Rob Singer -- Discuss

He robbed a singer in a drug deal gone bad.

Quote: billryan

I have no interest in the man, just the origin of his pen name. I've heard from multiple people it was a dig at Mr. Dancer( which shockingly isn't his real name either), but the timing seems off.

Singer has actually said himself many times that his pen name was meant as a Dancer dig.

Quote: redietz

Singer has actually said himself many times that his pen name was meant as a Dancer dig.

And we know he would never tell a lie. I'm just surprised he was using this alias so long. I didn't get into gambling until 1999 and didn't go to Vegas until September 2001. I'm not sure when I first heard of Bob Dancer.

Rob Sunger has never provided proof of anything. Finally he says he will provide proof that he owns a mega RV, which he purportedly won with the profits of the Double Up Bug which he claims he found first.

Will he make good and prove ownership of the RV which is supposed to back up his claims regarding the DUB, or will he come up with another "out" or excuse?

Why do I care? Because for years I put my reputation on the line supporting his claims; I gave him a huge public platform to make his claims. But he never provided proof. I regret he deceived me.

Now it's time for him to finally prove his claims. Ownership of the RV will go a long way.

For months he said the proof would come in October. I'm not going to miss the unveiling.

Quote: ChumpChange

He robbed a singer in a drug deal gone bad.

Or maybe he did a lot of sewing.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Rob Sunger has never provided proof of anything. Finally he says he will provide proof that he owns a mega RV, which he purportedly won with the profits of the Double Up Bug which he claims he found first.

Come on now Alan....did you miss the Photos of Rob posing in the RV? If you did...page 15 of this very thread. Now of course that is if you just ignore that the RV he posed in was located at Arizona Luxury Coach dealership, just a few miles from Rob's home. lol

And if that wasn't enough for you, what about the "bill of sale" maybe even more amateurish, copied from the internet with no company letterhead or logo, supposedly from a company that was bankrupt and closed at the time. These pieces of proof not good enough for you?

Quote: AlanMendelson

Why do I care? Because for years I put my reputation on the line supporting his claims; I gave him a huge public platform to make his claims. But he never provided proof. I regret he deceived me.

If I can be serious for a moment, Alan, why did you buy into Rob's claims and phony stories. Was it maybe because, as a -EV player, you wanted to believe some of these voodoo strategies that defy math?

I always say these kind of guys, conmen if you will, can't pull off their con without some enablers, In this case Alan was one of those enablers for years, providing credibility that Rob needed. I give Alan credit for now realizing that. Better late than never.

Quote: kewlj

If I can be serious for a moment, Alan, why did you buy into Rob's claims and phony stories.

For years I read his articles and I put my trust in the editorial process. In other words, I believed Gaming Today must have verified his reports.

But what I believed was that a high limit player won about 100k a year. Rob told me he was a $25/coin VP player. Frankly it's easy to believe someone could make a profit of $100k playing VP at $125 per push.

Remember I hit three $100k royals in about a year. If not for craps I too would have had $100k profit in a year. (Those days are over now.)

When the red flag went up for me is when Rob and I had breakfast at Red Rock and he claimed HE discovered the DUB. I said to myself "dont do this Rob." And then instead of winning $100k per year he claimed untold wealth and winnings.

That's when I realized he never proved anything and his claims got bigger and bigger.

It's time for proof.

You can walk away from Rob Singer and be none the wiser.

Quote: AlanMendelson

That's when I realized he never proved anything and his claims got bigger and bigger.

It's time for proof.

Here is the thing about proof, IMO. These are anonymous message boards. Even if someone chooses to use their real name, no one is on trial and should be expected to prove anything. Even those of us that use a "handle", many people, especially the longer term members of the forums know a real name (stupidity on my part).

I have made claims involving amounts won and lost for years. Being that I am not all that smart, and could add little to math related discussions that would benefit anyone, I decided early on that I would share my journey, as a low and later mid-level card counter trying to earn a living through card counting. There was no way I was going to be able to do that without using actual dollar amounts, involving wins losses, both on a daily playing basis (fluctuation and win losing periods) and annual results. Transferring numbers to generic "units" would have meant nothing and benefited no one as far as expectation of what to expect. So I used actual numbers and have taken a lot of flack over the years for it.

Other players share different numbers for different reasons. And here is the thing about doing that. THE MATH HAS TO AT LEAST WORK! That is the low bar hurdle.

Someone claiming to make 100k playing blackjack playing $5 table limits...the math doesn't work.

Likewise, someone claiming 100k winnings from video poker year after year playing negative EV games....the math doesn't work. Sure it is possible to hit a big jackpot or may 2 or 3 for a year, that would allow a player to win for that year playing -EV (short term), but to claim that year after year....is unrealistic.

Now still, no one is required to prove anything. Members of forums can decide for themselves. I am sure you have heard me say "it doesn't take that much to figure out who knows what they are talking about and who is just talking". If you combine that will the low bar hurdle of does the math work and it shouldn't be hard to figure out who is legit and who is in fantasyland.

Now Rob is a special case. He has been relentless with his troll (that is what I call this decades long fantasy claims) of the gambling community. Claim after claim, fail to even meet that low bar of the math working. Every single claim defies that mathematics.

And then he escalated with the double up bug. At some point, he read the Kane / Nestor double up bug story, probably the wired article, which is the most referenced version, and simply stole that story for his own, claiming he found and played that double up bug for 5 years prior to Kane / Nestor getting busted. I mean THAT is one hell of a claim. That is brinks heist type claim. It is not unreasonable to ask for some kind of supporting evidence. 2 different forum owners / administrators even asked for something to verify this claim.

And of course that led to the staged pictures inside a RV for sale at a dealership and the phony bill of sales, with no letterhead in which the signatures of the salesman and buyer are in the same handwriting. I mean that is it.....case closed. Whatever scheme Rob has planned for next month, in which he is going to show off a high end RV to anyone interested, is just more baloney. Maybe it is a friends or he is renting an RV next month for whatever reason, but it doesn't matter. The guy has already struck out. People gave him 5 or 6 strikes and he whiffed on each. Now he wants another. LOL.

Alan, you should really let this go now. I know you feel duped, but you have explained your role in providing Rob the platform that he needed and now recognize that you were duped. You also played a role, in exposing him, by revealing things he said to you. In the end, mostly he exposed himself as these clowns always do, but it is done now.

I don't think there is anything Rob could do that would make anyone believe his nonsense. Oh sure there are a few people on the fantasy forum, that support him and his claims. They don't REALLY believe him, they just think it is funny to see him continue on with his alternate reality nonsense. Not a single person in the universe really believes that guy any more. So just let that be good enough for you and let it go, Alan.

To provide a little context, however, let me add that if I recall my personal histories correctly, Alan's father was a La Cosa lawyer. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

So there's letting things go and there's "letting things go." Sometimes to let things go, you've gotta make sure the things you're letting go sink to the bottom, which is where they belong.

Makes me think all LA TV media are the mob. Wasn't there an anchor named RICO? OMG!

Departed KCBS Anchor Rico Gives Her Side | Broadcasting+Cable -
March 29, 2010
https://www.nexttv.com/blog/departed-kcbs-anchor-rico-gives-her-side-66939

My apologies for bumping this thread, but someone alerted me to some info from the Wizard/Rob Singer interview that is very telling, I am surprised I missed it.



Let's forget about the double up bug part of Rob's claims, of which the interview was mostly about.

But I want to focus on the section where Rob was discussing his progressive strategy, starting at 23:40. @ 24:09 Rob states that he played the progressive strategy from 2000-2004 making $375k. @ 25:05 Rob states that he tried AP video poker play for 6 years prior to playing the progression strategy and failed, losing over 200k.

So the timeline is pretty clear.....Rob's own words.

1994-2000 Rob attempted advantage play video poker play , failing and lost over 200k.
2000-2004 Rob claims to have played his progressive strategy winning $375k.

Everyone on the same page?

So next up would be Rob's book "The undeniable truth about Video Poker." (link below)

Please note the publish date December 2000, meaning the book was written sometime earlier in 2000. This would mean it was written just after Rob had played and failed at playing advantage player video poker for 6 years and was just starting his progressive wagering run. So he publishes a book about his successful video poker play? By his own timeline he had lost for the last 6 years at that point. AND take a look at the write up...."inside secrets of a winning professional player" He is coming off of 6 straight losing years as he writes this!

I mean this is the very starting point of the whole Singer fantasy and 20+ year troll. After he himself admits to losing 1994-2000, he publishes a book calling himself "a winning professional player". At which point the the story (and long running troll) begins....

After that he takes a "job" writing a column for free in a gambling publication to promote this book and story which he will expand on for the next 20 years. I would say "you can't make this stuff up"....but he did!


https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2802567-the-undeniable-truth-about-video-poker

And I'd write a book in mid-May 2020 about how I'm gonna beat the casinos and shut them down for the rest of the year, just by not wearing a mask.

Rob Singer is a great man and an even better gambler.
He even played a role in one of my favorite movies, maybe "keep on keeping on" helped him create his career.
I'm sure this is him, don't know why he wasn't given credit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXGV-MT-TmU

Rob did say he won $90K a year in 2000, 2001, 2002, & 2003. I'd like to learn more about how he did that, but trade secrets, ya know.

Quote: ChumpChange

Rob did say he won $90K a year in 2000, 2001, 2002, & 2003. I'd like to learn more about how he did that, but trade secrets, ya know.

I don't know how much Rob did or didn't make. I'm not on the hate Rob Singer train like may others. I have rode that train in the past, but I'm over it. From everything that I know, his online persona doesn't reflect who he is in real life.

I don't care what Rob played or didn't play, what Rob owns or doesn't own, or how he got it.


I will say that whatever video poker system he has touted in the past and his beliefs in the 4 Card flush flip over, or whatever you call it, is all bunk. He may very well believe in all that stuff and it's possible he may have gotten lucky and it worked for him purely based on luck.

Quote: AxelWolf

I don't know how much Rob did or didn't make. I'm not on the hate Rob Singer train like may others. I have rode that train in the past, but I'm over it. From everything that I know, his online persona doesn't reflect who he is in real life.

His online persona may very well be different, even opposite in real life. I actually suspect that it is. But that changes nothing. What he is claiming, all these claims for 20 years, evolving claims and claims stolen from news accounts are not real and most defy math.

