My Point Of View

First, I only get involved with forums these days as I have the time. There's another forum I post sparingly on, but that's just for twisted fun. I'm sure you all know these things can be very habit forming, and while I've been known to indulge deeply in them in the past, not so much any more. Believe it or not, there's actually MUCH MUCH more to do after retiring--at least for me. The keys? Have a family, keep your mind working, stay motivated by various interests, have a beautiful doggie, eat properly, and respect your body by keeping it healthy.

I popped in today because I've been reading over many posts from the past month or so, and because our good friend Jerry Logan told me he's been permanently banned or quit for whatever reasons, he said there were some posts regarding my play strategy and the vp training I gave him a week ago that I should look over.

For the most part, I see mentioning me has not been anywhere near the firestorm it creates on the vp boards--except for this mlk654321 character. I'm not sure why he doesn't want it to have been that Jerry did get that $1 royal, but I can only guess from his previous confused comments that he's envious. In case mlk's not very familiar with casinos, people just don't go around looking for others who've hit royals and take pictures of them. So be it. He's not the first "AP" that I've seen ruffled because of what's happened when I play or train at a vp machine. FYI, I'm actually continuing Jerry's training in Laughlin on higher limits ($1 thru $10) late this month, and on an alternate strategy I developed (ARTT). I hope to report on how that goes since he cannot--or will not.

Michael Bluejay: I've given a detailed explanation to a member here who writes me, on why I do not believea sim can be done that would accurately portray how I play. The special plays that deviate from expert strategy that I utilize are so variable in nature from game to game and denomination to denomination--even from day to day or session to session depending on where I'm at in my win goal, that it doesn't seem viable to me. I could play live, but that would require lots of time and coordination. If that's an option then I'd be willing to do that if the money's worth it. However, as I win approximately 85% of the time (and yes, I've won almost a million dollars doing it in 10 years) what number of sessions would it take to prove that playing vp on negative EV machines can be profitabe over any amount of time?

Finally, Jerry really is a good guy, maybe a little rough, but he's a decent friend. He's not a very tolerant guy, but I wasn't either when I was his age. The grief he gave to that guy who claims he smokes "or he'll die" was just a reply to a smoking fool who asked for it. I understand all the inuendos and insinuations he throws mlk654321's way, but truthfully, if you waste the time reading thru all that stuff as I have, how can anyone disagree with any of it? Prolific posters like him usually expose themselves far more than they ever wanted to do, the guy's purported lifestyle seems to have irked Jerry some, and I fully expect the him to post a "I have to set the record straight" kind of mind-easing, unflatterring reply. Go for it. He won't be able to resist anyway!

I'll be back soon after my next training session with Jerry on the 30th. So everyone please have a Merry Christmas and a great NewYear in 2011. Mike, all the best to you & your family!

Rob

Who is Jerry Logan?

Quote: RobSinger

The special plays that deviate from expert strategy that I utilize are so variable in nature from game to game and denomination to denomination--even from day to day or session to session depending on where I'm at in my win goal, that it doesn't seem viable to me.

Rob

First, thanks a lot for posting here. I don't really understand what you mean by 'special play'. If you know 'expert strategy' (I assume by expert strategy you mean the strategy with the highest expected value for a given set of cards), how is there ever a reason to choose a play that will return less per unit bet? If, say, you are making a play that 20% of the time wins 10, rather than 2% of the time winning 125, yes, you may reach a predetermined arbitrary win goal more frequently, but continually making that play will lose you .5 units per occurrence of the initial set of cards.

Jerry was banned for one week because of a combination of hijacking threads and personal insults. It was a long suspension because it was his third offense. When his time is up, and I don't remember when it is, I hope he can behave better, should he choose to return.

It is hard to argue with Rob Singer because he doesn't buy the premise that the machines play fairly. So I don't think he would buy an expected value calculation, because he wouldn't necessarily believe every card has an equal chance.

Rob, when you see Jerry, extend to him my best wishes for Kwanzaa.

And Happy Festivus to all, and to all a Good Night !

Now, if we can only find a way to actually rehabilitate people during suspensions, wouldn't society as a whole be better off ?

.....Although I realize as I write this, that statement is kind of liberal in nature, so probably not applicable to JL. So, maybe
more appropriate to simply say if you can't do the time, don't do the crime !

Quote: wizard

Rob, when you see Jerry, extend to him my best wishes for Kwanzaa.

This is quite possibly the funniest sentence I have read on this board.

Now could it be that JL's rants are sub-conciously launched because of the first 3 letters of his "adversary's" user name ?

Quote: RobSinger

For the most part, I see mentioning me has not been anywhere near the firestorm it creates on the vp boards--except for this mlk654321 character. I'm not sure why he doesn't want it to have been that Jerry did get that $1 royal, but I can only guess from his previous confused comments that he's envious. In case mlk's not very familiar with casinos, people just don't go around looking for others who've hit royals and take pictures of them. So be it. He's not the first "AP" that I've seen ruffled because of what's happened when I play or train at a vp machine. FYI, I'm actually continuing Jerry's training in Laughlin on higher limits ($1 thru $10) late this month, and on an alternate strategy I developed (ARTT). I hope to report on how that goes since he cannot--or will not.
Finally, Jerry really is a good guy, maybe a little rough, but he's a decent friend. He's not a very tolerant guy, but I wasn't either when I was his age. The grief he gave to that guy who claims he smokes "or he'll die" was just a reply to a smoking fool who asked for it. I understand all the inuendos and insinuations he throws mlk654321's way, but truthfully, if you waste the time reading thru all that stuff as I have, how can anyone disagree with any of it? Prolific posters like him usually expose themselves far more than they ever wanted to do, the guy's purported lifestyle seems to have irked Jerry some, and I fully expect the him to post a "I have to set the record straight" kind of mind-easing, unflatterring reply. Go for it. He won't be able to resist anyway!
Rob

Dear "Rob Singer":

First of all, I don't give a crap whether JL hit a royal or not. It means nothing, and in point of fact people who follow "go for the big hand" strategies like the ones you espouse will hit royals more often than "normal". They will also be bigger losers than "normal". Why would I be "envious" (a favorite, and stupid, JL accusation) of someone who not only plays losing machines, but purposely plays them badly, based on YOUR advice? I have hit several hundred royals in my lifetime, but that in itself proves nothing--nor does hitting royals in and of itself prove that a player is a winner or a loser.

If you've read all the crap that JL has thrown mine and others' way, and you don't disagree with any of it, well, then, you're not inhabiting the real world. If you happen to like JL personally, well, I suppose that's conceivable, and would indeed explain why you embrace and approve of his hate-filled, racist, homophobic, deliberately antagonistic rants. Keep in mind that such spewings have gotten him suspended from this board several times.

It is VERY obvious that you are posting at Jerry's behest, as a kind of "proxy" for him since he is currently under supension. You've gotten him to sucker for one of your worthless strategies, so you are rewarding your new convert and acolyte by joining in his attack on me. But you know what, Mr. "Singer"? Your "systems" and "strategies" are useless garbage (worse than useless, actually), and they are such regardless of myself, my own personal circumstances, or my own relative success at gambling. Jerry has tried to come to your "defense" by attacking my profession, the state I live in, (his imaginings of) my personal life, even the car he thinks I drive, etc. etc. etc. It seems like you are doing the same thing--this is called trying to prove an argument via an ad hominem attack. It's a childish, illogical thing to do, does nothing to bolster a person's argument, and is a favorite tactic of JL, which is why he's so loathed here. He can't seem to disagree with someone without attacking them personally. You cutely call this being "a little rough", but if he "really is a good guy", we sure as hell haven't seen that here.

In any case, my understanding is that you are a genuinely nice person, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with the system garbage you sell/promote/proselytize. I think you're smart enough to know yourself that the systems you're flogging are worthless, but you could actually have a mental blind spot that makes you believe. No matter. Your systems are self-refuting, and I don't need to make any character insinuations about you to further refute them. In turn, you and/or Jerry need not make any character insinuations about me in a futile attempt to avoid that self-refutation.

It may be possible (barely) that you've won a squillion dollars playing 97% VP with a bastardized Martingale system based on playing 5%+ of your hands badly, but so what? Anybody can get lucky. Of course, Occam's Razor suggests that of the three possible explanations: 1) You're shining everybody on 2) You've gotten lucky 3) You have actually figured out a GEN-U-WINE system for beating -EV video poker, 1) is by FAR the most likely.

Quote: SOOPOO

First, thanks a lot for posting here. I don't really understand what you mean by 'special play'. If you know 'expert strategy' (I assume by expert strategy you mean the strategy with the highest expected value for a given set of cards), how is there ever a reason to choose a play that will return less per unit bet? If, say, you are making a play that 20% of the time wins 10, rather than 2% of the time winning 125, yes, you may reach a predetermined arbitrary win goal more frequently, but continually making that play will lose you .5 units per occurrence of the initial set of cards.

Flip around, Rob Singer will -tend- to make a high risk play over the perfect strategy play in some situations.

Also you missed the words "on average" when you come to the 0.5 units... which is important to his method, as he doesn't think the long term is meaningful for players who are in the short term.

This is from reading his info and chatting to him over email. I don't necessarily agree with those points he makes.

Quote: mkl654321

I think you're smart enough to know yourself that the systems you're flogging are worthless, but you could actually have a mental blind spot that makes you believe.

Rob Singer is certainly less aggressive in his selling than Bob Dancer and The Queen of Comps. His system maybe garbage in your (and lots of other people's opinions) but he is doing a very bad job of flogging it by giving it away to people who inquire skeptically about it.

Quote: Wizard

Rob, when you see Jerry, extend to him my best wishes for Kwanzaa.

Now that made me smile.

Quote: SOOPOO

First, thanks a lot for posting here. I don't really understand what you mean by 'special play'. If you know 'expert strategy' (I assume by expert strategy you mean the strategy with the highest expected value for a given set of cards), how is there ever a reason to choose a play that will return less per unit bet? If, say, you are making a play that 20% of the time wins 10, rather than 2% of the time winning 125, yes, you may reach a predetermined arbitrary win goal more frequently, but continually making that play will lose you .5 units per occurrence of the initial set of cards.

A Singeresque "speshul play" is one that sacrifices EV for a chance at getting a "big hand", which in turn increases the chances of getting out of the hole that making "speshul plays" digs for the player in the first place.

Keep in mind that Singerism says that the ONLY goal is to be ahead at the end of the "session"--even one dollar. By Singeresque thinking, winning $1 nine times and losing $1000 once is a "NINETY PERCENT WIN RATE!!!!!", and therefore a success. Since Singerism is basically a Martingale, a player figures to be deep in the hole quite quickly, and playing the hand optimally won't help much with the objective of "getting even (or ahead) at all costs". As you say, the illusion is the "predetermined arbitrary win goal", which is actually meaningless (unless you are playing the last, or only, session of your life). But that illusion is seductive enough that Singer has a determined coterie of believers. It IS more attractive (to many), albeit more expensive, to play The Singer Way than to use mathematics, logic, and discipline.

I don't know exactly what his speshul plays are (and he doesn't seem to know, himself), but a good example would be playing 10/7 DB, when dealt two pair, AA55x (for example). Proper strategy says to hold the two pair (because of the high payoff, 10 units, for the full house). Singer strategy would just hold the Aces. Now, Singerites will indeed hit four Aces more often this way, but on the way, they will give up more than the value of quad Aces in missed full houses.

Quote: mkl654321

A Singeresque "speshul play" is one that sacrifices EV for a chance at getting a "big hand", which in turn increases the chances of getting out of the hole that making "speshul plays" digs for the player in the first place.

Keep in mind that Singerism says that the ONLY goal is to be ahead at the end of the "session"--even one dollar.

I don't know how many times I have to tell you this, but this is NOT true. His win goals are bigger than that. You may not agree with them. But it is not $1.

Stop pretending to know anything much about his system by giving details that are incorrect.

Quote:

I don't know exactly what his speshul plays are (and he doesn't seem to know, himself), but a good example would be playing 10/7 DB, when dealt two pair, AA55x (for example). Proper strategy says to hold the two pair (because of the high payoff, 10 units, for the full house). Singer strategy would just hold the Aces. Now, Singerites will indeed hit four Aces more often this way, but on the way, they will give up more than the value of quad Aces in missed full houses.

I think Rob knows his special plays more than most other people.

Again, they give up value in EV. You can make up whatever you want, but it doesn't help your argument when your shown to be making it up. As the facts are there, and you can do just as good a job attacking them with the mathematics.

Are $1 royals really this big of a story?

In person JL may be a lovely person however he seems to derive pleasure from safely posting some quite vile things.
Not sure of his age but as you say he isn't very tolerant however he goes out of his way to attempt to insult people.
It is one thing to be confident it is entirely another to be rude. Hopefully with age he will become more tolerant with other races, genders and lives.

I have always questioned the theory people have about free speech on message boards.
Just out of respect to MS since this board represents his career and livelihood and is one of his faces to the gambling community why would someone try to make this an unpleasant place to visit. It either a lack of manners or an attempt to ruin the board.
I joined this board within a few days of it opening and I can not remember one time where MS purposely went out of his way to insult someone so why would I do that in his house?
MS pays the rent on the site so he should be able to set the rules. If people do not agree GoDaddy can set you up your own site in 15min.

Quote: thecesspit

I don't know how many times I have to tell you this, but this is NOT true. His win goals are bigger than that. You may not agree with them. But it is not $1.

Stop pretending to know anything much about his system by giving details that are incorrect.

.

His goal is to "have a winning session". $1 is a win. He may WANT to win more, but he himself has stated many, many, many times that he will quit whenever he is ahead--even if that's after only one hand.

If the amount "$1" bothers you, substitute "$10" or "$100" or $152.61" or whatever will make you comfy. My basic point remains the same.

I don't really need to know his system in excruciating detail to be absolutely certain that it's faulty. It's a Martingale based on trying to beat -EV games, and that is its own refutation right there. I don't really need to know if it's based on wearing a lucky pink hat, or having a "win goal", or jumping up and down and chanting "BOOGA BOOGA" when you draw to a royal, or anything else. Simple, basic, elementary, third grade mathematics tells me he cannot succeed:

There is no way to sum negative numbers to achieve a positive total.

mlk, your thoughts are correct assuming that the machines are truly random. As the Wizard says, Rob Singer believes that they are not. Until this is resolved, the other argument is pointless.

Quote: thecesspit

I think Rob knows his special plays more than most other people.

Again, they give up value in EV. You can make up whatever you want, but it doesn't help your argument when your shown to be making it up. As the facts are there, and you can do just as good a job attacking them with the mathematics.

I didn't "make anything up". I posted an EXAMPLE of a -EV play that enhanced the chances of hitting a big hand. I don't know or care whether Singer uses that particular play, but I would surmise that his speshul plays are far more egregious than the example I just gave. I don't see how (sic) "your shown to be making it up". Making WHAT up? You're starting to sound like JL.

And sure, "Singer" presumably knows his speshul plays better than anyone else. L. Ron Hubbard presumably knows the details of Scientology better than anyone else. That doesn't mean that they are the only persons capable of understanding their respective "philosophies".

Quote: Mosca

mlk, your thoughts are correct assuming that the machines are truly random. As the Wizard says, Rob Singer believes that they are not. Until this is resolved, the other argument is pointless.

If you would like to see truly "Non Random" VP go to NY's racino's. Your hold cards do not matter. If when you hit deal and draw a set you can throw them away and on the draw you will have a set. If not a Genie pops up and changes cards.
Learned this a few years back when I was playing correctly and never saw a Genie. I started mucking hands and they would re-appear.

Quote: Wizard

Rob, when you see Jerry, extend to him my best wishes for Kwanzaa.

OK, I'll bite, why " best wishes for Kwanzaa" ?

Quote: Wizard

Rob, when you see Jerry, extend to him my best wishes for Kwanzaa.

OK, I'll bite, why " best wishes for Kwanzaa" ?

Quote: Wizard

Rob, when you see Jerry, extend to him my best wishes for Kwanzaa.

OK, I'll bite, why " best wishes for Kwanzaa" ?

Quote: Wavy70

If you would like to see truly "Non Random" VP go to NY's racino's. Your hold cards do not matter. If when you hit deal and draw a set you can throw them away and on the draw you will have a set. If not a Genie pops up and changes cards.
Learned this a few years back when I was playing correctly and never saw a Genie. I started mucking hands and they would re-appear.

Oh, we played there once, and never again. Those are lottery games. The overall odds might be the same, but the feel of the games is completely different, and unpleasant.

Quote: Mosca

mlk, your thoughts are correct assuming that the machines are truly random. As the Wizard says, Rob Singer believes that they are not. Until this is resolved, the other argument is pointless.

If you're in Nevada, video poker machines are random enough to both pass gaming regulations and to correspond to the sort of analysis that the Wizard has on his site. There is no dispute on this issue among anyone who understands it. Rob's anecdotes from his website are not evidence of non-random VP machines - they are only evidence of his lack of understanding of how the games actually work. Rob is like most people who haven't studied probability theory -- his intuition on randomness is terrible. That's not his fault. He (and everyone else) was born that way.

Here's an easy demonstration. Play video poker as normal. While you're playing, think about whatever you normally think about. Don't memorize your initial cards, etc. Just play normally. But when you hit the draw button, make a mental note of how many times a replacement card *seems to be* identical to the one you discarded. Obviously that isn't what happened, but if you're like most people that will seem to happen a few times an hour. Now think about this: if an entirely impossible scenario seems to occur multiple times per hour, what does that say about your perception of merely improbable events?

Human perception is very, very easily manipulated, especially by expectations. Here's an example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4

In that video, you were instructed to focus on a certain event, and you did. You missed some other stuff, though.
Similarly, if you go into a VP session and focus on seeing long-shot card combinations, you're going to see them. You'll just miss the other stuff that, in aggregate, makes the long-shots not seem so bizarre.

Quote: mkl654321

His goal is to "have a winning session". $1 is a win. He may WANT to win more, but he himself has stated many, many, many times that he will quit whenever he is ahead--even if that's after only one hand.

If the amount "$1" bothers you, substitute "$10" or "$100" or $152.61" or whatever will make you comfy. My basic point remains the same.

Indeed, your basic point is the same, but you stated that his method is you quit when your up a dollar. Be assured, when discussing this sort of claim, people will take your mischaracterisations, and debate them, and point out how you don't -understand-. The details may be insignificant. But to any one promoting a system that goes against the standard theory (be it gambling, evolution or medicine) these sort of details are important to them.

That is all I am trying to state.

Quote:

Simple, basic, elementary, third grade mathematics tells me he cannot succeed: There is no way to sum negative numbers to achieve a positive total.

And that's all you need to state for your position if your not going to get into the excruciating detail. As soon as you do, your position, while strong, is eroded by your own faulty arguments.

Quote:

I didn't "make anything up". I posted an EXAMPLE of a -EV play that enhanced the chances of hitting a big hand. I don't know or care whether Singer uses that particular play, but I would surmise that his speshul plays are far more egregious than the example I just gave. I don't see how (sic) "your shown to be making it up". Making WHAT up? You're starting to sound like JL.

You made up what his win goals. You made up what his plays were. Or you gave the impression that these were the details of the system. They aren't, and I merely pointed it out.

And I don't particularly like being compared to Jerry Logan, but I won't respond by returning the insult.

Quote:

And sure, "Singer" presumably knows his speshul plays better than anyone else. L. Ron Hubbard presumably knows the details of Scientology better than anyone else. That doesn't mean that they are the only persons capable of understanding their respective "philosophies".

You stated no-one (not even him) knew his plays. Now your saying other people can? Which is it?

Again, your core statements are fine, but your logical argument isn't good. And people will jump all over it if they care too. And miss the central core point you make : you can't add a series of negatives to make a positive.

Anyone who continually uses the word "Martingale" in a gambling system where it is impossible to execute for any real progression just shows his true ignorance of gambling in general. There are only three things one can do in any given bet situation : raise, lower or "same bet" Of all the hundreds of posibilities of combinations, only one is known as a Martingale. Whatever Rob Singer does, Martingale is not what he does.

Quote: DeMango

Anyone who continually uses the word "Martingale" in a gambling system where it is impossible to execute for any real progression just shows his true ignorance of gambling in general. There are only three things one can do in any given bet situation : raise, lower or "same bet" Of all the hundreds of posibilities of combinations, only one is known as a Martingale. Whatever Rob Singer does, Martingale is not what he does.

The term "Martingale" can appropriately be used to categorize betting sequences in which a win of bet B at time t+1, following t losses, is greater than the sum of B_1 .. B_t. There isn't just one "Martingale" system. The sequence 1, 3, 7, 15, 31 in an even money game is a Martingale -- it's just not "the Martingale" you're thinking of. Betting 1 unit on an inside roulette number up to 35 times, then 2 units, etc. is also a Martingale. So is betting increasing amounts on a slot machine or a VP machine, as apparently Mr. Singer is doing.

"Martingale" also refers to a somewhat related concept in probability theory but that's beyond the scope of this discussion.

Quote: Wizard

Rob, when you see Jerry, extend to him my best wishes for Kwanzaa.

Everybody knows Jerry celebrates Festivus only. Kwanzaa and Festivus are not compatible. You could perform a Festivus Miracle, Mike, by giving a reprieve to Jerry. I'm just sayin..

Quote: MathExtremist

If you're in Nevada, video poker machines are random enough to both pass gaming regulations and to correspond to the sort of analysis that the Wizard has on his site. There is no dispute on this issue among anyone who understands it. Rob's anecdotes from his website are not evidence of non-random VP machines - they are only evidence of his lack of understanding of how the games actually work. Rob is like most people who haven't studied probability theory -- his intuition on randomness is terrible. That's not his fault. He (and everyone else) was born that way.

I understand. My point is that unless he believes it, there is no point in discussing it. You're better off sharing the sunshine, and 'have a nice day," because there will never be a meeting of the minds on the issue that would lead to the second discussion.

Which is different from our old friend tuttigym; tuttigym believed in the math. He didn't understand what it meant, but he believed in the math.

I may have been slightly off about the "firestorm" phenomenon, and I'll try to diffuse some of it so everyone can enjoy watching the Patriots take apart the Packers tonight like they've been doing to every defensive-minded team recently.

WIZARD: It's not entirely true that I don't believe the machines in NV play fairly (or illegally, if that's what you really meant). In fact, I believe they operate exactly as they are required to operate, and any incidence of non-randomness is programmed as required by the Regs....Regs. which are outside the scope of that which is available to the public via the internet--i.e., confidential interpretation of what's meant by "random". There is nothing unusual about that when it comes to City/State/US Government Special Contractual Clauses. esp. in Agreements that involve or include a 3rd party, such as the gaming industry incorporates. I believe it was Jerry who pointed that out from my website, and the fact that I initially received this information directly from a Director at a gaming manufacturer. I wrote an article on this for Gaming Today in the early 2000's, and as soon as it hit the casinos I was asked to go to that manufacturer, where upon I signed an agreement not to publish that info again or discuss it in the media, which was done out of "courtesy". I don't require anyone agree with me or believe me, but anyone who wants to learn to win and win consistently should start by digesting the best information and employing the best methods available, and I believe I offer the best overall opportunity for people to do that--always free of charge of course. Naturally, if I were not a huge winner from all this then I would be charging everyone for everything, as the other vp gurus do. I refused any type of payment in my 7 and 1/2 years of writing a weekly column for the paper, so I have no dog in the hunt as far as profiting off of it outside of my play. (by the way, I don't think JL would know what Kwanzaa is!)

MOSCA: While I do not believe the machines operate in true random form, my stratgies were developed as if they do for two reasons: I felt whatever it is was close enough for me to have gone forward with it; and, I have not been convinced that this machine programming has a negative influence on overall results.

MATHEXTREMIST: I wouldn't be talking down to me, just in case you ever have the opportunity to debate me face-to-face. I don't anecdote anything--I test them. Obviously I am at least as familiar as anyone else on how the machines operate, having had one of the new generation machines in my garage hooked up to a Rohde & Schwarz test equipment suite for several months before I had to return the game--and that wasn't even the main reason I wanted to do this. That 5th card flipover you diss as "human perception" gone wrong? Well, the actual machine rate was more than double the approx. 6% one would expect....and that, over millions of hands. In case there's any question whether I claim the flip-over is a negative for the player, that's something I really do not know. However, when Jerry Logan hit that RF with me last Saturday when dealt four-to-the-royal, the Kh replaced the Kc. I also see the accusations of Martingale often, and they always come from people who are very good with the math. Well here's a surprise: I am too. And while I understand why knowledgeable people are pulled towards saying my strategy is Martingale, I also know that it's because they are taking the easy way out, and prefer to spin the claim without ever really understanding the structure of what it is I've actually developed.

SOOPOO: The misguided perception that my "special plays that deviate from expert strategy" only reduce EV, and therefore, win opportunity on each hand, is flawed because it's applying long-term analysis to short-term play. Let's say you're playing $1 BP tomorrow, and you're dealt AcJsQd3h6d. The best play mathematically--one in which you'd likely be inclined to play--is to hold the JQ with a theoretical worth of $2.49. You're obviously playing for a push, which to me is a losing play because I do not play for the points as AP's do. The play I have ALWAYS made in this game (which is a staple in my strategies) is to hold the lone Ace, worth $2.30. In fact, it is the 4th best hold theoretically. Twice in my playing career, by holding the lone Ace over the 2 unsuited high cards, I received four Aces: once on $5 DDB with a kicker, and once on $25 TBP+. Also, twice I've received royals, one on $2 and another on $5. There have also been many many MANY times where other smaller winners appeared. You see, I don't play thru big winners like AP's do. I leave. The premise for the argument against making these plays is that they supposedly cost me X amount each time I make them. However, the hand is being played only once and not millions of times, and since each hand is a separate event unaffected by any that have come before or any that are yet to come, anything can happen on any individual hand. Given what this special play has provided me, I will NEVER be a loser by making that hold, and the other special plays I make highly mirror this result. In effect, the dealt hand is not worth anything until the draw is made and the win amount, if any, is tallied. Period. To claim the Law of Large Numbers takes over anything in video poker is to deny the unique opportunity present in each hand.

WAVY70: I'm hoping not to get into trouble for this, and I'm not sure if Jerry's ever told the forum because I've hardly read everything. Did you know his wife is Mexican? 100% Mexican, born in Mexico with her family still down there. Think of Selma Hayek only smaller, and with the same hot legs just as Jerry described. When you say he's racist then you have to mean against gays or the atheists he rails on, I guess. When I see him later in the month I'll try to explain how yesterday's law passage that allows gays to serve in our military is a great moment for us all. I'm not known as being tolerant with gays either, but it's only against those that have that God-awful lithpy "designer delivery" with wavy hands & fingers such as the ones you see in the clothing, home design, and other such industries on TV. The ones who want to serve our country or go about their lives not trying to shove their lifestyle down everyone's throats, are true patriots and should receive every right and amount of respect the rest of us expect.

CESSPIT: You are correct. In my Single-Play Strategy, my win goal (where I stop my session regardless of what denomination I'm playing, and will restart the next time on my lowest denomination) is not $1, $110, or $152.74 or whatever misguided souls prefer to believe. It is always $2500 minimum, which is approx. 5% of a session bankroll.

mKl654321....ZERO. 'Nuff said.

Is JL married to a midget? Salma claimes to be 5-2, so she is probably a little shorter. If his wife is 'smaller'.............

I thought I read somewhere that an RS session bankroll is 45k+. 85% wins means 3 busts every 20 sessions, or over 135k. Am I missing something, or does that mean at least an average win of 8k just to breakeven???

Perhaps I missed something along the way,but I am having a hard time connecting the 'over $1,000,000 in winnings' dots.

Thank you, Rob. I have no dog in this hunt because I don't enjoy VP. However, to the core of my being I believe that everyone should play their casino budget in the way that provides them the most pleasure, be it sitting in front of VP, rolling the dice, playing the slots, or tossing black chips at The Big Wheel.

And I DO have a dog in that hunt. If you guys want to have a blast getting into the details and trying to work them to your advantage, that's great; if you win, that's even better. And if I feel like dropping a few hundred in the $5 Wheel of Fortune, chasing the $5000 space at the top... it might not be what's right for someone else, but it works for me. And if I hit it, well, that's even better! But there's no point in questioning me about it; it was my money, and my fun. And it takes all kinds to make it all work.

Including you, and me, and the Wizard, and Caesar's, and JerryLogan, and mlk654321.

Quote: avargov

Is JL married to a midget? Salma claimes to be 5-2, so she is probably a little shorter. If his wife is 'smaller'.............

He might mean "smaller" somewhere else... most women, even beautiful ones, are "smaller" than Selma Hayek.

Quote: RobSinger

WIZARD: It's not entirely true that I don't believe the machines in NV play fairly (or illegally, if that's what you really meant). In fact, I believe they operate exactly as they are required to operate, and any incidence of non-randomness is programmed as required by the Regs....Regs. which are outside the scope of that which is available to the public via the internet--i.e., confidential interpretation of what's meant by "random"
... I initially received this information directly from a Director at a gaming manufacturer. I wrote an article on this for Gaming Today in the early 2000's, and as soon as it hit the casinos I was asked to go to that manufacturer, where upon I signed an agreement not to publish that info again or discuss it in the media, which was done out of "courtesy".

In addition to promulgating this incredible tale of secret regulations which overrule the published ones (NGC Regulation 14, GLI 11, and equivalent regulations in every other gaming jurisdiction), you are apparently breaching your alleged confidentiality agreement in doing so.

Quote: RobSinger

MATHEXTREMIST: I wouldn't be talking down to me, just in case you ever have the opportunity to debate me face-to-face. I don't anecdote anything--I test them.

These are not tests, Mr. Singer:

Quote: RobSinger

Three in a row? It just does not happen in video poker. Random my ass!
...
But it was not before being dealt four-to-the-royal four times in my last 100 credits! Random my ass!
...
I didn't count, but I must have been dealt two 3's 25 times in the course of my play, AND THEY WERE ALWAYS SIDE-BY-SIDE AND ALWAYS COLOR-SENSITIVE. Red with red; black with black; and I never once got a third on the draw. Random my ass!

Those anecdotes are the basis of my assertion that you are, like most other people, unable to observe randomness without perceiving patterns of some sort -- and then inferring causality from those patterns which do not, in reality, exist. In this case, the causality you infer supports your predisposition to believing in a government conspiracy to cover up secret regulations related to non-random card dealing.

Now, based on the time and effort you've put into your website, I'm clearly not going to convince you that your theories of programmed non-randomness and secret regulations are rubbish. But they are, and that's good news for the rest of the VP-playing public.

Quote: RobSinger

I
mKl654321....ZERO. 'Nuff said.

You claim to do something that no one in human history has ever been able to do, and that over 400 years of mathematical science says is impossible. That makes you either a fraud or an idiot. "Nuff said, indeed.

Quote: avargov

Is JL married to a midget? Salma claimes to be 5-2, so she is probably a little shorter. If his wife is 'smaller'.............

I thought I read somewhere that an RS session bankroll is 45k+. 85% wins means 3 busts every 20 sessions, or over 135k. Am I missing something, or does that mean at least an average win of 8k just to breakeven???

Perhaps I missed something along the way,but I am having a hard time connecting the 'over $1,000,000 in winnings' dots.

JL's wife is "smaller" from head to toe, if you know what I mean. But she is a total knockout.

My bankroll fo a single session of my single-play strategy is $57,400. You do not play until you lose the entire session bankroll. You go thru it once, make numerous 40+ credit cashouts along the way, and unless & until you attain a profit of at least $2500 you keep on playing right thru the $100 machines. While it is possible to lose all 2400 credits without a cashout, it has never happened to date. My largest loss was about $34000. My average loss is much smaller than that, around $3300 or so. It's all on my site. My net profit for the 10 years is ~$985,000.

Quote: RobSinger

JL's wife is "smaller" from head to toe, if you know what I mean. But she is a total knockout.

My bankroll fo a single session of my single-play strategy is $57,400. You do not play until you lose the entire session bankroll. You go thru it once, make numerous 40+ credit cashouts along the way, and unless & until you attain a profit of at least $2500 you keep on playing right thru the $100 machines. While it is possible to lose all 2400 credits without a cashout, it has never happened to date. My largest loss was about $34000. My average loss is much smaller than that, around $3300 or so. It's all on my site. My net profit for the 10 years is ~$985,000.

Sure it is.

Quote: MathExtremist

In addition to promulgating this incredible tale of secret regulations which overrule the published ones (NGC Regulation 14, GLI 11, and equivalent regulations in every other gaming jurisdiction), you are apparently breaching your alleged confidentiality agreement in doing so.


These are not tests, Mr. Singer:

Those anecdotes are the basis of my assertion that you are, like most other people, unable to observe randomness without perceiving patterns of some sort -- and then inferring causality from those patterns which do not, in reality, exist. In this case, the causality you infer supports your predisposition to believing in a government conspiracy to cover up secret regulations related to non-random card dealing.

Now, based on the time and effort you've put into your website, I'm clearly not going to convince you that your theories of programmed non-randomness and secret regulations are rubbish. But they are, and that's good news for the rest of the VP-playing public.

How unfortunate that you are having so much trouble with this given your self-described handle and all, that I guess is supposed to overwhelm me. But you need to steer some of that amazing intellect in the direction of understanding what you read. This is not the media, and this does not represent any publication.

I'm trying to comprehend how someone who's obviously just been stunned by information that such an inside threat did not possess. But you know what? Why don't you spend time checking it out to the best of your ability instead of making up conspiracy theories and other misrepresentations that serve as intermittent satisfaction-givers so you can once again feel good about yourself? Funny thing.....hooking up a vp machine to test equipment says "anecdote" to an all-star mathematician such as yourself? Imagine how you look to your peers right now, you know, the ones you try so hard to impress.

Quote: RobSinger

How unfortunate that you are having so much trouble with this given your self-described handle and all, that I guess is supposed to overwhelm me. But you need to steer some of that amazing intellect in the direction of understanding what you read. This is not the media, and this does not represent any publication.

I suggest seeking legal counsel regarding your understanding of confidentiality. Posting something on the Internet does indeed qualify as a public disclosure. Insofar as you signed an NDA with a gaming manufacturer regarding your alleged secret regulations, you likely breached it by discussing the matter with JerryLogan and again by elaborating on that discussion on this forum.

Regarding the non-randomness of VP machines, you can believe whatever you wish. I'll stick to the facts. Here's one: FPDW played optimally generates exactly the return it's expected to under the assumption of randomness. There is at least one +EV VP player on this forum who can attest to that. If such FPDW machines were programmed with non-random behavior in some secret way, there would be some deviation in the realized results of those players. There isn't. The only logical conclusion is that, assuming arguendo that there is some non-random behavior present in the games, such behavior does not matter in the final analysis.

Quote: MathExtremist

In addition to promulgating this incredible tale of secret regulations which overrule the published ones (NGC Regulation 14, GLI 11, and equivalent regulations in every other gaming jurisdiction), you are apparently breaching your alleged confidentiality agreement in doing so.

Not to mention the regulations and testing of places like New Jersey, whose specifications mirror those of Nevada and whose violation would cost any supplier its license.

Quote: SanchoPanza

Not to mention the regulations and testing of places like New Jersey, whose specifications mirror those of Nevada and whose violation would cost any supplier its license.

That's exactly it. If there were some set of hidden, non-public regulations that somehow trumped the publicly-available regulations, they would have to be present *everywhere* in order for Mr. Singer's hypothesis to hold water. Each state, tribe, and province where gaming is regulated has its own gaming regulatory authority. Some regulators outsource testing to companies like GLI and agree to use their standards, but the statutory authority to regulate gaming is distinct for each jurisdiction.

In New Jersey, the relevant regulations require that gaming machines submitted for approval include

Quote: NJ CCC regulations 19:46-1.28(c)-9

A mathematical explanation of the theoretical return to the player, listing all assumptions, all steps in the formula from the first principles through to the final results of all calculations and, where a game requires or permits player strategy in the theoretical derivations of the payout return, the source of strategy

source

ME: I've read enough on this forum to see how you're so deeply into yourself, that it often precludes you from understanding the issue.

I did not say we signed an NDA--you did, and only because it fit your made-up scenario. The info was already disclosed by me in Gaming Today. I agreed not to discuss it in detail again in that publication, another formal publication, or in the media, and a forum is none of those. Opinions and disclosing results from testing a machine have zero to do with what we signed. You should have substituted several legal classes for all those math-oriented sliders you engaged in before your head got so big.

FYI, the only requirement Indian gaming establishments have with regards to machines is that they arrive in the same format as required by Nevada regulations. Subsequently, the tribes can do anythng they like to the machines since THEY regulate their own games. Their pacts with the states are exclusively for oversight and revenue transfer via taxation. However, to an untrained eye such as yours who has likely never studied or investigated the issue as I have, assertions will fly.

You may not like that there are regulations that you are not privy to, and you may not like "secrets" being kept from you, but all that tells me is how much you've created your own preferred safe little world of black & white and nothing else over actually trying to discover the truth. The gaming industry, and indeed the world, is much more than that.

This almost makes me wish for the good 'ole days when JL himself was posting....ahhh, one can only dream...

Oh, I'm sure JL will be back, and then he and Singer can tag-team anyone who disbelieves them. Not with facts, mind you, but with ad hominem insults. Ignore the message, shoot the messenger.

Fortunately, and to the Wizard's credit, this forum is unlike the others Singer has visited. It attracts a more erudite form of gambler, more resistant to being browbeaten with innumeracy and less likely to give credence to far-fetched theories of secret gaming regulations. Occam's razor is still pretty sharp.

I once asked JL whether he'd believe VP games were randomly-dealt if he heard it from someone with actual experience working on the RNGs for gaming machine. He basically said "no, I'd still believe Rob Singer".

Quote: avargov

This almost makes me wish for the good 'ole days when JL himself was posting....ahhh, one can only dream...

JL=Rob Singer
Rob Singer=JL

At first I didn't realize this, but then I reread "Rob Singer's" original post on this thread, and also how "he" attacked me on it. He used two signal JerryLogan tactics, the most obvious of which was the silly, stupid, childish assertion that I was "envious" of Jerry's picture of somebody's royal. The other was the tired old JerryLogan ad hominem attack. But the most egregious thing, and the biggest giveaway, was when "Singer" said that he'd read JL's posts, and he didn't see anything wrong with them!!!!!!!!!1 LOL, as mrjjj would say!!!!!

Also, RS claims to have met JL, and says that JL in person is a nice guy. Now, of course, that COULD be true, which would mean that "JerryLogan" is an internet construct: a nasty, bigoted, argumentative, insulting-for-the-sake-of-being-insulting flaming troll that is not reflective of its author's personality at all. I have often wondered if that is not, in fact, the case, since "JL" (the internet persona) is SO extreme, SO over-the-top, and SO acidic, abrasive, and nasty that no human being could POSSIBLY be like that in real life, at least not like that and managing to survive to adulthood.

The final piece of the puzzle is that "Rob Singer" always eventually gets tossed off of internet gambling/VP forums for spewing his nonsense. So, he comes back as "JerryLogan" (or some other avatar). And when "JerryLogan" gets tossed (as has happened here, and will very soon happen permanently), he comes back as "Rob Singer".

It's so obvious, I'm mad at myself for not figuring it out earlier.

mlk, I don't think so. The styles are completely different, even if the substance is the same.

Quote: MathExtremist

Oh, I'm sure JL will be back, and then he and Singer can tag-team anyone who disbelieves them. Not with facts, mind you, but with ad hominem insults. Ignore the message, shoot the messenger.

Fortunately, and to the Wizard's credit, this forum is unlike the others Singer has visited. It attracts a more erudite form of gambler, more resistant to being browbeaten with innumeracy and less likely to give credence to far-fetched theories of secret gaming regulations. Occam's razor is still pretty sharp.

I once asked JL whether he'd believe VP games were randomly-dealt if he heard it from someone with actual experience working on the RNGs for gaming machine. He basically said "no, I'd still believe Rob Singer".

And yet, he rails and fulminates against that which apparently sends him into the greatest spasms of high dudgeon: "ASSERTIONS". It's amazing what "belief" can do to distort an otherwise rational (abusive, nasty, and misanthropic notwithstanding) mind. JL WANTS so very very much to believe that there is a way to beat video poker without mental effort, hard work, or discipline. To that goal, he has managed to short-circuit all those normal skeptical processes that should accompany the evaluation of any fantastical claim like Singer's.

And yes, I'm sure that both JL AND Singer will be back, spewing their nonsense and resorting to the same childish illogic and personal attacks that have characterized BOTH their posts. Note that Singer has already started to resort to ad hominem attacks, a favorite tactic of JL when he can't answer someone's argument. See my other post on this thread--I've come to the conclusion that they are very likely one and the same person--that would explain a LOT.

Quote: Mosca

mlk, I don't think so. The styles are completely different, even if the substance is the same.

But their tactics are identical. Read RS's first response--the part aimed directly at me. It contains DIRECT JerryLogan quotes, and uses JL tactics.

And "RS" could simply be the "not as nasty" version of "JL", to be wheeled out when JL gets his ass kicked off a given forum.

We'll probably never know for sure, though--but their mutual defense of one another is kind of creepy. Especially when RS says that JL's posts are perfectly acceptable and justified (which would be incredible coming from a sane person, unless that person was actually JL).

I wouldn't actually be all that surprised if they are the same person.

Quote: mkl654321

But their tactics are identical. Read RS's first response--the part aimed directly at me. It contains DIRECT JerryLogan quotes, and uses JL tactics.

And "RS" could simply be the "not as nasty" version of "JL", to be wheeled out when JL gets his ass kicked off a given forum.

We'll probably never know for sure, though--but their mutual defense of one another is kind of creepy. Especially when RS says that JL's posts are perfectly acceptable and justified (which would be incredible coming from a sane person, unless that person was actually JL).

Hmmm, I'm not sure. I don't know if this is Jerry's style:

Quote: RobSinger

MATHEXTREMIST: I wouldn't be talking down to me, just in case you ever have the opportunity to debate me face-to-face.

For that matter, neither is claiming to have hooked up some unspecified piece of hardware testing equipment to a VP machine, or claiming that he has a well-rounded understanding of the math behind VP. Jerry, in fact, said he wasn't all that familiar with VP math, while Singer has asserted otherwise.

I sorta feel the same...just perhaps not as sure. I guess I was thinking that RS was being JL's proxy.

Even I, the village idiot of this board, thinks the VP assertions are ridiculous. Non-random machines, secretly programmed at IGT's triple-extra-secret underground secret programming bunker in Reno, nearly a million in winnings, $55K in bankroll 'never' lost but 85% wins???

As the Wiz says...just doesn't pass the smell test, at least not over time.

Confidentially, if anyone is interested, my man over at WMS sent me a file explaining how to beat the 'Tribble Ball' bonus on the Star Trek slot machine. I can't post it here, but email me at my secret account and I will share the news....

Quote: mkl654321

But their tactics are identical. Read RS's first response--the part aimed directly at me. It contains DIRECT JerryLogan quotes, and uses JL tactics.

And "RS" could simply be the "not as nasty" version of "JL", to be wheeled out when JL gets his ass kicked off a given forum.

We'll probably never know for sure, though--but their mutual defense of one another is kind of creepy. Especially when RS says that JL's posts are perfectly acceptable and justified (which would be incredible coming from a sane person, unless that person was actually JL).

I agree that the message is the same, but it would be really hard for the same person to write so dis-similarly. I don't think the mutual defense is unexpected, though. It's bullying, just in different ways. One starts, the other chimes in. Like Scut Farkus and Grover Dill.