I was just going to ask the admin. if he would accept a one-time post
on vpFREE so I could clear up the misconceptions Dan P. has been
posting about me, but he's made a decision to move everything
surrounding me to this forum. That's OK, because it also gives me the
opportunity to address the psychotic misrepresentations Cogno_Scienti
keeps posting for his own intermittent gratification.
Dan's 'observations':
1. Singer has never developed or published a strategy, and he has
acknowledged that he has nothing to offer as an alternative to a
computer-derived strategy;
Untrue. My sites clearly delineate five (5) strategies developed by
me. Maybe Dan's confused by the fact that I don't SELL them like the
other people, including himself, SELL long-term/optimal-play strategy
FOR PROFIT....and I strongly suspect (and know in several instances)
it is to help keep gambling money in their pockets. A successful
gambler would have no need to do that.
2. Singer makes it clear that he ignores the math of RoR by promoting
a progressive betting system (if you lose, move to a higher
denomination). Now that he has a $1M gambling bankroll, it's unlikely
that Dancer plays at high RoR any more, but in his $M VP book he
brags about "taking a shot" way above his budget and getting lucky
with the $500K royal.
Wrong...on both counts. It's too easy to criticize by simply saying I
play a 'progressive system'. Read them first. There's is a lot more
to them than that. And my original play strategy usue math as a
BASIS, and expandsand improves on expert play from there. To
thoroughly and properly understand it one must comprehend each of the
many special plays that deviate from optimal play. I continue to
offer anyone who wants to run a simulation or program on my strategy,
to sit with me for as long as it takes to understand the plays 100%.
Remember, you CANNOT apply long-term rules to short-term play. If you
can't accept that then you'll never want to see how my strategy works.
--You automatically think Bob D. has a "$1mil. bankroll" because he
won that amount over a very, very lucky 6-month period years ago?
Think again. Do we live in a 6-month world? Do you think he STOPPED
playing the $100 machine after he won and after a defined 6-month
period? How about before that. I have my own information, but add it
all up and see what you come up with.
3. Both consult for casinos while selling their books to players.
I sell books to players, and neither has my strategies in them. I do
not consult for any casino and never have. My effort at Wynn was
simply to show that I have the ability to talk to knowledgeable
management in a way that helps them understand what's right for their
bottom line and their (primarily in this case) local players. I also
did it to prove that loud-mouthed and criticizing/griping guru or
math geeks do just that all the time for little or no reason other
than to broadcast they were first to say this or that, while I, one
who is constantly criticized, simply know how to get things done the
right way.
4. Singer claims that his book sells well, although I have no way of
confirming that. It's obvious that Dancer's publications sell well.
Both my books sell very well, and I believe Bob's MDVP book sells
better.
5. I concur with the opinion of Skip and others that Singer
is very intelligent and knows exactly what he is doing with his snake
oil. Singer promotes playing sub-100% games without bothering to
learn a mathematically sound strategy.
If you believe I'm intelligent then that inherently says you also
know I would never try to sell 'snake oil,' Think of what I'm selling
first--2 books, neither with strategy. One tells how NOT to play vp,
and the other is about a month-long trip around the casinos of Nevada
playing video poker and doing the many things the state has to offer.
Everything I do my--advice, my many many personal visits with
players, my training, my e-newsletter, my site--it's all for free.
Why? Because I win like I say I do, and exactly the way i say I do. I
win because I know how to handle good luck and I know how to respect
my pre-set goals. I don't only play sub-100% games, and I advocate
100% games when available. What I also say is not to run around
nervously and ruin your time/trip by constantly searching out the
positive games. Comfort & enjoyment are far mor important to a
winning session than a >100% game. I play a mathematically sound
strategy FOR THE SHORT TERM, which is what few understand and would
if they took the time with me to understand. The more players talk to
me and the more they understand, the more they know I'm not simply
handing out a dangerous strategy to my readers. Long-term strategy
doesn't work unless the player experiences extreme luck. Bob Dancer
had a lucky night at the MGM, but if he wasn't an addicted played by
then he sure became on after that night. My strategy disses that kind
of nonsense, and teaches NEVER to go up in denomination after winning
big at a lower level.
RS