You may be over it. Sounds like you are telling me I should be over it. I find that odd from a guy hanging on to a very similar grudge with a different member. Your guy's claims have been going on for 2 years. lol. Singer's for 20. lol. And Rob's statements in the Wizards interview prove that it was bunk from day 1. His own words.

Quote: kewlj

My apologies for bumping this thread, but someone alerted me to some info from the Wizard/Rob Singer interview that is very telling, I am surprised I missed it.

Let's forget about the double up bug part of Rob's claims, of which the interview was mostly about.

But I want to focus on the section where Rob was discussing his progressive strategy, starting at 23:40. @ 24:09 Rob states that he played the progressive strategy from 2000-2004 making $375k. @ 25:05 Rob states that he tried AP video poker play for 6 years prior to playing the progression strategy and failed, losing over 200k.

So the timeline is pretty clear.....Rob's own words.

1994-2000 Rob attempted advantage play video poker play , failing and lost over 200k.
2000-2004 Rob claims to have played his progressive strategy winning $375k.

Everyone on the same page?

So next up would be Rob's book "The undeniable truth about Video Poker." (link below)

Please note the publish date December 2000, meaning the book was written sometime earlier in 2000. This would mean it was written just after Rob had played and failed at playing advantage player video poker for 6 years and was just starting his progressive wagering run. So he publishes a book about his successful video poker play? By his own timeline he had lost for the last 6 years at that point. AND take a look at the write up...."inside secrets of a winning professional player" He is coming off of 6 straight losing years as he writes this!

I mean this is the very starting point of the whole Singer fantasy and 20+ year troll. After he himself admits to losing 1994-2000, he publishes a book calling himself "a winning professional player". At which point the the story (and long running troll) begins....

After that he takes a "job" writing a column for free in a gambling publication to promote this book and story which he will expand on for the next 20 years. I would say "you can't make this stuff up"....but he did!


https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2802567-the-undeniable-truth-about-video-poker

Okay, let's go through some elements of this. If anyone is interested, at some point down the road, I can relate some gambling publishing stories that are such super-scams, they will knock your socks off. Let's save that for another time.

Clearly, Singer used this book as some kind of launching point. I do not have the book. I guess I need to go buy a copy so I can contact the proper people about the origins of the book. I'll do that in the next couple of days. I've never bothered to buy Singer's books, as he has laid out their storylines on many forums.

The book has a contradictory storyline. I think I have brought this up on a couple of occasions in the past. If the book is to be streamlined into Singer's fable in a consistent fashion, what's required is Singer losing for six years, then stumbling onto his system, then using the system and being convinced for a few months that it works, and then writing the book after his video poker epiphanies. This storyline requires Singer being absolutely convinced that it was his systems that led to his winning for five or six months, and it was his lack of systems that had led to his previous six years of losing. This, of course, ignores variance and has has all of the usual John Q. Citizen general statistical naiveties.

If you'll notice, the publisher is GBC. Now this is important, as that is Gamblers' Book Club. Now, it is highly, highly unlikely that Gamblers' Book Club paid Singer to write the book. So the question becomes how or why did Gamblers' Book Club publish it? My opinion is that either they partnered with him on a profit-sharing basis, or he hired them as the publisher/printer, or someone else picked up the tab to establish Singer in Las Vegas.

It was common back then for gamblers/writers to self publish or vanity publish or partner-up with publishers without getting paid so as to get their systems/claims/ face out there to the public. There were Las Vegas presses that did the actual printing of the books, and the publishing labels that wound up on the inside of the books were sometimes those of people whose only publishing was that particular book and/or some newsletters to go with it.

Singer has never claimed, to my knowledge, to have been paid to write anything. Had he been paid to write his books, I'm pretty sure we would have heard about it.

Singer lying to kick off the whole personal mythology can be explained away by his saying that when he switched to his systems, he won for four or five months, so he was convinced those systems were the reasons. When he says he wrote the books as a "winning player," two things -- he is not defining winning clearly as monetary (Charlie Sheen -- WINNING!) or for a specific time period. If you think this is underhanded, welcome to U.S. capitalism.

There were much worse things than these lies coming out of gambling publishing in Las Vegas those days. That's not forgiving Singer; it's just putting his nonsense in context.

So what to do with a lot of unreported gambling winnings these days? Sign up for Robinhood?

As to much worse things coming out of gambling publishing at that time: if I had been around I would have challenged those other things as well. However in 2000 I was still in high school. Lol.

I sometimes say it isn't personal that it is about the math, or lack there of. Well in all honesty it is a little personal. I don't mean the names and personal attacks I have endured from this person.

I mean as an AP who makes a living playing with an advantage, I am offended at some yahoo coming along making math defying claims about progression wagering, stop limits, "special plays" and any other voodoo crap claiming long term And big bucks. And I would hope other APs who work hard for a living and deal with variance and other things we deal with would be equally offended. It is bunk! I will always call that out. I think we have a responsibility to do so.

If a card counter is gonna go on YouTube and record himself winning $200K in cash from a few nights play then get a notice he's banned from all the casinos by the time he gets home, there's gotta be a better way.

Quote: ChumpChange

If a card counter is gonna go on YouTube and record himself winning $200K in cash from a few nights play then get a notice he's banned from all the casinos by the time he gets home, there's gotta be a better way.

I haven't figured out if it is intentional or not but most of what YOU say does NOT pertain to the subject being discussed.

What is the subject being discussed?

I'm just offended I haven't won $200K during a weekend of gambling.

Quote: ChumpChange

I'm just offended I haven't won $200K during a weekend of gambling.

One word for you:
Baccarat

Quote: DeMango

One word for you:
Baccarat

That was good.

The reason I bumped this thread today, is because this interview Wizard did last May, now months later, turns out to have completely debunked, not one but the top 2 claims of this Rob Singer person. Some of us have been critical that someone like Wizard should be more out front in debunking these kinds of claims and now looking back it turns out his interview did exactly that.....twice.

I am not sure it was any grand plan by Wizard, I'll let him weigh in on that if he desires, but at the very least Wizard provided the rope and Singer hung himself...twice. Once when Wizard asked for any kind of proof and Rob tied the double up claim to the RV which has been proven to not exist (although Rob tried hard with phony pictures at an RV dealership). And the second time when Rob revealed the timeline for his original progressive system that by his own timeline that he laid out in this interview proves when he wrote his book that started his claim, he was coming off 6 consecutive losing years of trying to play video poker for a living. 6 losing years to the tune of over 200k.

So whether it was some brilliant plan by Wizard, or he stumbled his way to exposing Rob....kudos to Wizard!

Why so much disdain for Singer Kewl? He gave me a heck of a deal on an RV last year.

Quote: rainman

Why so much disdain for Singer Kewl? He gave me a heck of a deal on an RV last year.

How much was the barge rental to get it to Israel? Did you have to share barge space with King Kong to save money?

Quote: rainman

Why so much disdain for Singer Kewl? He gave me a heck of a deal on an RV last year.

Mostly because I don't like people that post claims of long-term, multi-year, millions of dollars worth of winning via gambling methods that defy math, whether it is some super-duper count that allows you to win at blackjack without experiencing any variance, just winning, or progressive wagering, stop limits and "special play" that allows you to win millions at -EV video poker. (progressive wagering can't turn-EV play into winning play)., or someone claiming to win every session, every trip playing baccarat. These things just defy math and are intentionally misleading to other members that may get sucked in. I think it is every advantage player and math guy's responsibility to call these claims out. And when they go on for years, decades in Singer's case, I find it extremely egregious.

Frankly, these stories of magical long-term winnings defying the math are offensive to those of us that play and live by the math and grind out a living dealing and conquering the variance that is reality.

And if I am being honest, the nasty and hurtful untrue things Singer said after my partner passed away makes me want to be absolutely sure that credibility for this long running troll is destroyed completely an he can't re-emerge. What can I say....I have been known to hold a grudge. :/

Didn't Singer mention having students? Maybe he made money with heads I win, tails you lose if so.

Quote: kewlj

I am not sure it was any grand plan by Wizard, I'll let him weigh in on that if he desires, but at the very least Wizard provided the rope and Singer hung himself...twice.

Thank you for the kind words. I mainly wanted to get him on record that his many years of Gaming Today articles were all a lie. I also wanted to pressure him for details on the double up play, to catch him in a contradiction or say something that clearly wasn't true.

Quote: Wizard

Thank you for the kind words. I mainly wanted to get him on record that his many years of Gaming Today articles were all a lie. I also wanted to pressure him for details on the double up play, to catch him in a contradiction or say something that clearly wasn't true.

Well you succeeded. :) I knew he fell into the trap about the RV, which HE tied to the double up bug, when you asked him for some sort of proof. He then began fabricating evidence of an RV that didn't exist. The guy went to an RV dealership posing as a buyer just to take pictures of himself inside an RV that didn't belong to him. This isn't speculation...this was confirmed by the people at the dealership. I can't say this enough: How crazy is THAT?

But it was the timeline, that Wizard lead Singer to establish, that I only realized this week when someone pointed it out, that really confirms that from Day 1 all these claims were false.

Now speaking of Gambling Today, I am not super familiar with the publication. Yeah, I have picked up a copy here and there at casinos over the years, but it seems like back in that time period, they were a bigger deal. How could they have allowed a writer, paid or not, to write for them, writing fabricated articles for 8 years without checking him out? That seems highly irresponsible.

13 years ago today - A short-term strategy that works - GamingToday.com
https://www.gamingtoday.com/news/a-short-term-strategy-that-works/

Quote: ChumpChange

13 years ago today - A short-term strategy that works - GamingToday.com
https://www.gamingtoday.com/news/a-short-term-strategy-that-works/

OMG! PLEASE, PLEASE don't do this. You are going to cause me serious medical issue. heart attack or brain explode. Please, I beg of you!

Quote: Wizard

Thank you for the kind words. I mainly wanted to get him on record that his many years of Gaming Today articles were all a lie. I also wanted to pressure him for details on the double up play, to catch him in a contradiction or say something that clearly wasn't true.

One of the values of getting Singer on record like that is it becomes evident how messed up the origin story really is. For example, Singer has multiple methodologies. According to the origin story, they were arrived at not by programming, or by AI, but by painstaking alleged trial and error. Now picture all of the idiosyncratic tweaks and Rube Goldberg special plays that sometimes you use here, and sometimes there, and sometimes not at all. And then used differently and variously depending on the game being played. And the storyline is supposed to be that after five or six years of taking an AP beating, Singer "wised up" and discovered all of these systems and their specific intricacies in the span of months. The systems and intricacies can't be summarized via math; the genius who figured it all out has to be there -- moment to moment -- making his genius judgements as to what to employ when. He trial-and-error'ed his way to all of this in months. I mean, it's just absurd on the face of it.

And then, 20 years later, he realizes not too many people are buying the schtick any longer, so it becomes a cover for the Double Up bug. But wait, it gets better...he can't quite jettison the systems spiel that was ongoing for 20 years. He decides that, yes, his systems did work, even though they were mostly cover for the bug.

When you lay it out like this, it's a silly story.

Gaming Today is a tourist rag. Well done as such, but a tourist rag. Always has been, even when they were big. They had Page Four girls and Kino Lil giving keno winning advice and all kinds of stuff mixed with some serious AP video poker columns and sports columns and gaming industry columns. In the mix were Singer's columns. They were vetting Keno Lil about as much as they were vetting Singer.

Quote: kewlj

OMG! PLEASE, PLEASE don't do this. You are going to cause me serious medical issue. heart attack or brain explode. Please, I beg of you!

However, on second thought, anyone wanting to punish themselves enough to read this dribble, should immediately see the flaws to Singer's claims that have gone on for 20 years now.

1. You CAN NOT take a short-term strategy or results and expect to duplicate that over and over into long-term results. The example would be can a player walk into a casino, bet black on roulette and win 3 of 4 and leave for the day. OF COURSE! Can a player duplicate that every day for a year. Of course NOT!

2.) Just the brief explanation of Singers progression system, starting at .25, moving to .50, then to a dollar and so forth, is going to result in very typical results for such a system. Many smaller winning sessions, but eventually when you lose at the higher denomination, one much bigger, losing session that wipes out all those smaller winning sessions plus some. This isn't debatable. This is what progression systems do. You CAN NOT over come negative expectation with a progression betting system. It has been proven for....EVER.

These progression guys always seem to just want to leave out or ignore that part of big losing session that wipes everything else out PLUS SOME.

I was gonna move up a denomination after losing 50 to 60 credits, then revert back to minimum denomination after getting ahead a certain amount (tbd).

Quote: kewlj

I take it we can now exclude you from the suspect list if we ever find Mike buried in the desert? 👨🏿‍🤝‍👨🏼💞🤣

Quote: AxelWolf

I take it we can now exclude you from the suspect list if we ever find Mike buried in the desert? 👨🏿‍🤝‍👨🏼💞🤣

You are a real trouble maker aren't you?

Quote: kewlj

You are a real trouble maker aren't you?

What can you do that's pretty much a 10, He even stuck the landing.

Quote: kewlj

You are a real trouble maker aren't you?

Obviously. But you didn't answer the question.


TBH it was just a sarcastic way of noting that you guys are getting along. And I am happy for that.

Quote: AxelWolf

TBH it was just a sarcastic way of noting that you guys are getting along. And I am happy for that.

I get along with EVERYBODY. :)

Quote: ChumpChange

13 years ago today - A short-term strategy that works - GamingToday.com
https://www.gamingtoday.com/news/a-short-term-strategy-that-works/

I love this article. I am going to guess that the majority of people who like gambling so much that they would consider a tabloid they found in the casino to be worthwhile reading material want to hear the things from this article. They want to hear about "discipline" and "win goals" and "sessions". "Mini-session" is awesome on so many levels. They want to hear about "strategies" and "systems" that can be tried anywhere at anytime, along with all the data that shows how it has worked. Stories about all the wins. I could make up results of both small wins and bigger wins.

I would add "money management" to that as well. I would add stories about the person at the machine next to mine hitting jackpots. They want to hear about being treated well by the casino. I would talk about the great meal I had from the coffee shop and about getting a really nice bomber jacket from the gift shop. Complimentary of course. And cruises. Talk about cruises.

Most people would never care to hear about (0.9917 + 0.011) x 5. If it was x 500, or 2500, that could be a good story, but I don't think I could write that one as well.

Quote: TomG

I love this article. I am going to guess that the majority of people who like gambling so much that they would consider a tabloid they found in the casino to be worthwhile reading material want to hear the things from this article. They want to hear about "discipline" and "win goals" and "sessions". "Mini-session" is awesome on so many levels. They want to hear about "strategies" and "systems" that can be tried anywhere at anytime, along with all the data that shows how it has worked. Stories about all the wins. I could make up results of both small wins and bigger wins.

I would add "money management" to that as well. I would add stories about the person at the machine next to mine hitting jackpots. They want to hear about being treated well by the casino. I would talk about the great meal I had from the coffee shop and about getting a really nice bomber jacket from the gift shop. Complimentary of course. And cruises. Talk about cruises.

Most people would never care to hear about (0.9917 + 0.011) x 5. If it was x 500, or 2500, that could be a good story, but I don't think I could write that one as well.

