion of how it appears from my POV that your posts are being received. It in no way references "what you believe". I'm not sure how you could have taken it that way. It is a comment about what I believe.

I was basing this on the overgrowing stable of negative private emails I have about you, that swells like the morning tide every time you make a negative post about Rob. If you have a similar number of negative private emails about Rob as a result of your posts then I retract the comment. I agree that my information source is biased. I was just trying to let you know that there was some negative blow-back from your efforts. I did not think you would try to shoot the messenger.

If you have something specific to tell me then send me a PM. All fora have that capability. I have no idea why you keep mentioning email. As for lots of negative emails, somehow I doubt you get that many. This forum has no more 20 viewers that I can tell. If people can't assess the truth then that is their problem, I only present facts. Singer presents lies. I realize there are lots of people that don't want to believe the truth about VP play. They will never be convinced and I don't really care. All I do is provide the information so they can make an intelligent decision, if they choose to make a stupid decision then that is their problem.

[arcimede$]

This entire string of posts from you leaves me with one unanswered question. If not for advice or socialization, why exactly do you post?

I never said anything about socialization, and I'm open to advice on subjects where a person has more knowledge about the subject than I do. However, when someone starts preaching about something I have far more experience at ... I hope you get the picture.

Once again, the reason I post about Singer is two-fold, 1) to present the facts so people have the ability to make intelligent decisions. 2) Singer is a very sick individual. I present him with a target to vent his anger and hatred which reduces what he can spew at others. Since his comments don't bother me in the least and I've seen other people get very upset ... let's just say it's my own way of helping others.

[arcimede$]

Thanks Frank for this, you wrote:

He's saying that he leaves after he hit's his win goal. But he is not saying YOU HAVE TO LEAVE, when you hit your win goal.

Why are you having such a hard time distinguishing between what Rob does as personal preference, and his system. And why do you care?

Yes, it's been my understanding that he leaves after he hits his win goal and that is his strategy. He doesn't say you HAVE to leave but he says he does so that he can enjoy the fruits of his win. We confirmed that in a phone call we had Friday evening.

And why do I care? Because I'm a reporter, a journalist, and getting the story right is our professional goal. If I got it wrong I would correct my report and be sure never to make the same mistake again.

During our phone call I expressed my interest to Rob about creating that half hour TV program about video poker. Because I'm in the TV infomercial business I certainly have the resources to complete the project and I might foot the bill myself even if I can't find sponsors (advertisers) to cover the costs. And if I were to do a TV program on the subject including his method of play, I would certainly want to be sure I present the correct information.

OK Alan, now explain why you would want to present a system that provides no value. And, in fact, is more likely to increase the average viewers losses. Does that make any sense?

If you want to present the idea of gambling less, well, just say it.

Frank states he hates VP and anything that gets people out of a casino is a good thing. That means he is biased and if you were expecting to get an unbiased assessment you may have to think again. Everyone has their own bias. Not only that, but the best method to get out of the casino quickly is to never go. If a person decides to go, then the entire logic of win-goals is pretty much meaningless. Most people are not going to drive or fly to a casino and leave in 10 minutes if they get lucky early. Even if they did it would not change their long term expectation although it *might* lead to less overall play. But even that is questionable.

People who have won on their last casino visit are more likely to desire a quick return to a casino. So, even the claim of less overall play is probably wrong.

You see Alan, advertising Singer's approach is probably more likely to cost people money. Now, why would you want to do this?

[arcimede$]

Let me think of why you would bother coming on so late making more stories up when you know you're the black sheep....um...GOT it! You'd never get to sleep!

So tell me, I thought we'd all get together sometime, you know, have a few laughs--crank down a few beers, and maybe the women can go shopping. Should be fun !

9PM is late? What planet do you live on?

So, what you're saying is I got your little test right. Nice of you to admit I understand your system (without saying it directly).

As for meeting with you, why would I want to do that? You are the classic malignant narcissist and there's nothing you could say that would be believable. Besides, how many times have you attacked both me and my wife? You do realize that isn't exactly the way to make friends, don't you? Not to mention you backed out of the last meeting (and yes, I can also show references to that discussion).

[Alan Mendelson]

OK Alan, now explain why you would want to present a system that provides no value. And, in fact, is more likely to increase the average viewers losses. Does that make any sense?

If you want to present the idea of gambling less, well, just say it.

Frank states he hates VP and anything that gets people out of a casino is a good thing. That means he is biased and if you were expecting to get an unbiased assessment you may have to think again. Everyone has their own bias. Not only that, but the best method to get out of the casino quickly is to never go. If a person decides to go, then the entire logic of win-goals is pretty much meaningless. Most people are not going to drive or fly to a casino and leave in 10 minutes if they get lucky early. Even if they did it would not change their long term expectation although it *might* lead to less overall play. But even that is questionable.

People who have won on their last casino visit are more likely to desire a quick return to a casino. So, even the claim of less overall play is probably wrong.

You see Alan, advertising Singer's approach is probably more likely to cost people money. Now, why would you want to do this?

You are jumping to conclusions Arc. You are making an assumption that this special TV show about video poker that I am considering will advocate something that you don't agree with.

