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

Quote: JerryLogan

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.

I don't understand what MKL bubble or what you mean by this. I've tried to analyse one play as best I can to see what Mr Singer is up to in general. I've read a fair amount of his writings, but I still don't find much except for attacks on Advantage Play. I'm not interested in that debate, though. I'm looking purely at why I should play these plays over what the Perfect Strategy says.

Am I giving EV in return for higher variance? Looking at more outliers? Or lowering the variance? Chasing Quads and Royals? I don't know, and one way to find out is to look at the plays and the process, and work out what that means.

Necessarily this will be on "paper". You can take it or leave it.

Quote:

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.

I don't understand your comment here. I'm interested in the facts, and if you can point me to them, we can proceed. If I have a fact wrong, I'm happy to change my analysis.

Quote:

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"?

Simple probability. The 3 card Straight Flush is 3 chances from 1081. The Ace hold is 46 chances from 178,365. 3 from 1081 is the same as 495 from 178,365.

Here's a basic example. What would you prefer, to try and roll a 6 with one die, or an 11 with two dice? The 6 only has one chance to hit, but the 11 has two. Hopefully you'll agree that a 1 in 6 shot is better than a 2 in 36 shot.

That's the "funny math" I'm using... probability. Expressed as fractions.

Quote:

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.

Yes, but they come up less often than you expect. What I found interesting by this analysis was I was expecting that the play would maybe lower the chance of any hand coming back and increase the chance of a big winner. It does the opposite. I'm not trying to add any qualitative analysis to this, I'm just trying to understand the numbers and how Singer has come to the conclusions he makes with these special plays.

As I said, I'm using you by as Singer proxy. I may well sit down and bundle this up in a email to Mr Singer himself, I may get better answers.

Quote:

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.

Not interested in taking up bets with Mr Singer. I've not got the bankroll required for even a start, and I'm pretty sure that a) he can win a session with his method often enough to win a bet on it and b) he has documentation to show his winnings.

I'm interested, and I think you are too from a different direction, is this a repeatable method, and how often is it repeatable?

You should note, I'm not just a guy with a calculator and computer. I play a lot of losing VP. I don't try to AP, as while I've played a lot, it's nothing like enough to earn the comp points necessary to get an advantage on any particular trip. I'm not interested in debating whether AP exists or not in this thread. Lets limit it to "what is the Singer Poker method". I'm interested in the core, not on how many bets he has offered and what other people may or may not have tried to take him on. It does not add any credibility to his core system to me, but if it does for you, thats fine.

Im new here and stumbled on this when doing a google search about video poker tournament strategy. I found articles by Bob Dancer where he says to "push the royals" and drop made hands and go for long shots like the royal flush in a tourney. Might this Singer strategy also be good for tournament play? You cant use the long term approach in a tournament when you are limited to a 20-minute session or a couple of ten minute sessions. You need the "big wins" to get ahead. Seems to me like Singer might have the right idea for tournaments. As far as the other crazy plays for a long term player like me -- never. I will never do what he did in example #12 and #13 despite what he says.

By the way, I live in Los Angeles and I know Mendelson from TV. I don't think Mendelson is endorsing this guy. Elsewhere on Mendelson's site he talks about "correct strategy" and he is critical of those who don't play correct strategy. Is he just presenting another view? He pretty much says that Singer is both controversial and does not follow what the rest of us follow.

Quote: bobthomas

Im new here and stumbled on this when doing a google search about video poker tournament strategy. I found articles by Bob Dancer where he says to "push the royals" and drop made hands and go for long shots like the royal flush in a tourney. Might this Singer strategy also be good for tournament play? You cant use the long term approach in a tournament when you are limited to a 20-minute session or a couple of ten minute sessions. You need the "big wins" to get ahead. Seems to me like Singer might have the right idea for tournaments. As far as the other crazy plays for a long term player like me -- never. I will never do what he did in example #12 and #13 despite what he says.

Yes, Singer's strategy for the play of the hands would be better than a straight optimum-return strategy, IN A TOURNAMENT. That's because there's no value in a tournament in simply winning a small amount. There IS value in real life in say, starting with $1000 and cashing out $1200. That's why the Singer method doesn't work in real life--by the time you get the "Big Win", your tossing away all those small wins has gotten you in a hole so deep that the big win doesn't get you out.

The above said, a tournament is played always at the same denomination and the same size bet, so Singer's Martingale methods wouldn't work in a tournament.

Quote: thecesspit

I don't understand what MKL bubble or what you mean by this..

The "mkl bubble" is reality. There are those whose minds, and beliefs, exist outside the mkl bubble. It is not something such minds should be proud of.

Thank you. This gives me support for Dancer's tournament approach as well. Dancer suggests breaking up pairs and trips to go for the royals. Singer's approach takes Dancer's strategy a few more extra steps.

And yes, I would not play his way in non-tournaments. I certainly wouldnt do what he did in 12 and 13. All I can say is he's got balls.

Quote: bobthomas

Thank you. This gives me support for Dancer's tournament approach as well. Dancer suggests breaking up pairs and trips to go for the royals. Singer's approach takes Dancer's strategy a few more extra steps.

And yes, I would not play his way in non-tournaments. I certainly wouldnt do what he did in 12 and 13. All I can say is he's got balls.

No, "having balls" would be having the discipline to play properly. What he's got is rocks. In his head. No doubt, it does take courage of a sort to keep increasing your bets, playing badly intentionally, and being willing to suffer a $3000 loss for the sake of probably coming out ahead $5. But a dog has courage.

Quote: JerryLogan

I know from my own experience that holding one Ace yields four of them more often than one would think.

I think this is the heart of the misunderstanding. People are really, really bad at estimating long odds or acting appropriately based on them. How often four aces appears when holding just one on the draw is simply beyond the capacity of anyone's intuition, even for someone with knowledge of the actual odds. We're just not wired that way.

That's one of the reasons why the Gambler's Fallacy exists and why Martingale systems are popular. But what the VP play choice described before (single A vs. 3 consecutive suited cards) really comes down to is this: when faced with the opportunity to make an investment, do you make the best one even if it doesn't pay off often, or do you make a lower-return investment with a higher frequency?

Here's an example with a single die, something easier to intuitively understand. You have two bets you can make:
A) Bet on 6. Pays 4-1. Win frequency is 16.67%. House edge is 16.67%
B) Bet on 1 or 2. Pays 6-5. Win frequency is 33.33%. House edge is 26.67%

You could make bet B and win twice as often, but you'd have a much lower return on your wager. Or you could make bet A, win less often, but optimize your return (as it were). It's pretty clear that a player who makes bet A will lose less money over the course of a year than a player who bets just bet B. The question is what you value. If you're willing to give up long-term return for a higher chance at winning anything at all, bet B is better. If you're in it for the long-term, bet A is better. The same is true in the VP example. Bet A, the "math strategy" -- that is, the play with the highest return on the wager -- has a lower chance of winning but higher average return. Bet B, holding just the Ace, wins "something" more often, and has a shot at a royal or quad aces, but will bust out sooner.

But if you value hitting the royal flush or the quad aces (e.g. for entertainment purposes) over your long term return, holding the ace might be a better play for you. It's a worse investment but might be more fun. Sort of like making hop bets or hardways when playing craps. They're terrible investments, but when they hit it's a load of fun.

Quote: MathExtremist

Sort of like making hop bets or hardways when playing craps. They're terrible investments, but when they hit it's a load of fun.

Oh no. No no no no no. Now we're going to get "Rob Crapsinger" with his sure-fire can't lose craps system based on Martingale betting on the hops and hardways. After all, betting the props gives you the best chance at that BIG WIN!!!!

Quote: MathExtremist

I think this is the heart of the misunderstanding. People are really, really bad at estimating long odds or acting appropriately based on them. How often four aces appears when holding just one on the draw is simply beyond the capacity of anyone's intuition, even for someone with knowledge of the actual odds. We're just not wired that way.

....

But if you value hitting the royal flush or the quad aces (e.g. for entertainment purposes) over your long term return, holding the ace might be a better play for you. It's a worse investment but might be more fun. Sort of like making hop bets or hardways when playing craps. They're terrible investments, but when they hit it's a load of fun.

Thank ME, you've explained better what I was trying to express or get to.

Im sorry but I am not familiar with this "increasing bets." When does he increase bets? I will move up to a higher game -- $1 to $2 or $1 to $5 after Im ahead. Are you suggesting he applies a martingale strategy to VP and moves to a high denomination when losing? Funny thing is, my wife does that. She starts at 50-cents and when she is down she goes to $1 hoping for a win that will cover her previous losses.

In one strategy at least, he goes to a higher denomination when he gets behind a certain amount. The Advanced Romp Strategy (the one I've looked at the most), he plays $1/$2/$5/$10/$25 Bonus Poker, moving up if he doesn't get at least a push on the current level, and moving back to the $1 if he makes at least a Two Pair. If he gets to $25 level, he plays this for 100 Units or until he is up at least $25 overall. If this fails he goes to (I think) Double Double Bonus for 300 credits at the $25 level, until up at least $25. Or bust.

Once he makes x number of wins, he quits for the day.

Quote: bobthomas

Im sorry but I am not familiar with this "increasing bets." When does he increase bets? I will move up to a higher game -- $1 to $2 or $1 to $5 after Im ahead. Are you suggesting he applies a martingale strategy to VP and moves to a high denomination when losing?

Most of his play is 400 credits at one level trying to win 40 or more credits, then up to next level for 400 credits trying for the 40 credits and the last 40 credits etc.
He never goes up to another level after losing just 5 credits.
His strategies at his website are hard to read and understand the first time you read them. He should have a table showing the bets, credits lost, next denomination. My wife had me make up a few for her and her friends.

Quote: bobthomas

Funny thing is, my wife does that. She starts at 50-cents and when she is down she goes to $1 hoping for a win that will cover her previous losses.

My wife also does the same thing. 5c,10c,25c,50c and $1 and she actually found Rob Singers site a few years ago and had me trying it out.

Quote: thecesspit

Am I giving EV in return for higher variance? Looking at more outliers? Or lowering the variance? Chasing Quads and Royals? I don't know, and one way to find out is to look at the plays and the process, and work out what that means.

I don't understand your comment here. I'm interested in the facts, and if you can point me to them, we can proceed. If I have a fact wrong, I'm happy to change my analysis.
Simple probability. The 3 card Straight Flush is 3 chances from 1081. The Ace hold is 46 chances from 178,365. 3 from 1081 is the same as 495 from 178,365.

Here's a basic example. What would you prefer, to try and roll a 6 with one die, or an 11 with two dice? The 6 only has one chance to hit, but the 11 has two. Hopefully you'll agree that a 1 in 6 shot is better than a 2 in 36 shot.

That's the "funny math" I'm using... probability. Expressed as fractions.
Yes, but they come up less often than you expect. What I found interesting by this analysis was I was expecting that the play would maybe lower the chance of any hand coming back and increase the chance of a big winner. It does the opposite. I'm not trying to add any qualitative analysis to this, I'm just trying to understand the numbers and how Singer has come to the conclusions he makes with these special plays.

As I said, I'm using you by as Singer proxy. I may well sit down and bundle this up in a email to Mr Singer himself, I may get better answers.
Not interested in taking up bets with Mr Singer. I've not got the bankroll required for even a start, and I'm pretty sure that a) he can win a session with his method often enough to win a bet on it and b) he has documentation to show his winnings.

I'm interested, and I think you are too from a different direction, is this a repeatable method, and how often is it repeatable?

You should note, I'm not just a guy with a calculator and computer. I play a lot of losing VP. I don't try to AP, as while I've played a lot, it's nothing like enough to earn the comp points necessary to get an advantage on any particular trip. I'm not interested in debating whether AP exists or not in this thread. Lets limit it to "what is the Singer Poker method". I'm interested in the core, not on how many bets he has offered and what other people may or may not have tried to take him on. It does not add any credibility to his core system to me, but if it does for you, thats fine.

1. What you did cess was give value to what Singer is doing by holding that Ace. Obviously having many possibilities for four aces along for the possibilities for a SF and RF far outweighs going for the SF. But looking at this as a long term type of play is what Singer says math people will do till the cows come home. You'll not face it that many times in a short session, that's for sure. And he tells us that there was a mathematical risk analysis done on each and every play, so he knows the negatives and certainly knows the positives. It just isn't going to add up if you keep applying long run rules only.

2. Again, I have no insight into how RS went about developing these plays, and since no one here has the gonads to ask him about it under the guise of "I'm not really that interested" then I'm really no help.

3. I lose/you lose. Maybe he can help us both.

Quote: MathExtremist

I think this is the heart of the misunderstanding. People are really, really bad at estimating long odds or acting appropriately based on them. How often four aces appears when holding just one on the draw is simply beyond the capacity of anyone's intuition, even for someone with knowledge of the actual odds. We're just not wired that way.

That's one of the reasons why the Gambler's Fallacy exists and why Martingale systems are popular. But what the VP play choice described before (single A vs. 3 consecutive suited cards) really comes down to is this: when faced with the opportunity to make an investment, do you make the best one even if it doesn't pay off often, or do you make a lower-return investment with a higher frequency?

Here's an example with a single die, something easier to intuitively understand. You have two bets you can make:
A) Bet on 6. Pays 4-1. Win frequency is 16.67%. House edge is 16.67%
B) Bet on 1 or 2. Pays 6-5. Win frequency is 33.33%. House edge is 26.67%

You could make bet B and win twice as often, but you'd have a much lower return on your wager. Or you could make bet A, win less often, but optimize your return (as it were). It's pretty clear that a player who makes bet A will lose less money over the course of a year than a player who bets just bet B. The question is what you value. If you're willing to give up long-term return for a higher chance at winning anything at all, bet B is better. If you're in it for the long-term, bet A is better. The same is true in the VP example. Bet A, the "math strategy" -- that is, the play with the highest return on the wager -- has a lower chance of winning but higher average return. Bet B, holding just the Ace, wins "something" more often, and has a shot at a royal or quad aces, but will bust out sooner.

But if you value hitting the royal flush or the quad aces (e.g. for entertainment purposes) over your long term return, holding the ace might be a better play for you. It's a worse investment but might be more fun. Sort of like making hop bets or hardways when playing craps. They're terrible investments, but when they hit it's a load of fun.

What I see as the major difference, and this goes for every forum I read/post on, is that Singer's articles and books and columns can blare all day long that each session he's played is an event in and of itself just as each hand is, yet all analysts want to do is lump everything together into one long run. The more I see that the more I believe in what he's saying, because it shows those who opine or look at his strategy and plays really don't understand it/them enough to be talking about it.

Quote: bobthomas

Im sorry but I am not familiar with this "increasing bets." When does he increase bets? I will move up to a higher game -- $1 to $2 or $1 to $5 after Im ahead. Are you suggesting he applies a martingale strategy to VP and moves to a high denomination when losing? Funny thing is, my wife does that. She starts at 50-cents and when she is down she goes to $1 hoping for a win that will cover her previous losses.

That's exactly what Singer does. He also plays his hands more and more badly as he moves up in denominations, in the hope of getting the big winner that will bail him out. If you believe him, that has actually worked for him, EIGHTY PERCENT OF THE TIME. That 80% of the time, he finishes $5 ahead and quits; the other 20% of the time, he finishes down $3000, and quits. This is exactly what he himself says his system consists of. Of course, if you have a functioning cerebrum, you might think that this isn't a good idea, but he does win EIGHTY PERCENT OF THE TIME.

Quote: mkl654321

That's exactly what Singer does. He also plays his hands more and more badly as he moves up in denominations, in the hope of getting the big winner that will bail him out. If you believe him, that has actually worked for him, EIGHTY PERCENT OF THE TIME. That 80% of the time, he finishes $5 ahead and quits; the other 20% of the time, he finishes down $3000, and quits. This is exactly what he himself says his system consists of. Of course, if you have a functioning cerebrum, you might think that this isn't a good idea, but he does win EIGHTY PERCENT OF THE TIME.

Do you misrepresent RS on purpose or do you not read with comprehension? His win goal is $2500. Why did you say $5?? Are you THAT jealous of big numbers teacher? Oh wait! You're starting to swallow your pride now that I can't lose my Atl/St. L bet aren't you....

Quote: JerryLogan

Do you misrepresent RS on purpose or do you not read with comprehension? His win goal is $2500. Why did you say $5?? Are you THAT jealous of big numbers teacher? Oh wait! You're starting to swallow your pride now that I can't lose my Atl/St. L bet aren't you....

I'm glad that you're probably going to win your bet, Jerry. I don't take any "pride" in the outcome one way or another (though obviously YOU do).

But I AM proud of being a Volvo-driving Oregon-dwelling non-wealthy atheist homosexual communist teacher. And of not being you.

Quote: JerryLogan

What I see as the major difference, and this goes for every forum I read/post on, is that Singer's articles and books and columns can blare all day long that each session he's played is an event in and of itself just as each hand is, yet all analysts want to do is lump everything together into one long run.

You can chop up your life any way you want but you still only get one of them. Ultimately you only have one bankroll, and that bankroll doesn't reflect how many times you stopped and started playing again. Your bankroll just shows whether you're up or down. Chopping things up into sessions might make you feel better or be more entertaining, like when you have a big win Saturday night and decide not to play Sunday morning before going to the airport, but that sort of "money management" really doesn't do anything to your bankroll overall. Session-based money management strategies tend to focus on frequency of winning sessions, but they can't promise actually winning overall.

He aims to be up $2,500, and risks either $17,000 or $40,000 to do it, depending on the exact details of the Single Play Strategy he is using.

I wish both of yu would learn some reading comprehension when it comes to the other...

And in other use, I'm hoping JLogan isn't about to be an insufferable winner.... :)

Quote: JerryLogan

1. What you did cess was give value to what Singer is doing by holding that Ace. Obviously having many possibilities for four aces along for the possibilities for a SF and RF far outweighs going for the SF. But looking at this as a long term type of play is what Singer says math people will do till the cows come home. You'll not face it that many times in a short session, that's for sure. And he tells us that there was a mathematical risk analysis done on each and every play, so he knows the negatives and certainly knows the positives. It just isn't going to add up if you keep applying long run rules only.

A rhetorical question, which I may well put to Mr Singer once I've done a little more work :

a) How DO you do a risk analysis without looking at the long term?

And a follow up to JLogan :

b) You do understand how I was looking at the total chances for each type of play now and understand I was not using "screwy math" I assume? You understand my analogy with the dice?

I'm currently making sure I have the right intelligent questions to ask Mr Singer, so leave my bollocks out of it...

Quote: thecesspit

He aims to be up $2,500, and risks either $17,000 or $40,000 to do it, depending on the exact details of the Single Play Strategy he is using.

I wish both of yu would learn some reading comprehension when it comes to the other...

And in other use, I'm hoping JLogan isn't about to be an insufferable winner.... :)

The actual numbers aren't as important is the fact that he is willing to risk massive losses in order to obtain relatively small wins, to fulfill the illusory goal of a preponderance of "session wins". That's all the comprehension I need of Singerism.

And if you think JL won't be bragging his ass off over winning a coin flip....

Quote: thecesspit

He aims to be up $2,500, and risks either $17,000 or $40,000 to do it, depending on the exact details of the Single Play Strategy he is using.

I wish both of yu would learn some reading comprehension when it comes to the other...

And in other use, I'm hoping JLogan isn't about to be an insufferable winner.... :)

"Rule #2: Proper bankroll is extremely important. I take $17,200 as my minimum on each trip, my baseline denomination is dollars, and I have a win goal of $2500."
http://www.vptruth.com/stratsingleplay.cfm

Then Singer follows with "Anyone can take whatever amount they feel is comfortable for them to attain their specific goals, based upon their individual finances & limits"

But I would think that if he is so successful playing his style with his ratios we should also.
So, using Singers formula...
these should all be the same.
25cents
4300 bank
625 win goal

10cents
1720 bank
250 win goal

5cents
860 bank
125 win goal

These are BIG bankrolls for the average 25c and below VP player.
I understand you need the larger bankroll to be able to bet the higher denoms.
But lets face it. We all do not have this kind of coin to play VP with.

I do, but the Craps table gets this kind of action for me.

Quote: MathExtremist

You can chop up your life any way you want but you still only get one of them. Ultimately you only have one bankroll, and that bankroll doesn't reflect how many times you stopped and started playing again. Your bankroll just shows whether you're up or down. Chopping things up into sessions might make you feel better or be more entertaining, like when you have a big win Saturday night and decide not to play Sunday morning before going to the airport, but that sort of "money management" really doesn't do anything to your bankroll overall. Session-based money management strategies tend to focus on frequency of winning sessions, but they can't promise actually winning overall.

I see that argument all the time and it has more holes in it than mkl's assertions about anything. Lives have multiple distinct parts to them all the time. I went to school; I played pro ball; I became an announcer; I became a priest; I robbed mkl's bank. On and on. Each of those represents a very different portion of one's life. Adding it up as one is only done when one does not understand the differences each portion faced and endured.

What I see Singer doing is starting off at a low denomination and a low volatility game. If things don't go so well he increases the quantity of credits. If that fails he turns up the volotility (is it "o" or "a") so that there are more possibilities of big hits. If that fails he pumps up the denomination and does it all over again through multiple denominations. When something hits, and as a player something usually does, esp. since RS doesn't need ultra-exotic hits to win by the time something comes along, he collects the cash, goes home, then starts up from the beginning again whenever he wants. While I may never be able to keep up with all the nuances of the system, I see why it has worked for him as well as why there are misrepresenters and doubters.

Quote: thecesspit

He aims to be up $2,500, and risks either $17,000 or $40,000 to do it, depending on the exact details of the Single Play Strategy he is using.

I wish both of yu would learn some reading comprehension when it comes to the other...

And in other use, I'm hoping JLogan isn't about to be an insufferable winner.... :)

I just went back and read it again. He takes $17,400 as a bankroll, which is really required to be $57,400 if he plays that $100 beast. When he needs the $40k he said he goes to get it at a LV bank. Most of the time he said he didn't need the $100 games to win his $2500 goal.

Quote: mkl654321

The actual numbers aren't as important is the fact that he is willing to risk massive losses in order to obtain relatively small wins, to fulfill the illusory goal of a preponderance of "session wins". That's all the comprehension I need of Singerism.

And if you think JL won't be bragging his ass off over winning a coin flip....

What coin flip?

Let's see....a bankroll of $57,400; a win goal of $2500; that's ~5%. So if you took your $400 bankroll and tried to win 5%, you'd have a take of TWENTY BUCKS!! HAHAHAHA!!!! Ain't advantage play great!

Quote: JerryLogan

What coin flip?

Let's see....a bankroll of $57,400; a win goal of $2500; that's ~5%. So if you took your $400 bankroll and tried to win 5%, you'd have a take of TWENTY BUCKS!! HAHAHAHA!!!! Ain't advantage play great!

In case you aren't just being intentionally dense, I was referring to your football bet. I couldn't have been referring to your video poker activities, since by your own admission, you're a massive loser.

For what it's worth, though, I'd rather win $20 than lose $5000.

You seem to be slowing losing your already tenuous grip on reality, Jerry.

Quote: mkl654321

In case you aren't just being intentionally dense, I was referring to your football bet. I couldn't have been referring to your video poker activities, since by your own admission, you're a massive loser.

For what it's worth, though, I'd rather win $20 than lose $5000.

You seem to be slowing losing your already tenuous grip on reality, Jerry.

Hmmm....An envious liberal who believes a football game is determined by a coin flip. Maybe we should elect the next president that way so that racist Obama wouldn't need Black Panther intimidation to get lucky again.

Quote: JerryLogan

Hmmm....An envious liberal who believes a football game is determined by a coin flip. Maybe we should elect the next president that way so that racist Obama wouldn't need Black Panther intimidation to get lucky again.

I voted for McCain, Jerry. And I should tell you that football games aren't decided by coin flips--they are decided by playing football. I'm surprised you didn't know that, since you just bet a million dollars on a single game. Football bets are equivalent to coin flips, though, except you don't even get paid even money when you win.

And even though I voted for McCain, somehow I doubt that there were enough Black Panthers to go around to intimidate 69 million voters into picking Obama. Another of your unfounded assertions, Jerry. Not to mention, a theory.

I just read through this thread, and now I'm wondering why I went ahead and read all 8 pages.

I'm also wondering why someone would ever believe a guy who asserts video poker machines aren't fair and random, and whose strategies are based upon exploiting rigged machine patterns that they don't understand.

In regards to the claim that he's done the math: how he can do mathematical analyses on patterns he admits himself that he doesn't know? VP math is based upon the machines being fair.

Quote: bluefire

I just read through this thread, and now I'm wondering why I went ahead and read all 8 pages.

I'm also wondering why someone would ever believe a guy who asserts video poker machines aren't fair and random, and whose strategies are based upon exploiting rigged machine patterns that they don't understand.

In regards to the claim that he's done the math: how he can do mathematical analyses on patterns he admits himself that he doesn't know? VP math is based upon the machines being fair.

Sounds like his system is as good as the others.

Quote: bluefire

I just read through this thread, and now I'm wondering why I went ahead and read all 8 pages.

I'm also wondering why someone would ever believe a guy who asserts video poker machines aren't fair and random, and whose strategies are based upon exploiting rigged machine patterns that they don't understand.

In regards to the claim that he's done the math: how he can do mathematical analyses on patterns he admits himself that he doesn't know? VP math is based upon the machines being fair.

If you're talking about Rob Singer, nowhere does he ever state anywhere on his site that he believes the machines are rigged or unfair. He does say that the machines are not 100% random and he explains why and that they operate exactly the way in which the regulators approve them to operate, but I guess the only way critics can stomach that is by lying about what he writes. I did not yet see where he says he exploits any machine other than to attack a machine that is paying. Where do you get this stuff from?

Quote: JerryLogan

If you're talking about Rob Singer, nowhere does he ever state anywhere on his site that he believes the machines are rigged or unfair. He does say that the machines are not 100% random and he explains why and that they operate exactly the way in which the regulators approve them to operate, but I guess the only way critics can stomach that is by lying about what he writes. I did not yet see where he says he exploits any machine other than to attack a machine that is paying. Where do you get this stuff from?

https://wizardofodds.com/news/Chat-wih-Rob-Singer.html

"His strategies cannot be put to a computer simulation, because Singer doesn’t buy the assumption that video poker machines play fairly. He says he doesn’t know exactly how they work, but his strategies allegedly exploit patterns he has observed through the years."

Quote: JerryLogan

If you're talking about Rob Singer, nowhere does he ever state anywhere on his site that he believes the machines are rigged or unfair. He does say that the machines are not 100% random and he explains why and that they operate exactly the way in which the regulators approve them to operate

That's a pretty good example of self-contradiction. The regulators in Nevada only approve "100% random" video poker machines. Folksy conspiracy theories aside, Singer doesn't know what he's talking about if he thinks the cards dealt in VP games aren't randomly determined. But don't just take my word for it, read the regulations yourself.

Quote: bluefire

https://wizardofodds.com/news/Chat-wih-Rob-Singer.html

"His strategies cannot be put to a computer simulation, because Singer doesn’t buy the assumption that video poker machines play fairly. He says he doesn’t know exactly how they work, but his strategies allegedly exploit patterns he has observed through the years."

If you read it again, that was NOT a Singer quote but instead a Wizard opinion. I talked to RS about that last month and I'll see him again this weekend. What I wrote in my post comes directly from Singer's site. He is the most misquoted person in video poker, especially among those who disagree with him.

Quote: MathExtremist

That's a pretty good example of self-contradiction. The regulators in Nevada only approve "100% random" video poker machines. Folksy conspiracy theories aside, Singer doesn't know what he's talking about if he thinks the cards dealt in VP games aren't randomly determined. But don't just take my word for it, read the regulations yourself.

You seem to be another who hasn't read anything he wrote....that you're perfectly content to just pretend you know what he believes just so you can rant against him. I wish he would come on here to straighten you out on this.

Mr Singer has a family and other better concerns than delving into flame wars and debates on his system. I don't blame him. He's a very amenable, generous chap in the conversations I have had with him. He's got better things to do now than argue the toss.

His material is out there, you can assess it for yourself or not. It's free, he's not pushing it for cash, I don't understand why people get so het up about it. I think he only makes claims about how it worked for HIM as well.

I found one of his interesting articles on exactly what I said. Instead of making things up about him you intellectuals should get your facts straight.

http://www.vptruth.com/articlesdetail.cfm?Counter=511

Quote: JerryLogan

If you read it again, that was NOT a Singer quote but instead a Wizard opinion. I talked to RS about that last month and I'll see him again this weekend. What I wrote in my post comes directly from Singer's site. He is the most misquoted person in video poker, especially among those who disagree with him.

Is your opinion that the Wizard didn't understand his betting system and thus misrepresented it, or that the Wizard purposefully lied about it?

Quote: bluefire

Is your opinion that the Wizard didn't understand his betting system and thus misrepresented it, or that the Wizard purposefully lied about it?

Huh? I believe the Wizard knows a decent enough amount about his play strategy, but he doesn't have a handle on what Singer knows or believes about machine randomness.

Quote: JerryLogan

Huh? I believe the Wizard knows a decent enough amount about his play strategy, but he doesn't have a handle on what Singer knows or believes about machine randomness.

The blog post says, "his strategies allegedly exploit patterns he has observed through the years". If this isn't true, then the Wizard either:

1.) Doesn't understand Rob Singers play strategy or
2.) Is purposefully misrepresenting it

Which is it?

Quote: bluefire

The blog post says, "his strategies allegedly exploit patterns he has observed through the years". If this isn't true, then the Wizard either:

1.) Doesn't understand Rob Singers play strategy or
2.) Is purposefully misrepresenting it

Which is it?

You see the word "allegedly" and do you know what that word means? I'll assume you do.

I do not believe the Wizard is purposely misrepresenting anything. I believe he believes RS does exploit patters he's observed, but you're taking that to also mean RS believes machines are rigged and I've shown you where RS does not believe that. I myself have gleaned much more information talking to Singer for a few hours in person than it seems anyone else here has in their hip pocket.

Quote: JerryLogan

Nowhere does he ever state anywhere on his site that he believes the machines are rigged or unfair. He does say that the machines are not 100% random

If the machines are not random, they are rigged, either intentionally or unintentionally, either by people or the computer (which as we are all supposed to know is nothing more than an instrumentality of its operators).

Being random or not random is just like being pregnant. Either or you are you aren't. There is no middle ground to flounce around in.

Quote: JerryLogan

Quote: MathExtremist

That's a pretty good example of self-contradiction. The regulators in Nevada only approve "100% random" video poker machines. Folksy conspiracy theories aside, Singer doesn't know what he's talking about if he thinks the cards dealt in VP games aren't randomly determined. But don't just take my word for it, read the regulations yourself.

You seem to be another who hasn't read anything he wrote....that you're perfectly content to just pretend you know what he believes just so you can rant against him. I wish he would come on here to straighten you out on this.

I read the link you posted, which perfectly matches the commentary you wrote, and both of them contain factual errors. Video poker machines are not "slightly-less-than-random", and notwithstanding Mr. Singer's assertions that there is some governmental cover-up, he has no factual basis for his claims. Likewise, you have no factual basis for believing him. The regulations are indeed public (see link above) and in no way support the theory that an allowable video poker machine may be "slightly-less-than-random". A relevant part of the regulation is:

Quote: NGC Regulation 14.040 2(b)

For gaming devices that are representative of live gambling games, the mathematical probability of a symbol or other element appearing in a game outcome must be equal to the mathematical probability of that symbol or element occurring in the live gambling game. For other gaming devices, the mathematical probability of a symbol appearing in a position in any game outcome must be constant.

You can take it straight from the regulatory website, or you can take it from a conspiracy theorist who is evidently unclear on what "random" even means. You don't have to believe the regulations, but you'd be unwise to base your playing strategy on the unsubstantiated hope that there is some sort of exploitable "less-than-randomness" within a video poker machine.

The good news for other video poker players is that when there are more players like you or Singer who play suboptimally, the higher is the average win on the machines and the looser the casino can keep the paytables. If everyone played optimally, you'd see terrible paytables on VP games everywhere. In an ironic way, frequent VP players should be thanking you.

Quote: JerryLogan

You see the word "allegedly" and do you know what that word means? I'll assume you do.

I do not believe the Wizard is purposely misrepresenting anything. I believe he believes RS does exploit patters he's observed, but you're taking that to also mean RS believes machines are rigged and I've shown you where RS does not believe that. I myself have gleaned much more information talking to Singer for a few hours in person than it seems anyone else here has in their hip pocket.

So you think that the Wizard doesn't understand Singers play strategy, even after spending time with him in real life discussing it, just like you claim you did. Got it.

I'm sure you have a better understanding than someone who does this professionally for a living.

Quote: SanchoPanza

If the machines are not random, they are rigged, either intentionally or unintentionally, either by people or the computer (which as we are all supposed to know is nothing more than an instrumentality of its operators).

Being random or not random is just like being pregnant. Either or you are you aren't. There is no middle ground to flounce around in.

You're confused, just like MathEatremist is confused. See my response to his post for the answer.

Quote: bluefire

So you think that the Wizard doesn't understand Singers play strategy, even after spending time with him in real life discussing it, just like you claim you did. Got it.

I'm sure you have a better understanding than someone who does this professionally for a living.

How do I know to what extent the Wizard understands or wants to understand how Singer does what he does? If they discussed it then the Wizard did not elaborate as much as you seem to think he has.

Quote: JerryLogan

How do I know to what extent the Wizard understands or wants to understand how Singer does what he does? If they discussed it then the Wizard did not elaborate as much as you seem to think he has.

Read the blog post.

Quote: JerryLogan

I found one of his interesting articles on exactly what I said. Instead of making things up about him you intellectuals should get your facts straight.

http://www.vptruth.com/articlesdetail.cfm?Counter=511

Thanks for proving that he thinks machines aren't completely random. If true, it completely invalides any mathematical analyses he's done.

Quote: MathExtremist

Quote: JerryLogan

Quote: MathExtremist

That's a pretty good example of self-contradiction. The regulators in Nevada only approve "100% random" video poker machines. Folksy conspiracy theories aside, Singer doesn't know what he's talking about if he thinks the cards dealt in VP games aren't randomly determined. But don't just take my word for it, read the regulations yourself.

You seem to be another who hasn't read anything he wrote....that you're perfectly content to just pretend you know what he believes just so you can rant against him. I wish he would come on here to straighten you out on this.

I read the link you posted, which perfectly matches the commentary you wrote, and both of them contain factual errors. Video poker machines are not "slightly-less-than-random", and notwithstanding Mr. Singer's assertions that there is some governmental cover-up, he has no factual basis for his claims. Likewise, you have no factual basis for believing him. The regulations are indeed public (see link above) and in no way support the theory that an allowable video poker machine may be "slightly-less-than-random". A relevant part of the regulation is:

You can take it straight from the regulatory website, or you can take it from a conspiracy theorist who is evidently unclear on what "random" even means. You don't have to believe the regulations, but you'd be unwise to base your playing strategy on the unsubstantiated hope that there is some sort of exploitable "less-than-randomness" within a video poker machine.

The good news for other video poker players is that when there are more players like you or Singer who play suboptimally, the higher is the average win on the machines and the looser the casino can keep the paytables. If everyone played optimally, you'd see terrible paytables on VP games everywhere. In an ironic way, frequent VP players should be thanking you.

You're doing and reacting just like Singer says people would do in his videos. You only know what you read, you refuse to read him because you just want to keep blabbing theory instead of truth, and you believe random is truly random. Even I know that last part's not true. Then you go onto to repeat that Singer believes there's some kind of "conspiracy theory" or "cover up" going on when he never represents that at all. Not even close.

What I read is he has been told that not all the regulations are public knowledge, and the part that's not put out there is the definition of randomness as it pertains to vp machines. He has also identified the name of the program manager at IGT and said to call him for more info at one point. He also said no one would ever get more info because the rest (that you call "cover up") is confidential information. We even have that in the trucking business on some of out state/US gov't. hauling contracts, so it's not that hard to comprehend.

As for your claim that the way I play and the way Singer plays is good for other vp players, my play might be but I'm getting my first lesson from him Sat. His play, OTOH, has netted him almost a million dollars over a decade with what you call "sub-optimal play" because you won't take the time to understand it. Just like theorist extraordinaire MichaelBluejay runs from RS after putting out a challenge that any true believer of "gambling systems not working" would jump on if they weren't confused and afraid it might just be the method that puts them and their anal math-only beliefs over the edge.

"MichaelBluejay runs from RS after putting out a challenge that any true believer of gambling systems not working would jump on if they weren't confused and afraid it might just be the method that puts them and their anal math-only beliefs over the edge."

Talking of not reading and just wanting to react to what they think has been said.

Michael Bluejay never made a challenge on Video Poker on this site. He stated simply he was interested in play on table games. You wanted it to be more than that. Unless it happened elsewhere, there was no challenge accepted by either party, and no-one ran away on this forum. You've said this before, and then walked away from the statement when I asked you for more details.

Someone else DID make such a challenge, and I don't think it was ever taken forward.