Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 41

Thread: Singers Special Plays

  1. #21
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Special plays that deviate from optimal play while giving up very little in game EV, are not made to outsmart the machines, bend the math books, or for any other confusing purposes. They simply afford the player a better chance at experiencing good luck and/or a hand that will send a goal-oriented person home. We all know there can be no winning without good luck. These plays bump those odds up.

    Yes there are times that keeping the optimal hand will result in a better win than playing out the special play. There are also the infrequent times making the special play will result in a very large winner. Some of these plays are only used on higher limits and in the more volatile games. If anyone here were to completely understand all aspects of how and when they are all used, you'd understand that which you so quickly and blindly dismiss: that there is a large and positive gap in overall winning using special plays in your strategy vs.simple expert-only play.

    Axel asks me the age-old question about why playing many short term sessions does not add up to the "long term". In order to comprehend the answer one must first clear their minds about how they play and try to put themselves into the shoes of a Singer-style player.

    Technically, anyone could say anything they do is "long-term" unless it's one and done. A baseball player hits for certain averages each distinct year, and his success is largely measured by that metric. His "overall" lifetime avg. really doesn't earn him much, outside at a shot at the HoF. A postal worker makes a yearly salary and every year that's what of utmost importance to him or her. But when you look at the sum of all those years when it's over, the long-term grand total means next to nothing.

    In my vp play, I go into a weekly session with a specific win goal so I can quit and go home until I decide to return and try again. When that win is attained, it's almost always in the middle of a very complex increasing and decreasing denominational and volatility point of impact. And at that time everything for that session comes to an abrupt end. So what happens when I return to play another session? Correct. I start at the lowest denomination on the game with the least volatility, with special plays being used at a higher rate as I go up in denomination. It is, in actual effect, a completely new and different session, with winning results coming right away, in 20 minutes, an hour, 5 hours or even more.

    Compare this with your typical advantage player, who plays according to the clock, the bladder or bowels, the wife, or Mr. Sandman. They play right on thru large wins because they're believing in that the grind-it-out gods will eventually bestow tiny riches upon them if they play more than AOC served short-shot drinks to whites.

    It's obvious an AP is just gonna put on his non-thinking cap and keep on repeating their trusty old cliche': +EV means you win, and -EV means you lose. And that couldn't be further from the mathematical truth. These special plays were not designed to hammer the math. They are simply used to increase the possibilities of hitting a session ending winner. Thru goodluck....which took skill to figure out.
    If your bullshit worked you could make a million dollars a month with it. No excuses, dickweed. If it really works then you are an underachiever to the 10th power.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  2. #22
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Those 4000 credits on that software are extremely valuable, right fart belly? Why don't you ask sling the idiot why he uses a video poker trainer if he is not going to follow instructions.
    His point was that he deviated from the optimal hold, and won enough credits to render the instructed play moot for many hands...so many that he may never be able to play that many hands.

    If a player were to discard a high pair in favor of holding 3-to-the-royal, and then hit the royal, how many more total hands would he need to play, such that he could play the same hand "wrong" enough times to reach expectation?

    Thousands of hands, millions of hands, billions of hands?

    You tell me, I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

    Try to repress your gay fantasies long enough to answer.

  3. #23
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Those 4000 credits on that software are extremely valuable, right fart belly? Why don't you ask sling the idiot why he uses a video poker trainer if he is not going to follow instructions.
    His point was that he deviated from the optimal hold, and won enough credits to render the instructed play moot for many hands...so many that he may never be able to play that many hands.

    If a player were to discard a high pair in favor of holding 3-to-the-royal, and then hit the royal, how many more total hands would he need to play, such that he could play the same hand "wrong" enough times to reach expectation?

    Thousands of hands, millions of hands, billions of hands?

    You tell me, I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

    Try to repress your gay fantasies long enough to answer.
    I believe the issue here is concentrating on the royal. Sometimes special quads at a certain level of play end a session. I know this is not the answer to your question and there are many mathematical computations to answer your question. The point is, as Rob mentioned, to win a set goal and not to chase a royal- then start over or leave. Mickey- who mentioned TWO to a royal? The answer to your question is merely an equation. But here's something else to ponder- how do you know WHERE in that equation ANY machine is at the time you're playing. As I said, why be concerned about the unknown? The reason I learned using Rob's strategies is because it is so FLEXIBLE and a creative mind has multiple options. Oh, and Mickey,- I have hit 2-Royal several times.

  4. #24
    Here's a fine example of one of these stupid "Special Plays" and what usually happens. Keep throwing your money away folks....


  5. #25
    Originally Posted by jbjb View Post
    Keep throwing your money away folks....
    Why do you say that?

    Do the mistakes of one player have any effect on the expected return of another player?

    If one player doesn't always make the optimal holds, does that mean the next player on that machine will have a better chance of winning?

  6. #26
    Originally Posted by jbjb View Post
    Here's a fine example of one of these stupid "Special Plays" and what usually happens. Keep throwing your money away folks....

    Can you, jbjb, explain what the original hand EV was, why just holding a 2 was a special play, and what the special play EV give was vs. the optimal hold EV....and if that % falls within my acceptable range of using a special play?

    What's that--you have no idea of the math on this? Maybe you can get mickey to do it for you

  7. #27
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Special plays that deviate from optimal play while giving up very little in game EV, are not made to outsmart the machines, bend the math books, or for any other confusing purposes. They simply afford the player a better chance at experiencing good luck and/or a hand that will send a goal-oriented person home. We all know there can be no winning without good luck. These plays bump those odds up.

    Yes there are times that keeping the optimal hand will result in a better win than playing out the special play. There are also the infrequent times making the special play will result in a very large winner. Some of these plays are only used on higher limits and in the more volatile games. If anyone here were to completely understand all aspects of how and when they are all used, you'd understand that which you so quickly and blindly dismiss: that there is a large and positive gap in overall winning using special plays in your strategy vs.simple expert-only play.

    Axel asks me the age-old question about why playing many short term sessions does not add up to the "long term". In order to comprehend the answer one must first clear their minds about how they play and try to put themselves into the shoes of a Singer-style player.

    Technically, anyone could say anything they do is "long-term" unless it's one and done. A baseball player hits for certain averages each distinct year, and his success is largely measured by that metric. His "overall" lifetime avg. really doesn't earn him much, outside at a shot at the HoF. A postal worker makes a yearly salary and every year that's what of utmost importance to him or her. But when you look at the sum of all those years when it's over, the long-term grand total means next to nothing.

    In my vp play, I go into a weekly session with a specific win goal so I can quit and go home until I decide to return and try again. When that win is attained, it's almost always in the middle of a very complex increasing and decreasing denominational and volatility point of impact. And at that time everything for that session comes to an abrupt end. So what happens when I return to play another session? Correct. I start at the lowest denomination on the game with the least volatility, with special plays being used at a higher rate as I go up in denomination. It is, in actual effect, a completely new and different session, with winning results coming right away, in 20 minutes, an hour, 5 hours or even more.

    Compare this with your typical advantage player, who plays according to the clock, the bladder or bowels, the wife, or Mr. Sandman. They play right on thru large wins because they're believing in that the grind-it-out gods will eventually bestow tiny riches upon them if they play more than AOC served short-shot drinks to whites.

    It's obvious an AP is just gonna put on his non-thinking cap and keep on repeating their trusty old cliche': +EV means you win, and -EV means you lose. And that couldn't be further from the mathematical truth. These special plays were not designed to hammer the math. They are simply used to increase the possibilities of hitting a session ending winner. Thru goodluck....which took skill to figure out.
    If your bullshit worked you could make a million dollars a month with it. No excuses, dickweed. If it really works then you are an underachiever to the 10th power.

    Mickey, you've gotta read and write more carefully. "Works" is a relative term -- it doesn't really mean anything. Whether something "works" is subjective. It is dependent on the "goals" of the person employing the process.

    In his latest summary, Singer" doesn't actually say his stuff will win going forward. He doesn't actually state that his stuff will outperform optimal strategy.

    He has, evidently, "wised up." All he's saying is that he has some alternative way of playing that he doesn't really compare to anything in terms of financial results. He makes no mathematical claims to winning. Anybody can invent an alternative way of playing video poker. A cockroach could have an alternative way of playing video poker. As long as no claims to outperforming optimal strategy are made, or no claims to winning going forward are made, it's all just a word salad.

  8. #28
    Originally Posted by jbjb View Post
    Here's a fine example of one of these stupid "Special Plays" and what usually happens. Keep throwing your money away folks....

    WEIRD!! For even me!!

  9. #29
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Those 4000 credits on that software are extremely valuable, right fart belly? Why don't you ask sling the idiot why he uses a video poker trainer if he is not going to follow instructions.
    His point was that he deviated from the optimal hold, and won enough credits to render the instructed play moot for many hands...so many that he may never be able to play that many hands.

    If a player were to discard a high pair in favor of holding 3-to-the-royal, and then hit the royal, how many more total hands would he need to play, such that he could play the same hand "wrong" enough times to reach expectation?

    Thousands of hands, millions of hands, billions of hands?

    You tell me, I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

    Try to repress your gay fantasies long enough to answer.
    The lady that hit the lottery caught lightning in a bottle then bragged about how she picked her numbers and only bought two tickets. It's all noise. Doesn't mean anything. Sling caught lightning in a bottle then bragged about changing the strategy and that's what led to it. It's all noise.

    The fact is, when you hold a 3-card royal you have a 1 in 1081 chance of completing the royal. I've held many a 3-card royal and came up with the royal. It's going to happen to sling and anyone else that plays the game, if they play long enough.

    I could hold 3-card royals over high pairs and sooner or later I will hit a royal. Then I could come on here and say "Hey, I was playing video poker the other day and held a 3-card royal over a high pair. I hit the royal. All these people that say it's the wrong strategy are stupid." What gets lost in the shuffle is how many times the 3-card royal was held and the royal didn't happen.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  10. #30
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Those 4000 credits on that software are extremely valuable, right fart belly? Why don't you ask sling the idiot why he uses a video poker trainer if he is not going to follow instructions.
    His point was that he deviated from the optimal hold, and won enough credits to render the instructed play moot for many hands...so many that he may never be able to play that many hands.

    If a player were to discard a high pair in favor of holding 3-to-the-royal, and then hit the royal, how many more total hands would he need to play, such that he could play the same hand "wrong" enough times to reach expectation?

    Thousands of hands, millions of hands, billions of hands?

    You tell me, I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

    Try to repress your gay fantasies long enough to answer.
    I believe the issue here is concentrating on the royal. Sometimes special quads at a certain level of play end a session. I know this is not the answer to your question and there are many mathematical computations to answer your question. The point is, as Rob mentioned, to win a set goal and not to chase a royal- then start over or leave. Mickey- who mentioned TWO to a royal? The answer to your question is merely an equation. But here's something else to ponder- how do you know WHERE in that equation ANY machine is at the time you're playing. As I said, why be concerned about the unknown? The reason I learned using Rob's strategies is because it is so FLEXIBLE and a creative mind has multiple options. Oh, and Mickey,- I have hit 2-Royal several times.
    So start holding those 2-card royals over high pairs. Hey, you're trying to get lucky, right? Thats the big secret to Rob's system, trying to get lucky. Go for it.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  11. #31
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Those 4000 credits on that software are extremely valuable, right fart belly? Why don't you ask sling the idiot why he uses a video poker trainer if he is not going to follow instructions.
    His point was that he deviated from the optimal hold, and won enough credits to render the instructed play moot for many hands...so many that he may never be able to play that many hands.

    If a player were to discard a high pair in favor of holding 3-to-the-royal, and then hit the royal, how many more total hands would he need to play, such that he could play the same hand "wrong" enough times to reach expectation?

    Thousands of hands, millions of hands, billions of hands?

    You tell me, I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

    Try to repress your gay fantasies long enough to answer.
    The lady that hit the lottery caught lightning in a bottle then bragged about how she picked her numbers and only bought two tickets. It's all noise. Doesn't mean anything. Sling caught lightning in a bottle then bragged about changing the strategy and that's what led to it. It's all noise.

    The fact is, when you hold a 3-card royal you have a 1 in 1081 chance of completing the royal. I've held many a 3-card royal and came up with the royal. It's going to happen to sling and anyone else that plays the game, if they play long enough.

    I could hold 3-card royals over high pairs and sooner or later I will hit a royal. Then I could come on here and say "Hey, I was playing video poker the other day and held a 3-card royal over a high pair. I hit the royal. All these people that say it's the wrong strategy are stupid." What gets lost in the shuffle is how many times the 3-card royal was held and the royal didn't happen.
    And all this time I thought I was doing it because I had 14 hands that could be made from choosing those cards! Dang!!

  12. #32
    If you hold a 2 card royal over a pay pair you will get absolutely rapped. You won't have to worry about the long run your money isn't going to last that long playing that way.

    I certainly hope for everyone sake that isn't suggested by any one or any system. Then again, I hope people are playing that way so the casinos are sure to keep VP and not be tempted to replace them with slots.

  13. #33
    If you hold 3 to a royal over a high pair, why not also hold 2 to a royal over a high pair? What could go wrong, math doesn't apply to me if I don't want it to!!
    #FreeTyde

  14. #34
    Originally Posted by RS__ View Post
    If you hold 3 to a royal over a high pair, why not also hold 2 to a royal over a high pair? What could go wrong, math doesn't apply to me if I don't want it to!!
    Just to be clear- Mickey is the one who, as is his custom, changed the subject from 3 to a royal to 2 to a royal.
    He also misdirects other posts- like saying some strategies are Martingale strategies. "Staying on cue is not what he do."
    Last edited by slingshot; 04-28-2019 at 06:24 AM.

  15. #35
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    If you hold a 2 card royal over a pay pair you will get absolutely rapped. You won't have to worry about the long run your money isn't going to last that long playing that way.

    I certainly hope for everyone sake that isn't suggested by any one or any system. Then again, I hope people are playing that way so the casinos are sure to keep VP and not be tempted to replace them with slots.
    This is basic stuff. The only reason jbjb claims holding only a 2 is a special play of mine is because he doesn't, can't, and will never understand the math and usage behind them. The same goes for mickey and his claiming holding 2-to-the-RF over a pair is also a special play I use. Both are lies and both come from people frustrated over their having no math education and being too dense to comprehend the strategy behind the use of special plays.

  16. #36
    So Rob, I take it you've stopped claiming your special plays outperform optimal play. You've also stopped claiming your systems will win money going forward. I wanted to thank you for being responsible enough to do that.

    As far as debating use of win goals and special plays and gobbledygook, that's all fine and dandy as long as you don't actually claim to be able to outperform optimal play going forward. If you want to wear a tutu and use a fibonacci series to time pauses between hands, that's great, too. People will be too dense to comprehend those strategies, also. It would be of no value to comprehend the strategies, from a money-making going forward sense, but so what? Designing complicated things that only you can do is a great hobby.

    I use the position of the stars to rake my leaves into various size piles at night. People are too dense to comprehend my strategy, and I tell them that. Probably the same folks who can't grasp your special plays. Idiots!

  17. #37
    You write like a gay man.

    My strategy has always out-performed optimal play only.

    Wise up.

  18. #38
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    You write like a gay man.

    My strategy has always out-performed optimal play only.

    Wise up.

    LOL. You can't fool anybody, Rob. You used past tense there. So you still aren't making any claims to outperforming optimal play going forward. Good for you!!

    Glad to see you are not making any outrageous, mathematically impossible claims by saying that your stuff outperforms optimal play going forward. You've wised up!


    P.S. And Rob, you must have had a rough Saturday night. I cannot believe that you're announcing expertise on how gay men write. That can only mean one of two things -- (1) you read an awful lot of gay-man-written stuff on purpose or (2) well, you ain't as straight and narrow as one might presume. Using the wife for cover while you traverse the interstates looking for love in RV shower stalls? I will not tell a soul!

  19. #39
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    My strategy has always out-performed optimal play only.
    Do you realize how stupid this line is?

    "out-perform optimal strategy".

    By definition, this is an impossibility. Just pure voodoo! Alternative math! Alternative reality!

  20. #40
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    My strategy has always out-performed optimal play only.
    Do you realize how stupid this line is?

    "out-perform optimal strategy".

    By definition, this is an impossibility. Just pure voodoo! Alternative math! Alternative reality!
    Funny. I thought I heard Lenny Frome laughing.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Video Poker Plays
    By mickeycrimm in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 138
    Last Post: 09-25-2018, 07:31 PM
  2. Oh So Special Vegas Seven Star Event
    By seemoreroyals in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 08-26-2016, 03:37 PM
  3. Rob Singers unintentional secret
    By OceanCityMD in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-24-2013, 03:12 PM
  4. Discussing Rob Singers Systems
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 256
    Last Post: 08-27-2013, 07:13 AM
  5. Special thoughts about October and 11/11/11
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Whatever's On Your Mind
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-31-2011, 12:03 AM

Posting Permissions

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