So All Betting Systems Are "Worthless"? Figure This One Out

OK, I know MKL hates Rob Singer's ways, the Wizard and others here don't buy into them, and I admit I've been looking into what he says recently because I can't seem to beat the machines. But the more he opens up about them and the more I read, the more I like. I'm really disappointed that no one with math aptitude is willing to talk to him about what he does, because he puts up a compelling argument along with seeming to have similar math skills to what I think I see on this forum.

So I just ran across this press release this morning from a little over a week ago. There's also a link in it that goes right to this guy Alan Mendelsen's site where he has videos of him interviewing RS about part of his strategy. Those are very interesting to say the least, especially for a vp player. Looks like it all originated in LV.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Rob Singer Releases His Special Plays For Short-Term Play In Video Poker! November 8, 2010 Other news in Las Vegas,Nevada, United States of America

156
Think you can beat the casinos at their own game of math? Think again. Rob Singer, a professional video poker player who's won almost a million dollars over the past decade, knows better. Read how:


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Las Vegas, Nevada, United States of America November 8, 2010 --


"Video poker can be beaten, but not by buying those tempting, math-only based strategies that are easy to sell, difficult to learn" and, as the author of The Undeniable Truth About Video Poker says, "impossible to succeed with". Today, Rob Singer has released how he has won so consistently over the years with a mix of 95% optimal play & 5% plays that deviate from the math. If you gamble in casinos--and really, who DOESN'T play video poker--you'll want to know how to win for a change instead of going through the same old routine of getting those exciting casino invites, only to make the same deposits over and over again.

Alan Mendelson of www.AlanBestBuys.com has presented the most lucrative of these special plays, and they can be seen today (with videos of Mr. Singer explaining them in detail available late next week) by going directly to http://www.alanbestbuys.com/id194.html

What's his secret to winning at video poker? Well, as Mr. Singer says "there simply is no secret...it's a solid combination of using the proper bankroll, going in with pre-set win & loss goals and STICKING TO THEM NO MATTER WHAT, playing the right games that offer the best opportunity to attain your win goals, having the discipline to stop when you hit your goal, and using certain special plays that improve your chance of hitting a big winner TODAY."

What are those "right games"? Rob uses Bonus Poker as his staple, then one other in a session (in order of precedence) Super Double Bonus Poker, Triple Bonus Poker Plus, Super Aces Bonus Poker, & Double Double Bonus Poker. His website www.vptruth.com explains why, just as he will be doing in next week's videos.

Rob makes no bones about what it takes to win, and that is luck. He says his strategy of progressing in denomination, quantity of credits, and game volatility is enhanced by these special plays because they give no-win or smaller winning deals a risk-analyzed opportunity to turn the hand into a big winner, and that is usually is enough to attain a win goal. He points to the fact that because he is the only guru in the video poker world who offers advice, meets with and trains other player at no charge ever, and sells nothing other than his 2 books that were published about 10 years ago, his message should be a slam-dunk for intelligent players.

Rob's beef with the traditional "experts" as he explains it, has always been how they look at every hand as being part of the inexplicable "long-term". He adds that his methods and especially these special plays have allowed him not to out-gun the casinos or to re-write the math books, but to have been able to stay on the positive side of the Bell Curve in around 85% of his sessions and thus, in his overall play.

TODAY'S RESULTS are what Mr. Singer says are important to every player, and playing exactly how the casino wants and expects you to play is obviously a recipe for financial disaster. "That means don't play for hours on end, don't get excited about your points accumulation, and don't expect to beat the casino at their own game - the math." Singer said he developed these plays to give him an edge since "anything can happen at any time" and "the machines are the only entities that will ever experience the long-term". "Besides" he says "the long term creates losers, problem gamblers, and is a very misleading concept to be selling to beginners"

Please contact Alan Mendelson for information on more upcoming video on Rob Singer's ability to beat the vp machines.

Quote: JerryLogan

"there simply is no secret...it's a solid combination of using the proper bankroll, going in with pre-set win & loss goals and STICKING TO THEM NO MATTER WHAT"

All BS! why would a winning 'system' or strategy require a stop loss?

If you have a system that had the 0.5% edge, there would never be a need to stop doing it, unless your pockets were not deep enough for all the money.

Quote: WizardofEngland

All BS! why would a winning 'system' or strategy require a stop loss?

If you have a system that had the 0.5% edge, there would never be a need to stop doing it, unless your pockets were not deep enough for all the money.

I'm not 100% familiar with how he does what he does, but I think you're not either. He doesn't say he "plays with an edge" anywhere, only that he wins by getting lucky and how he has created a vehicle for that to occur much more often than the AP experiences it.

As far as him stopping after a win or a loss, I don't see what's wrong with it. After a win he drives the 300 or so miles back home until he wants to come back. Being able to do that seems like having a lot of discipline to me. Nothing wrong with enjoying the fruits of a win afterwards right? It sure beats what I do after a big win, which is stay until all of it and more is gone. After a loss, what do you expect, that everyone go to the ATM after their gambling bankroll is gone to take more chances?

These misconceptions are why I would like to see some braniac here look into what he does, and he's posted here that he'd be open to that. But when all I see are uninformed comments, criticisms based on assertions, and fear that he may be doing something the geniuses may not fully understand but want to be paid in order to find out, I see nothing but a bunch of people who do not want to go anywhere outside of theory, even if it involves coming face-to-face with reality.

"He adds that his methods and especially these special plays have allowed him not to out-gun the casinos or to re-write the math books, but to have been able to stay on the positive side of the Bell Curve in around 85% of his sessions and thus, in his overall play. "

I can give you a method that does this (or better). Playing Bonus Poker. It helps to play on full pay machines (e.g. I can give you the same result on lower pay out machines, but improve if you use full pay)

I'm slowly working through simulating Mr Singer's basic methods. The most interesting result for me is something that I didn't expect and disagreed with JL's statement in the past : most VP sessions are in the positive at some point.

As long as your deep stacked enough (how many credits is enough I am working on), you are likely to be up at some point. However, you cannot guarantee WHEN you'll be up, and it maybe a session will cost you your entire bankroll. To be clear, your risk is greater than your reward in these cases (risking $100 for a 90% chance of $5 is negative expectation).

I tried his advance romp method for one session playing nickel poker. It was fiddly, having to change denominations a lot and also track when you are up or down is not easy. I preferred sitting at bar playing 8/5 Bonus Poker drinking some good beer and watching the game. That's no indication if Mr Singer's method is "good" or "bad". One, semi-serious trial is nothing.

Quote: JerryLogan

Alan Mendelson of www.AlanBestBuys.com has presented the most lucrative of these special plays, and they can be seen today (with videos of Mr. Singer explaining them in detail available late next week) by going directly to http://www.alanbestbuys.com/id194.html

Hey, this guy is "MoneyLa" from the rec.gambling.craps newsgroup. We spent about a year trying to convince him that the odds bets in craps were zero expectation. He kept insisting that, since the (rightside) odds bets had a less-than-50% chance of winning, that they had a house advantage. When it was pointed out to him that the darkside odds bet had a greater-than-50% chance to win, so should be player advantage, he replied that they paid less than even money. The whole "hoax that is the 1.41% passline HA" thread really reminded me of MoneyLa, who was either a troll or the stupidest person ever to post on RCG. He used to have a TV show on one of the LA stations.

Cheers,
Alan Shank
Woodland, CA

Quote: JerryLogan

These misconceptions are why I would like to see some braniac here look into what he does, and he's posted here that he'd be open to that. But when all I see are uninformed comments, criticisms based on assertions, and fear that he may be doing something the geniuses may not fully understand but want to be paid in order to find out, I see nothing but a bunch of people who do not want to go anywhere outside of theory, even if it involves coming face-to-face with reality.

The reason why you haven't seen the refutations of Singeresque thinking that are everywhere on this board--and not just what I'VE been saying--is that you aren't prepared to see those refutations. Look at the language you use! "Brainiac"--a sneering, condescending term. "Criticisms based on assertions"---you LOOOOOOVE this sort of phraseology, Jerry. But what's wrong with an "assertion"? Don't you, yourself make at least one assertion every time you post? Aren't you making several right now? "Something the geniuses don't understand"--well, the very, very smart people on this site--"geniuses" or not--understand gambling, and the underlying mathematics, very, very well. If the Wiz/MichaelBluejay/Doc say that negative EV games can't be beaten, and "Rob Singer" says they can, well...we can all choose whom to believe, but choosing Singer over those authorities seems a little...irrational.

You show a fundamental misunderstanding when you sneer at "theory", and mistakenly say that it has nothing to do with reality. In truth, theory has EVERYTHING to do with reality--theory is a way of looking at the real world. In any case, the mathematics underlying video poker, and gambling in general, are well beyond theory--they are established, proven fact, and have been so for centuries.

Quote: JerryLogan

Rob's beef with the traditional "experts" as he explains it, has always been how they look at every hand as being part of the inexplicable "long-term".

That's it in a nutshell. The long term is inexplicable to HIM. Perhaps the word he should have used instead was "incomprehensible", again, to HIM. The long term is actually a very, very easy concept to understand. From a mathematical standpoint, it is the point at which random fluctuations reach a certain level of insignificance. It is the MichaelBluejay number of simulated craps rolls, or the yearly end results of a VP player (AP or loser) who plays every day.

Short-term thinking creates illusions and delusions. It is like being an investor who throws a party when the stock market goes up on Monday, then slits his wrists when the market goes down on Tuesday.

Quote: mkl654321

The reason why you haven't seen the refutations of Singeresque thinking that are everywhere on this board--and not just what I'VE been saying--is that you aren't prepared to see those refutations. Look at the language you use! "Brainiac"--a sneering, condescending term. "Criticisms based on assertions"---you LOOOOOOVE this sort of phraseology, Jerry. But what's wrong with an "assertion"? Don't you, yourself make at least one assertion every time you post? Aren't you making several right now? "Something the geniuses don't understand"--well, the very, very smart people on this site--"geniuses" or not--understand gambling, and the underlying mathematics, very, very well. If the Wiz/MichaelBluejay/Doc say that negative EV games can't be beaten, and "Rob Singer" says they can, well...we can all choose whom to believe, but choosing Singer over those authorities seems a little...irrational.

You show a fundamental misunderstanding when you sneer at "theory", and mistakenly say that it has nothing to do with reality. In truth, theory has EVERYTHING to do with reality--theory is a way of looking at the real world. In any case, the mathematics underlying video poker, and gambling in general, are well beyond theory--they are established, proven fact, and have been so for centuries.

1. I usually do not make assertions. Because you don't personally know if something is 100% true doesn't mean it's an assertion. But then again, since you make multiple ones in most of your rambling posts, you'd never think I wouldn't.

2. What I see is the Wiz/Bluejay/Doc all saying that -EV games can't be beaten, and R. Singer says they can. Why? Because they rely on theory and RS relies on actually doing it. So they are wrong. If that were me and I had the talent to analyze this, I'd be on it like I'd be on Selma Hayek in an orgy.

3. Theory is fine when trying to explain the probability of something happenning. But nothing is as good as reality, and theorists tend to shy away from understanding that which they do not understand simply because it does not compute in a way that they can currently explain.

Quote: goatcabin

Hey, this guy is "MoneyLa" from the rec.gambling.craps newsgroup. We spent about a year trying to convince him that the odds bets in craps were zero expectation. He kept insisting that, since the (rightside) odds bets had a less-than-50% chance of winning, that they had a house advantage. When it was pointed out to him that the darkside odds bet had a greater-than-50% chance to win, so should be player advantage, he replied that they paid less than even money. The whole "hoax that is the 1.41% passline HA" thread really reminded me of MoneyLa, who was either a troll or the stupidest person ever to post on RCG. He used to have a TV show on one of the LA stations.

Cheers,
Alan Shank
Woodland, CA

Alan, I don't know anything about craps, but nothing on Mendelson's site suggests he believes in playing as Singer plays. I don't think he really understand much of it from what I saw in the videos.

How do you know that this MoneyLa is the same person who's doing these interviews?

Quote: JerryLogan

1. I usually do not make assertions. Because you don't personally know if something is 100% true doesn't mean it's an assertion. But then again, since you make multiple ones in most of your rambling posts, you'd never think I wouldn't.

I do not think that word means what you think it does. (/Princess Bride)

Quote:

2. What I see is the Wiz/Bluejay/Doc all saying that -EV games can't be beaten, and R. Singer says they can. Why? Because they rely on theory and RS relies on actually doing it. So they are wrong. If that were me and I had the talent to analyze this, I'd be on it like I'd be on Selma Hayek in an orgy.

Perhaps we should define what "beaten" means. The Wizard is quite clear in what he means by being beaten. I think Mr Singer is as well. I also think they use a different definition of the word. I do not think they are "wrong" and your assertion that they are is merely a supposition.

Quote:

3. Theory is fine when trying to explain the probability of something happenning. But nothing is as good as reality, and theorists tend to shy away from understand that which they do not understand simply because it does not compute in a way that they can currently explain.

Actually the theory is better than reality in some cases as it allows you to experiment and see what happens in different cases, not just the one reality you sit and try out.

My best guess right now is that it is absolutely possible to win on VP in the short term using the method Mr Singer suggests. You can do the same with a method I suggest, and I'd be willing to bet even money in a casino that I can win 8 from 10 sessions. I also think for some series of trials that is long enough to be of interest, you can end up positive.

I do not consider this to be "beating" VP by the terms The Wizard et al define.

Simply put, if I turn shit into shinola one time and 99 people do the same thing and fail, it doesn't mean I've found a process of turning shit into shinola. It just means I managed to turn shit into shinola. See Warren Buffet's coin flipping thought experiment.

My question for you JL --- if you had the talent to analyze it... what would you analyze? Play the system? Run it in simulation? What exactly are you looking for? As stated, I'm doing my own investigation at a simple level for my own interest anyways.

Quote: JerryLogan

1. I usually do not make assertions. Because you don't personally know if something is 100% true doesn't mean it's an assertion. But then again, since you make multiple ones in most of your rambling posts, you'd never think I wouldn't.

2. What I see is the Wiz/Bluejay/Doc all saying that -EV games can't be beaten, and R. Singer says they can. Why? Because they rely on theory and RS relies on actually doing it. So they are wrong. If that were me and I had the talent to analyze this, I'd be on it like I'd be on Selma Hayek in an orgy.

3. Theory is fine when trying to explain the probability of something happenning. But nothing is as good as reality, and theorists tend to shy away from understand that which they do not understand simply because it does not compute in a way that they can currently explain.

1. Your first paragraph above, in fact, made three assertions. You should probably look the word up in a dictionary, or I'd be happy to help you out--I'm an English teacher, after all.

2. I've commented before on your misplaced disregard for what you call "theory", but in any case, the mathematics of gambling is anything BUT a "theory"--it is established fact. And the Wiz for certain, and probably also Bluejay and Doc, ARE, in fact, "actually doing it", i.e., they play casino games. Again, it seems completely absurd to not only embrace Rob Singer like a fevered convert, but to reject the advice and learning of those extremely knowledgable people, not to mention the hundreds of other gambling authorities, who in print and on the Web, all agree with the Wiz/Doc/Bluejay, and none of whom agree with Singer. Think about it, Jerry. Is that because ALL of them are wrong--blinded by "theory", never ever ever ever having experienced the "real world", as you put it? Or is it because Rob Singer is, in fact, wrong? Which is more likely? Put aside your prejudices, your anger, your urge to fling insults, your personal temper for a moment. Rob Singer says one thing. Hundreds of other persons say another. Which is more likely--that he's correct, or that he's not? To put it another way, which is more likely--that one person is wrong about something, and several hundred persons are right, or that several hundred persons are wrong, and that one person is right?

3. Theorists, as you call them, do exactly the opposite of "shy away"--they seek explanations. And the mathematics of gambling do, in fact, compute in a way they have completely and thoroughly explained. In any case, as I've tried (without apparent success, alas) to explain to you, mathematics is NOT a "theory".

Ultimately, Jerry, it comes down to what you are prepared or not prepared to believe. Unless you open your mind, nothing anyone could possibly say could help you. You are showing some doubt about the Singer religion, or you wouldn't be making these posts. That doubt is well-placed. The next step is to actually LISTEN to what people are trying to tell you, and that means stifling the urge to make unfair characterizations, to fling personal insults, and to generally antagonize anyone who tries to explain these things to you. You've pissed on me repeatedly whenever I try to point out what is wrong with your and Singer's reasoning. Despite that, I am still trying to talk to you like a decent human being. I am, in fact, an expert on video poker and VP advantage play, and if you want to sneer at and piss on THAT, well, go right ahead. That won't make it any less true. But even if you don't want to listen to me, why don't you want to listen to everybody else? How likely is it that everyone's simply deluded, and that Rob Singer knows something NO ONE ELSE DOES? Really, Jerry, how likely is that?

Just for once, I'd like you to carefully consider the things I've said and the questions I've asked without succumbing to the urge to call me a liar or to insult me. I know what I'm talking about, Jerry. Even though I make less money than you. Even though I'm "just" a high school teacher. Even though I'm from Oregon. Consider the information and not the source, if you must, if you think that impoverished Oregon teachers don't know nuthin' about that theeuretical math stuff.

Quote: thecesspit

I do not think that word means what you think it does. (/Princess Bride)

Perhaps we should define what "beaten" means. The Wizard is quite clear in what he means by being beaten. I think Mr Singer is as well. I also think they use a different definition of the word. I do not think they are "wrong" and your assertion that they are is merely a supposition.

Actually the theory is better than reality in some cases as it allows you to experiment and see what happens in different cases, not just the one reality you sit and try out.

My best guess right now is that it is absolutely possible to win on VP in the short term using the method Mr Singer suggests. You can do the same with a method I suggest, and I'd be willing to bet even money in a casino that I can win 8 from 10 sessions. I also think for some series of trials that is long enough to be of interest, you can end up positive.

I do not consider this to be "beating" VP by the terms The Wizard et al define.

Simply put, if I turn shit into shinola one time and 99 people do the same thing and fail, it doesn't mean I've found a process of turning shit into shinola. It just means I managed to turn shit into shinola. See Warren Buffet's coin flipping thought experiment.

My question for you JL --- if you had the talent to analyze it... what would you analyze? Play the system? Run it in simulation? What exactly are you looking for? As stated, I'm doing my own investigation at a simple level for my own interest anyways.

You do not think I know what the word "assertion" means. Why do you make this assertion?

I have no idea what the wizard means by being "beaten". To me it means these math geniuses theorize that -EV can't be beaten in the long run. Singer has actually beaten them, but in the short run, and he says he never will get into the long run. But the question I care about is if I will be able to do it too, and I would feel a whole lot better about it if someone....anyone could look at his system and come out with a reasonable conclusion AFTER FULLY UNDERSTANDING IT.

I personally believe that if one person is intelligent to be able to turn shit into shinola, others can too. In other words, I don't think Singer is a magician, a fraud, or stupid.

Nothing is as good a barometer as reality. What-if's are interesting, but are & mean nothing until they turn real.

Quote: mkl654321

1. Your first paragraph above, in fact, made three assertions. You should probably look the word up in a dictionary, or I'd be happy to help you out--I'm an English teacher, after all.

2. I've commented before on your misplaced disregard for what you call "theory", but in any case, the mathematics of gambling is anything BUT a "theory"--it is established fact. And the Wiz for certain, and probably also Bluejay and Doc, ARE, in fact, "actually doing it", i.e., they play casino games. Again, it seems completely absurd to not only embrace Rob Singer like a fevered convert, but to reject the advice and learning of those extremely knowledgable people, not to mention the hundreds of other gambling authorities, who in print and on the Web, all agree with the Wiz/Doc/Bluejay, and none of whom agree with Singer. Think about it, Jerry. Is that because ALL of them are wrong--blinded by "theory", never ever ever ever having experienced the "real world", as you put it? Or is it because Rob Singer is, in fact, wrong? Which is more likely? Put aside your prejudices, your anger, your urge to fling insults, your personal temper for a moment. Rob Singer says one thing. Hundreds of other persons say another. Which is more likely--that he's correct, or that he's not? To put it another way, which is more likely--that one person is wrong about something, and several hundred persons are right, or that several hundred persons are wrong, and that one person is right?

3. Theorists, as you call them, do exactly the opposite of "shy away"--they seek explanations. And the mathematics of gambling do, in fact, compute in a way they have completely and thoroughly explained. In any case, as I've tried (without apparent success, alas) to explain to you, mathematics is NOT a "theory".

Ultimately, Jerry, it comes down to what you are prepared or not prepared to believe. Unless you open your mind, nothing anyone could possibly say could help you. You are showing some doubt about the Singer religion, or you wouldn't be making these posts. That doubt is well-placed. The next step is to actually LISTEN to what people are trying to tell you, and that means stifling the urge to make unfair characterizations, to fling personal insults, and to generally antagonize anyone who tries to explain these things to you. You've pissed on me repeatedly whenever I try to point out what is wrong with your and Singer's reasoning. Despite that, I am still trying to talk to you like a decent human being. I am, in fact, an expert on video poker and VP advantage play, and if you want to sneer at and piss on THAT, well, go right ahead. That won't make it any less true. But even if you don't want to listen to me, why don't you want to listen to everybody else? How likely is it that everyone's simply deluded, and that Rob Singer knows something NO ONE ELSE DOES? Really, Jerry, how likely is that?

Just for once, I'd like you to carefully consider the things I've said and the questions I've asked without succumbing to the urge to call me a liar or to insult me. I know what I'm talking about, Jerry. Even though I make less money than you. Even though I'm "just" a high school teacher. Even though I'm from Oregon. Consider the information and not the source, if you must, if you think that impoverished Oregon teachers don't know nuthin' about that theeuretical math stuff.

That's WAAAY too long a ramble for me to even start to read. Hasn't anyone ever taught you (or maybe in one of those 100,000 books you've read) that you do not get other people's attention with a bunch of hot air laced with wind? It also means the writer is so unsure of what he's saying that he just has to keep going on and on and on and on with it. Not the quality I'd expect from a teacher.....

Quote: JerryLogan

That's WAAAY too long a ramble for me to even start to read.

So you're not capable of reading that? How sad. It was only several hundred words long, after all--shorter than any book, or even most magazine articles.

I can only conclude, that since Rob Singer's book is much longer than my post, that you were unable to read it as well. Funny, then, how you reference it anyway.

Either that, or you're a coward, Jerry. And here we thought you were a manly man.

Quote: JerryLogan

You do not think I know what the word "assertion" means.

That's been pretty thoroughly established--that you don't know what that word means. You also don't know what "theory" means, and a host of other terms and concepts that I won't bother to list here. You are intelligent, but also arrogant and ignorant--and that arrogance prevents you from acknowledging that ignorance. Many, many people MUCH more knowledgeable than you are trying (futilely) to get you to understand something very, very basic. Why do you ask the question and then piss on the answer? That seems like a very stupid thing to do--not worthy of a man of your intelligence.

Quote: mkl654321

... If the Wiz/MichaelBluejay/Doc say that negative EV games can't be beaten, and "Rob Singer" says they can, well...we can all choose whom to believe, but choosing Singer over those authorities seems a little...irrational.

Quote: JerryLogan

... 2. What I see is the Wiz/Bluejay/Doc all saying that -EV games can't be beaten, and R. Singer says they can. Why? Because they rely on theory and RS relies on actually doing it. So they are wrong. If that were me and I had the talent to analyze this, I'd be on it like I'd be on Selma Hayek in an orgy.

First of all, Whoooa! with the usage of my nickname and "authority" as if they were synonyms. I'm just another guy who has fun in a casino and thinks he actually understands what is going on in the games. I would never claim to be an authority in this area.

Second, yes indeed, it is my opinion that -EV games cannot rationally be played with a realistic expectation of coming out ahead. It is certainly possible to come out ahead, but actually expecting to do so is not rational. Craps is a -EV game, and I have pointed out (far too many times) that by some stroke of luck I am ahead at that game for at least the past year. I may have been ahead for a very long period, but I have only been keeping detailed records for a year and a half. I guess this period is just the short term, and random variations easily explain this reality. In spite of this run of luck, I think I would have to be a bloomin' fool to expect to keep winning money at this game. What is the "long term" over which everyone should expect to be a loser at craps? I have no idea.

Similarly, I buy a few lottery tickets, and these lotteries are -EV games. I am quite confident that I am well behind for all of the lottery games I have entered in my life. Still, I happen to have a ticket for tonight's drawing of MegaMillions, with "an estimated jackpot of $25 million to a single winner" (sum of annual payments). If my number happens to be drawn this evening, even if one or two other people have the same numbers, then I will be ahead for all of the lottery drawings I have ever entered. That would be for the short term. What would be the outlook for the "long term"? Well, I'm pretty confident that if I happen to win tonight and I keep entering lotteries at my typical $4 per week rate, I will be ahead at that game for a longer term than my life expectancy. But again, I would be a bloomin' fool if I really expected right now to come out ahead in the long term at this game. And whether I win tonight or not, all of the other players entering the game cannot rationally expect to win in whatever the long term may be.

How does this apply to video poker and Mr. Singer's techniques? Well, I certainly couldn't give a detailed answer, because I never play that game, and I have no interest in studying and analyzing how either he or mkl use their various skills at video poker. But I have an opinion, even without conducting a detailed analysis. Here it is in two parts: (1) If the video poker games have pay tables that calculate to a -EV, then every player who continues to play them will lose in the long term, if that term involves continuing to wager enough money for a long enough time, regardless of strategy. (2) In the short term for those games, regardless of strategy, any player may wind up ahead or behind, but it is not rational for them to expect to win if they are going to keep playing. You might use a strategy that says "If I ever get ahead, I will quit." In that case, there is a fairly good chance you can get ahead and quit, but if you keep playing, you will lose. This makes me skeptical of some of the claims I have seen bandied about regarding Mr. Singer consistently winning more money than he loses (not just winning more sessions than he loses, which is quite possible) over an extended period, while playing -EV video poker games.

Before anyone jumps on these oversights, I will note that (1) there may actually be +EV games available and (2) the previous paragraph ignores comps, rebates, etc. If you can find a way to lose money gambling at -EV games but then get someone consistently to give you back more than you lost, then I suppose it's possible to "win" in the long term. I have no experience in that area and retain some skepticism that it works for very many.

Quote: Doc

First of all, Whoooa! with the usage of my nickname and "authority" as if they were synonyms. I'm just another guy who has fun in a casino and thinks he actually understands what is going on in the games. I would never claim to be an authority in this area.

Sorry, Doc, after dealing with people like Jerry, I didn't anticipate that anyone would be so self-effacing as to be distressed by someone calling them an "authority" :)

In any case, your posts prove that you are knowledgeable in the field of gambling, and that you are an articulate and educated person. Even if you ARE a "girly-man", "in denial", and whatever else JerryLogan has called you (fortunately for you, you've only received "Jerry Lite" so far--the full experience is akin to standing in the wrong place when a circus elephant decides to take a leak).

So the upshot is, I think you're a person worth listening to, and it's a shame that JL doesn't seem inclined to do that. But then, he seems disinclined to listen to ANYBODY, except, of course, inexplicably, Rob Singer. Heck, he would even benefit by listening to ME. But that won't happen before the earth decays in its orbit and spirals into the sun.

Quote: mkl654321

Quote: Doc

First of all, Whoooa! with the usage of my nickname and "authority" as if they were synonyms. I'm just another guy who has fun in a casino and thinks he actually understands what is going on in the games. I would never claim to be an authority in this area.

Sorry, Doc, after dealing with people like Jerry, I didn't anticipate that anyone would be so self-effacing as to be distressed by someone calling them an "authority" :)

In any case, your posts prove that you are knowledgeable in the field of gambling, and that you are an articulate and educated person. Even if you ARE a "girly-man", "in denial", and whatever else JerryLogan has called you (fortunately for you, you've only received "Jerry Lite" so far--the full experience is akin to standing in the wrong place when a circus elephant decides to take a leak).

So the upshot is, I think you're a person worth listening to, and it's a shame that JL doesn't seem inclined to do that. But then, he seems disinclined to listen to ANYBODY, except, of course, inexplicably, Rob Singer. Heck, he would even benefit by listening to ME. But that won't happen before the earth decays in its orbit and spirals into the sun.

I'm still trying to find out how a teacher has all this time on his hands when he could be grading papers. Oops! I forgot, there's always the stairs method....

Quote: Doc

Before anyone jumps on these oversights, I will note that (1) there may actually be +EV games available and (2) the previous paragraph ignores comps, rebates, etc. If you can find a way to lose money gambling at -EV games but then get someone consistently to give you back more than you lost, then I suppose it's possible to "win" in the long term. I have no experience in that area and retain some skepticism that it works for very many.

Actually, it works and has worked for quite a few people. Many Vegas locals have been working the comp/free play/mailers angle for years. Often, it is their sole or major means of income. (I'm sure that Jerry will chime in at some point to tell us for the billionth time that he believes that APs do not exist.) If a person does as you describe, and gets rebates in some form that are greater than his losses, then he doesn't just "win"--he wins.

An interesting example would be the current promotion going on at the Gold Coast. It is open only to 50+ age players, and is only available Mondays, but the basic method applies to any promotion. You get a 100-coin bonus for getting four 5's on any video poker machine. This is worth 0.4% to the player. The slot club is worth 0.2% in cashback, or 0.33% in comps. That is at the mid-tier level, which includes most players. So depending on how you value comps, you get somewhere between 0.6% and 0.7% as a "rebate" on your play. Now, there are many games at the Gold Coast that pay back over 99.5%, including the very simple-to-play Jacks or Better. A player playing these games with a reasonable degree of accuracy would therefore be in +EV territory. Plus, the Gold Coast monthly mailer is worth around 1% of total play. So the person playing $10,000/month on Mondays, when the promotion is in effect, will make somewhere around $130. This would be for about ten hours' worth of effort. And of course, someone with a bigger bankroll could play at higher denominations, and make more money than that. And this would only be for one day of the week.

So it's certainly possible to win at VP, and it's not even all that difficult.

Doc, Singer says he never has used slot club benefits as part of his reported winnings, so it is all directly from the machines. He also says he plays only -EV games because that's all that's available in the denominations he plays for the games in his strategy. But he says he wins and has put out those huge challenges that he could prove it, but no one would walk the walk after they talked the talk.

So, instead of there being a steady stream of people like MKL who claim it can't be done consistently, you who say you are skeptical because minus means you lose and plus means you win in the long term, and the other math people who basically say the same thing I think, yet want no part of understanding how it's accomplished....wouldn't the gaming part of you want to know how he does it and/or at least understand more of it before jumping to theoretical conclusions? You guys all seem to be stuck on long term theory, yet Singer says he has not entered any long run and plays only in short term bursts. From what I see he does exactly what you say: he quits after winning, only he does it time after time.

Quote: JerryLogan

I'm still trying to find out how a teacher has all this time on his hands when he could be grading papers. Oops! I forgot, there's always the stairs method....

Today's a school holiday here, Jerry, and my work for the week is done. A more germane question would be why YOU have so much time on your hands, since you're supposed to be working, and they pay you so very very very much. I hope you have your door locked--if your supervisor(s) found out you were fiddling around on the internet instead of doing your job, you'd be in the unemployment line in a hot second.

Quote: mkl654321

Actually, it works and has worked for quite a few people. Many Vegas locals have been working the comp/free play/mailers angle for years. Often, it is their sole or major means of income. (I'm sure that Jerry will chime in at some point to tell us for the billionth time that he believes that APs do not exist.) If a person does as you describe, and gets rebates in some form that are greater than his losses, then he doesn't just "win"--he wins.

An interesting example would be the current promotion going on at the Gold Coast. It is open only to 50+ age players, and is only available Mondays, but the basic method applies to any promotion. You get a 100-coin bonus for getting four 5's on any video poker machine. This is worth 0.4% to the player. The slot club is worth 0.2% in cashback, or 0.33% in comps. That is at the mid-tier level, which includes most players. So depending on how you value comps, you get somewhere between 0.6% and 0.7% as a "rebate" on your play. Now, there are many games at the Gold Coast that pay back over 99.5%, including the very simple-to-play Jacks or Better. A player playing these games with a reasonable degree of accuracy would therefore be in +EV territory. Plus, the Gold Coast monthly mailer is worth around 1% of total play. So the person playing $10,000/month on Mondays, when the promotion is in effect, will make somewhere around $130. This would be for about ten hours' worth of effort. And of course, someone with a bigger bankroll could play at higher denominations, and make more money than that. And this would only be for one day of the week.

So it's certainly possible to win at VP, and it's not even all that difficult.

What a bunch of theoretical nonsense. I'd love to see a documented list of players who win as AP's like this. Oh wait a minute! All those "AP's" are BANNED from playing these promotions because they win so much, so I guess proof is out of the question!

Quote: mkl654321

Today's a school holiday here, Jerry, and my work for the week is done. A more germane question would be why YOU have so much time on your hands, since you're supposed to be working, and they pay you so very very very much. I hope you have your door locked--if your supervisor(s) found out you were fiddling around on the internet instead of doing your job, you'd be in the unemployment line in a hot second.

Pay attention teacher. I work from home. I make my own hours. That's the kind of job one gets with the PROPER education.

BTW, if all your work is done for the week, instead of getting shredded to pieces on an Internet forum, shouldn't you be out there in that wonderful community where it's nothing but pleasant for old single guys, and be mingling so as to keep up the community respect and spirit?

Quote: JerryLogan

Pay attention teacher. I work from home. I make my own hours. That's the kind of job one gets with the PROPER education.

BTW, if all your work is done for the week, instead of getting shredded to pieces on an Internet forum, shouldn't you be out there in that wonderful community where it's nothing but pleasant for old single guys, and be mingling so as to keep up the community respect and spirit?

On one thing you and I agree--it is a waste of my time talking to you.

Quote: JerryLogan

I have no idea what the wizard means by being "beaten". To me it means these math geniuses theorize that -EV can't be beaten in the long run. Singer has actually beaten them, but in the short run, and he says he never will get into the long run. But the question I care about is if I will be able to do it too, and I would feel a whole lot better about it if someone....anyone could look at his system and come out with a reasonable conclusion AFTER FULLY UNDERSTANDING IT.

I am pretty sure then yes you COULD win at VP like Singer has in the past. COULD does not mean you WILL.

However, I cannot say I fully understand it, and I am not sure what you define as a reasonable conclusion... that it's guran-damn-teed? That yes, this is a system that sometimes makes the player money if they get the right luck? What is your TEST for reasonable? I'm interested as if I can incorporate it, I will.

Quote: thecesspit

I am pretty sure then yes you COULD win at VP like Singer has in the past. COULD does not mean you WILL.

However, I cannot say I fully understand it, and I am not sure what you define as a reasonable conclusion... that it's guran-damn-teed? That yes, this is a system that sometimes makes the player money if they get the right luck? What is your TEST for reasonable? I'm interested as if I can incorporate it, I will.

I wish I new more so I could help. But my understanding is that, even though the math theorists claim players can beat +EV games, I know no one who is an AP and has really done it. On-line sure, there's lots of people who claim to win that way. But up close and personal it is a different story. You also get a lot of stories of how certain AP players are banned or restricted, yet there's absolutely zero proof of that other than from other AP's, and the info put out is so hypocritical and mish-mashed that it's totally unbelievable.

Quote: JerryLogan

....wouldn't the gaming part of you want to know how he does it and/or at least understand more of it before jumping to theoretical conclusions? You guys all seem to be stuck on long term theory, yet Singer says he has not entered any long run and plays only in short term bursts. From what I see he does exactly what you say: he quits after winning, only he does it time after time.

Actually, Jerry, I have no interest in that area at all. I'm not a video poker player, and I have no interest in that game. Trying to understand Mr. Singer's techniques and to analyze them in a detailed manner would certainly require some significant effort, and it just doesn't offer sufficient appeal that I would want to expend the effort.

I had a friend/colleague/mentor some years ago who was indeed an authority and consultant in the energy field. He analyzed devices and control systems, and he was an inventor and businessman in addition to being a university faculty member. On a number of occasions, "inventors" came to him with their concepts for perpetual motion machines. He would try to explain the first law of thermodynamics. Others would come with plans for a heat engine that might not violate the first law, but to accomplish its mission would require it to have an efficiency that violated the second law of thermodynamics. My friend told me of one inventor whose response to his explanations was, "But I don't use thermodynamics, and it doesn't apply to my invention." Eventually, he refused to even talk to anyone who claimed to have a perpetual motion machine, whether they called it that or not.

In many ways, I think I may have adopted a similar viewpoint. I have no interest in knowing details about Mr. Singer's techniques (his version of a perpetual motion machine) or attempting to analyze it. I rather suspect his position is basically "But the mathematics doesn't apply to my system." I am convinced his methods will not work, just as my friend was convinced that the inventors' devices would not work, even without knowing the details on them.

But I guess I do have this much curiosity: How many short term bursts does Mr. Singer think it would take (combined) to be equivalent to the long term that he isn't going to enter?

In short then, there is nothing I can provide you, as without a testable hypothesis, I can't test it or give you any reasonable analysis that you will find acceptable.

Unless you wanna lend me a few thousand dollars to go into the casino and trial it for myself...

I also find 0 proof other from Mr Singer that his system works, but that doesn't stop me (or you) pre-supposing he has made the money he claims he has.

Doc, on his site he shows 427 sessions played over a 10 year period. He says each is an individual event in and of itself, and upon winning he reverts back to his lowest denomination and less volatile game to start anew. Because of his progression in credit quantity, game volatility and denominations, which is not a Martingale at least in the terms I know it by, and how he gives good luck a better opportunity to appear by using certain hold plays on certain deals, a small win to anyone else who does not change games or denominations is usually a huge win for him, and he quits. I do not think he ever believes he will get involved in the long run.

Quote: thecesspit

In short then, there is nothing I can provide you, as without a testable hypothesis, I can't test it or give you any reasonable analysis that you will find acceptable.

Unless you wanna lend me a few thousand dollars to go into the casino and trial it for myself...

I also find 0 proof other from Mr Singer that his system works, but that doesn't stop me (or you) pre-supposing he has made the money he claims he has.

I understand. Proof is something no AP has ever offered either.

No loans from me, but maybe the venerable MKL would be willing to part with some of that $6000 he wins every year.

Quote: Doc

In many ways, I think I may have adopted a similar viewpoint. I have no interest in knowing details about Mr. Singer's techniques (his version of a perpetual motion machine) or attempting to analyze it. I rather suspect his position is basically "But the mathematics doesn't apply to my system." I am convinced his methods will not work, just as my friend was convinced that the inventors' devices would not work, even without knowing the details on them.

That's at the heart of the non-constructive debate between the system believers and the rational people. The rational know that the systems CANNOT work, so picking apart the details of those systems is a waste of time. But the believers say in response, "BUT JUST LOOK AT IT!!!" The rationalists respond, "I don't need to." Then the believers say, "Well, you live in Oregon." Or, "Neener neener neener." Or "girly-men don't know nuthin." Or something.

Why would anyone, in this day and age, want to read a book on alchemy, or the transmigration of body humours? For amusement perhaps, but for information? That's just...ludicrous. And Rob Singer is the author of a text that purports to show how to turn lead into gold. It is for the credulous, and doesn't need to be refuted; its very claim is its refutation.

Quote: JerryLogan

I understand. Proof is something no AP has ever offered either.

Oh, I will also try Mr Singer's method on a positive EV machines as well as the Double Double Bonus machines (though I know he uses Bonus Poker as a base line). I can also do the same short term tests on a +EV machine and see if they work out better or worse than Mr Singer's method.

Quote:

No loans from me, but maybe the venerable MKL would be willing to part with some of that $6000 he wins every year.

I didn't expect one, but to me it seems the only proof you'll take is a second person "doing it for real".

Quote: thecesspit

Oh, I will also try Mr Singer's method on a positive EV machines as well as the Double Double Bonus machines (though I know he uses Bonus Poker as a base line). I can also do the same short term tests on a +EV machine and see if they work out better or worse than Mr Singer's method.



I didn't expect one, but to me it seems the only proof you'll take is a second person "doing it for real".

I'm trying to get RS to give me lessons, but he hasn't had the time so far. He won't go to the Indian casinos around here so he said he'll try to do it in Laughlin, but probably not until Jan. or Feb.

Quote: JerryLogan

... how he gives good luck a better opportunity to appear ....

Jerry, I suspect this could be the point on which most math-oriented folk would have a problem. It is quite difficult to understand how a player can basically "decide" to have good luck when he wants it. Why not just give good luck a better opportunity to appear all of the time? I don't think it works reliably all of the time or at any specific times that we might call for it.

Side note to mkl: On one of these threads, you mentioned that thus far I have only been subjected to "Jerry-lite" attacks. You are correct. I think that a significant reason for such a record is that even though I might disagree strongly with Jerry and I might think that he is saying outrageous things, I try to be reasonably polite to him when we do have interactions. I think I can openly disagree with him without leaving him wanting to attack me.

Quote: Doc

Jerry, I suspect this could be the point on which most math-oriented folk would have a problem. It is quite difficult to understand how a player can basically "decide" to have good luck when he wants it. Why not just give good luck a better opportunity to appear all of the time? I don't think it works reliably all of the time or at any specific times that we might call for it.

Side note to mkl: On one of these threads, you mentioned that thus far I have only been subjected to "Jerry-lite" attacks. You are correct. I think that a significant reason for such a record is that even though I might disagree strongly with Jerry and I might think that he is saying outrageous things, I try to be reasonably polite to him when we do have interactions. I think I can openly disagree with him without leaving him wanting to attack me.

I kinda felt like that at first too about how he somehow "summons" luck. But when I talked to him about it, and in some of his videos I put the link up for, it made good sense. I believe that by making certain "other" holds on deals that optimal holds would mathematically make for a small winner or possible small winner, he increases his opportunity for a big winner, and he said he has done a thorough mathematical risk analysis on every special play. It seems to me that done enough times and with a denomination progression, when one finally hits (and all it takes is one mind you) he can go home a winner. So it appears he can be losing all day long and suddenly a hit appears that turns the entire session around for him. If that happened to me the way I play then four Aces might make the hole I'm in a little smaller.

I decided to look at just one of these special plays on Bonus Poker ::

Number 7 : Dealt 6c 7c 8c 3h Ad

Perfect Strategy Play - Hold the 678 => EV $2.97
Singer Play - Hold the single Ace => EV $2.43

If you hold the "Math Play" there's 3 possibilities Mr Singer is interested in :

3 Straight Flush
42 Flushes
45 Straights

from 1081 possible outcomes. 8.32% of the hands. Overall 13% of the hands are winners.

If you hold the "Singer Play"

1 Royal Flush
1 Straight Flush
44 Quad Aces
8 smaller quads
288 Full Houses
493 Flushes
486 Straights

from 178,365 possible outcomes. 0.07% of the hands. However overall 33.5% of the hands are winners.

The chance of straight flush in Perfect Strategy far out weighs the chance of the Royal, Straight and Quads in Singer Strategy (your 10 times more likely to get a straight flush holding the 3 cards than holding the ace you are to get the quad aces).

You are more likely to get the Push Play holding with Mr Singer's play than a big win. On this special play (and this one alone, I've not run the analysis on any of the others in depth) appears to be the opposite of what he is teaching... hold cards to get the outside plays more often.

Make of that what you will.

Quote: JerryLogan

... I believe that by making certain "other" holds on deals that optimal holds would mathematically make for a small winner or possible small winner, he increases his opportunity for a big winner, and he said he has done a thorough mathematical risk analysis on every special play. ...

Well, obviously I'm just making guesses, since I have not read about his techniques and have already stated that I have no interest in expending the effort to learn and analyze them. So here is my guess/suspicion: when he "increases his opportunity for a big winner" he also increases his opportunity to lose, and perhaps to lose big, or at least bigger than with a different technique.

Suppose I have been living my typical low-roller life in a casino, placing $5 to $25 wagers at the tables (or maybe even $1 where that's allowed.) Then I go over to the roulette table and place a $400 wager on 00. At that moment I have greatly increased my opportunity for a big win. If, somehow, I could summon good luck to appear at that moment, I would get a payout of $14,000 on a single spin of the wheel -- a heck of a lot more than this low-roller has ever won in an entire visit to Las Vegas. But the mathematical reality is that I have greatly, greatly increased my chance of losing $400 very quickly compared to what was happening with those $1, $5, and $25 bets.

Maybe his technique for increasing opportunity for big wins in not equivalent to my increasing from $5 bets to $400 bets. Perhaps a better analogy would be if I revise my strategy at the crap table: instead of betting pass line with odds, I start betting the hardways and Yo, in the same size bets that I had been placing on pass w/odds. That change greatly increases my chance of a big win, but it also increases my chance of losing more money.

Now Mr. Singer may have techniques that are not represented by either of these, but I suspect it comes down equivalent to something along those lines. Just as the friend I mentioned earlier had reason to suspect that the "inventors" were going to fail because their techniques violated basic laws of science. Because he knew their claims could never be realized.

Quote: thecesspit

I decided to look at just one of these special plays on Bonus Poker ::

Number 7 : Dealt 6c 7c 8c 3h Ad

Perfect Strategy Play - Hold the 678 => EV $2.97
Singer Play - Hold the single Ace => EV $2.43

If you hold the "Math Play" there's 3 possibilities Mr Singer is interested in :

3 Straight Flush
42 Flushes
45 Straights

from 1081 possible outcomes. 8.32% of the hands. Overall 13% of the hands are winners.

If you hold the "Singer Play"

1 Royal Flush
1 Straight Flush
44 Quad Aces
8 smaller quads
288 Full Houses
493 Flushes
486 Straights

from 178,365 possible outcomes. 0.07% of the hands. However overall 33.5% of the hands are winners.

The chance of straight flush in Perfect Strategy far out weighs the chance of the Royal, Straight and Quads in Singer Strategy (your 10 times more likely to get a straight flush holding the 3 cards than holding the ace you are to get the quad aces).

You are more likely to get the Push Play holding with Mr Singer's play than a big win. On this special play (and this one alone, I've not run the analysis on any of the others in depth) appears to be the opposite of what he is teaching... hold cards to get the outside plays more often.

Make of that what you will.

I'm reading what he does with this and other hands, and why, much differently than you. First, he says he is NOT making the hold to hit a straight, FH, or Flush but of course they do appear and those opportunities are not entirely gone away. Next, while there is only 3 possibilities to hit the SF with the math hold, he has 54 possibilities to hit a big winner with his hold. It looks like he's using that parameter and not overall value or chances of hitting ANY winner no matter how small, as his overall objective. Finally, he said he did in fact perform a risk analysis on each hold he uses in this manner so I imagine that is similar to what you showed. What you didn't show is the actual value of the winner. 3 possibilities to get an outcome of 250 credits is probably not attractive enough for him to have all those possibilities for 400 credits, which also end his session successfully. I know from my own experience that holding one Ace yields four of them more often than one would think, just like holding one of any high card or a single duece in deuces wild.

I think this discussion also addresses Doc's last post.

Thank you for your analysis.

Quote: Doc

Side note to mkl: On one of these threads, you mentioned that thus far I have only been subjected to "Jerry-lite" attacks. You are correct. I think that a significant reason for such a record is that even though I might disagree strongly with Jerry and I might think that he is saying outrageous things, I try to be reasonably polite to him when we do have interactions. I think I can openly disagree with him without leaving him wanting to attack me.

Give him time, Doc. I have recently TWICE offered to make peace with Jerry, and both times he spat on my offer. I also tried to explain to him exactly what was wrong with his reasoning, in a perfectly civil manner, and he read that post, lied about reading it, and spat on that, too. Then he went into one of his extended ravings about how I'm wrong because I live in Oregon and I make less money than him.

His level of vitriol with you will increase as it becomes clear that you aren't going to agree with him that Rob Singer has the godlike powers to refute 400 years of math, which Jerry calls "theory" (and why should anybody believe "theory" such as, the "theory of gravity"?).

You are treating Jerry FAR better than he deserves, and I hope he keeps a civil tongue in his head with you, though I don't think he's at all capable of doing that. In any event, you are talking to a brick wall--he will NEVER see, or acknowledge, the fundamental errors in his thinking. Admitting that he's wrong is not in his skill set, so you are wasting your time.

Quote: Doc

Just as the friend I mentioned earlier had reason to suspect that the "inventors" were going to fail because their techniques violated basic laws of science. Because he knew their claims could never be realized.

You have to keep in mind, Doc, that in Jerry World, the basic laws of science are "just theories". Note that he says that there is no such thing as an advantage player; but the casinos are the biggest and most successful advantage players of all! They constantly make +EV bets, and thus come out ahead. An AP is just someone who emulates the casino, making +EV bets when and where they are available.

You are trying to battle BELIEF with science. Believers can't be jarred out of their beliefs with scientific proof. Another poster has done Jerry the service of analyzing one of Singer's speshul sooper secret misplays. The analysis shows the Singer play to be clearly inferior to the correct one. Will that convince Jerry? Will a cow fly by?

Keep in mind that the only reason Jerry is here (aside from amusing himself by flaming) is to somehow find a way that he can keep on playing -EV Double Double Bonus poker, but stop losing. He is seeking a perpetual motion machine--I know that, and you know that. Can you communicate that knowledge to him? Extremely doubtful. I do admire your quixotic quest, though :)

Quote: thecesspit

In short then, there is nothing I can provide you, as without a testable hypothesis, I can't test it or give you any reasonable analysis that you will find acceptable.

Unless you wanna lend me a few thousand dollars to go into the casino and trial it for myself...

I also find 0 proof other from Mr Singer that his system works, but that doesn't stop me (or you) pre-supposing he has made the money he claims he has.

Jerry doesn't require the proof from Singer that he so vehemently DEMANDS from others. He's a believer. He believes--starry-eyed-- the "Look how much I won!!!" "records" on Singer's site, even though he has no Jerry-rigorous PROOOOOOOOOOF that those records are not bogus. And believe me, the burden of proof is on the faker who says he's been playing -EV games, and badly at that, for years and has won squillions of dollars doing it.

Quote: mkl654321

I do admire your quixotic quest, though :)

Perhaps it relates to my (imaginary) upbringing in La Mancha.

Quote: JerryLogan

Alan, I don't know anything about craps, but nothing on Mendelson's site suggests he believes in playing as Singer plays. I don't think he really understand much of it from what I saw in the videos.

How do you know that this MoneyLa is the same person who's doing these interviews?

Well, his name is Alan Mendelson, and his show was very similar to what he's doing on his web site. The fact that he doesn't "understand much of it" fits right in, too. >:-)
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Woodland, CA

That makes little sense. The sum total of his "any winners" is LESS chance than hitting 1 of the straight flushes. In creasing the number of winning combinations while also massively increasing the total umber of combinations, then only looking at the top number is the sort of voodoo maths normally restricted for Political Economic broadcasts.

I took into account the difference between 250 and 400. I was actually expecting this to method to lower the number of total winners but increase the value of the win of each of those. It doesn't, it goes the other way... it reduces the potential for a big winner in return for increasing the chance that you hit something (13% versus 33.5%). That's fine, I understand that as a strategy, but it seems to be at odds with his overall philosophy (if you see how he plays a QJ off suit in example 1, he holds just the Jack, which does the opposite... it lowers the number of winning hands in return for increasing the chance of a 250+ pay off).

Let me normalise the "big wins" (Big Wins being 250 credits or more) : Singer : 46 / 178,365 ; Math Strategy :: 495/178,365.

There's 10 times more big wins by holding the 3 to the straight flush.

I'm not sure what you mean "holding one Ace yields four of them more often than one would think". It happens 44 times from 178,365 or one time in about 4,000. Now if you claim that VP pays quad aces on holding one more often than that OVERALL, you are claiming that the machines are not random.

If you are (or Mr Singer is, I'm afraid I am using you as his proxy, which is unfair, as he is better placed to answer that than you are), then there's a fundamental disconnect that we can't resolve; and I'm not interested in debating it (well not under an examination of a betting system at least...)

Mr Singer may well have done a risk analysis... but I'd like to see what it is (if he's mentioned his method somewhere, I'm happy to go read it). The two hands I looked at seem to be taking a different approach. I'd like to understand what I'm missing here.

Quote: thecesspit

If you are (or Mr Singer is, I'm afraid I am using you as his proxy, which is unfair, as he is better placed to answer that than you are), then there's a fundamental disconnect that we can't resolve; and I'm not interested in debating it (well not under an examination of a betting system at least...)

Mr Singer may well have done a risk analysis... but I'd like to see what it is (if he's mentioned his method somewhere, I'm happy to go read it). The two hands I looked at seem to be taking a different approach. I'd like to understand what I'm missing here.

What you're missing is that you're applying an approach of rigorous analysis, and Singer is not. He never bothered to figure out what the EV consequences of his speshul plays are, because for him, an increased chance to hit a big hand--however slim, and however costly---is all that matters. This means that when he is dealt A2345, he will throw away all but the Ace. Why? Because he has a better chance to hit four Aces. And he's right! He does!

One example that you give is his penchant for throwing away the Q from a holding of QJ, in the hopes of hitting four of a kind. This is a HUGELY costly play, not only in its cost/hand, but also in its high frequency. It is an error that will be made over and over during a session, costing many bets, and all in return for a 1 in 4,000 chance of hitting quads. If Singer had done even a cursory analysis, he would know how much this blunder costs.

Quote: thecesspit

... Mr Singer may well have done a risk analysis... but I'd like to see what it is (if he's mentioned his method somewhere, I'm happy to go read it). ...

Thank you for doing all this detailed analysis. As I noted some time back, I have no interest in expending the effort to do that, even though I am confident of the result you will find.

Quote: goatcabin

Well, his name is Alan Mendelson, and his show was very similar to what he's doing on his web site. The fact that he doesn't "understand much of it" fits right in, too. >:-)
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Woodland, CA

So you're making an assumption and not a stated fact. What I can't decipher is who your beef is really with.

Quote: thecesspit

That makes little sense. The sum total of his "any winners" is LESS chance than hitting 1 of the straight flushes. In creasing the number of winning combinations while also massively increasing the total umber of combinations, then only looking at the top number is the sort of voodoo maths normally restricted for Political Economic broadcasts.

I took into account the difference between 250 and 400. I was actually expecting this to method to lower the number of total winners but increase the value of the win of each of those. It doesn't, it goes the other way... it reduces the potential for a big winner in return for increasing the chance that you hit something (13% versus 33.5%). That's fine, I understand that as a strategy, but it seems to be at odds with his overall philosophy (if you see how he plays a QJ off suit in example 1, he holds just the Jack, which does the opposite... it lowers the number of winning hands in return for increasing the chance of a 250+ pay off).

Let me normalise the "big wins" (Big Wins being 250 credits or more) : Singer : 46 / 178,365 ; Math Strategy :: 495/178,365.

There's 10 times more big wins by holding the 3 to the straight flush.

I'm not sure what you mean "holding one Ace yields four of them more often than one would think". It happens 44 times from 178,365 or one time in about 4,000. Now if you claim that VP pays quad aces on holding one more often than that OVERALL, you are claiming that the machines are not random.

If you are (or Mr Singer is, I'm afraid I am using you as his proxy, which is unfair, as he is better placed to answer that than you are), then there's a fundamental disconnect that we can't resolve; and I'm not interested in debating it (well not under an examination of a betting system at least...)

Mr Singer may well have done a risk analysis... but I'd like to see what it is (if he's mentioned his method somewhere, I'm happy to go read it). The two hands I looked at seem to be taking a different approach. I'd like to understand what I'm missing here.

1. I'm no math wiz but I understand more of this than even you. The "sense" of that play is not to see how many "other winners" are possible, but how many of the higher paying BIG winners is possible. Your numbers identified that, but for some reason you're floating away from that and into an mkl bubble.

2. You're analyzing then concluding things without consulting the developer. That's fine if you're interested in continuing theory, but not if you're interested in facts.

3. Holding 3 to the SF, by your own calculations, has 3 ways to yield a "big win", ie a SF. Holding the Ace is 46. What funny math are you using to say holding the SF has more possibility of hitting a "big win"?

4. What I was saying about holding a lone Ace is that when players do that, yes indeed, quad Aces and even royals do come up, and when they do, from experience it is exciting enough to forget about how long ago it was that it previously happened. But when analysts like you show the numbers you make it appear that all is lost if you even try it, and that's not the truth as you know.

5. You final words reflect my frustration. I'm a losing chaotic vp player as we know. I have no rhyme or reason other than play and hope. There are others who SAY they win because of math and perfect play and good machines etc., but I've never ever seen anyone of them step forward, regardless of the criticisms of Singer (and they are vast & nasty at times indeed) and even OFFER to produce proof of wins or proof of play. Never. They simply believe that if they talk theory it's good enough to believe and good enough to sell stuff with. And sheep like mkl fantacize so much about it they actually have talked themselves into believing it's happenning to them. Finally, we have Singer, who not only reports on his wins and has published much of it over the years in Gambling Today, he's put out multiple challenges that he could both prove his overall to-date winning, and play for-profit vp with witnesses who doubt watching. That's when they all disappear, just like here.

So, if anyone would ever step forward and talk to Singer to get an understanding into what he has actually done to come up with these special plays and ESPECIALLY his play strategy and how it's been such a big winner for him, I would be forever happy over that. But as I've said, all I've ever seen is people say things, then move in all kinds of directions so as not to get a piece of him, even though he's offerred to do it a million times. And THAT tends to add a hell of a lot of credibility to all that he says.

Quote: JerryLogan

5. You final words reflect my frustration. I'm a losing chaotic vp player as we know. I have no rhyme or reason other than play and hope. There are others who SAY they win because of math and perfect play and good machines etc., but I've never ever seen anyone of them step forward, regardless of the criticisms of Singer (and they are vast & nasty at times indeed) and even OFFER to produce proof of wins or proof of play. Never. They simply believe that if they talk theory it's good enough to believe and good enough to sell stuff with. And sheep like mkl fantacize so much about it they actually have talked themselves into believing it's happenning to them. Finally, we have Singer, who not only reports on his wins and has published much of it over the years in Gambling Today, he's put out multiple challenges that he could both prove his overall to-date winning, and play for-profit vp with witnesses who doubt watching. That's when they all disappear, just like here.

So, if anyone would ever step forward and talk to Singer to get an understanding into what he has actually done to come up with these special plays and ESPECIALLY his play strategy and how it's been such a big winner for him, I would be forever happy over that. But as I've said, all I've ever seen is people say things, then move in all kinds of directions so as not to get a piece of him, even though he's offerred to do it a million times. And THAT tends to add a hell of a lot of credibility to all that he says.

Why would anyone bother to "step forward" and produce PROOOOOOOOOF? To try to convince you? You're not worth the trouble, and the effort would be futile, as I've found out.

I win at VP. So you don't believe it. So what? What you think means very, very little. Many other people win at VP. So you don't believe it. So what? That has no bearing on the truth of those statements. No bearing whatsoever.

You believe Singer's "reports" of his wins (which cannot be verified), but you don't believe ANYONE else who says THEY win. So your BELIEFS are what cause your "assertions", not any kind of facts or logic. You call ME a "sheep", Jerry? A true sheep is one who follows a snake-oil salesman around like a lovesick teenager, and believes everything that fraud says.

You're a huge loser and a sucker, Jerry. I'm a winner (albeit modestly). Rob Singer can't save you, but I could.

Quote: JerryLogan

So you're making an assumption and not a stated fact. What I can't decipher is who your beef is really with.

So the guy's name is an "assumption"? No, wait, it's an "assertion". No, wait, it's a "theory".

There's a lot more than just this that you are unable to decipher, Jerry.