Thread Rating:

JerryLogan
JerryLogan
Joined: Jun 28, 2010
  • Threads: 26
  • Posts: 1344
November 19th, 2010 at 7:20:41 AM permalink
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.
WizardofEngland
WizardofEngland
Joined: Nov 2, 2010
  • Threads: 61
  • Posts: 638
November 19th, 2010 at 7:41:34 AM permalink
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.
http://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/10042-woes-black-sheep-game-ii/#post151727
JerryLogan
JerryLogan
Joined: Jun 28, 2010
  • Threads: 26
  • Posts: 1344
November 19th, 2010 at 8:59:07 AM permalink
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.
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
November 19th, 2010 at 10:00:41 AM permalink
"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.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
goatcabin
goatcabin
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 664
November 19th, 2010 at 10:26:12 AM permalink
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
Cheers, Alan Shank "How's that for a squabble, Pugh?" Peter Boyle as Mister Moon in "Yellowbeard"
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
November 19th, 2010 at 10:43:06 AM permalink
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.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
November 19th, 2010 at 10:48:51 AM permalink
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.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
JerryLogan
JerryLogan
Joined: Jun 28, 2010
  • Threads: 26
  • Posts: 1344
November 19th, 2010 at 11:00:06 AM permalink
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.
JerryLogan
JerryLogan
Joined: Jun 28, 2010
  • Threads: 26
  • Posts: 1344
November 19th, 2010 at 11:08:41 AM permalink
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?
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
November 19th, 2010 at 11:19:31 AM permalink
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.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829

  • Jump to: