vpFREE2 Forums

A Trip Dick Could Never Take

#21

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@c...>
wrote:

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

> > Several gamblers means nothing. When you get a large enough
> sampling to match the parameters of a machine in a casino, then

it

means something. How dense can you be about gaming subjects?
>
> LOL. Do you any clue what you're talking about? I guess not since
you clearly have no knowledge of even the simplest arithmetic.

Nice answer. Says nothing, but at your level it's a nice answer.

No comeback? Not surprising.

> No, I said CLUELESS gamblers like you. If they had a clue, then
they would understand advantage play is a profitable venture.
However, if they don't have a clue, then who can trust their
opinions. It would be about the same as asking you about math.

Now I know why it is you would hate to see proof that I win. You'd
have to identify what you mean by CLUELESS.

You are a prefect example of clueless about mathematics. Most
gamblers are clueless about VP (or you wouldn't see people dealt 4 to
a RF and hold a pat flush instead of trying for the RF). There, I
identified what I mean.

> Just to change the subject a little. If Bill Gates played VP and
lost $10,000 a year would you think he had a gambling problem?

Would

your bus load of the clueless think so? Think carefully.

Here's taking this a bit further.

You didn't answer the question. Typical. I ask a simple question and
you go on and on about something completely different.

When Bill Bennett was caught
playing the $100 machines at Bellagio after losing over a million
dollars in about 18 months, I sent him a book and asked him to
contact me. He did, and we had a 20 minute talk about how he did

get

caught up in the habit, how he stopped forever, and how what he

lost

(he wouldn't verify the reports of his losses) was really peanuts

to

him. He agreed that even if he won (and if your Bill Gates example
won) it would make little difference in his being addicted to the
game and that he should quit such a nasty habit that saw him

playing

hours and hours every chance he had. Sound familiar?

Nope. Answer the question.

> > Dumb answer, but then you really had no choice here. Ever hear

of

> > cooking meals being "non-productive"? Try again. I'll leave it

in

> and give you another chance.
>
> Doesn't bring home the bread, monkey boy. That's what being
> productive entails.

Ask your local Indian casino chef about that one.

Oh, now you're saying you get paid by your wife for cooking. LMAO.

> > Whataya talking about? you visit casinos every day! Them's the
> worlds biggest booze factories!
>
> I don't touch a drop. If only you could say the same ...

Then you're at another serious disadvantage. At my height & weight,
6'2"/198, the Harvard Medical Journal has said in 1994 and has
confirmed and updated it's report half a dozen times since then,

that

2 alcoholic drinks a day are much better for those in good health,
than none at all.

If only you stopped at 2.

I proudly toss down an average of 2 premium drinks
a day. So guess what they also say about sitting around in

unhealthy,

smokey casinos 3 or more hours a day???

Sounds like the same math you use on your scam system. We've all seen
some of your late night posts.

#22

> Now I know why it is you would hate to see proof that I win.

You'd have to identify what you mean by CLUELESS.

You are a prefect example of clueless about mathematics. Most
gamblers are clueless about VP (or you wouldn't see people dealt 4

to a RF and hold a pat flush instead of trying for the RF). There, I

identified what I mean.

I would hold a pat flush with 4-to-tye-royal IF it allowed me to
attain my win goal. That's how you make a positive play out of what
someone like you would call a negative situation. You quit with the
win. Only a complete dufus wouldn't understand the concept.
   

> Here's taking this a bit further.

You didn't answer the question. Typical. I ask a simple question

and you go on and on about something completely different.

You're looking foolish again. Should have read on first before making
accusations!

> When Bill Bennett was caught
> playing the $100 machines at Bellagio after losing over a million
> dollars in about 18 months, I sent him a book and asked him to
> contact me. He did, and we had a 20 minute talk about how he did
get
> caught up in the habit, how he stopped forever, and how what he
lost
> (he wouldn't verify the reports of his losses) was really peanuts
to
> him. He agreed that even if he won (and if your Bill Gates

example

> won) it would make little difference in his being addicted to the
> game and that he should quit such a nasty habit that saw him
playing
> hours and hours every chance he had. Sound familiar?

Nope. Answer the question.

The answer's there, again in B&W. Takes a little bit of thinking
though., and maybe some of that famous RG analysis.
   

> Ask your local Indian casino chef about that one.

Oh, now you're saying you get paid by your wife for cooking. LMAO.

That's a creative one, only my wife doesn't need the money and has
had a successful career unlike yours. Try again.

> I proudly toss down an average of 2 premium drinks
> a day. So guess what they also say about sitting around in
unhealthy, smokey casinos 3 or more hours a day???

Sounds like the same math you use on your scam system. We've all

seen some of your late night posts.

Yup. So guess what they're saying.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

#23

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@c...>
wrote:

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

> > Now I know why it is you would hate to see proof that I win.
You'd have to identify what you mean by CLUELESS.
>
> You are a prefect example of clueless about mathematics. Most
> gamblers are clueless about VP (or you wouldn't see people dealt

4

to a RF and hold a pat flush instead of trying for the RF). There,

I

> identified what I mean.

I would hold a pat flush with 4-to-tye-royal IF it allowed me to
attain my win goal.

I will agree that max EV is not the only possible approach to
gambling and that different goals (suboptimal) may require different
approaches. However, this is a discussion of turning a negative
expectation into a positive one, and for that there is no approach.
That's why you're clueless.

That's how you make a positive play out of what
someone like you would call a negative situation.

No, that's how you make a negative situation even MORE negative.

You quit with the
win. Only a complete dufus wouldn't understand the concept.

No you don't. You may set some arbitrary goal and quit if you reach
it. You may have had a WIN earlier (that didn't reach your arbitray
goal) so you continued to play and you could end up losing. This is
no different than any other approach. They are all mathematically
equivalent. Or, maybe I misunderstand. You drive all the way to
Nevada and get a pat flush on your first hand and leave and drive
back home. After all, you would have a WIN ... LMAO.

> > Here's taking this a bit further.
>
> You didn't answer the question. Typical. I ask a simple question
and you go on and on about something completely different.

You're looking foolish again. Should have read on first before

making

accusations!

You still haven't answered the question. Would you consider Gates to
have a gambling problem?

>
> > When Bill Bennett was caught
> > playing the $100 machines at Bellagio after losing over a

million

> > dollars in about 18 months, I sent him a book and asked him to
> > contact me. He did, and we had a 20 minute talk about how he

did

> get
> > caught up in the habit, how he stopped forever, and how what he
> lost
> > (he wouldn't verify the reports of his losses) was really

peanuts

> to
> > him. He agreed that even if he won (and if your Bill Gates
example
> > won) it would make little difference in his being addicted to

the

> > game and that he should quit such a nasty habit that saw him
> playing
> > hours and hours every chance he had. Sound familiar?
>
> Nope. Answer the question.

The answer's there, again in B&W. Takes a little bit of thinking
though., and maybe some of that famous RG analysis.

You still haven't answered the question. So, let me do it for you.
You would NOT consider losing $10K a year to be a gambling problem
because it would be chump change to Bill Gates. He could be
completely addicted but it would NOT be a problem. The vast majority
of addicted gamblers do NOT have a gambling problem. They lose money
they can afford to lose. In addition, ALL regular gamblers are not
addicted. Anyone with the slightest degree of common sense would
recognize these facts. Now that wasn't too tough, was it?

And, please, don't vomit up the old smoke filled room argument. The
air is probably better than a typical summer day in Phoenix.

#24

If that's an example of one of the previously unidentified "super-
duper" special plays that are part of the Singer strategy, then that
tells me all I need to know. I seriously doubt that anyone with an
ounce of brains would suggest that such a play is correct, win goal or
not.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@c...> wrote:

>
I would hold a pat flush with 4-to-tye-royal IF it allowed me to
attain my win goal.

#25

> I would hold a pat flush with 4-to-tye-royal IF it allowed me to
> attain my win goal.

I will agree that max EV is not the only possible approach to
gambling and that different goals (suboptimal) may require

different approaches. However, this is a discussion of turning a
negative expectation into a positive one, and for that there is no
approach. That's why you're clueless.

First you agree and then you don't. Make up your mind. That play
above IS an example of how I turn negative EV into positive EV. Clean
your glasses off. EV is ONLY measured upon the collection of the
resulting data, which in this case is the amount won or lost. All
that pre-play theoretical baloney about existing EV is nonsense and
if no real value to any player at any time. Talk about being
clueless.....

> That's how you make a positive play out of what
> someone like you would call a negative situation.

No, that's how you make a negative situation even MORE negative.

Wrong again. You're talking theory; I'm talking reality. What else is
new? Are you afraid of that which is real?

> You quit with the
> win. Only a complete dufus wouldn't understand the concept.

No you don't. You may set some arbitrary goal and quit if you reach
it.

Great--you understand that part.

You may have had a WIN earlier (that didn't reach your arbitray

goal) so you continued to play and you could end up losing. This is
no different than any other approach. They are all mathematically
equivalent.

Wrong again! Even when you talk about a negative happening, you do so
with total disregard for the basis of my strategy. The scenario you
mentioned above does happen, but MOST of the time a correction occurs
because of the progression in denomination, the progression in
volatibility, and/or the special plays. When it doesn't occur I lose--
and sometimes a lot. but the strategy was devised to not simply
disregard the more frequent very large winners that have consistently
and by design more than made up for the big losses--by a lot.

Or, maybe I misunderstand. You drive all the way to

Nevada and get a pat flush on your first hand and leave and drive
back home. After all, you would have a WIN ... LMAO.

Depends on what my win goal is and which denomination I begin at.
I've at times lowered the goal to $200 with one of my other
strategies, and it's never lost.
    

You still haven't answered the question. Would you consider Gates

to have a gambling problem?

Not an easy direct answer. If he loses $10k, how much and how often
does he play? Even if he wins, if he plays what a normal person would
consider to be too much, then he's an addict. In his case it would be
a tremendous waste of valuable time, but in your case you're in your
declining years anyway and you have nothing more to contribute, so
you've actually brought what should have been a harmless hobby into
gambling problem territory with you endless daily play.

> The answer's there, again in B&W. Takes a little bit of thinking
> though., and maybe some of that famous RG analysis.

You still haven't answered the question. So, let me do it for you.
You would NOT consider losing $10K a year to be a gambling problem
because it would be chump change to Bill Gates. He could be
completely addicted but it would NOT be a problem. The vast

majority of addicted gamblers do NOT have a gambling problem. They
lose money they can afford to lose. In addition, ALL regular gamblers
are not addicted. Anyone with the slightest degree of common sense
would recognize these facts. Now that wasn't too tough, was it?

You've sunken to a new low here. Now you're trying to rationalize
Bill Gates as being a problem gambler in order to minimize the wreck
it's made out of you. You're in deep dark denial about what you do
and I realize you'd never air your problem here no matter what.
Better quit while you're behind a respectable distance.

And, please, don't vomit up the old smoke filled room argument. The
air is probably better than a typical summer day in Phoenix.

Another topic you're not comfortable with because you know more than
anyone how miserable the air is in casinos. But hey, it's just
another issue you'd never accept, because it would mean you'd have to
talk yourself into going again. And you don't want any problems
coming up when you get ready to GAMBLE!

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

#26

Then it sounds like you need my help on how to gamble properly. You're
easily confused and it's understandable. You're simply applying long-
term rules to short-term/goal-oriented play, and have been trained that
you must ALWAYS try for the RF because of the nonsensical, casino-
recommended EV hold, win or lose.

> I would hold a pat flush with 4-to-tye-royal IF it allowed me to
> attain my win goal.

If that's an example of one of the previously unidentified "super-
duper" special plays that are part of the Singer strategy, then that
tells me all I need to know. I seriously doubt that anyone with an
ounce of brains would suggest that such a play is correct, win goal

or

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "neilemb" <nembree@a...> wrote:

not.

#27

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@c...>
wrote:

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

> > I would hold a pat flush with 4-to-tye-royal IF it allowed me

to

> > attain my win goal.

> I will agree that max EV is not the only possible approach to
> gambling and that different goals (suboptimal) may require
different approaches. However, this is a discussion of turning a
negative expectation into a positive one, and for that there is no
approach. That's why you're clueless.

First you agree and then you don't. Make up your mind.

I did. I said there were other approaches (I didn't say they were
smart) and then I said NONE of them can turn a negative expectation
game into a positive one. How simple can it be. You mean you're too
stupid to understand my simple statment?

That play
above IS an example of how I turn negative EV into positive EV.

Keeping the flush only makes the expectation MORE negative. So, now
you're saying that your system counts on the assertion that
introducing larger negative numbers into a sum of negative numbers
will eventually make the result come out positive. ROTFLMAO. I sure
hope your wife does the checkbook.

Clean
your glasses off. EV is ONLY measured upon the collection of the
resulting data, which in this case is the amount won or lost.

EV = Expected value. What part of "expected" don't you understand? It
has nothing to do with "resulting data". I cannot comprehend why you
continue to make such foolish statements.

All
that pre-play theoretical baloney about existing EV is nonsense and
if no real value to any player at any time. Talk about being
clueless.....

Is that so? Then, I guess all the casinos are basing their entire
profits on "nonsense". It's the EXACT same value that the casinos are
using. However, please keep up YOUR nonsense. You are making this
sooooo easy.

> > That's how you make a positive play out of what
> > someone like you would call a negative situation.

> No, that's how you make a negative situation even MORE negative.

Wrong again. You're talking theory; I'm talking reality.

No, I'm talking reality and you're talking nonsense. I'm using
absolute mathematical computations and your throwing out terms you
don't even understand. Your BS won't work with me. You should have
figured that out last year, the last time I made you look like a
complete moron.

> > You quit with the
> > win. Only a complete dufus wouldn't understand the concept.

> No you don't. You may set some arbitrary goal and quit if you

reach

> it.

Great--you understand that part.

You may have had a WIN earlier (that didn't reach your arbitray
> goal) so you continued to play and you could end up losing. This

is

> no different than any other approach. They are all mathematically
> equivalent.

Wrong again!

Sorry, bozo, but saying "wrong again" means nothing unless you have
some reasonable proof to the contrary.

Even when you talk about a negative happening, you do so
with total disregard for the basis of my strategy.

And that would be .... total BS.

The scenario you
mentioned above does happen,

Of course it does.

but MOST of the time a correction occurs

This is the snake oil.

because of the progression in denomination, the progression in
volatibility, and/or the special plays.

None of which change a negative expectation into a positive one.

When it doesn't occur I lose--

Of course you do. Just like everone else. Your system has provided
nothing to change the rules of mathematics.

and sometimes a lot. but the strategy was devised to not simply
disregard the more frequent very large winners that have

consistently

and by design more than made up for the big losses--by a lot.

No, they don't. If you've been LUCKY, then good for you. I'm sure all
the lottery winners are happy with their lucky wins. It doesn't
change a thing. The future expectation of anyone using your system on
negative games is still neagtive.

> You still haven't answered the question. Would you consider Gates
to have a gambling problem?

Not an easy direct answer. If he loses $10k, how much and how often
does he play? Even if he wins, if he plays what a normal person

would

consider to be too much, then he's an addict.

This is where you get yourself into trouble. What is normal? There is
no reasonable definition. What is the normal amount of time someone
should devote to fishing, golfing, bowling, jogging, woodwork,
working (you probably don't know what this means), etc. etc. There is
no answer that is right for everyone. Not only that, the answer
depends entirely on the individual circumstances. But you did not
answer the question. I ask if he had a gambling problem, not if he
was an addict.

> > The answer's there, again in B&W. Takes a little bit of

thinking

> > though., and maybe some of that famous RG analysis.
>
> You still haven't answered the question. So, let me do it for

you.

> You would NOT consider losing $10K a year to be a gambling

problem

> because it would be chump change to Bill Gates. He could be
> completely addicted but it would NOT be a problem. The vast
majority of addicted gamblers do NOT have a gambling problem. They
lose money they can afford to lose. In addition, ALL regular

gamblers

are not addicted. Anyone with the slightest degree of common sense
would recognize these facts. Now that wasn't too tough, was it?

You've sunken to a new low here. Now you're trying to rationalize
Bill Gates as being a problem gambler in order to minimize the

wreck

it's made out of you.

Nope. I did nothing of the sort. I used an analogy to get a point
across. I should have known that was beyond your intellectual skills.
I'll try to keep it simpler in the future.

PS. to those who understand what an anology is ... Losing $10 for
someone with Bills' bankroll would never constitute a gambling
problem.

> And, please, don't vomit up the old smoke filled room argument.

The

> air is probably better than a typical summer day in Phoenix.

Another topic you're not comfortable with because you know more

than

anyone how miserable the air is in casinos.

No, I don't. Please provide a detailed analysis for me. And, while
you're at it, please compare it to the air quality in Phoenix.

#28

> First you agree and then you don't. Make up your mind.

I did. I said there were other approaches (I didn't say they were
smart) and then I said NONE of them can turn a negative expectation
game into a positive one. How simple can it be. You mean you're too
stupid to understand my simple statment?

It would be OK if you were more clear. You need to know that no
winning player of my caliber cares about turning negative EV into
positive EV BEFORE they sit down to play. The only thing that matters
is the result, and that's the only time EV can ever be measured.
Theoretical fantasies mean zero to a player who plays to win TODAY.

Keeping the flush only makes the expectation MORE negative. So, now
you're saying that your system counts on the assertion that
introducing larger negative numbers into a sum of negative numbers
will eventually make the result come out positive. ROTFLMAO. I sure
hope your wife does the checkbook.

Well, not surprisingly, you're wrong yet again. In your theoretical
world naturally you'd diss keeping the flush. Some would say
something stupid like I'm giving up $7.75 or whatever on such a play.
But you don't give up a dime if you win, take the money and leave.
That's why you'll need to become a part of the real world and drop
the geek label if you're even going to understand why EV is
measureble only AFTER the session is played. Here's a hint: The EV of
my session was 135%, even though the combined theoretical EV of the
games I played before I sat down to play was 98.6%. Catching on yet?

EV = Expected value. What part of "expected" don't you understand?

It has nothing to do with "resulting data". I cannot comprehend why
you continue to make such foolish statements.

Yes, I expected such a statement from the blind. "Expected" is the
term you use in your theoretical world of playing video poker. While
the word isn't the best for my scenario, it's unimportant enough not
to change it whenever I explain how I turn a negative game into a
positive one. It's just a word. Don't let it control your life.

> All
> that pre-play theoretical baloney about existing EV is nonsense

and if no real value to any player at any time. Talk about being

> clueless.....

Is that so? Then, I guess all the casinos are basing their entire
profits on "nonsense". It's the EXACT same value that the casinos

are using. However, please keep up YOUR nonsense. You are making this

sooooo easy.

Ooops! You goofed again. Casinos only care about one thing--their
take on a daily basis. They don't care one bit what a theory says
they SHOULD have taken in. Tell that to your banker and watch him
laugh in your face. I straigntened out Congo on that and you should
have paid attention.

> because of the progression in denomination, the progression in
> volatibility, and/or the special plays.

None of which change a negative expectation into a positive one.

I do it 87% of the time!

> and sometimes a lot. but the strategy was devised to not simply
> disregard the more frequent very large winners that have
consistently and by design more than made up for the big losses--by

a lot.

No, they don't.

Yes, they do. Get over it.

This is where you get yourself into trouble.

I can't wait to see how you'll try to keep justifying your own put-of-
control play here.

What is normal? There is

no reasonable definition. What is the normal amount of time someone
should devote to fishing, golfing, bowling, jogging, woodwork,
working (you probably don't know what this means), etc. etc. There

is no answer that is right for everyone.

All normal activities having nothing to do with nasty habits.

Not only that, the answer

depends entirely on the individual circumstances. But you did not
answer the question. I ask if he had a gambling problem, not if he
was an addict.

An addict has a gambling problem. That's just you trying to factor
yourself out again.

> You've sunken to a new low here. Now you're trying to rationalize
> Bill Gates as being a problem gambler in order to minimize the
wreck it's made out of you.

Nope. I did nothing of the sort.

E.D. Expected Denial.

PS. to those who understand what an anology is ... Losing $10 for
someone with Bills' bankroll would never constitute a gambling
problem.

Incorrect. Anyone who has a need to sit in casinos wasting their
lives away in front of a gambling machine - win or lose - while they
could be doing something productive has a gambling problem.

> Another topic you're not comfortable with because you know more
than anyone how miserable the air is in casinos.

No, I don't. Please provide a detailed analysis for me. And, while
you're at it, please compare it to the air quality in Phoenix.

Sounds like you're a hopeless smoker---either that or you don't
believe secondary smoke is a problem. I kinda like to see the slobs
who play video poker smoke up a storm myself. Love it when they stop
at Circle K and get two packs of cigarettes, a Big Gulp, a dog and
two twinkies, and 3 bucks worth of gas. Love it because I'm enjoying
watching them slowly rid the planet of fools like themselves.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

#29

Q1. Who is Rob Singer
A1. Rob Singer is the pen name of an Internet troll who claims he has won
$600,000 playing video poker using his own system. He writes an unpaid
column for Gaming Today, a weekly newspaper given away free in casinos. He
has a book and posts frequently on the FREEvpFREE Yahoo Group.

Q2. Has he really won $640,000?
A2. Maybe. But he has been caught in so many other lies it seems more likely
that he is lying about that too.

Q3. What other lies has he been caught in?
A3. Among others: he has claimed not to post under other aliases but has
been caught doing so by two very well respected group administrators. He has
claimed that most video-poker gurus have failed to make money when the
reverse is true. He has claimed that playing positive-expectation games
results in a loss without extraordinary luck when the reverse is true. He
has claimed that his 1700+ "special" plays that deviate from optimum play
add to his positive expectation when that is mathematically impossible. He
has claimed that his system is not a Martingale-style progression when it
is. And, of course, he continues to claim that his system works when it is
mathematically impossible for it to do so.

Q4. Why is it mathematically impossible for his system to work?
A4. His system is based on playing games with a negative expectation and
moving up in denomination when losing a certain amount at a lower
denomination. While this increases the chances of winning his $2500 goal
during any individual session, he risks $57,200 each time he attempts to win
$2500. Like betting the Red or Black on Roulette and increasing the bet
after a loss (the classic Martingale system), the system fails when you
reach the maximum denomination and can no longer increase your bet. At that
time, the fact that your bet has negative expectation (along with all your
previous bets at smaller denominations) means you will likely lose more than
you will win, and lose it in a devastating bust. Mathematically, it is
impossible to devise ANY system that yields a positive expectation from
playing a negative base game, so his claim that you can't evaluate his
system unless you know his 1700 secret plays is nonsense.

Q5. He says traditional video poker strategy is for the long term, which
none of us will ever reach in our lifetimes, and his system is for the short
term and therefore can win. He says in the short term it doesn't matter if
you play a 99% game or a 101% game. Is this the truth?
A5. No. If you're playing 10/7 Double Bonus and you play one hand and hit a
Flush, you will be five coins richer than if you were playing 9/6 Double
Bonus and hit the Flush. There is no such thing as short term. All the bets
you make over the course of your lifetime add up to an expectation. What his
system does is ensure that you either win small or lose big in any given
session.

Q6. He says the only EV that matters is your results and that by making
plays such as holding a pat Flush versus four to a Royal if he would reach
his win goal, he can improve his EV to 135% even though holding the Flush
costs him "$7.75 in expectation." Is this right?
A6. On $100 8/5 Bonus Poker, holding a Flush versus four to a Royal costs at
least $6606.38 in expectation. "EV" means "expected value" and refers only
to the future, so saying the only EV that matters is in the past is
nonsensical.

Q7. He says three mathematicians and two publishers have verified his
strategy. How can that be?
A7. It can't. No mathematician would verify his strategy because very simple
mathematics proves it can't work. He cannot provide valid email addresses
for them and no one has verified they exist. Of the two publishers, one is
dead and the other would not confirm or deny his claim when contacted by
email.

Q8. Why does he constantly insult people rather than defend his strategy
politely and rationally?
A8. Defending his system is a losing proposition, so there's really no way
he can do that. He seems to enjoy insulting people. To be fair, it's the
only thing he's ever demonstrated he's good at.

#30

Ho-Hum....More of the same from the whacky minority because there are
so few of you who envy what I do and how I do it enough so that they
feel compelled to whine. But I'll save you the time of reading the
same answers to the same tired postings--Maybe you'd like to step in
and take me up on my $640k bet/win challenge (which Dicky is
predictably wiggling away from), or better yet, perhaps the both of
you could join forces and just maybe between the 2 of you you'll be
able to come up with the money to satisfy your claims of me being a
liar one way or the other? A yes or no is the only answer that has
any meaning....and a $640k escrow. All other sorry-ass excuses need
not respond. C'mon, you video poker brute. Daddy's waiting..........
Of course, you win even if you choose not to wager. You STILL get to
read every article I write in Gaming Today, and that, my friend, is
what true video poker players LIVE to read. Hey, that's gotta be
worth at least .05% in EV. Imagine what that'll do to your pahntom
bucks win total!

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Cogno Scienti"
<cognoscienti@g...> wrote:

Q1. Who is Rob Singer
A1. Rob Singer is the pen name of an Internet troll who claims he

has won

$600,000 playing video poker using his own system. He writes an

unpaid

column for Gaming Today, a weekly newspaper given away free in

casinos. He

has a book and posts frequently on the FREEvpFREE Yahoo Group.

Q2. Has he really won $640,000?
A2. Maybe. But he has been caught in so many other lies it seems

more likely

that he is lying about that too.

Q3. What other lies has he been caught in?
A3. Among others: he has claimed not to post under other aliases

but has

been caught doing so by two very well respected group

administrators. He has

claimed that most video-poker gurus have failed to make money when

the

reverse is true. He has claimed that playing positive-expectation

games

results in a loss without extraordinary luck when the reverse is

true. He

has claimed that his 1700+ "special" plays that deviate from

optimum play

add to his positive expectation when that is mathematically

impossible. He

has claimed that his system is not a Martingale-style progression

when it

is. And, of course, he continues to claim that his system works

when it is

mathematically impossible for it to do so.

Q4. Why is it mathematically impossible for his system to work?
A4. His system is based on playing games with a negative

expectation and

moving up in denomination when losing a certain amount at a lower
denomination. While this increases the chances of winning his $2500

goal

during any individual session, he risks $57,200 each time he

attempts to win

$2500. Like betting the Red or Black on Roulette and increasing the

bet

after a loss (the classic Martingale system), the system fails when

you

reach the maximum denomination and can no longer increase your bet.

At that

time, the fact that your bet has negative expectation (along with

all your

previous bets at smaller denominations) means you will likely lose

more than

you will win, and lose it in a devastating bust. Mathematically, it

is

impossible to devise ANY system that yields a positive expectation

from

playing a negative base game, so his claim that you can't evaluate

his

system unless you know his 1700 secret plays is nonsense.

Q5. He says traditional video poker strategy is for the long term,

which

none of us will ever reach in our lifetimes, and his system is for

the short

term and therefore can win. He says in the short term it doesn't

matter if

you play a 99% game or a 101% game. Is this the truth?
A5. No. If you're playing 10/7 Double Bonus and you play one hand

and hit a

Flush, you will be five coins richer than if you were playing 9/6

Double

Bonus and hit the Flush. There is no such thing as short term. All

the bets

you make over the course of your lifetime add up to an expectation.

What his

system does is ensure that you either win small or lose big in any

given

session.

Q6. He says the only EV that matters is your results and that by

making

plays such as holding a pat Flush versus four to a Royal if he

would reach

his win goal, he can improve his EV to 135% even though holding the

Flush

costs him "$7.75 in expectation." Is this right?
A6. On $100 8/5 Bonus Poker, holding a Flush versus four to a Royal

costs at

least $6606.38 in expectation. "EV" means "expected value" and

refers only

to the future, so saying the only EV that matters is in the past is
nonsensical.

Q7. He says three mathematicians and two publishers have verified

his

strategy. How can that be?
A7. It can't. No mathematician would verify his strategy because

very simple

mathematics proves it can't work. He cannot provide valid email

addresses

for them and no one has verified they exist. Of the two publishers,

one is

dead and the other would not confirm or deny his claim when

contacted by

email.

Q8. Why does he constantly insult people rather than defend his

strategy

politely and rationally?
A8. Defending his system is a losing proposition, so there's really

no way

he can do that. He seems to enjoy insulting people. To be fair,

it's the

···

only thing he's ever demonstrated he's good at.

#31

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@c...>
wrote:

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

> > First you agree and then you don't. Make up your mind.
>
> I did. I said there were other approaches (I didn't say they were
> smart) and then I said NONE of them can turn a negative

expectation

> game into a positive one. How simple can it be. You mean you're

too

> stupid to understand my simple statment?

It would be OK if you were more clear.

That's OK. We already knew you had a reading comprehension problem.

You need to know that no
winning player of my caliber cares about turning negative EV into
positive EV BEFORE they sit down to play. The only thing that

matters

is the result, and that's the only time EV can ever be measured.

Spoken like the complete idiot you are. Is this heading into your
psychic abilities again? Maybe we should call you swami.

> Keeping the flush only makes the expectation MORE negative. So,

now

> you're saying that your system counts on the assertion that
> introducing larger negative numbers into a sum of negative

numbers

> will eventually make the result come out positive. ROTFLMAO. I

sure

> hope your wife does the checkbook.

Well, not surprisingly, you're wrong yet again. In your theoretical
world naturally you'd diss keeping the flush.

As would every other intelligent person.

Some would say
something stupid like I'm giving up $7.75 or whatever on such a

play.

But I'll bet you think it's real smart because it generates more
revenue for your casino budies.

But you don't give up a dime if you win, take the money and leave.

How pathetically stupid are you? Every time a RF would have been hit
you just gave up hundreds of dimes. But, you'd be up a quarter. Good
play.

That's why you'll need to become a part of the real world and drop
the geek label if you're even going to understand why EV is
measureble only AFTER the session is played.

No, EV has nothing to do with after the fact computation. That's
called, very simply ... RESULTS. Has nothing to do with EV. Your
idiotic attempt to make it look like you have any clue whatsoever is
pure and simple baloney.

Here's a hint: The EV of
my session was 135%,

That's not EV bozo. That's called your results. You can't even
communicate with common VP terms that even the newest players
understand. You must love to look stupid.

even though the combined theoretical EV of the
games I played before I sat down to play was 98.6%. Catching on yet?

I know exactly what your doing. Sorry, bozo, it won't work. EV is
already been defined by MATHEMATICS and just because you choose to
write a bunch of BS won't change a thing. Your system still can't
change a negative game into a positive one. It's been proven. Any
bozo can win at any given session. Even you.

> EV = Expected value. What part of "expected" don't you

understand?

It has nothing to do with "resulting data". I cannot comprehend why
you continue to make such foolish statements.

Yes, I expected such a statement from the blind. "Expected" is the
term you use in your theoretical world of playing video poker.

No, it's not my term. It's a commonly used term that you clearly
don't know squat about. The fact you'd make these statements shows
just how naive you are.

While
the word isn't the best for my scenario,

No, it's not the right word. The word you're looking for is RESULTS.

it's unimportant enough not
to change it whenever I explain how I turn a negative game into a
positive one. It's just a word. Don't let it control your life.

No, all you did was claim to have won once. That's about as worthless
as it gets. However, if you like making idiotic statements, go right
ahead. Next thing you know, you'll be defining negative numbers as
positive ones. Wait, you've already tried that.

> > All
> > that pre-play theoretical baloney about existing EV is nonsense
and if no real value to any player at any time. Talk about being
> > clueless.....

> Is that so? Then, I guess all the casinos are basing their entire
> profits on "nonsense". It's the EXACT same value that the casinos
are using. However, please keep up YOUR nonsense. You are making

this

> sooooo easy.

Ooops! You goofed again. Casinos only care about one thing--their
take on a daily basis.

What a complete idiot. I suppose you think they count their money at
the end of the day and go "wahoo, we made money. Let's do this again
tomorrow." This is sooooo easy.

They don't care one bit what a theory says
they SHOULD have taken in.

No, they just base their entire FUTURE budgets on it. Could you be
any more dense?
  

> > because of the progression in denomination, the progression in
> > volatibility, and/or the special plays.

> None of which change a negative expectation into a positive one.

I do it 87% of the time!

No, you lie 100% of the time.

What is normal? There is
> no reasonable definition. What is the normal amount of time

someone

> should devote to fishing, golfing, bowling, jogging, woodwork,
> working (you probably don't know what this means), etc. etc.

There

is no answer that is right for everyone.

All normal activities having nothing to do with nasty habits.

Good, we agree. You really should do something about those many nasty
habits of your. Drinking, lieing, looking like a fool. When you've
accomplished that, come back I'll think about taking it easy on you.

Not only that, the answer
> depends entirely on the individual circumstances. But you did not
> answer the question. I ask if he had a gambling problem, not if

he

> was an addict.

An addict has a gambling problem. That's just you trying to factor
yourself out again.

Nope. You really should consult your dictionary once in while to
avoid making these obvious errors. By the way, start in the front of
the dictionary to find addiction.

> > You've sunken to a new low here. Now you're trying to

rationalize

> > Bill Gates as being a problem gambler in order to minimize the
> wreck it's made out of you.
>
> Nope. I did nothing of the sort.

E.D. Expected Denial.

So you do know what "expected" means. Maybe you can use it the proper
way from now on.

> PS. to those who understand what an anology is ... Losing $10 for
> someone with Bills' bankroll would never constitute a gambling
> problem.

Incorrect. Anyone who has a need to sit in casinos wasting their
lives away in front of a gambling machine - win or lose - while

they

could be doing something productive has a gambling problem.

Then you must have a drinking problem. You clearly have an internet
problem and we all know you have a lieing problem.

Are you really that stupid that you don't understand the difference
between addiction and the problems it MAY cause? I suppose you'd say
a workaholic has a "working problem". LMAO.

> > Another topic you're not comfortable with because you know more
> than anyone how miserable the air is in casinos.

> No, I don't. Please provide a detailed analysis for me. And,

while

> you're at it, please compare it to the air quality in Phoenix.

Sounds like you're a hopeless smoker---either that or you don't
believe secondary smoke is a problem.

This doesn't sound like a detailed analysis. So, that means you made
another assertion with no supporting evidence. Which once again makes
you look like a complete fool.

#32

Then it sounds like you need my help on how to gamble properly.

You're

easily confused and it's understandable. You're simply applying long-
term rules to short-term/goal-oriented play, and have been trained

I am neither confused, nor easily confused. I am simply able to
recognize the merits of how to play a particular combination of cards
in a manner that will likely be the most beneficial to me. Short term
or long term has nothing to do with it.

I seriously doubt that I would want to learn how to gamble "properly"
from a teacher who advocates some very curious special plays, based on
the non-factor (as far as the outcome of a particular hand is
concerned) of a short term win goal.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@c...> wrote: