Thread Rating:

Poll

1 vote (3.22%)
No votes (0%)
No votes (0%)
1 vote (3.22%)
4 votes (12.9%)
No votes (0%)
1 vote (3.22%)
No votes (0%)
20 votes (64.51%)
9 votes (29.03%)

31 members have voted

AlanMendelson
AlanMendelson
Joined: Oct 5, 2011
  • Threads: 93
  • Posts: 3537
April 29th, 2020 at 11:22:36 PM permalink
Valid questions, Axel.

Here's why I believed him: First, I read his newspaper column for years and I trusted the editorial process and that his reports were correct.

Then I followed his website for years when he had it.

Then I spoke with him and we spent hours talking.

Then I did several on camera interviews.

What was missing was the proof of his claims but I trusted him and his explanations. The first time I did a video shoot with him at the Hard Rock I saw how he was treated and how he interacted with the manager there. Rob also arranged the logistics of the shoot there. That impressed me and also made me believe and trust him otherwise he wouldn't have been treated the way he was.

This continued for about ten years until his confession. That made me reexamine the big missing link: no proof. Always an explanation but never proof.

Now regarding Singer's math. I said this before and I'll say it again. There is nothing about Singer's system that goes against the math. He plays negative expectation games. His system says get lucky and quit when ahead. He has a $170,000 bankroll but will quit with a gain of even $1,000. He plays high limit VP. Any quad at $5 Bonus Poker pays half of his win goal.

Either you accept that or you don't. Every grandma in a casino who cashes out after a winner and goes to the buffet understands that concept.

Rob should have stuck to that concept. Had he never brought up the double-up bug or made his claims, this new chapter would never have started.
sabre
sabre 
Joined: Aug 16, 2010
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 887
Thanks for this post from:
tringlomaneRS
April 29th, 2020 at 11:33:20 PM permalink
Everything about Singer's system goes against the math.
AlanMendelson
AlanMendelson
Joined: Oct 5, 2011
  • Threads: 93
  • Posts: 3537
April 29th, 2020 at 11:35:27 PM permalink
Quote: sabre

Everything about Singer's system goes against the math.



I don't want to put myself in a position to defend him but I'm going to ask: what part of his system goes against the math? Be specific.

Be specific.
redietz
redietz
Joined: Jun 5, 2019
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 459
April 30th, 2020 at 12:07:14 AM permalink
I'll say two things. One explaining how he went against the math, the other explaining how his "systems" could have worked in his favor.

He plays negative expectation games, first of all. Now, some will argue that all that's now available are negative expectation games. True dat, for the most part, but (1) Singer would go out of his way to NOT play 99.54% 9/6 JoB if inferior-paying quads games were available, and (2) it doesn't amount to much difference, but he did employ some sub-optimal holds. These differences don't seem like much, but they are sub-optimal. You play a couple thousand hours of video poker, and there is a significant difference in results.

Now, his martingale style would lead most hosts to classify him as very impulsive. He'd start at what, dollars, and go up as high as needed until he'd blow through 30k or whatever. That would probably get him a classification and more comps than somebody pumping the same dollar volume through in a non-martingale style fashion. Many casinos probably dangled inflated free play in his direction if he did one of his stints where he went from dollars to $25 games in a sitting as he lost. So I could possibly see him having gotten more bang for his buck comp-wise.

The problem with his "systems" wasn't that he used them, perhaps even profitably in the short term of his playing experience. The problem is that he presented them as something that would win going forward. In other words, he presented them as winning systems period, not systems that he happened to be using while winning. Crucial difference.

He never addressed the math in discussion. In other words, you never had him saying he played x number of hands and made y for a year or years, having hit this number of royals or that number of quads. It was always anecdotal stuff with tales of big wins. It wasn't like he said he played a certain number of hours and did this or that in a particular year with an exact number of royals and quads. So anybody asking about how he hit that many quads or royals in a number of hands never received any sort of answer. The problem, of course, is that kind of precision would lead to people being able to say he was so many standard deviations above where he should have been.

Also, whenever asked at what payback points his systems would fail (turn negative), he never had an answer. So he wouldn't say, "Yeah, at 97.3% payback, even my magic doesn't work." You never got anything like that from him, which is beyond a red flag. It's a cacophony of red alerts, really.
"You can't breathe dead hippo waking, sleeping, and eating, and at the same time keep your precarious grip on existence."
AlanMendelson
AlanMendelson
Joined: Oct 5, 2011
  • Threads: 93
  • Posts: 3537
April 30th, 2020 at 12:25:43 AM permalink
This discussion is going to get sidetracked and instead of asking for proof from Singer that he really won the money and found the double-up bug we're going to focus on the same nonsense of the past ten years.

Example:

The only time he made non optimal holds was when he wanted to increase his chances for a session ending big win. That happened less than five percent of the time.

Keep attacking Rob's system and he will slide by you once again. He has an explanation for every point you make... and I have an explanation too.

But you can't fool me anymore. There is only ONE issue to discuss: where is his proof.

If he sidetracks you from the proof he will win again. You can't fight his system. He has an answer for every objection.
redietz
redietz
Joined: Jun 5, 2019
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 459
April 30th, 2020 at 12:33:55 AM permalink
The glitch origin story he told on your Best Buys site was without evidence, also. Without details of any kind that could be verified.
"You can't breathe dead hippo waking, sleeping, and eating, and at the same time keep your precarious grip on existence."
ChumpChange
ChumpChange
Joined: Jun 15, 2018
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 1201
April 30th, 2020 at 12:35:51 AM permalink
Finding a Video Poker Bug Made These Guys Rich—Then Vegas Made Them Pay | WIRED https://www.wired.com/2014/10/cheating-video-poker/
AlanMendelson
AlanMendelson
Joined: Oct 5, 2011
  • Threads: 93
  • Posts: 3537
April 30th, 2020 at 1:16:40 AM permalink
Quote: redietz

The glitch origin story he told on your Best Buys site was without evidence, also. Without details of any kind that could be verified.



That is correct. And when he told me about the glitch story at Red Rock which was before he told anyone else, I asked him for his proof. He said he had none.

In HIS article on my website there is a note from me about his lack of proof: no machine, no docs, no recordings, no W2Gs, nothing.

And that is when everything started to unwind in my mind.
AlanMendelson
AlanMendelson
Joined: Oct 5, 2011
  • Threads: 93
  • Posts: 3537
April 30th, 2020 at 1:18:06 AM permalink
Quote: ChumpChange

Finding a Video Poker Bug Made These Guys Rich—Then Vegas Made Them Pay | WIRED https://www.wired.com/2014/10/cheating-video-poker/



Rob Singer claimed he found it first.

Getting the picture???
ChumpChange
ChumpChange
Joined: Jun 15, 2018
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 1201
April 30th, 2020 at 1:20:34 AM permalink
People in high places always claiming credit for things other people did, even with the FBI hot on the other people's tails.

  • Jump to: