Refreshing Information.

[mubowor]

I have ceased trying to be conciliatory here, but I want to introduce
into the dispute a refreshing pause by relating something I just did,
which took me some hours.

I know deadin7 looks down on useless mathematical proofs, but
rgmustain insists proof. This last reminded me of the old
cliché, "the proof is in the pudding", and so I decided to try to
follow the method suggested by Rob Singer and see where it led me.
Thus I clicked on Groups, clicked on vpFREE, clicked on Links,
clicked on Columns, clicked on Rob Singer, and on the upper left
section of the page, under `Free Strategies', I clicked on his
suggested strategy for Single Play Video Poker. I will not repeat
everything that is suggested there, but I will say that I followed
the instructions using the Frugal Video Poker software in the manner
described below.

Rob Singer advises to play 100 credits in a succession of machines,
starting with dollars, and increasing in volatility, BP, DB, DDB, TB.
If the 100 are lost, then you go to the next machine, if the 100 are
recovered –after you recover what you lost subsequently- you go back
to the first machine. If a machine hits and hits, you pocket winnings
in increments of 40, but if you go down 100, then you go up the next
machine. When 400 units are lost –mind you, this is not all moneys
lost since there are 40 units here and there that might have been
won, so the net money lost could be less than $400- you go up to the
next denomination, $2, and repeat the exercise, only going back to $1
BP when all hundred units are recovered, plus a profit of at least 40
units. If all this is obscure, it is explained in much more detail in
the above-mentioned article.

Frugal is very nice for doing this exercise. I opened eight sessions
in the machines above and in $1 and $2 denomination, ready to open
more if I had to go to the $5, $25 and $100 denomination. I took a
paper with me to write results of sessions. I considered my bankroll
to be $17,500; and my goal was to win $2,500. I named the sessions
1SingerBD$1, 2SingerDB$1, 3SingerDDB$1, 4SingerTB$1, etc., etc. The
machines I chose were all negative machines, but not too bad ones,
things like 8/5 BP, 9/5 DDB, etc. I then played according to the
above recipe, and this is what happened.

On my first `circuit' I lost 100 in BP, I lost 100 in DB, I lost 100
in DDB and I lost 100 in TB. Then I lost 60 units in $2 BP (-$120)
and when I was playing $2 DB, I hit four aces, 800 units, and $1,600.
This led to a profit of $1,040 and to another circuit.

On the second circuit I lost $400 in the $1 denomination, won $80 on
two-dollar BP, and hit quad threes in $2 DB, for a net circuit profit
of $370.

The third circuit was easy, I did not have to go up to the $2
denomination, as I hit a quad in DB, and made $105.

On the fourth circuit I hit a quad on two dollars Bonus, and ended
with a profit of $40.

My last circuit was the fifth, where I hit the most quads. Here I
made $340 on dollar Bonus, I lost $60 in dollar Double Bonus, lost
$100 each on dollar DDB and dollar TB. Then lost $120 in two dollar
Bonus, lost two hundred each on two dollar DB and DDB, and ended up
getting two quads in two dollar TB for a profit of $1,350 there. This
circuit made me $910.

Adding up the profits from all the circuits, I made
1,040+370+105+140+910 = 2,565.

So I have to say that this morning, on the Frugal software, the Rob
Singer strategy for Single Play Video Poker worked beautifully. A few
comments are in order. Was I quad lucky? Yes! I could go back to all
the sessions and add the number of hands I played, 2,579 hands, and
the total number of quads were ten. The average number of quads
should have been six, so I had a higher number of them than average.
Did I play correct strategy? Yes! I do not play some of those games
well, but I asked Frugal to give me the best play when undecided. The
mistakes were minimal. Would I have won had I played the `advantage'
method? Well, the `advantage' method would tell me not to play, since
all machines were negative, so according to that method I would
neither have won or lost. If I had played it on just the BP game, I
would not have won.

I must have to say that it seems Rob Singer is much more honest than
he is given credit. In the article on the strategy he says
that "Losing has happened very seldom - less than 7% of the time, and
my average loss is around $7000." So he does not tout his system as
something infallible. This should satisfy the mathematical purists
who say his method is a type of Martingale, and thus it will fail if
played for the end of time. Those times when the method does go up to
the very high denominations, and not produce a hit in the $100
denomination can be really painful, I imagine; but I think every
gambler should be careful going to the $100 denomination, unless he
has a very large fortune.

Will I use this system in a casino? Sure. Now, I know it will work
differently all the time, and I hate risking too much money. What
I'll probably do is divide everything by 20 in casinos where the
lowest denomination is nickels, and divide everything by 100 in
casinos where the lowest denomination is cents. Doing those changes I
will try the method above, why not? If it works I'll be happy, and if
it does not, I will stop before losing too much.

Now, I know this pudding of a post is not a proof, but I hope it is a
distraction from the usual dialogue of the type, "you are a liar and
a sham", "and you are a slide rule and an old man." LOL.

Royals to both of you,

E

[bonuspokergod]

Wow, someone actually TRIED Rob's strategy before flaming him on the
internet. Maybe there's hope for this group yet.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "superquadfullhousroyalistic"
<erchalb@c...> wrote:

···

I have ceased trying to be conciliatory here, but I want to
introduce
into the dispute a refreshing pause by relating something I just
did,
which took me some hours.

[rgmustain]

Ed,

A couple of things to think about:

- Would you be happy putting all the effort into going to a casino
and leaving when you are up $105/100 = $1.05 (or even $5.25)? Or, if
you hit a RF on that penny machine for $40, will that be fun?

- All of the games you tried on FVP may not be available. Do you have
alternatives?

- Will you play very bad payback machines (like 6-5 bonus or 9-6 DB),
if standard paybacks are not available.

Remember, you do have a better than 90% chance of winning. It's that
10% that can kill you. It's not unusual for someone to be successful
at first and start upping their base machine denom. Even starting at
a quarter requires that you eventually play on a $5 machine to have a
5 level progression.

Finally, there's nothing wrong with playing a progression if you play
FP machines accurately and stay within your bankroll. It's that
bankroll problem that can really get you. Few people who play $.25 VP
will be comfortable playing $5 VP, on the other hand, few people who
enjoy $1 VP will be happy playing $.05 VP.

Dick

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "superquadfullhousroyalistic"
<erchalb@c...> wrote:

I have ceased trying to be conciliatory here, but I want to

introduce

into the dispute a refreshing pause by relating something I just

did,

which took me some hours.

I know deadin7 looks down on useless mathematical proofs, but
rgmustain insists proof. This last reminded me of the old
cliché, "the proof is in the pudding", and so I decided to try to
follow the method suggested by Rob Singer and see where it led me.
Thus I clicked on Groups, clicked on vpFREE, clicked on Links,
clicked on Columns, clicked on Rob Singer, and on the upper left
section of the page, under `Free Strategies', I clicked on his
suggested strategy for Single Play Video Poker. I will not repeat
everything that is suggested there, but I will say that I followed
the instructions using the Frugal Video Poker software in the

manner

described below.

Rob Singer advises to play 100 credits in a succession of machines,
starting with dollars, and increasing in volatility, BP, DB, DDB,

TB.

If the 100 are lost, then you go to the next machine, if the 100

are

recovered –after you recover what you lost subsequently- you go

back

to the first machine. If a machine hits and hits, you pocket

winnings

in increments of 40, but if you go down 100, then you go up the

next

machine. When 400 units are lost –mind you, this is not all moneys
lost since there are 40 units here and there that might have been
won, so the net money lost could be less than $400- you go up to

the

next denomination, $2, and repeat the exercise, only going back to

$1

BP when all hundred units are recovered, plus a profit of at least

40

units. If all this is obscure, it is explained in much more detail

in

the above-mentioned article.

Frugal is very nice for doing this exercise. I opened eight

sessions

in the machines above and in $1 and $2 denomination, ready to open
more if I had to go to the $5, $25 and $100 denomination. I took a
paper with me to write results of sessions. I considered my

bankroll

to be $17,500; and my goal was to win $2,500. I named the sessions
1SingerBD$1, 2SingerDB$1, 3SingerDDB$1, 4SingerTB$1, etc., etc. The
machines I chose were all negative machines, but not too bad ones,
things like 8/5 BP, 9/5 DDB, etc. I then played according to the
above recipe, and this is what happened.

On my first `circuit' I lost 100 in BP, I lost 100 in DB, I lost

100

in DDB and I lost 100 in TB. Then I lost 60 units in $2 BP (-$120)
and when I was playing $2 DB, I hit four aces, 800 units, and

$1,600.

This led to a profit of $1,040 and to another circuit.

On the second circuit I lost $400 in the $1 denomination, won $80

on

two-dollar BP, and hit quad threes in $2 DB, for a net circuit

profit

of $370.

The third circuit was easy, I did not have to go up to the $2
denomination, as I hit a quad in DB, and made $105.

On the fourth circuit I hit a quad on two dollars Bonus, and ended
with a profit of $40.

My last circuit was the fifth, where I hit the most quads. Here I
made $340 on dollar Bonus, I lost $60 in dollar Double Bonus, lost
$100 each on dollar DDB and dollar TB. Then lost $120 in two dollar
Bonus, lost two hundred each on two dollar DB and DDB, and ended up
getting two quads in two dollar TB for a profit of $1,350 there.

This

circuit made me $910.

Adding up the profits from all the circuits, I made
1,040+370+105+140+910 = 2,565.

So I have to say that this morning, on the Frugal software, the Rob
Singer strategy for Single Play Video Poker worked beautifully. A

few

comments are in order. Was I quad lucky? Yes! I could go back to

all

the sessions and add the number of hands I played, 2,579 hands, and
the total number of quads were ten. The average number of quads
should have been six, so I had a higher number of them than

average.

Did I play correct strategy? Yes! I do not play some of those games
well, but I asked Frugal to give me the best play when undecided.

The

mistakes were minimal. Would I have won had I played the

`advantage'

method? Well, the `advantage' method would tell me not to play,

since

all machines were negative, so according to that method I would
neither have won or lost. If I had played it on just the BP game, I
would not have won.

I must have to say that it seems Rob Singer is much more honest

than

he is given credit. In the article on the strategy he says
that "Losing has happened very seldom - less than 7% of the time,

and

my average loss is around $7000." So he does not tout his system as
something infallible. This should satisfy the mathematical purists
who say his method is a type of Martingale, and thus it will fail

if

played for the end of time. Those times when the method does go up

to

the very high denominations, and not produce a hit in the $100
denomination can be really painful, I imagine; but I think every
gambler should be careful going to the $100 denomination, unless he
has a very large fortune.

Will I use this system in a casino? Sure. Now, I know it will work
differently all the time, and I hate risking too much money. What
I'll probably do is divide everything by 20 in casinos where the
lowest denomination is nickels, and divide everything by 100 in
casinos where the lowest denomination is cents. Doing those changes

I

will try the method above, why not? If it works I'll be happy, and

if

it does not, I will stop before losing too much.

Now, I know this pudding of a post is not a proof, but I hope it is

a

distraction from the usual dialogue of the type, "you are a liar

and

···

a sham", "and you are a slide rule and an old man." LOL.

Royals to both of you,

E

[Dan_Cox]

Ed,

A couple of things to think about:
Would you be happy putting all the effort into going to a casino
and leaving when you are up $105/100 = $1.05 (or even $5.25)? Or,

if you hit a RF on that penny machine for $40, will that be fun?

I'll answer that. I knew our friend Dick would try every angle to
find fault with your post, because it was like sticking a rusty knife
in his side. But if you want to learn to go home ahead almost every
time, you'll train yourself to be happy with ANY attained-goal win.
Many of my goals are 10 bucks, and even tired old Dick (maybe in more
ways than one?!) has to agree it's better to take out $10 than leave
$300 behind. His problem the short amount of play doesn't give him
his fix.

- All of the games you tried on FVP may not be available. Do you

have alternatives?

All those games are readily available everywhere. where've you been--
Minnesota?

- Will you play very bad payback machines (like 6-5 bonus or 9-6

DB), if standard paybacks are not available.

Like that matters to normal people.

Remember, you do have a better than 90% chance of winning. It's

that 10% that can kill you. It's not unusual for someone to be
successful at first and start upping their base machine denom. Even
starting at a quarter requires that you eventually play on a $5
machine to have a 5 level progression.

Ok genius, explain why "It's not unusual for someone to be successful
at first and then start upping their base denomination machine". Who
says success comes first? What about that huge loss you always talk
about? Why can't that come first? Aren't you reading your theory
completely? Maybe you better re-write this. And if you knew more
about my strategies, I NEVER go up in denomination after winning.
That's an addict mistake, not mine.

Finally, there's nothing wrong with playing a progression if you

play FP machines accurately and stay within your bankroll.

So now you're an expert on this? HAHAHA!!!

It's that

bankroll problem that can really get you. Few people who play $.25

VP

will be comfortable playing $5 VP, on the other hand, few people

who

enjoy $1 VP will be happy playing $.05 VP.

Now you get it, you absolute genius you. You said "Few People". One
of them is me! Wow! You really stunk on this one Dick.

···

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

[rgmustain]

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

wrote:

> Ed,
>
> A couple of things to think about:
> Would you be happy putting all the effort into going to a casino
> and leaving when you are up $105/100 = $1.05 (or even $5.25)? Or,
if you hit a RF on that penny machine for $40, will that be fun?

I'll answer that. I knew our friend Dick would try every angle to
find fault with your post, because it was like sticking a rusty

knife

in his side. But if you want to learn to go home ahead almost every
time, you'll train yourself to be happy with ANY attained-goal win.
Many of my goals are 10 bucks, and even tired old Dick (maybe in

more

ways than one?!) has to agree it's better to take out $10 than

leave

$300 behind. His problem the short amount of play doesn't give him
his fix.

I found no fault with his post. Clearly a short term example, which
I've mentioned several times. However, each individual has to decide
this for himself Rob. You can't do it for them. They should consider
all aspects of using a progressive system before trying it.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

>
> - All of the games you tried on FVP may not be available. Do you
have alternatives?

All those games are readily available everywhere. where've you been-

-

Minnesota?

No, they are NOT all available in many casinos in this country at the
denoms required for any progression. Another lie?

>
> - Will you play very bad payback machines (like 6-5 bonus or 9-6
DB), if standard paybacks are not available.

Like that matters to normal people.

Well, it might matter to Ed. That's why I ask.

>
> Remember, you do have a better than 90% chance of winning. It's
that 10% that can kill you. It's not unusual for someone to be
successful at first and start upping their base machine denom. Even
starting at a quarter requires that you eventually play on a $5
machine to have a 5 level progression.

Ok genius, explain why "It's not unusual for someone to be

successful

at first and then start upping their base denomination machine".

Who

says success comes first?

If you have a 90% chance of winning you have a 90% chance your first
session will be a winner. Is that too difficult for you to
understand? I consider that "not unsual", I suppose you don't?

What about that huge loss you always talk
about?

10% chance.

Why can't that come first?

It can.

Aren't you reading your theory completely?

Yes, I am.

Maybe you better re-write this. And if you knew more
about my strategies, I NEVER go up in denomination after winning.
That's an addict mistake, not mine.

Nowhere in my response did I say anything about winning on the FIRST
machine. Back to that reading comprehension course for you. "Winning"
encompasses going home ahead at whatever point that occurs. You sure
have a lot of problem understanding simple english.

>
> Finally, there's nothing wrong with playing a progression if you
play FP machines accurately and stay within your bankroll.

So now you're an expert on this? HAHAHA!!!

It's just advantage play. Doesn't take an expert to see that.

It's that
> bankroll problem that can really get you. Few people who play

$.25

VP
> will be comfortable playing $5 VP, on the other hand, few people
who
> enjoy $1 VP will be happy playing $.05 VP.

Now you get it, you absolute genius you. You said "Few People". One
of them is me! Wow! You really stunk on this one Dick.

You may very well be comfortable, but the majority of people are not
comfortable with even a one or two level progression. That's one of
the pitfalls of any progressive system, even one using POSITIVE
games. It can lead to bankroll disintegration because it gets people
playing denominations higher than their bankroll supports.

[mubowor]

You know? I sometimes have this fear that VP message boards work for
the casinos, and that you work for the message boards. I will tell
you why. I am reprimanded, insulted, and put in moderation or ignored
for suggesting sensible things, yet some people who support advantage
play are not even questioned when they advise people to play full
coin on negative machines because of the touted "Royal premium". Yet
they will ban Rob Singer and his strategies for being `dangerous'
and `devilish' or at least `mathematically unsound'. You yourself in
a reply to one of my posts on the matter of short coin play
said, "you have to ask the player his goals." It seems to me when a
novice asks if he should play a JB 6/5 game full coin or not, the
first reply should be that he will lose more money playing full coin.
Anyway, you are probably not a spy for the casinos and I'm being
paranoid, but they say that just because you are paranoid does not
mean they are not out to get you. Now, let me reply to your post.

Ed,

A couple of things to think about:

- Would you be happy putting all the effort into going to a casino
and leaving when you are up $105/100 = $1.05 (or even $5.25)? Or,

if

you hit a RF on that penny machine for $40, will that be fun?

-I have mentioned that I often play one coin on negative machines.
I'm in that sense, let's say, Scottish or Dutch. Two trips ago I hit
a penny Royal in a NYNY 100 play machine. I was, of course, not as
happy as when I hit a full coin Royal on a dollar machine, but a win
is a win. A Royal on a penny machine is more fun than a Full House on
a dollar machine because the cost to get it is less.

   I will not play exactly as Singer plays, even when following his
system. I believe everyone has his own preferences and psychological
tolerances, and life circumstances that influence his play. I do not
live in Arizona and thus I do not visit Las Vegas often, but only a
few times a year. Instead of driving back to Arizona after the profit
you mention, I will go out on the Boardwalk to see the ocean, or on
the Strip to see a fountain show, and then go back to the casino. For
me a little walk outside will have to take the place of a drive and
sojourn in Arizona.

- All of the games you tried on FVP may not be available. Do you

have

alternatives?

   -I know most if not all casinos on the Strip and Atlantic City
have some form of Bonus Poker, Double Bonus, and Double Double Bonus.
The pay tables I played on Frugal, 8/5, 9/6 and 9/5, respectively,
are all widely found on Strip casinos. The only game I'm less
familiar with is Triple Bonus, but I believe I have seen it at
Bally's and Caesars. In any case, one alternative to TB that I have
seen –at Luxor and NYNY, to name a couple- is Triple Double Bonus.

- Will you play very bad payback machines (like 6-5 bonus or 9-6

DB),

if standard paybacks are not available.

