Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 165

Thread: Warning to Forum Readers -- Gambling Credentials

  1. #21
    The problem with trumpeting people who have "pocketed x number of dollars" is that you wind up championing folks who have won the lottery by picking their pets' ages. The ends, as has been said, deserve the recognition.

    Now, I suppose one response would be, "Well, that's just silly, and Rob's system isn't silly." And again we have to ask, "What are the qualifications for evaluating Rob's system?" If you don't possess the qualifications for evaluating Rob's system, then probably best to stick with the lottery evaluations.

  2. #22
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    The problem with trumpeting people who have "pocketed x number of dollars" is that you wind up championing folks who have won the lottery by picking their pets' ages. The ends, as has been said, deserve the recognition.

    Now, I suppose one response would be, "Well, that's just silly, and Rob's system isn't silly." And again we have to ask, "What are the qualifications for evaluating Rob's system?" If you don't possess the qualifications for evaluating Rob's system, then probably best to stick with the lottery evaluations.
    The point you are either missing or ignoring is that I haven't endorsed Rob's system. I interviewed him and gave him a fair hearing and a chance to explain his system. That's what I do, and it's what I did for 35+ years when I was a news reporter for local stations and for the network. What I have said, is that I see value in certain things -- and even you have seen value in certain things.

    I do not understand all of Rob's system, nor do I think anyone else could ever understand all the details and variables of it; hence, I don't think it can be taught to anyone. And therefore I think it is unique to Rob.

    However, that doesn't mean Rob didn't make it work for him. And this is why I suggested that Rob should have written a book called "How I beat the casinos with my whacky, unconventional way of playing video poker" or something like that.

    I think too much has been made over "the math" when even Rob concedes his special plays are at a mathematical disadvantage, and his system is so "unique" that even if Rob could produce the records from the mathematicians that prove his system works they wouldn't mean a thing to the rest of us who couldn't figure out Rob's system with variables that just vary too much.

    I think Rob's explanation that he got lucky and he took advantage of situations where he could get lucky and it's luck that made him a winner really sums it up.

    I think Rob has some good ideas that everyone should follow -- the win goals and loss limits, and about how you should enjoy your life and not be tied to a video poker machine chasing "advantage play." But Rob can also be a poor example of what he preaches as in the case of his chasing losses when he dumped $50,000+ trying to make a $2,500 win goal.

    I still think casino gambling should only be recreation. I don't like the idea of anyone going to a casino thinking they will either win or beat the casino. Some might, but it's a very hazardous occupation... or preoccupation.

  3. #23
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    Trying to change the subject again? This forum has YOUR name on it, not mine. YOU are the one putting your name on the line.
    Get over it Arc. This is a Forum for everyone to express their opinions -- even you. But I am tired of your personal attacks. You've stated your case. And I've told you mine. If you continue these personal attacks I will show you just how good a best buy this forum software is... because I will block you with one click.

    Stop it. That's final.

  4. #24
    Alan, I guess the truth hurts. All I did is state facts. Why do you feel threatened by them? That's the question you should be asking yourself. Isn't it interesting that you consider undeniable mathematical facts to be a personal attack?

    For example, look at this claim you just made ... 'I think too much has been made over "the math"'. Really, in a game completely described by mathematics you think too much is made of the math. And then you say "I think Rob has some good ideas that everyone should follow -- the win goals and loss limits". Good grief, you have been given a mathematical proof that no betting system (which includes win goals and loss limits) can affect the return. Why do you deny the validity of an absolute proof?

    I could give's a rodent's behind if you ban me for simply stating facts while allowing Singer to spew venom constantly. That will just end up making you look worse although that ship has already sailed.

  5. #25
    Arc, you don't know the difference between hosting a discussion forum and being an advocate of what is being discussed on a forum.

    I have given my opinion and I will follow win and loss goals and I don't care what you do or what the "math" says about win and loss goals. You have no right to tell me what is right or wrong when it comes to how I play or how I use my recreational dollars.

    The "math of video poker" does not tell me how to budget my money for any game, and week, or any visit to a casino. If you want to live by it -- do that. But to tell me not to quit when I am ahead, or to tell me to keep playing after I lost more than I wanted to lose, is not only irresponsible but it is also ignorant over the conditions of each individual player and why and how they play.

    You can stand your ground on the math, but your feet are firmly planted in quicksand and you are rapidly sinking into a pool of ridiculous talk claiming that the math is superior to the individual conditions that people have in a casino.

    You continue to harp on expected return which no one ever disputed. But I don't care about the expected return. I care about only one thing -- is there more or less money in my pocket when I get up from that video poker machine, or leave the craps table. "Expected return" does not pay the bills. Nor, can you put "expected return" into the slot to play the game.

    And for the record I can't single out Singer's offensive comments when you just come back here and throw the same crap at him. When one of you will stop and take the high road, I will take care of the other. But for now it appears you too (as in also) want to slug it out like elementary schools thugs.

  6. #26
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Arc, you don't know the difference between hosting a discussion forum and being an advocate of what is being discussed on a forum.
    Most forum hosts accept responsibility for what goes on in their forums.

    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    I have given my opinion and I will follow win and loss goals and I don't care what you do or what the "math" says about win and loss goals. You have no right to tell me what is right or wrong when it comes to how I play or how I use my recreational dollars.
    I don't tell you how to play. I only object when you make claims that are provably false. You're confusing my explanations of these provable facts with a fantasy that I care about how you or anyone else plays.

    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    The "math of video poker" does not tell me how to budget my money for any game, and week, or any visit to a casino. If you want to live by it -- do that. But to tell me not to quit when I am ahead, or to tell me to keep playing after I lost more than I wanted to lose, is not only irresponsible but it is also ignorant over the conditions of each individual player and why and how they play.
    I don't do either one of those. When are you going to pay attention to what I have said instead of making things up as you go along? I don't care how anyone plays. All I care about is when someone makes a claim that is demonstrably false.

    Let's see if I can be more clear, I don't care if anyone uses win goals or loss limits. I don't really care if people play games with horrible returns. The ONLY thing I care about is people are given valid information for making decisions. Got it.

    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    You can stand your ground on the math, but your feet are firmly planted in quicksand and you are rapidly sinking into a pool of ridiculous talk claiming that the math is superior to the individual conditions that people have in a casino.
    Good grief. No one ever said anything about individual conditions. Where do you get this nonsense? All I have done is point out the facts of VP play. If you want to ignore the facts that is fine, but please quit trying to claim the facts don't hold in some mythical fantasy land where you play.

  7. #27
    Well, Arc, since you raised these points, let me tell you how I run this forum and how I feel about your adherence to the math:

    1. This forum is open to everyone and as long as you don't accuse someone of a crime or otherwise libel them, you can post your opinions. This means Arc, you don't accuse anyone of a scam unless you have proof of a scam. Your opinions are welcome, no matter how controversial they are. You are entitled to your opinions and I am entitled to mine. I am not here to judge anyone, and I leave the judging up to the readers here.

    2. While you don't care how people play, I care. Therefore your "math" as it regards win goals and loss limits is not as important as the personal finances of players. You can go broke claiming that the math is right.

    3. No one has disputed the math of video poker. As I understand Rob, his position is the math may say one thing but he chooses to play differently and take his chances. You can take chances with the math and you can take chances against the math. You do what you think is best. Like you, I play conventional video poker strategy but I know and have seen players make the "wrong plays" and win making those wrong plays. The "math of video poker" has absolutely no bearing on anyone's personal decision to follow loss limits and win goals. Only the math of the family budget should matter in that personal decision of the family budget and how much you want to lose and when you can say you won enough to make you happy.

    4. Conditions of personal play can be much more important than the math of the game. If you have a bankroll of $173,000 as Rob said and you are willing to accept a win goal of $2,500 you just might want to play some crazy cockamamie way to get there. After all -- he said he has $173,000 to play with. I would suggest that most people who go to a casino adhere to win goals and loss limits because playing video poker isn't their passion and they don't have $173,000 as a gaming bankroll -- but having a fun experience is. Loss limits keep you from ruining the fun. Win goals give you a point to celebrate. I don't know of anyone who will admit that they followed the math and lost and had a good time doing it. I never met anyone who, after a losing casino visit, said "I lost more than I wanted to, and I went over my loss limit, but I followed the math and had a great time."
    Last edited by Alan Mendelson; 05-26-2013 at 08:30 PM.

  8. #28
    Alan, now you're getting to the crux of the problem. If win goals or loss limits help a person "have a good time", then that's just fine. No objection from me, but keep in mind that is a personal attribution. What I object to are claims that those goals will have any impact on a players results over time ... because they won't. As long as you understand the difference and don't start confusing having a good time with improving one's results I am happy.

    Unfortunately, you have crossed that boundary before. You often do it when you refer to Singer's system and claim win goals are something positive to take out of his system. They might be positive to you since you think they help you "have a good time", but that is specific to your own play and not necessarily something everyone would agree on. As such, you shouldn't be claiming win goals are good, they are just fun for you.

    Other things that fit into this category are:

    - rubbing the screen
    - rubbing a rabbit's foot
    - wearing pink underwear
    - tapping on the hold keys to try and time a good draw
    - changing machines
    - changing games
    - cashing out and inserting new money
    - inserting new money
    - and hundreds of others

  9. #29
    As another example of a betting strategy there's a guy over on vp.com that cashes out any "big win" and puts the ticket away. He brings a set amount of money to the casino and leaves when he runs out of that money. He takes home whatever he put away. While not exactly your approach it is along the same lines. He states that this approach increases his enjoyment.

    Lot's of ways to approach the game. None of them will make any difference over time (which this guy readily admits).

    BTW, he also states he often plays one credit at a time. I suspect this is due to the fact he would run out of money very quickly by not replaying the credits from the big wins. In other words, his system probably reduces his overall return. But, as long as it increases his enjoyment it's good for him.
    Last edited by arcimede$; 05-27-2013 at 06:01 AM.

  10. #30
    I'll add my spin to what Arci said:

    1) People have the right to play however they want. If they choose to use win goals, loss limits, the size of waitresses' hooters, whatever to increase/decrease the size of their wagers, more power to them.
    2) People do not have the right to claim that their "personal style" of play is better than optimal play, no matter the results, if mathematical proofs exist to demonstrate that their style of play is not better than optimal play. That is, after all, what a mathematical proof is -- it proves something.
    3) Claiming that a "personal style" of play is better, going forward, than optimal play does indeed spill over into the realm of being deceitful.

    Personally, I think waitress hooter size is a fine way to increase/decrease denomination changes. I also think sessions should end when transvestites hit on you and they are not pretty. In fact, I bet the Dietz Progression System would be a helluva lot more fun than whatever Singer advocates, and my overall EV will be higher because the only "special plays" will have to do with codpieces and learning to wolf whistle.
    Last edited by redietz; 05-27-2013 at 07:57 AM.

  11. #31
    Alan, after a brief one day's break of breathing in clean, fresh, healthy air up in the mountains, I see not much has changed here. Not surprising, because for change to occur would indeed mean arci would have to go. Your back & forth with him yesterday shows the exact same insults and irritation he continued to display to the host on vpFree after having been given multiple warnings to stop that and his envy-driven attacks on Dancer. Result? Because arci is anal and he prides himself on Internet bravado while hiding safely behind his computer, HE WAS PERMANENTLY BANNED ....which to those of us who've seen his foolishness over the years, was a SERIOUS SERIOUS blow to his ego, and by default, his integrity, as well as to his believability. And, to this day, he has never gotten over it. It is the single most humiliating event for an Internet-living, know-it-all nerd to have to face. Public scoldings do not sit well with people who have no choice but to live out their days and life on their computers..

    I'll be glad to continue discussing the superior strategy I've developed, but when there's a hating, jealous, pathological liar like arci trying to disrupt and insult everyone from those who agree with me to the forum host, this is always what happens.
    Last edited by Rob.Singer; 05-27-2013 at 10:32 AM.

  12. #32
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Your back & forth with him yesterday shows the exact same insults and irritation he continued to display to the host on vpFree after having been given multiple warnings to stop that and his envy-driven attacks on Dancer.
    Typical Singer lie. There was NEVER a "back & forth" between me and the administrator on vpfree. NEVER. There were never "multiple warmings" on vpfree. NEVER. This is typical Singer behavior. Make something up and then claim it is true. In fact, I guarantee he cannot produce one single scrap of evidence to support his claim.

    One more time we see Singer will lie at the drop of a hat ... and people still believe his claims of winning?

    Bwah haha haha haha

  13. #33
    Denial. The 2nd biggest issue of a pathological liar.

  14. #34
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    I'll add my spin to what Arci said:

    1) People have the right to play however they want. If they choose to use win goals, loss limits, the size of waitresses' hooters, whatever to increase/decrease the size of their wagers, more power to them.
    2) People do not have the right to claim that their "personal style" of play is better than optimal play, no matter the results, if mathematical proofs exist to demonstrate that their style of play is not better than optimal play. That is, after all, what a mathematical proof is -- it proves something.
    3) Claiming that a "personal style" of play is better, going forward, than optimal play does indeed spill over into the realm of being deceitful.
    1. No one should disagree with that.
    2. Incorrect. Mathematical proof does exist proving SPS will almost always yield better results than "optimal play only". The issue here is that optimal play assumes something that does not exist: that players ever enter the long-term as the casinos all do before them, and that players must tie all their sessions together. OTOH, the proof I have is how a single session of play, including the changes to optimal play that I developed, consistently achieves far better results than any similar amount of sessions played only at optimal play....unaffected by the flaws in optimal play which, even if a million dollars were won in session #1, it would be required to achieve close to game ER eventually.
    3. Saying something is "deceitful" is nothing more than an uneducated opinion. There's a reason no one has ever accepted my challenges to witness 10 sessions of me playing SPS, including Frank not even wanting to see it in the midst of saying he was open to learning it. I believe math people don't want the sacred stone moved, nor could they handle it after seeing it for themselves. There's just not enuf Maalox in the world....

  15. #35
    By my estimates, Rob's style of play should win about 80% of all sessions, so I'm not sure what 10 sessions would prove, other than that he'll likely win eight. Why is "number of sessions" important to Rob, rather than overall return? You'll have to ask him.

    We get into smoke and mirrors here, as SPS will "almost always" yield better results than optimal play if you consider "percentage of sessions won." But Arci has explained all this over and over and over. The fly in Rob's ointment is the "almost always," because when "almost always" doesn't happen, the losses can be prodigious. Of course, if we take Rob at his word, those prodigious losses didn't happen to him. That's great. The real question is "Will they happen to other people?" And that is why Arci tries to prevent folks from going down the SPS path.

    Rob's a bright guy -- that's why his language is so precise. Go back and read his stuff -- nobody can pin him down to any challenge where enough hands get played on negative games for him to likely lose. There's a reason for that. In Rob's language,SPS doesn't flat-out yield better results than optimal play; it "almost always" yields better results. There's a reason for that. Everything gets couched in terms of sessions -- that means references to winning and such are regarding sessions. There's a reason for that.

    Rob really should have been an editor for a legal journal -- his parsing of language is that good. Unless, maybe we can get him to flat-out say, going forward, with reference to money, not sessions, that his method of play is better than optimal play. C'mon, Rob, just tell us SPS will yield a higher return in the future than optimal play. Let's hear not what it's done for you, but what it will do for everybody else.
    Last edited by redietz; 05-27-2013 at 03:44 PM.

  16. #36
    Your last statement was your most important statement. You always say it's unimportant what my results were, but very obviously, that is what's most important TO ME. I plotted it out and it worked to near perfection. Others could do the same if only they weren't so critical or lazy. Arguing theory is always meaningless because it's just theory and is unreal. It makes no sense. Why is seeing something on paper so trustworthy, compared to actually seeing it work for real? Are you saying if someone showed you something about gambling that "theoretically" should work for you over an untold amount of time, you'd trust that over someone else who said they'd spend their own money and time meeting up with you to actually SHOW YOU IN PERSON that a strategy works INSIDE A CASINO--which I've done in training sessions many times?

    Reread your part about winning overall. How many times have I told you that you are, for your own reasons, ignoring that there will be MORE large winners than large losers, and those large losers are rarely as large as the large winners? It is the most common misunderstood critique against what I've
    developed and have been very successful with.

    I've always run into that same block wall by those whom I've offered to play 10 sessions in front of. At first, they seem to jump at the chance, then, someone comes on and says "he should easily win 7 or 8 out of 10, but he'll lose overall!" So I always added in that, after 10 sessions, I'd be ahead by at least $20k, and these people STILL run scared. And you know what? If I showed you or any other AP "proof" on paper of how a single session would result, then plot it out thru however many sessions are disbelieved in conjunction with running a percentage of those as sims, none of you would believe in it because you don't WANT to believe in it.

    Looking at vp play as one longterm event is as wrong as looking at one's male life as one longterm event with an expected result being the same as what the expected result is for the majority of males' lives are. But we know that's not correct, because of a plethora of outside influences. The same goes for vp play. It is very possible that the human mind can create something no one before has thought of, and that seemingly goes against the math--but doesn't. Someone like arci could never understand this because, as you've seen, he can't operate unless he talks himself into believing everyone thinks he's smarter than they are. But of course, he's not, and that is the catalyst for his life being what it is today, as well as his inability to comprehend why there are differences of opinion.
    Last edited by Rob.Singer; 05-27-2013 at 04:52 PM.

  17. #37
    I am stunned to think that otherwise intelligent people would not value and embrace win goals and loss limits, and I have nothing else to say on the subject here.

  18. #38
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    I am stunned to think that otherwise intelligent people would not value and embrace win goals and loss limits, and I have nothing else to say on the subject here.
    One word: Amen.

  19. #39
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    I am stunned to think that otherwise intelligent people would not value and embrace win goals and loss limits, and I have nothing else to say on the subject here.
    What's so hard to understand is that even authors on slots and other gambling games I've read-the main emphasis is win goals and loss limits. I posted months ago on a book called "Slotsmarts" and his 3 strategies for slots each had strategies calling for win goals and loss limits. He even told that playing longer than the called for sessions was defeating because the negative sessions are being logged in faster than the few winning sessions because of the negative expectation of the game=hence, short-term strategy. And as for the higher losses, I would never attempt a session above the $2 denomination on SPS-playing in the wake of risk of ruin. I'm sorry-I just don't get it.

  20. #40
    What we don't "get" slingshot is that those who oppose embracing win goals and loss limits honestly believe that because they are playing positive expectation games that they cannot lose. There is no risk of ruin for them. They are true believers.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •