What Would You have Done?

RS might throw a natural straight for a 4 card royal draw (I forget if that's one of his plays, I think it is), but not a SF.

Remember with this hand, you've only got one draw to the Royal and none to the Straight Flush (as you already have it).

With a 4 card royal and straight, you've got 2 good cards, 7 Flush cards and 3 straight cards (plus the draw to the pairs for a push). If the bonuses are big enough in that case, the single card draw is gamboool but not insanity.

Quote: thecesspit

RS might throw a natural straight for a 4 card royal draw (I forget if that's one of his plays, I think it is), but not a SF.

Remember with this hand, you've only got one draw to the Royal and none to the Straight Flush (as you already have it).

With a 4 card royal and straight, you've got 2 good cards, 7 Flush cards and 3 straight cards (plus the draw to the pairs for a push). If the bonuses are big enough in that case, the single card draw is gamboool but not insanity.

Throwing away a natural straight for a 4 card royal is the right play by a lot. Singer has nothing to do with it. If straights pay 20 for 5 and royals pay 4000 for 5, you're giving up about 77 credits in EV by holding the straight instead of drawing to the royal.

Sorry, you are right, I was thinking of this case ::

9s 10s Js Qs Kh, where there's a draw to the straight flush over the natural straight. Mr Singer would draw to the SF on Bonus Poker.

OH=910JQK @ $20.00; SP=910JQ @ $17.13

Really? Not only is it the wrong play, that seems antithetical to the "win more frequently" strategy he's reported to espouse.

Quote: MathExtremist

Really? Not only is it the wrong play, that seems antithetical to the "win more frequently" strategy he's reported to espouse.

But the "big win" is part and parcel of his "strategy". He plays Martingales on bad EV machines, and hopes to negate that--as in, negate in his own mind--by hitting the beeeeeg one.

I don't actually know if tossing a SF is one of his speshul plays, but it's no dumber than some of the ones I HAVE seen.

Also, acccording to the "win more frequently" strategy, he would only make this play if holding the SF wouldn't get him even. So early in the ballgame, he might very well keep the hand. My point was that only a loon like Singer would EVER throw away a SF in Bonus Poker.

Quote: thecesspit

RS might throw a natural straight for a 4 card royal draw (I forget if that's one of his plays, I think it is), but not a SF. .

Any other player with a grain of sense would make the same play. An AP, or any knowledgeable player, would do this because the EV of a 4-card royal is almost five times the EV of a pat straight.

Of course, if the straight would get him ahead by $1, he would keep the straight so he could chalk up another "winning session", since having as many winning sessions as possible trumps actually WINNING in The Singer System.

Quote: Martin

Actually I know I was correct "by the book" - I'm looking for the gamblers on this site - the folks who just do it for the fun of doing it - so far I haven't found any.

For someone who may only be gambling one of the few times in their life. Sure, that's the play one would make. Like if I came into Vegas to go to friend's wedding, and it's likely I never will come back, that's what I imagine I would do. It's like throwing money into a wishing well (only much more expensive) and probably nothing will happen.

Quote: mkl654321

Any other player with a grain of sense would make the same play. An AP, or any knowledgeable player, would do this because the EV of a 4-card royal is almost five times the EV of a pat straight.

Of course, if the straight would get him ahead by $1, he would keep the straight so he could chalk up another "winning session", since having as many winning sessions as possible trumps actually WINNING in The Singer System.

As I stated, Mr Singer does NOT suggest tossing the Straight Flush. I was wrong. I apologize for the confusion.

Characterizing hims as someone who would is not only incorrect, it weakens your statements.

I also have not seen a case where he keeps the Straight to get ahead by $1. Your characterization of his session goals is also incorrect.

Finally, the biggest mystery to me is how he decides between a high risk play and a more winners play. It differs from hand to hand, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL. But I am guessing as to his motivation behind each play, so it's unfair to guess, then attack that guess.

Quote: thecesspit

As I stated, Mr Singer does NOT suggest tossing the Straight Flush. I was wrong. I apologize for the confusion.

Characterizing hims as someone who would is not only incorrect, it weakens your statements.

I also have not seen a case where he keeps the Straight to get ahead by $1. Your characterization of his session goals is also incorrect.

Finally, the biggest mystery to me is how he decides between a high risk play and a more winners play. It differs from hand to hand, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL. But I am guessing as to his motivation behind each play, so it's unfair to guess, then attack that guess.

I reiterate that for him, a "winning session" trumps ALL OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. He states this over and over and over and over. He also crows about his high winning percentage, so logically, giving up, say, $80 in EV would be more than worth it to him if doing so would give him another illusory "winning session". His motivation is crystal-clear, and he does state that motivation unequivocally--winning sessions at all costs.

How extreme he gets with this is hard to tell. In any event, the difference between a "high-risk" play that lowers the expectation on that play, and a truly stupid play that does so even more, is only a matter of degree. The wrong play is the wrong play, whether it's keeping just the Ace from AQJ32, or keeping just the Ace from an Ace-high pat flush. The logic is faulty in either case.

I realize that you went to a great deal of trouble to test the provenance of Singer's "system". However, you didn't really need to do that--you just needed to look at his method enough to realize that he ALWAYS plays at -EV, and as we all have known for centuries, you can't combine -EV to get +EV, any more than you can add up negative numbers to get a positive sum.

Testing Singer's system is like testing a method that purports to turn lead into gold by dancing on it. You can disprove it the hard way--by testing it--or the easy way, by referring to your knowledge that it CAN'T work.

I do it merely for the intellectual exercise in which I may learn something useful.

Which I have... about coding, about random number generators, about Video Poker pay tables, about the "feel" of gambling, about emotional gambling, about thinking versus feeling on making logical decisions and many other things.

Just because the outcome is not in question for many, it doesn't mean that the journey for some isn't worth it.

"I reiterate that for him, a "winning session" trumps ALL OTHER CONSIDERATIONS"

I also reiterate that you are wrong in this statement. But that's just she said/he said bullshit. The point is done with.