How to sell a gambling system, in five easy steps.

[regnis]

Sorry-was not giving you credit for any part of Singer. Was giving you credit for taking profit and leaving as a system. My point is that while everyone criticizes Singer, and to some extent you, they haven't provided any alternatives except to say you can't beat the math and thus, I guess, we shouldn't play video poker at all.

If they are going to criticize Singer, at least offer something.

[arcimede$]

My feeling on the whole thing is that at least Singer and Alan have offered a system for players that are not playing a million hands.

Why would you assume other methods of play fail when you play less than a million hands? There is absolutely nothing that supports this assertion. Each hand is independent. There is nothing that makes any betting strategy superior. After you play one hand, you play another ... eventually you quit and add up your results. If you did better than average you can only attribute that to good luck. However, you can define what "average" is for your play.

I'm not certifying that their systems work, but I do know that they are a better option than grinding away for endless hours to make up the 1% over expected results in the form of comps. I no longer have the bankroll for Singer's system, but I have incorporated his multi denomination approach into my play for several years.

No one has to grind away for "endless hours" playing VP according to the math. That's simply a strawman argument.

Certainly, the casinos also know the math and expected loss. They must not be that concerned about the AP's--or at least they know there are enough shmucks (like me) to offset the risk of the AP's, especially as they continue to reduce comps and pay tables.

Yes, casinos know the math (they didn't for quite awhile). They got educated because of APers, not Singer supporters.

[regnis]

So what is your suggestion Arci? You still haven't offered anything. And you are inconsistent because to attain the expected return requires millions of hands--otherwise we are back to the short term where anything can happen. You yourself have asserted this repeatedly. So again, I give Singer some credit for creating an approach for short sessions such as a recreational player would use. What are you offering?

[redietz]

Arci isn't in the business of guaranteeing short-term profits -- nobody is, with a notable exception here or there. So if Arci can't guarantee short-term profits, he has somehow failed and should be offering something?

My recommendation to you, regnis, is go play Rob's system. Have a good time.

[Alan Mendelson]

Really, what is Rob's system all about? It really comes down to a few basic concepts:

1. You take your profits and run because you can't expect to keep winning forever.
2. Sometimes you take a "shot" at getting a bigger win. Case in point: Dealt AAAKK in 7/5 Bonus, you hold the three aces and hope to get lucky with quads.
2a. Sometimes you take a "safer shot" being satisfied with a smaller win. Case in point: Dealt AAA3J in Triple Double Bonus you hold the three aces, dump the kicker.
3. Sometimes you move up in denomination hoping to hit a big win that will make up for losses at lower denominations.
4. Sometimes you change games and you change machines because your gut tells you you're not getting any wins on the one you're playing.
5. You ignore the requirements of players clubs because you know that in the end the casino makes you pay for any "benefits" you might earn.

Really, that about sums it up. Is there anything really wrong with any of that?

[Vegas Vic]

Really, what is Rob's system all about? It really comes down to a few basic concepts:

1. You take your profits and run because you can't expect to keep winning forever.
2. Sometimes you take a "shot" at getting a bigger win. Case in point: Dealt AAAKK in 7/5 Bonus, you hold the three aces and hope to get lucky with quads.
2a. Sometimes you take a "safer shot" being satisfied with a smaller win. Case in point: Dealt AAA3J in Triple Double Bonus you hold the three aces, dump the kicker.
3. Sometimes you move up in denomination hoping to hit a big win that will make up for losses at lower denominations.
4. Sometimes you change games and you change machines because your gut tells you you're not getting any wins on the one you're playing.
5. You ignore the requirements of players clubs because you know that in the end the casino makes you pay for any "benefits" you might earn.

Really, that about sums it up. Is there anything really wrong with any of that?

The key to his "system" is this: Sometimes these sometimes work in your favor and you hope that most of the time they do.

[Alan Mendelson]

The key to his "system" is this: Sometimes these sometimes work in your favor and you hope that most of the time they do.

That's right. And its the same thing when you play "conventionally" as well.

[arcimede$]

Really, what is Rob's system all about? It really comes down to a few basic concepts:

1. You take your profits and run because you can't expect to keep winning forever.

Note quite. If he's ahead $2000 he doesn't quit, he keeps playing and could lose it all plus another $40K. Meanwhile, most gamblers I know who hit a good sized win put some of it in their pocket and only play with the winnings.

2. Sometimes you take a "shot" at getting a bigger win. Case in point: Dealt AAAKK in 7/5 Bonus, you hold the three aces and hope to get lucky with quads.
2a. Sometimes you take a "safer shot" being satisfied with a smaller win. Case in point: Dealt AAA3J in Triple Double Bonus you hold the three aces, dump the kicker.

Which adds up to what? Think about it. In any event the bottom line is most of his special plays do neither as I demonstrated last year.

3. Sometimes you move up in denomination hoping to hit a big win that will make up for losses at lower denominations.

Yup, this is nothing but chasing losses. Sometimes it works and you recoup your losses other times it fails and you lose a much larger sum. Of course, it just averages out over time like all gambling.

4. Sometimes you change games and you change machines because your gut tells you you're not getting any wins on the one you're playing.

You mean like about 99% of all gamblers.

5. You ignore the requirements of players clubs because you know that in the end the casino makes you pay for any "benefits" you might earn.

I don't think this has anything to do with his system. Of course, when you think about it a strategy like that is pretty stupid. Casinos have moved some of the return of their games into the player's club. Ignoring that only costs one money.

Really, that about sums it up. Is there anything really wrong with any of that?

You forgot the main problem with Singer. He claims lower return games are just as good as higher return games. He says he will play the highest return available but turns around and says it doesn't matter. It does matter and over time a player will lose more the more they play on the poor return machines.

[arcimede$]

So what is your suggestion Arci? You still haven't offered anything.

I've offered the facts, no more, no less. You play with a negative ER and you will likely lose over time. You play with an edge and you will likely win over time. As I've often stated, the probabilities favor those who make smart choices.

And you are inconsistent because to attain the expected return requires millions of hands--otherwise we are back to the short term where anything can happen. You yourself have asserted this repeatedly. So again, I give Singer some credit for creating an approach for short sessions such as a recreational player would use. What are you offering?

The truth. Singer's system can lose in the short term as any other approach. A progression increases variance, that is all.

In addition, I've never said anything about "millions of hands". Those who play by the math can do better than average just as easily as anyone else. Anyone who states it takes millions of hands is being dishonest.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc: Your criticisms are valid, but frankly, you can make the same criticisms of conventional play. For years and years I followed the correct plays of Dancer and Grochowski which is "conventional" play and what did it get me? Years of losses. By the way, never did I see or read advice from Dancer or Grochowski about ONLY playing positive expectation games -- and not once. Not even when I attended that lecture by Dancer at the Fiesta in North Vegas did he even mention paytables. In fact, that entire lecture was about strategy on card holds comparing examples of what to hold in deuces vs other games. In Grochowski's book which I reread regularly there is NO mention about playing only positive machines, though he does mention that there are different paytables.

You also wrote this, Arc: "You forgot the main problem with Singer. He claims lower return games are just as good as higher return games. He says he will play the highest return available but turns around and says it doesn't matter. It does matter and over time a player will lose more the more they play on the poor return machines."

Well, our friends Dancer and Grochowski also give their advice for playing these lesser pay tables, and never is their an admonition by either Dancer or Grochowski not to play them. So what's the difference when Singer says "here's how to play them" as well.

And for a moment let's discuss what separates a lesser pay table from a better one. It usually comes down to the difference paid on a full house and a flush. Quads usually pay the same. The royal pays the same. The SF pays the same on most games. Obviously deuces is the exception for many of these. But when you look at Rob's strategy he would rather go for the quads than settle for a full house, and some of the games he advocates have extra bonuses on certain quads.

Honestly, Arc-- you and his other critics really haven't given Singer a fair shot. He really isn't crazy. His plays really aren't totally wacky. He has different goals that you do -- he wants big winners and will sacrifice smaller hands to get them. Or he will forego a small chance at a big win to give himself a better shot at a smaller win. It really isn't so crazy what he's doing or what he advocates.

When you really watch the videos, when you really read the articles, and you do it with an open mind and without prejudice, Singer is not totally off the wall. Sure he's different, and yes he's an obnoxious SOB, but there is some "sense" in how he approaches video poker.

What I found especially curious a few weeks back was when Dancer said on videopoker.com that he would break up a full house with three aces on 6/5 bonus poker, and hold just the aces. Really? Dancer would play 6/5 Bonus. Why didn't he just come out and say DONT PLAY 6/5 BONUS. Instead, he says hold the three aces. Singer on the other hand would break up that full house on 7/5 Bonus and says he would NEVER play 6/5 Bonus. Now, who is the bigger offender??

[Vegas Vic]

That's right. And its the same thing when you play "conventionally" as well.

And this makes his "special plays" (which suggests they will be successful plays) not special whatsoever and are in reality simply unconventional plays, which doesn't sound as sexy.

[Alan Mendelson]

And this makes his "special plays" (which suggests they will be successful plays) not special whatsoever and are in reality simply unconventional plays, which doesn't sound as sexy.

Actually, if you took the time to review the special plays here on the website, you will clearly see that each and every one of his special plays has a lower expected value. Singer is sacrificing, for the most part, the higher expected value to "gamble" on a special play which would return a higher "actual value" if he gets lucky.

After all, that is the entire basis of his system. He is willingly going for long shots. Again my analogy about craps: if Singer were at a craps table, he would be the one always betting on aces and boxcars while everyone else is betting on 6s and 8s.

[arcimede$]

Arc: Your criticisms are valid, but frankly, you can make the same criticisms of conventional play. For years and years I followed the correct plays of Dancer and Grochowski which is "conventional" play and what did it get me? Years of losses.

Alan, you keep repeating that claim. You played negative games the whole time. Neither of those guys claims you will win playing negative games. If you thought you were going to win you didn't understand the situation. Claiming that math based gambling doesn't work because you were confused is silly.

By the way, never did I see or read advice from Dancer or Grochowski about ONLY playing positive expectation games -- and not once. Not even when I attended that lecture by Dancer at the Fiesta in North Vegas did he even mention paytables. In fact, that entire lecture was about strategy on card holds comparing examples of what to hold in deuces vs other games. In Grochowski's book which I reread regularly there is NO mention about playing only positive machines, though he does mention that there are different paytables.

What part of 100% did you not understand? I mean really, it's their fault because you're math challenged?

You also wrote this, Arc: "You forgot the main problem with Singer. He claims lower return games are just as good as higher return games. He says he will play the highest return available but turns around and says it doesn't matter. It does matter and over time a player will lose more the more they play on the poor return machines."

Well, our friends Dancer and Grochowski also give their advice for playing these lesser pay tables, and never is their an admonition by either Dancer or Grochowski not to play them. So what's the difference when Singer says "here's how to play them" as well.

So, according you ... just because one person is wrong that means it's alright for everyone else?

And for a moment let's discuss what separates a lesser pay table from a better one. It usually comes down to the difference paid on a full house and a flush. Quads usually pay the same. The royal pays the same. The SF pays the same on most games. Obviously deuces is the exception for many of these. But when you look at Rob's strategy he would rather go for the quads than settle for a full house, and some of the games he advocates have extra bonuses on certain quads.

Irrelevant. There's lot's of games that don't pay well on quads that are still negative. You lose either way.

Honestly, Arc-- you and his other critics really haven't given Singer a fair shot. He really isn't crazy. His plays really aren't totally wacky. He has different goals that you do -- he wants big winners and will sacrifice smaller hands to get them. Or he will forego a small chance at a big win to give himself a better shot at a smaller win. It really isn't so crazy what he's doing or what he advocates.

No one said it was crazy, it's just dishonest.

What I found especially curious a few weeks back was when Dancer said on videopoker.com that he would break up a full house with three aces on 6/5 bonus poker, and hold just the aces. Really? Dancer would play 6/5 Bonus. Why didn't he just come out and say DONT PLAY 6/5 BONUS. Instead, he says hold the three aces. Singer on the other hand would break up that full house on 7/5 Bonus and says he would NEVER play 6/5 Bonus. Now, who is the bigger offender??

Alan, it's possible that slot club money could make a normally bad game playable. I've seen situations where CB plus promotions have been as high as 5%. You still need to play the game correctly to maximize the probability of success.

[regnis]

Arci isn't in the business of guaranteeing short-term profits -- nobody is, with a notable exception here or there. So if Arci can't guarantee short-term profits, he has somehow failed and should be offering something?

My recommendation to you, regnis, is go play Rob's system. Have a good time.

I'm not asking for any guaranty. And I have never said that I believe in Singer's system. In fact, in previous threads I stated that his constant wins as written in Gaming Today seemed impossible. I want to know what arci (and you) suggest, other than not playing, if I am going to play for a few hours on a 98% game. Or are you just saying play properly knowing it's a bad game--nothing else will help. That I can accept--but I still have not heard from arci what strategy, if any, he suggests for that circumstance.

[Alan Mendelson]

This is an interesting situation. Arcimedes says that neither Dancer nor Grochowski said I would win playing negative expectation games. Arc put it this way:

Neither of those guys claims you will win playing negative games.

And you're right about that Arc, neither of them did claim I would win. Yet, there was no disclaimer or warning that one could not win or that the odds and probabilities were stacked against me for winning. In fact, I don't recall anything about games such as 9/6 Jacks even being called "hegative expectation". Yet they both published guide books about how to play and how to select cards to get winning hands and winning combinations.

So Arc, what do you suggest we do here? Do you think I have grounds for a suit because I was sold a book that would result in losses? Do I have grounds for a suit because I bought practice guides and videos for games that I am destined to lose at? Do I have grounds for a suit because there was no warning that the games are "negative expectation games"? Oh, by the way, I am talking about the publications of Dancer and Grochowski... and not the publications of Singer.

Interestingly, you want to shut down Singer and you criticize me for, in effect, publishing his material. Do you also want to shut down Dancer and Grochowski? Do you also criticize the publishers of Dancer and Grochowski?

[redietz]

Singer claims he can beat negative expectation games. Dancer skips the claim, but demonstrates how to optimally play the games while notably not informing people they will lose. Two different behaviors; neither helpful in the grand scheme of things.

It's kind of sad. "Singer" says you can swim across a river full of crocodiles and reach the other side. "Dancer" gives you swimming lessons, but fails to mention the crocs.

[regnis]

Singer claims he can beat negative expectation games. Dancer skips the claim, but demonstrates how to optimally play the games while notably not informing people they will lose. Two different behaviors; neither helpful in the grand scheme of things.

It's kind of sad. "Singer" says you can swim across a river full of crocodiles and reach the other side. "Dancer" gives you swimming lessons, but fails to mention the crocs.

maybe they both are a crock

[Alan Mendelson]

Singer claims he can beat negative expectation games. Dancer skips the claim, but demonstrates how to optimally play the games while notably not informing people they will lose. Two different behaviors; neither helpful in the grand scheme of things.

It's kind of sad. "Singer" says you can swim across a river full of crocodiles and reach the other side. "Dancer" gives you swimming lessons, but fails to mention the crocs.

Interesting situation. There's another difference. Singer didn't sell his system to anyone, did he? To the best of my knowledge he gave it away, even to the extent of free lessons. His books were more biographical than instructional. But here's another problem with Singer: his books really don't tell you how to play his system at all. And one of them is more of a report about his jaunt through Nevada casinos and what he experienced -- and he wasn't even playing his "system" in that book. What nerve!!

Now let's look at Dancer. Everything Dancer does has a price. And in the case of the lectures the casinos are paying the price. And Dancer fails to disclose the "math" that the consumers will lose who play the games using the books and software and strategy cards that he sells. Imagine that-- buying strategy cards for games that you will lose at!!

Damn, you can't even find an honest gaming author these days, can you?

[redietz]

Well, that's the interesting aspect of the debate for me -- namely, "Who does more damage?" Or, put another way, "Who puts more cash in the casinos coffers -- Singer or Dancer?"

I'd say, without being overly negative, 90-some percent of Dancer's followers lose, even with all of the training and insights and slot club expertise. And they probably lose more precisely because they think "they know what they're doing."

[regnis]

Well, that's the interesting aspect of the debate for me -- namely, "Who does more damage?" Or, put another way, "Who puts more cash in the casinos coffers -- Singer or Dancer?"

I'd say, without being overly negative, 90-some percent of Dancer's followers lose, even with all of the training and insights and slot club expertise. And they probably lose more precisely because they think "they know what they're doing."

Oddly Redietz, we haven't seen anyone on this forum complaining that they tried Singer's system and got murdered. Again, I am not saying that to praise his system. But where are these "losers"--or is the system so expensive and contain so much exposure that no one even tries it. On the other hand, we have all seen Dancer's followers complaints.