Did I Miss Something? Where's Rob's Full Strategy?

[arcimede$]

I never said he did anything criminal. Once again you're trying to change what I'm saying. Since he doesn't profit by claiming his system will win, there is no crime involved. However, that doesn't change the fact that it's a scam. Get real, Alan.

[Alan Mendelson]

"Scam" is criminal. Stop using the word.

[arcimede$]

"Scam" is criminal. Stop using the word.

No, it implies using deceitful claims. Show me one law that uses the word "scam". For example, see the use of the word "legal" here when referring to scams:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ant-jimmy-carr

It's so humorous to see you trying to cover your a** all the time. And yet here you are giving his deceitful actions support. Instead of worrying about the use of a word you should clean up your own act.

[redietz]

I believe Arci is correct here. Referring to something as an "intellectual scam" does not imply that it's illegal. Legality is relative to place and time -- the laws of a place and time. These are arbitrary. Talking about a "logical or intellectual scam" transcends legality, as it refers to logical contructs.

[Alan Mendelson]

redietz, if Arc had said "intellectual scam" I would let it pass. But he didn't say that. THIS is what HE said:

You just don't like the fact I have shown beyond any reasonable doubt that Singer is a scammer.

And "beyond any reasonable doubt" compounds it, as it uses another legal term.

[Rob.Singer]

I wonder, redietz, what some of those high-rolling VIP sportsbettors 's you consult for, would think of the "intellectual scam" I'm concocting by trying to get others here to place another big +$46,000 NFL winner on the heels of my majestic foresight in a few weeks? Could there be a preponderance of evidence that might suggest criminal activity?

[Alan Mendelson]

Let me end this particular part of the discussion this way:

Before I went into the advertising business about 6 years ago, I had worked for Fox for three years, for CBS Network News for 5 years, and for CBS owned and operated stations for 19 years. And in between I wrote for Barron's, New York Magazine, and worked for radio and TV stations in Miami, upstate New York, and I even had a short gig as a writer/reporter for the old United Press International (UPI). I also freelanced for the Associated Press (AP).

AT NONE OF THOSE NEWS OPERATIONS WOULD I BE ALLOWED TO CALL ANYONE A "SCAMMER" UNLESS THEY HAD BEEN CONVICTED OR HAD BEEN ARRESTED AND CHARGED WITH CRIMES INVOLVING "SCAMMING" OR SWINDLED OR OPERATED A FRAUDULENT SCHEME.

And since this is my Forum, and I set the rules, the use of the words scam, scammer, scammed will not be allowed unless there has been a conviction, or arrest, or you are discussing for example, scams for identity theft, or you have been notified that you won the Nigerian lottery.

[regnis]

Here’s what the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 566 says about this general issue (including some brief commentary):


There are two kinds of expression of opinion. The simple expression of opinion, or the pure type [which is privileged against liability –EV], occurs when the maker of the comment states the facts on which he bases his opinion of the plaintiff and then expresses a comment as to the plaintiff’s conduct, qualifications or character....

The second kind of expression of opinion, or the mixed type, is one which, while an opinion in form or context, is apparently based on facts regarding the plaintiff or his conduct that have not been stated by the defendant or assumed to exist by the parties to the communication. Here the expression of the opinion gives rise to the inference that there are undisclosed facts that justify the forming of the opinion expressed by the defendant. To say of a person that he is a thief without explaining why, may, depending upon the circumstances, be found to imply the assertion that he has committed acts that come within the common connotation of thievery [and lead to liability –EV]....






Illustration 3. A writes to B about his neighbor C: “I think he must be an alcoholic.” A jury might find that this was not just an expression of opinion but that it implied that A knew undisclosed facts that would justify this opinion.

4. A writes to B about his neighbor C: “He moved in six months ago. He works downtown, and I have seen him during that time only twice, in his backyard around 5:30 seated in a deck chair with a portable radio listening to a news broadcast, and with a drink in his hand. I think he must be an alcoholic.” The statement indicates the facts on which the expression of opinion was based and does not imply others. These facts are not defamatory and A is not liable for defamation....


And to think about it in terms of claiming scam, first understand the common definition of a scam - a confidence game or other fraudulent scheme, especially for making a quick profit: swindle.

Just calling someone a scammer, without explaining why, may be libelous and end up costing you money.


This is why everyone hates lawyers---what the heck does this really mean???