[arcimede$]

You are jumping to conclusions Arc. You are making an assumption that this special TV show about video poker that I am considering will advocate something that you don't agree with.

Nothing you have said so far would lead me to believe that. Maybe you will surprise me.

[Alan Mendelson]

A video poker TV show would not be just about strategies or how to play it. A show on video poker could cover many topics ranging from the business of video poker, to addictions linked to it, to the history of the game, to its many variations and how they came about, if it's a game of skill or a game of chance, and its growth since the first video poker machine was invented. Of course, a show could also include profiles of the people who have contributed to the growth of the game.

[Frank Kneeland]

arcimede$ may be right that I have a negative bias towards gambling. The counter argument is that I am not biased, but when surrounded by people that "like" gambling, it makes me seem that way, because I do not share their positive bias. Either could be the case.

I discussed just this very thing with a professional psychologist, because I was concerned about how much I disliked my profession. It was the psychologist's idea that I was not negatively biased, but that most people are positively biased, and that my neutrality was making me feel I was biased because of the contrast between my outlook and that of those around me. We also discussed at length the reasons why people enjoy recreational gambling, and the short answer is that it employs variable reward conditioning and takes advantage of weaknesses in the human risk/reward mechanism. Our evolutionary heritage has left us primed for risk taking and pattern recognition (even when there aren't any) and casino games are great at making the best of our worst flaws.

The classic example is the evolutionary explanation for Type I and Type II cognition errors. Let's take you through it:

I: You are walking in a field. You hear a rustle in the grass. You think it is a dangerous predator and run like hell. You are wrong. You have just made a Type I error and seen correlation where NONE existed. It was the wind. Your penalty for making a Type I error is a little extra exercise. You go home, have dinner (some nice root soup), make love to your wife and pass along your genes (Type I error prone as they may be).

II: You are walking in a field. You hear a rustle in the grass. You think it is the wind. You have just made a Type II error and failed to see correlation where it DID exist, because the sound was in fact a dangerous predator. Congratulations you are lunch, and have just taken yourself out of the hominid gene pool. No root soup for you.

Though there are penalties for seeing patterns where none exist, the penalties are not as severe as missing patterns that do exist...and through this evolutionary mechanism driven by natural selection, we are left with a strong instinctual drive (and bias) towards looking for and believing in patterns, real or imagined.

Rather than try to correct this weakness in human cognitive processes, society at large, and the gaming industry in particular, has actually gone out of their way to take advantage of it.

Some researchers in the field of gambling addiction believe that cognitive distortion and faulty risk/reward assessment, combined with base rate neglect and selective memory can account for 90% of gambling's appeal. That's a scary statement.

More simply stated: If people thought clearly, no one would gamble.

I hope after this explanation of the dynamics behind the casino industry, I would not need to lecture you on the efficacy of creating infomercials to promote any kind of gambling, good or bad. If I do need to lecture you, then it is likely that my words would not be effective anyway, so I will refrain.

I would add only this, I would do no such infomercial for my own “system” even though I am convinced it works, and have been doing almost nothing else for the past 23 years with multiple partners. I do not wish to promote an activity that no one needs to be doing. It is a pointless endeavor and making money only for money's sake. The world has quite enough of that as it is.

I'll be perfectly Frank, Rob suggested to me that his system might encourage people to play less. It was on this one statement alone that I became interested in evaluating it, to see if that was indeed the case. If true, I see that as a potentially good thing.

~What we would like to believe is almost always better than the truth, but fantasy regardless of how alluring it is, will never be real.

[Alan Mendelson]

Frank if that long post was directed at me I'd like to clear up something. My idea of a video poker TV show would not be an infomercial. An infomercial is a paid presentation to sell a product or products. The show I envision would be either a documentary or infotainment.

I spent more than 35 years in news before moving into advertising and I do have several documentaries in my portfolio including one Emmy winner.

[Frank Kneeland]

Frank if that long post was directed at me I'd like to clear up something. My idea of a video poker TV show would not be an infomercial. An infomercial is a paid presentation to sell a product or products. The show I envision would be either a documentary or infotainment.

I spent more than 35 years in news before moving into advertising and I do have several documentaries in my portfolio including one Emmy winner.

Well if you'd like to make sure everyone hates you for spoiling their fun, dispelling their fantasies and that the casino industry wants to have you murdered for exposing their manipulation and exploitation of human weakness...count me in.

Were you going to comment on anything I said, or only skirt around what I said and tell me how it doesn't apply to you?

What I was talking about applies to every person on the planet. I would like your thoughts on what I said. This is why I post. To get other people's opinions. It doesn't have to be about you for you to have an opinion on it. I made a comment on society and human nature in general and every word of your reply was a defensive comment about you personally. I find this most disturbing.

I was hoping that you would incorporate this information into your decision about doing whatever it is you intend to do. But the information is not directed at you personally and should be considered general purpose knowledge useful to all.

Could you at least comment on if you understand how Type I errors influence casino dynamics and people's "enjoyment" of gambling?

[Alan Mendelson]

In 1972 my investigation doc on the oil industry led to many of the consumer protection rules in effect at gas stations today. When I was with CBS News my investigation into the unemployment stats and how the CPI was compiled led to changes in how those stats were compiled and reported. Nothing scares me. LOL