My 3rd & 4th Training Sessions With Rob Singer Are In The Books.
Here's what happened in session #3: I played 25c/50c/$1/$2/$5 Romp-Through-Town this time. This interesting strategy uses 50 credits on 25cBP then 50 on 25cDDBP; 50 on 50cBP then 100 on 50cDDBP; 100/100 on $1; 100/200 on $2; & 100/300 on $5 (although I played the top level on a different machine in the casino because the screen had a funny color & slight wiggle). The required bankroll to prevent ROR is $6000. One note: DDBP is the 4th best advanced BP game that he recommends to play. I played it because the machine I played didn't have any of the better games (SDBP, TBP Plus, or Super Aces BP).
His advice is to stop playing once a $500 daily win goal is met playing this particular strategy. I didn't do that because this was training, I need to get up to speed on my own ASAP, and it's not often he's this available. So I played on even though I was $1030 ahead after hitting more than my share of quads along the way. BUT, and to the dismay of mkl I'm more than sure, I did quit upon hitting a RF on $5 for an overall session win of just over $19,400. I have a cool picture of it because it came out sequential, although there was no bonus for it. I can't remember where I post these pics to that cesspit helped me with, but if he or anyone would like to see it here I again ask for his assistance and thank him in advance.
SESSION #4 was also on this Romp-Through-Town strategy but it didn't turn out as well I'm sad to say, as I left the same casino with a $1400 loss. It did, however, last almost 4 hours, something that Singer did not like. In fact I quit only because he was getting antsy, as I was nowhere finished even with my 2nd mini-session of the day. But the long session did do one thing: I am now able to go out and play his strategies on my own, which I will put to the test in March or April in LV.
I have no clue as to why people diss what he does. This has been like taking candy from a baby. I have to wonder where some advantage player would be after playing all these hands on a single denomination and getting the exact hands I did.
Quote:The required bankroll to prevent ROR is $6000.
This phrase doesn't mean what you think it means. "Risk of Ruin" is ROR, I assume, and there will always be a risk of ruin, flat betting or Singer-ising. You might mean "$6,000 is required to get below a 2% risk of ruin".
Quote:I have to wonder where some advantage player would be after playing all these hands on a single denomination and getting the exact hands I did.
Probably in the positive as you seem to have had a fair few big quads and Royals.
I think you explained ROR better than I understand it, or wrote it for that matter.
Quote: thecesspitThis phrase doesn't mean what you think it means. "Risk of Ruin" is ROR, I assume, and there will always be a risk of ruin, flat betting or Singer-ising. You might mean "$6,000 is required to get below a 2% risk of ruin".
Probably in the positive as you seem to have had a fair few big quads and Royals.
It's worth noting that the ROR is much, much greater using Singeresque strategies. For an equivalent amount of action, some Singerese bets will be much larger than others, which increases variance, which increases ROR no matter what the house edge is.
Also, the savvy Singer strategy of seeking out the machines with the worst paytables increases ROR. So Singer would need a much bigger bankroll than an AP would, just to stay afloat.
Quote: JerryLoganI have no clue as to why people diss what he does. This has been like taking candy from a baby. I have to wonder where some advantage player would be after playing all these hands on a single denomination and getting the exact hands I did.
An advantage player would be more than $19,400 ahead, if he got the exact same hands on the same denominations, because one of those exact same hands would have been the $5 denomination royal, worth $20,000, but he wouldn't have been playing Singer style up to that point (deliberately misplaying hands, and deliberately choosing the worst machines), and therefore, would have done better overall.
Even If this tale were true (and it's actually bullshit), then it would still be nothing more than "I got lucky and hit a $5 royal". If Singer played 400 credits at $5, then that's 80 hands, or about a 1 in 500 chance of hitting a royal. So I'll amend my assessment slightly: 99.8% chance that this story is bullshit.
Quote: mkl654321An advantage player would be more than $19,400 ahead, if he got the exact same hands on the same denominations, because one of those exact same hands would have been the $5 denomination royal, worth $20,000, but he wouldn't have been playing Singer style up to that point (deliberately misplaying hands, and deliberately choosing the worst machines), and therefore, would have done better overall.
Even If this tale were true (and it's actually bullshit), then it would still be nothing more than "I got lucky and hit a $5 royal". If Singer played 400 credits at $5, then that's 80 hands, or about a 1 in 500 chance of hitting a royal. So I'll amend my assessment slightly: 99.8% chance that this story is bullshit.
Looks like you're confused again and it's only because you're rattled by the session's outcome.
There were thousands of hands played before the royal hit, more than half were losers, and most of them were lost at lower denominations. If an "AP" sat at the $5 machine and played just as many hands at only that level, I calculate that he'd be ahead around $800, if that.
Quote: JerryLoganLooks like you're confused again and it's only because you're rattled by the session's outcome.
There were thousands of hands played before the royal hit, more than half were losers, and most of them were lost at lower denominations. If an "AP" sat at the $5 machine and played just as many hands at only that level, I calculate that he'd be ahead around $800, if that.
Bullshit, Jerryhole. You said:
Jerryquote: I have to wonder where some advantage player would be after playing all these hands on a single denomination and getting the exact hands I did.
If he played the $5 denomination and got the same royal you did, his results would have been at least as good as the ones you said you obtained (fantasy though it almost certainly was). Remember, you said "exact same hands".
You're starting to make a total fool out of yourself, Singer, as well as reinforcing your reputation as a fraud and a liar. Now you're starting to sound like a STUPID fraud and liar. Why won't you accept that people here aren't going to buy your books, or swallow your nonsense?
And I don't care how much you lost. Go ahead and say that I do if it makes you feel better. Go ahead and lie about hitting a royal on every trip if it makes you feel better. We know you're completely full of shit.
Jerry, does your phone have a camera (and if it doesn't, how come)? There's no way you wouldn't snap pics of yourself winning a royal.
Quote: P90I 'wonder' why do all the systems players always report so many big-win sessions. If you took it at face value, you'd have to genuinely wonder, how come the same results occur with systems that tell you to do the exact opposite things? Of course, if you take it for what it is...
Singer (that's who Jerry really is) reports a royal on EVERY TRIP even though he plays a maximum of around 2,500 hands. Not only that, but those "royals" occur at the highest denomination! He only plays 80 hands at the highest denomination ($5), but gee gosh golly, always hits a royal when he gets to that point! So Singer has figured out a way to hypnotize them video poker machines into giving him a royal 500 times more often than we mortals get them! Gosh golly, let's each order fifty copies of Thinger's book right now!!!!
What a fraud. What a liar. And worst of all, what an utter crapsack of a human being.
Quote: mkl654321Bullshit, Jerryhole. You said:
Jerryquote: I have to wonder where some advantage player would be after playing all these hands on a single denomination and getting the exact hands I did.
If he played the $5 denomination and got the same royal you did, his results would have been at least as good as the ones you said you obtained (fantasy though it almost certainly was). Remember, you said "exact same hands".
You're starting to make a total fool out of yourself, Singer, as well as reinforcing your reputation as a fraud and a liar. Now you're starting to sound like a STUPID fraud and liar. Why won't you accept that people here aren't going to buy your books, or swallow your nonsense?
And I don't care how much you lost. Go ahead and say that I do if it makes you feel better. Go ahead and lie about hitting a royal on every trip if it makes you feel better. We know you're completely full of shit.
I thought teachers knew how to read. These "exact same hands" are exactly that, only because I played a portion of them on 25c, a little bigger portion on 50c, a larger portion on $1, an even larger portion on $2, and not all that many on $5 because I still had 85 credits left when I hit the royal, the dumb AP would have been doing all his losing on $5 play while I lost a great many hands on LOWER DENOMINATIONS. Get it? Are you for real??!
Quote: P90I 'wonder' why do all the systems players always report so many big-win sessions. If you took it at face value, you'd have to genuinely wonder, how come the same results occur with systems that tell you to do the exact opposite things? Of course, if you take it for what it is...
Jerry, does your phone have a camera (and if it doesn't, how come)? There's no way you wouldn't snap pics of yourself winning a royal.
If you take a peek at my trainer's web site you'd see over the past decade he's reported his winning sessions and his losing sessions in cumulative fashion. In fact, if you read his Gambling Today articles during that timeframe you'd have seen many instances of proof of wins that were apparently required by his publisher to keep the doubters at bay.
Yes I have taken a picture of my latest and biggest win to date, just as I have posted on this site pictures of my $1 RF and $10 TBP+ four Aces win in Laughlin with RS at my side. I however need cesspit's help in getting this latest pic posted because I don't have the skill to do it.
Quote: JerryLoganI thought teachers knew how to read. These "exact same hands" are exactly that, only because I played a portion of them on 25c, a little bigger portion on 50c, a larger portion on $1, an even larger portion on $2, and not all that many on $5 because I still had 85 credits left when I hit the royal, the dumb AP would have been doing all his losing on $5 play while I lost a great many hands on LOWER DENOMINATIONS. Get it? Are you for real??!
Sorry, Jerryhole. That dog won't hunt. You can't say that the hypothetical AP would be playing "a single denomination" and then say that he wouldn't have won as much money as you "won" because that denomination wouldn't have been $5.
Really, Singer, you should learn how to read and how to argue. Maybe then you could sell another ten copies of your badly written, nonsensical pile of bullshit book.
Quote: thecesspitWell stick it up on flickr.com and I'll cross post it again. Your account doesn't seem to have the latest picture up there.
What would it prove? Anyone can take a picture of someone else's royal.
Quote: JerryLoganI however need cesspit's help in getting this latest pic posted because I don't have the skill to do it.
You attach your camera to your PC or laptop, go to http://imageshack.us, press browse, select the photo, click upload, then post the link imageshack gives you. Just how much intellectual prowess does that take?
P.S. Although that explains you using betting systems.
Quote: mkl654321What would it prove? Anyone can take a picture of someone else's royal.
I'm merely providing a service to someone. People do things for other people sometimes. There's another reason that someone could also work out with a few minutes thought. I'll let you step away from the keyboard and think about it and come back to me when your done in your quiet corner.
Quote: thecesspitWell stick it up on flickr.com and I'll cross post it again. Your account doesn't seem to have the latest picture up there.
Thanks cesspit. It is now there.
Quote: thecesspitI'm merely providing a service to someone. People do things for other people sometimes. There's another reason that someone could also work out with a few minutes thought. I'll let you step away from the keyboard and think about it and come back to me when your done in your quiet corner.
Yes, there were a dozen sequential RF's on the $5 machines that day. Happens all the time and not one person had a problem with me wandering around the casino looking to see if anyone had a $5 Royal, and they were all open to me taking pictures. No problem whatsoever!
MKL, it's comments like yours that proves to me you rarely if ever have visited a casino.
Quote: P90You attach your camera to your PC or laptop, go to http://imageshack.us, press browse, select the photo, click upload, then post the link imageshack gives you. Just how much intellectual prowess does that take?
P.S. Although that explains you using betting systems.
I'm no intellect. I leave that for the overload of geniuses here. I just explain what happens in the real world while they explain what's SUPPOSED to happen according to theory.
Quote: JerryLoganThanks cesspit. It is now there.
So where are the links? Provide pix with face visible for id'ing.
Quote: mkl654321Sorry, Jerryhole. That dog won't hunt. You can't say that the hypothetical AP would be playing "a single denomination" and then say that he wouldn't have won as much money as you "won" because that denomination wouldn't have been $5.
Really, Singer, you should learn how to read and how to argue. Maybe then you could sell another ten copies of your badly written, nonsensical pile of bullshit book.
Again, learn how to read. I didn't say the AP wouldn't be playing $5 when he hit the RF. In fact, I made the assumption that he played EVERY HAND on $5, and tried to show you how I played most of my hands on lower denominations. But like Michael Vick, you killed the dog that hunts.
Quote: JerryLoganI'm no intellect. I leave that for the overload of geniuses here. I just explain what happens in the real world while they explain what's SUPPOSED to happen according to theory.
Haha that's pretty good. You are an interesting character aren't you...
Quote: thecesspitJL's Royal :
Ew diamonds is the worst one to have imo.
Quote: thecesspitJL's Royal :
Where is JL itself? 20k is enough to bother taking a face shot in front of the machine.
Quote: P90Where is JL itself? 20k is enough to bother taking a face shot in front of the machine.
I'll leave that for the court of popular to opinion to decide on the veracity of the picture.
Quote: JerryLoganI just explain what happens in the real world while they explain what's SUPPOSED to happen according to theory.
If you were aware of what happens in the real world, you would have long realized that the overwhelming majority of people here is only interested in making fun of you, much like a cat makes fun of fresh turkey innards his owner just threw to him.
Quote: P90Where is JL itself? 20k is enough to bother taking a face shot in front of the machine.
I'm not sure how you would take a picture of a face with a machine. I used my phone on this one, but RS could have taken it. If I'm with someone next hit I'll try that.
For those intimidated into tipping the floor people, take a lesson: I was given 200 $100 bills, and per Singer's instructions which I've been following lately, I handed out a grand total of 0. Just what they deserve.
Quote: JerryLoganI'm not sure how you would take a picture of a face with a machine.
You stand in front of the machine, and Rob Singer II or just any patron you ask takes your photo. How hard can it be*?
*Registered trademark of Dr.Long's Male Clinics, Inc.
Quote: P90If you were aware of what happens in the real world, you would have long realized that the overwhelming majority of people here is only interested in making fun of you, much like a cat makes fun of fresh turkey innards his owner just threw to him.
But Jerry doesn't care about what a bunch of nerds think. Jerry has his own fun irritating the funny people with actual gambling experiences instead of babbling about what might happen "in theory" and because of that, Jerry has been blessed recently with some mytfine luck!
Quote: JerryLoganBut Jerry doesn't care about what a bunch of nerds think. Jerry has his own fun irritating the funny people with actual gambling experiences...
Hahaha! You've been just having fun too, I knew it!
Quote: P90You stand in front of the machine, and Rob Singer II or just any patron you ask takes your photo. How hard can it be*?
*Registered trademark of Dr.Long's Male Clinics, Inc.
OK, not so hard, right? Then please lead me to a picture on this forum of one of the members and their machine hits....or to make it a bit easier, since most here play tables, then show me a pic of ANY player with his face at a table after a big win. Should be pie-in-the-sky for a capable personality such as yourself, correct?
Quote: thecesspitI'm merely providing a service to someone. People do things for other people sometimes. There's another reason that someone could also work out with a few minutes thought. I'll let you step away from the keyboard and think about it and come back to me when your done in your quiet corner.
Man, you've been taking lessons from Jerry. I can't read your mind, oh exalted one--what reason could you have for helping Jerry post a picture of someone else's royal?
Quote: SOOPOOJL- do you consider your training done? Are you ready to do it alone? Do you think you will be able to consistently make enough money to retire from the trucking executive business? And one last question... If everyone in the VP area was a Singer disciple, how long would it take for a casino to go bankrupt?
1. I thought I was until I talked to RS last night. He thought about how I've played and what mistakes I've been making that he's been there to correct, so he wants to do one more training late this week. He's really into this with me and he is a great teacher. If only all teachers were more caring about their students than how they appear to others on the internet....
2. I'd never retire from my job, but I can see a sweet income boost from this each year now. Even though I've had very good results at the Indian casinos here, RS has convinced me to do as he's always done: only play in Nevada, which I'll only be able to do once every two months or so. He doesn't believe the machines are completely random anywhere, but he believes Nevada does the best job in keeping them operating in the non-random mode specs they were manufactured to meet.
3. It's my opinion that any RS "disciples" that are out there are playing a much lower level than he did or even I do. Also, seeing that it is a far more difficult strategy to learn than just optimal play alone, I'm not all that sure there's enough proper aptitude out there to be able to do it correctly anyway. But I'm a firm believer now that if there were, then casinos would either close up or eliminate vp machines altogether. I say this because I remember several RS articles that included one or more letters from casinos barring him from playing because they couldn't make a profit off of him.
Quote: mkl654321An advantage player would be more than $19,400 ahead, if he got the exact same hands on the same denominations, because one of those exact same hands would have been the $5 denomination royal, worth $20,000, but he wouldn't have been playing Singer style up to that point (deliberately misplaying hands, and deliberately choosing the worst machines), and therefore, would have done better overall.
To be fair, that's not quite so. If the AP was not deliberately misplaying hands, he might not have gotten that royal.
This is not to say there is anything to Singer's systems, just that this particular argument against it is flawed.
Quote: weaselmanTo be fair, that's not quite so. If the AP was not deliberately misplaying hands, he might not have gotten that royal.
This is not to say there is anything to Singer's systems, just that this particular argument against it is flawed.
Singer's strategy maximizes short-term hit frequency at the expense of EV. If anything an AP's chance to hit a royal is higher than a Singer-style player.
Quote: MathExtremistSinger's strategy maximizes short-term hit frequency at the expense of EV. If anything an AP's chance to hit a royal is higher than a Singer-style player.
Of course ... Well, actually, I don't know that - is AP's chance of getting a royal specifically on any hand higher than Singer's? I thought, Singer plays some hands badly exactly to increase the chance of getting the royal. So, if those hands were played correctly, the chance of a royal would be lower. I am assuming, that those hands, that have a good enough chance of a royal for AP to go for it are played correctly by Singer as well, so in those cases the chances are the same.
Overall, it seems that Singer's chance of getting a royal should be higher than that of AP (I am no expert in either AP strategy nor Singer's "exceptions", so this is just a pure speculation from what I have read here about both).
But regardless, I am not disputing the fact that AP's EV is higher. I am just saying that the argument that he'd get the same royal Jerry did does not work, because Jerry played intentionally wrong to increase the chance of getting that royal, and the AP would not do that.
Quote: MathExtremistSinger's strategy maximizes short-term hit frequency at the expense of EV. If anything an AP's chance to hit a royal is higher than a Singer-style player.
Why don't you also explain (to mkl) how 5000 hands of $5 vp is a lot different on the bankroll than 400 on 25c + 700 on 50c + 1200 on $1 + 1600 on $2 + 1100 on $5.
Quote: JerryLoganWhy don't you also explain (to mkl) how 5000 hands of $5 vp is a lot different on the bankroll than 400 on 25c + 700 on 50c + 1200 on $1 + 1600 on $2 + 1100 on $5.
You appear to in fact understand that it is no different; what's your excuse for varying the bet for no reason, then?
Quote: P90You appear to in fact understand that it is no different; what's your excuse for varying the bet for no reason, then?
Please make sense. 5000 hand X $25 = $125,000 of play. A $20k RF at that point "might" have put the AP ahead. What I played to get to the royal was significantly less, which is why when the Royal hit I took home most of the payout.
Quote: mkl654321Man, you've been taking lessons from Jerry. I can't read your mind, oh exalted one--what reason could you have for helping Jerry post a picture of someone else's royal?
I thought you were against using direct insults on this forum and only commenting on the content of their posts? I know perfectly well that you intended the first clause to be a direct insult on me, considering the level in which you hold Jerry Logan. But of course, I must have started it, so it's okay to come off your moral high horse and to start with your hypocritical argument techniques on me. Waaaa... I must go complain to teacher...
I'm a little confused though, not two days ago, you knew my mind SO well that you tell me my motivations for every posts I made (of course, when I pointed out how wrong you were based on your own assumptions you went stiffly quiet).
Anyways, if you can't work it out, not my problem.
You of course have zero evidence that it is someone else's, but you'll continue to state that it is. Fine, carry on doing that. Comments you make like that (and "Jerryhole".. ho ho ho) really don't improve your position. But as you stated before, you have no interest in proving or disproving Jerry or Rob Singer's methods, because it's been done before. But you continue to post anyways.
Quote: JerryLoganPlease make sense. 5000 hand X $25 = $125,000 of play. A $20k RF at that point "might" have put the AP ahead. What I played to get to the royal was significantly less, which is why when the Royal hit I took home most of the payout.
125 grand at 99% VP is a loss of $1,250. Stick a $20,000 Royal on top - profit of $18,750.
(You might not be playing 99% VP, but unless it's ultra lousy, hitting a royal in 5,000 hands will -normally- return you a profit on the day).
Course $125,000 of play will probably get you you some sort of free room/meal offers as well, as would the lower amount as well. Hope you had your player's card in the machine Jerry to scoop of a few extra freebies.
When you say it equates out to a $1250 loss, that's where I don't agree. You're applying long term expectation to short time playing. I've played many many $5 BP games for 8-12 hours a pop in the past. I've hit some royals in the process, but the times I didn't almost always showed a 5 figure loss. That 99% means little to nothing for such short term play.
My player's card was used but this is an Indian casino and the benefits are miniscule.
Quote: JerryLoganWhen you say it equates out to a $1250 loss, that's where I don't agree. You're applying long term expectation to short time playing. I've played many many $5 BP games for 8-12 hours a pop in the past. I've hit some royals in the process, but the times I didn't almost always showed a 5 figure loss. That 99% means little to nothing for such short term play.
I'll repeat my question... when in your model of the world does short term play become the long term?
I'm simply stating the mid point of the results over 5,000 hands. I did make an error though... that 99% does include the Royal. Sans royal, I think the expectation is 97-95% (I think a royal makes between 2-4% of the return).
Like say, we'll never agree on this, but I'm pretty confident that my use of models before playing is the way to go.
Quote: thecesspitI'll repeat my question... when in your model of the world does short term play become the long term?
I'm simply stating the mid point of the results over 5,000 hands. I did make an error though... that 99% does include the Royal. Sans royal, I think the expectation is 97-95% (I think a royal makes between 2-4% of the return).
Like say, we'll never agree on this, but I'm pretty confident that my use of models before playing is the way to go.
Before I met Rob I only casually thought about the long and short terms. Now, I have a whole new understanding on them that's clearly helped me in my game and how I feel about going into playing. As he says, each time we go into play is its own separate individual event, and for the player, there is no long term. That only applies to the machines and the casinos. Those entities always have the advantage no matter the paytable, because they get all the play and it will always take good luck for any player to come out a winner.
I understand what you're saying about your models, although I probably don't really undertand the numbers. But I've played more than enough to know that machine expectation has nothing at all to do with outcome in any given session.
Quote: thecesspitI thought you were against using direct insults on this forum and only commenting on the content of their posts? I know perfectly well that you intended the first clause to be a direct insult on me, considering the level in which you hold Jerry Logan. But of course, I must have started it, so it's okay to come off your moral high horse and to start with your hypocritical argument techniques on me. Waaaa... I must go complain to teacher...
I'm a little confused though, not two days ago, you knew my mind SO well that you tell me my motivations for every posts I made (of course, when I pointed out how wrong you were based on your own assumptions you went stiffly quiet).
Anyways, if you can't work it out, not my problem.
You of course have zero evidence that it is someone else's, but you'll continue to state that it is. Fine, carry on doing that. Comments you make like that (and "Jerryhole".. ho ho ho) really don't improve your position. But as you stated before, you have no interest in proving or disproving Jerry or Rob Singer's methods, because it's been done before. But you continue to post anyways.
You richly deserved the comparison. I'm not against using direct insults in response to a direct insult. But be that as it may, I forgive you. I still don't know why you would help Singer perpetrate his frauds, but I'll assume you have what amounts to a valid reason in your own mind.
And my point, which you missed, is that absent any additional evidence, we have no way of verifying whether Jerry/Singer is telling the truth. And a photo of a royal won't constitute any real evidence, but it will impress the impressionable--so why help out the fraud?