The key difference in the two presentations is that one puts the player in a position of alleged control based on personal attributes or ongoing decisions while the other puts the player in a subordinate position, in a sense, to the math. In the first scenario, the player is the captain of his fate with each decision in the Rube Goldberg chain. In the second scenario, the player is just one of many using some broad optimal play strategy in an almost robotic fashion.

The stop losses, win goals, level management, all mental masturbation to foster a sense of control. They all substitute for the hard work of finding positive opportunities and handling variance with aplomb.

You know, when I put it down on paper this concisely, I really do see how the forum racism of the proponent fits the whole enterprise. There is this loss of control fear inherent in the use of these systems, a type of paranoia.

Seems like to be an advantage player, and claim you have "positive" return, you need to somehow include the casinos comps, like room, food, and maybe cash back, gifts, hosts smiles (kidding). But seriously, are you really a "professional" in terms of a career if you have to eat at the casino that comped you, stay in the room they comped you, and cannot afford, from your play, to pay for those things yourself?

So, the term "advantage player" means someone who attempts to play a mathematical strategy that has a negative expectation (unless there is some machine with a paytable that gives the long term math edge to the gambler), and mentally covers the delta between that negative expectation and actually making positive money profit with comps from the casino, that are only redeemable at that casino, at the casino's discretion, etc.

Where is the freedom in this? By playing as an advantage player you basically have to live and eat at a casino to make it even marginally worth playing.

So, given the choice of that miserable existence, or using your mind to come up with different methods for playing, why the intense criticism of those who come up with different ways? You say," That....(non advantage) method doesn't work." You say this just from your mental review. But, did you try it? Probably not. What I see on this forum is a lot of "mental reviews." Meaning, you intellectually dismiss strategies or variations WITHOUT testing them , either on computer and most importantly, in the casino. All i see here is criticism of alternative strategies, with no experiment drawn to verify, and no testing. You rely on those that suggest these strategies to prove something. Why not go out a prove it yourself?

So, why the harsh criticism of those that infact come up with different strategies? You are not asked to prove your math advantage strategy made you a real profit, are you? (where are the tax returns of those advantage players showing they are professional, have the IRS designation and satisfy those requirements?) Somehow people just need to accept that, when its fully acknowledged that in order to profit from the math advantage strategy you not only need to hit the prescribed number of 1/40000 hand royal straight flushes, but you need the casino to participate in the right level of comps. This is the strategy that SHOULD be questioned, because it relies on outlier events happening on a periodic schedule in order to profit (the royals have to happen in a prescribed and regular period of time, which rarely happens, according to this forum).

I know a few advantage players that live in Las Vegas. Not one of them satisfies me as being able to support a living from advantage video poker play. All of them are either retired from a job (social security and investments), or younger and still working while they play video poker. I know them from my tennis play, and I have know them for years. People like Bob Dancer get paid by casinos like Southpoint and other ventures to run promotions, and I don't know his whole story but it seems like its not video poker profit that pays all the bills.

And, also, why the complete dismissal of those "other" strategies, how many of you have actually run them? As a professional wagerer, gambler, financial trader, any profession that relies on making a present bet on the unknown future, you should probably be constantly coming up with new strategies, testing them etc. Casinos employ PhD math firms to seek holes in their games. That means there are holes in these games. They are there to be exploited if you choose to do the work. There is not just "one way" to do it. In fact, that advantage "one way" play is well known not even to work anymore. All the vpoker games are house edge now, so the discussion should be over about that method. But, it goes on and on....

Quote: TrackYourResult

Seems like to be an advantage player, and claim you have "positive" return, you need to somehow include the casinos comps, like room, food, and maybe cash back, gifts, hosts smiles (kidding). But seriously, are you really a "professional" in terms of a career if you have to eat at the casino that comped you, stay in the room they comped you, and cannot afford, from your play, to pay for those things yourself?

Usually people don't build their strawmen until the middle of the argument, but it looks like you've decided to construct one right off the bat. If nothing else, I suppose that one has to admire your ability to get out ahead of things.

The first erroneous aspect of this that you think that it, "Seems," like is the notion that all advantage players are factoring room, food and gifts into their playing decisions. While I am sure that almost all advantage players will accept these things, if offered, I at least tend to agree with your notion that these things would ideally not be what tips the balance.

It's kind of funny that you should mention, "Cash back," in the same breath. Why you would assume that cash back, especially if a known amount, could not swing something in a player's favor, I have no idea. You obviously can't put a solid numerical value on a comped room or meal (and we all know the asking price is generally ridiculously inflated, so best not to use that), but it's pretty easy to determine to narrow down the EV of cash back, free play, match play...etc.

Quote:

So, the term "advantage player" means someone who attempts to play a mathematical strategy that has a negative expectation (unless there is some machine with a paytable that gives the long term math edge to the gambler), and mentally covers the delta between that negative expectation and actually making positive money profit with comps from the casino, that are only redeemable at that casino, at the casino's discretion, etc.

I guess this might be mostly true if you're referring exclusively to Video Poker Advantage Play. If your mathematical edge relies upon free play or cash back, then yes, you would be counting on the casino doing what they say they are going to do.

Quote:

Where is the freedom in this? By playing as an advantage player you basically have to live and eat at a casino to make it even marginally worth playing.

Again, I think you're talking about a specific subset of advantage players.

Quote:

So, given the choice of that miserable existence, or using your mind to come up with different methods for playing, why the intense criticism of those who come up with different ways? You say," That....(non advantage) method doesn't work." You say this just from your mental review. But, did you try it? Probably not. What I see on this forum is a lot of "mental reviews." Meaning, you intellectually dismiss strategies or variations WITHOUT testing them , either on computer and most importantly, in the casino. All i see here is criticism of alternative strategies, with no experiment drawn to verify, and no testing. You rely on those that suggest these strategies to prove something. Why not go out a prove it yourself?

Here, you make the assumption that it's categorically a miserable existence---which again, I think only applies to a relatively small subset of advantage players in the first place. I also think that they disagree with you. Also, nobody is forcing you to play that way, so why should you care what they do? To wit, most advantage players aren't straight up playing Video Poker as their exclusive means of play.

As to the rest, are you referring to Singer's system? What do you mean, "Did you try it?" Did I try deliberately making holds on Video Poker games that are sub-optimal? No, I didn't. I really had no need to do that. Besides, Singer now claims that the majority of his profits came from working something called the, "Double Up Bug," anyway. If this is true, then I really see no reason to assume that, "The Singer System," yielded positive results. Based on what, his claims alone? Should I demand to see his tax returns?

You certainly have no more concrete proof of this than anyone else does that making mathematically sub-optimal holds and playing what is essentially just a negative progression system is a good idea.

Anyway, why would I test something that mathematically appears to be sub-optimal with real money in an actual casino? Explain to me why testing something like that makes logical sense.

IT would be as if scientists analyzed the chemical compounds of two fluids and realized that they would cause an explosion, if combined. Based on those findings, they're usually not going to combine them just to make sure. Not unprotected, anyway.

Furthermore, you decry people playing negative expectation video poker and factoring in comps in your first paragraph and now here you are in this one suggesting that they go out and play negative expectation Video Poker sub-optimally. Do you want them to play it or not to play it?

Finally, even if I did test this with real money, explain what would make THAT test valid. The results would be based on a sample size of one and wouldn't prove anything other than one person had good results.

Making Mathematically Sub-Optimal Holds = A-OK

Playing Video Poker Optimally and Relying on Comps to Swing it Positive = Miserable existence.

Got it.

Quote:

So, why the harsh criticism of those that infact come up with different strategies? You are not asked to prove your math advantage strategy made you a real profit, are you? (where are the tax returns of those advantage players showing they are professional, have the IRS designation and satisfy those requirements?) Somehow people just need to accept that, when its fully acknowledged that in order to profit from the math advantage strategy you not only need to hit the prescribed number of 1/40000 hand royal straight flushes, but you need the casino to participate in the right level of comps. This is the strategy that SHOULD be questioned, because it relies on outlier events happening on a periodic schedule in order to profit (the royals have to happen in a prescribed and regular period of time, which rarely happens, according to this forum).

Who's being criticized here? Certainly nobody here was criticizing Singer recently, given that there haven't been any posts in this thread in the last six months. Your post seems to lump all advantage players as being in the same subset of advantage players and criticizes their methods.

Who the hell are you to demand to see tax returns? That's a seriously messed-up request. Do you ask people what they do for a living out in the real world, and when they respond, demand to see their tax returns?

The strategy relies on these outlier events to balance out in the long run. Anyone will acknowledge that nobody should attempt to play an advantage this way without being properly bankrolled, for exactly the reason that you said. That's why I wouldn't go out and try to play video poker exclusively for a living; I'm not bankrolled for it.

It's the same thing with card counting at Blackjack, which I would hope that you are able to acknowledge is a form of advantage play that has been done successfully by some. You wouldn't go out and try to do it with a bankroll consisting of only five of your max bets, or shouldn't, anyway.

Quote:

I know a few advantage players that live in Las Vegas. Not one of them satisfies me as being able to support a living from advantage video poker play. All of them are either retired from a job (social security and investments), or younger and still working while they play video poker. I know them from my tennis play, and I have know them for years. People like Bob Dancer get paid by casinos like Southpoint and other ventures to run promotions, and I don't know his whole story but it seems like its not video poker profit that pays all the bills.

Okay, well, not many advantage players do play Video Poker exclusively, so I'm really not surprised. I also don't know what criteria is required to, "Satisfy you," in this regard.

Let me ask you this: If someone is retired or gets Social Security, but works somewhere part-time (on an hourly basis) do you dispute that they have a job on the grounds that they collect Social Security or Retirement? Perhaps it's not the sort of job where they would earn a living if they did only that, but they are doing it to supplement their retirement or social security income.

I should let you know Bob Dancer is a Member here...and what you said so far is almost certainly fine, but make sure not to venture into personal insult territiory if you're going to say anything else about him.

Perhaps he will pop in and give you an income breakdown. Although, it sounds like you won't be willing to believe him unless he is willing to present you his tax returns...which I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I doubt he is going to do.

You don't even have to disclose your tax returns to be the President of the United States, or didn't as of a few years ago, anyway...didn't follow if that changed. Why should you have to disclose them as a criteria for making claims to be an advantage player? A person can claim whatever they like.

Quote:

And, also, why the complete dismissal of those "other" strategies, how many of you have actually run them? As a professional wagerer, gambler, financial trader, any profession that relies on making a present bet on the unknown future, you should probably be constantly coming up with new strategies, testing them etc. Casinos employ PhD math firms to seek holes in their games. That means there are holes in these games. They are there to be exploited if you choose to do the work. There is not just "one way" to do it. In fact, that advantage "one way" play is well known not even to work anymore. All the vpoker games are house edge now, so the discussion should be over about that method. But, it goes on and on....

link to original post

Again, most people who look at things on a basis of math aren't going to deliberately run sub-optimal strategies. We can look at the probabilities of certain winning results and multiply them by what those potential results will return (if they are hit) to get the expected value of the hold. Singer himself once said that he never holds inside straight draws, but we can point to games that clearly call for one to do so (absent high cards), such as Double Bonus.

Not every strategy needs, "Tested," at least not by everyone, because some of them can be outright dismissed as poor.

More than that, why should you care if a particular strategy is dismissed on a mathematical basis? It's not your money that you are suggesting people try the strategies with, now is it?

If you wish to provide the bankroll and an hourly compensation, then I'll be perfectly happy to test whatever strategy you would like me to. That seems like a good advantage play, doesn't it? Playing Video Poker at a wage of some amount per hour without any financial risk? I also get to keep 40% of any handpays.

Quote: TrackYourResult

Seems like to be an advantage player, and claim you have "positive" return, you need to somehow include the casinos comps, like room, food, and maybe cash back, gifts, hosts smiles (kidding). But seriously, are you really a "professional" in terms of a career if you have to eat at the casino that comped you, stay in the room they comped you, and cannot afford, from your play, to pay for those things yourself?

So, the term "advantage player" means someone who attempts to play a mathematical strategy that has a negative expectation (unless there is some machine with a paytable that gives the long term math edge to the gambler), and mentally covers the delta between that negative expectation and actually making positive money profit with comps from the casino, that are only redeemable at that casino, at the casino's discretion, etc.

Where is the freedom in this? By playing as an advantage player you basically have to live and eat at a casino to make it even marginally worth playing.

So, given the choice of that miserable existence, or using your mind to come up with different methods for playing, why the intense criticism of those who come up with different ways? You say," That....(non advantage) method doesn't work." You say this just from your mental review. But, did you try it? Probably not. What I see on this forum is a lot of "mental reviews." Meaning, you intellectually dismiss strategies or variations WITHOUT testing them , either on computer and most importantly, in the casino. All i see here is criticism of alternative strategies, with no experiment drawn to verify, and no testing. You rely on those that suggest these strategies to prove something. Why not go out a prove it yourself?

So, why the harsh criticism of those that infact come up with different strategies? You are not asked to prove your math advantage strategy made you a real profit, are you? (where are the tax returns of those advantage players showing they are professional, have the IRS designation and satisfy those requirements?) Somehow people just need to accept that, when its fully acknowledged that in order to profit from the math advantage strategy you not only need to hit the prescribed number of 1/40000 hand royal straight flushes, but you need the casino to participate in the right level of comps. This is the strategy that SHOULD be questioned, because it relies on outlier events happening on a periodic schedule in order to profit (the royals have to happen in a prescribed and regular period of time, which rarely happens, according to this forum).

I know a few advantage players that live in Las Vegas. Not one of them satisfies me as being able to support a living from advantage video poker play. All of them are either retired from a job (social security and investments), or younger and still working while they play video poker. I know them from my tennis play, and I have know them for years. People like Bob Dancer get paid by casinos like Southpoint and other ventures to run promotions, and I don't know his whole story but it seems like its not video poker profit that pays all the bills.

And, also, why the complete dismissal of those "other" strategies, how many of you have actually run them? As a professional wagerer, gambler, financial trader, any profession that relies on making a present bet on the unknown future, you should probably be constantly coming up with new strategies, testing them etc. Casinos employ PhD math firms to seek holes in their games. That means there are holes in these games. They are there to be exploited if you choose to do the work. There is not just "one way" to do it. In fact, that advantage "one way" play is well known not even to work anymore. All the vpoker games are house edge now, so the discussion should be over about that method. But, it goes on and on....

link to original post

There's so much wrong with this post I don't know where to begin.
"to be an advantage player, and claim you have "positive" return" That's about the only thing I think is accurate.

Nowadays, I rarely take advantage of casino comps or eat at the casinos, unless I'm traveling, or friends invite me. I have let a bunch of comps expire and almost never take advantage of Vegas room offers. I enjoy eating and being at home it's way better than staying in some fancy room. Fancy Comped meals are more of a treat for me, and not the norm.

For the most part, it's the freedom to wake up whenever you want, take time off whenever you want, play for 1 hour or 24 hours in a day. No bosses telling you what to do and when to do it. One may choose to work with others or go solo whenever they want, one can pick and choose to play whatever they want. Nowadays, with so many casinos available, you have the ability to choose a region. If you factor in online casinos you can go anywhere in the world with an internet connection.

Most of the AP's that I deal with have the financial freedom to buy and do whatever they want without reason.

If rooms are $500 a night, you'll have to play the $500 minimum table for 4 hours to get the comp. Or you could play for 15 minutes, win $1,000 and pay for the room yourself. I'll put it in the free soda category at this point.