[Rob.Singer]

Doesn't matter what the exact meaning is regnis, or what the rules regarding what the writer says. Arci, being a self-described "tested genius", he just HAS to know more and impress more than anybody else he comes in contact with. If his prophecy doesn't come true or is rejected by everyone, he'll end up the same way all the geeks do--on tilt, with googly eyes, taking care of someone ill, and with a never-ending thirst to end all the pain by trolling Internet forums non-stop until he too ends up in vegetableland.

[Vegas Vic]

Vic if you took the time to actually understand the special plays rather than blindly critize them, you just might surprise yourself. The notion that they result in less overall hands played supposedly resulting in more money lost is entirely false--not as you're playing most of them, but the moment after a session-ending win occurs because of them. The hits create massive sized winners because of the climb in denomination, and because you immediately go down to your lowest level to begin the next session you play, it completely renders your argument irrelevant. Further, it's taking the lazy, easy way out by claiming making a special play that eliminates a push or the chance for a slightly larger winner will give the player less opportunity to hit the big win. That's totally false, because you do not get THAT many such opportunities in the first place, and by giving yourself more of them that do hit on occasion, you are more able to reach your goal and eliminate that slow monotonous death afforded by those otherwise meaningless little winners....unless, of course, you are addicted to slot club points and status more than you are to winning casino money.

1. No one outside of your cranium can "take the time to understand the special plays" because no one else has the foggiest idea what they are. If you use them in only 5% of your play, it should be easy for you to spell them out for us so we could be surprised at their clarity, logic and ease of implementation.

2. "Session ending wins" are not the sole province of special plays.

3. When those special plays do not hit, the climb in denomination is a much more monotonous death than any rendered by "meaningless little winners".

4. Those "meaningless little winners" are still winners and beat the alternative of "meaningful losers".

[Rob.Singer]

Vic, take the blinders off for a moment. When a meaningless little winner is discarded in favor of a chance for a session-ending win, that also means there is MORE of a chance for a not-so-meaningless better-than-little winner as well as plenty of similar meaningless little winners to what was discarded. And in the short term - which is how everyone who plays actually realizes every time they walk into the casinos - these plays are mathematically superior to making the long term optimal play of holding those meaningless little winners. You will try to derail that by saying "where's the proof" I suspect. Well that's what you'll see in time. In the meantime, try asking any of the math geeks to prove otherwise. You yourself claim the special plays aren't understandable, but have you tried looking at the videos Alan's posted?

[arcimede$]

I see Singer is once again claiming losing credits is "mathematically superior". And yet, we have not seen his mysterious papers that he used to invent this concept (which he promised to provide last month). I wonder how many people actually believe this nonsense even though Singer constantly lies about everything?

[Alan Mendelson]

I see Singer is once again claiming losing credits is "mathematically superior". And yet, we have not seen his mysterious papers that he used to invent this concept (which he promised to provide last month). I wonder how many people actually believe this nonsense even though Singer constantly lies about everything?

I am going to ignore the comment about the "lies" but I will say that Arc raises some valid questions. We are certainly hoping to see the additional information that Rob said was coming.

And I would like to know from Rob's followers just how they are doing with his strategy?

Personally, I have tried a "special play" only twice, and I'm batting 500:

Opportunity #1 I was in a deep hole playing 8/5 Bonus, dealt a full house with three aces, held the three aces and got the fourth ace for $2,000. However, this wasn't a true "special play" since in 8/5 Bonus Rob says to hold the full house.

Opportunity #2 I was dealt trip aces with a kicker (4) in Triple Double Bonus. I did not hold the kicker -- just the three aces. The hand did not improve. With this "special play" I was giving myself an added chance for quad aces. Didn't get the quad aces or a full house with another 4, so the "optimal play" wouldn't have mattered.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, 1 out of 2 is a very very good percentage when using special play holds. One of the last people I trained at the Palms wanted to play dollars thru $10 for his session. We were about 75 credits into $10 ddbp (they don't have SDBP or TBP+ in their high limit room) and on a 10/6 paytable (yes all you AP's, two Palms $1 thru $25 machines had it at all five levels for a whole four days, and while RS found it because he actually played at those denominations, none of the local geniuses ever caught on in time) he was dealt AAA99. But my 68 yr. old student argued over tossing the 9's, and he closed his eyes as I was told to hold only the Aces for him because he just couldnt't do it. An Ace showed on the draw, no kicker, for $8000. We may have made a dozen special plays, and a few of them produced a straight and a flush plus a few more high pairs. And this is almost exactly how it always looks on sessions that hit a big winner because of a special play. The math people really have no clue where actual play is concerned. None at all.

[arcimede$]

The math folks know that you can hit quad aces throwing away a full house. Playing DDB that is the optimal play. So, I have no idea what Singer is going on about. All APers would have hit the very same jackpot.

[a2a3dseddie]

I don't see why archimede$ is putting forth so much effort in trying to prove Rob wrong. This whole scenario reminds me of an old episode of Star Trek "Let that Be Your Last Battlefield". It's the one where an alien race has faces that are coloured black on the right and white on the left or vice versa and are locked in a race war for all eternity. If he is not profiting like both you and he have said, what's the big deal?

Anyways, Rob, earlier I asked why your strategies wouldn't work on a slot machine like Megabucks. You answered "No" without explanation. Would you be so kind as to explain why? Isn't a slot machine also a non-random machine with a negative EV for the player? Don't they also have the potential for high payoffs if you move up in denominations? Don't they return even more cashback and earn more comps and player points?

Why couldn't your strategies be applied to blackjack or craps, which at times hold an even smaller house edge than some video poker machines? I asked this of you earlier, Alan. Why don't you play $10 pass line bets with odd and then start betting the horn or hop bets once you lose $300?

Why can your betting system only work on Video Poker?

[arcimede$]

Why can your betting system only work on Video Poker?

It's those magical special plays, don'tcha know. Of course, I think Robbie hasn't been telling the whole truth. There's also a special incantation that must be spoken before hitting draw along with rubbing the screen exactly 3 times.

[arcimede$]

Anyways, Rob, earlier I asked why your strategies wouldn't work on a slot machine like Megabucks. You answered "No" without explanation. Would you be so kind as to explain why? Isn't a slot machine also a non-random machine with a negative EV for the player? Don't they also have the potential for high payoffs if you move up in denominations? Don't they return even more cashback and earn more comps and player points?

This gets to the heart of the problem. If a progression really had any validity at all, it should work with any game of the same genre. Like you said, a slot machine has big payouts as well as small ones where a soft-profit pool could work exactly like VP. Mathematically, the two games are identical. And, look at how much simpler it would be to not have to make all those decisions. Just push the buttons and make a million dollars.

In fact, there's no reason why Keno wouldn't work as well. You could change the selected numbers to change the odds on certain winners (ala special plays). I can almost see someone coming up with an approach like this to sell to ignorant fools.

Oh yeah, throw in a few win goals and your profits would soar. Chuckle, chuckle.

Of course Singer doesn't want to discuss this topic. It provides even the simpletons a good example of why his system is worthless.

[redietz]

I asked this same question ages ago. Rob ignored it. Alan ignored it.

I think Rob will argue that, even though denomination moves and win goals can be used with all gambling endeavors, Rob's "special plays" are video poker specific, therefore video poker is its own thing. I think that's one reason special plays exist.

The other big observation is that, since casinos are -- in essence -- advantage players, and it's obvious they win, then one cannot say that advantage play loses.

[Alan Mendelson]

I asked this of you earlier, Alan. Why don't you play $10 pass line bets with odd and then start betting the horn or hop bets once you lose $300?

I can't answer for Rob, but you asked me about craps, and I can respond:

I am a green chip player, so I bet the passline with $25 and FULL odds. At Caesars, that's 3x 4x 5x odds. These have the lowest house advantage -- but not necessarily the best chance to win. And there is a difference. With full odds on the 4 or ten you have the lowest house advantage, but the chance of winning is slimmer than if the "point" is the six or eight.

You ask about the horn and other high house-edge bets. No, not my style. I do make a $5 horn-high-ace-deuce bet on the come-out roll to "insure" my $25 pass line bet in case there is a craps rolled. And I sometimes will bet $5 on the horn high-yo on the "second roll" out of a craps superstition about the "second roll yo," but I am a conservative bettor who bets the numbers, avoids the fields, the hardways, and the "middle bets." And when I press, I press the numbers from the inside moving out.

I do make the firebet when available -- because that is, at most casinos, the only "jackpot bonus" bet available for craps. Otherwise in craps you have to bet big to win big. It is much different from VP where a $5 bet can win a $4,000 royal.