   -For the Rob Singer method payback is secondary. All the versions
of the games he recommends –except the Triple games I mentioned- pay
the same for equivalent quads, and from the reported simulation in
Frugal that I made, it seems that is the most important fact in his
method, the pay on quads. In some casinos I will not find 8/5 BP, but
often 7/5 BP. You see, for some purposes an optimum pay table is not
necessary. One of the posts I was mostly criticized about was one
where I said I had $200 in free play at a casino with no positive
games, and a casino I did not like. My problem was how to play it to
get the most money in cash and go somewhere else. The solution I
found –and it worked for me- was to find a very bad pay table with
relatively low volatility and two coins for two pair, in a low
denomination. The casino had games with better pay tables at higher
denominations. Well, I was treated like a Salem witch in the XVIIth
century for suggesting that. Was sternly told that the $200 in free
play was just part of my lifetime bankroll, and I should play it at
the best machine available there. I did not listen, of course. I
played it in nickels, one line, 4,000 games, and ended with most of
the $200. Had I played dollars, 40 games, with a pay table with a few
percentages more in my favor, I would have ended with less money.
Anyway, this long paragraph is just to say that the pay table could
be crucial if you are going to spend your life on a machine, but for
other purposes it is not. The Singer method is a short term one that
does not demand positive pay tables, and that is fine with me when,
and if, it works.

Remember, you do have a better than 90% chance of winning. It's

that

10% that can kill you. It's not unusual for someone to be

successful

at first and start upping their base machine denom. Even starting

at

a quarter requires that you eventually play on a $5 machine to have

a

5 level progression.

   -Yes, I agree, the bankroll in the Singer method is huge, more
than I'm willing to gamble. Now, if I lose, I can quit. If I win I
can go on. I am doing a second simulation in Frugal and am ahead
right now $495. The problem is that I had to go to a $5 Bonus
machine. In real life I would not do that. I said above I would adopt
the RS method to my psychological comfort zone. At most Strip casinos
I can play 5 cents, 10, 25, 50 and then dollars. That is five stages.
Considering there are four machines on each stage, I go through 20
games. At places like Palms or MonteLago I can start at pennies and
go up to two pennies, and so on. These are seven denominations, 28
stages. At these last two casinos I can do it mostly on positive
machines. Let me tell you that positive machines are no assurance for
winning in the short term. I used another RS method at MonteLago, one
in an article of a month or two ago, going up in denomination. It did
work a few times giving me profits of over a hundred each time. I
used it starting in pennies. At one session I had to go up to dollars
and it was not my intention to play dollars, so I gave up and went to
play Blackjack.

   I agree the Singer method does not work all the time. Singer
himself agrees it has not worked for him some 7% of times. Now, if
that is true, that is fine with me. Advantage play does not work in
two thirds of the sessions. I believe `advantage' play could be much
worse. Just imagine a lifetime of play on a single positive game, and
ending on the left tail of the bell curve. That, to me, is the worst
nightmare.

Finally, there's nothing wrong with playing a progression if you

play

FP machines accurately and stay within your bankroll. It's that
bankroll problem that can really get you. Few people who play $.25

VP

will be comfortable playing $5 VP, on the other hand, few people

who

enjoy $1 VP will be happy playing $.05 VP.

Dick

   -As I said, I love Royals on dollar machines, but I have no
objections to playing VP on nickel machines. When the dollar machines
are not going my way, I do play nickel machines. Four Aces with a
kicker on nickel DDB is a hundred dollars, with that I can go and try
a quarter machine. Further, there are some games I only play in
nickel or lower denomination machines, games like Little Green Men
Family Reunion or Mystical Mermaids. I do enjoy the `splish splash, I
was having a bath' bonus in the latter, LOL.

Royals to all.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "superquadfullhousroyalistic"
<erchalb@c...> wrote:
> I have ceased trying to be conciliatory here, but I want to
introduce
> into the dispute a refreshing pause by relating something I just
did,
> which took me some hours.
>
> I know deadin7 looks down on useless mathematical proofs, but
> rgmustain insists proof. This last reminded me of the old
> cliché, "the proof is in the pudding", and so I decided to try to
> follow the method suggested by Rob Singer and see where it led

me.

> Thus I clicked on Groups, clicked on vpFREE, clicked on Links,
> clicked on Columns, clicked on Rob Singer, and on the upper left
> section of the page, under `Free Strategies', I clicked on his
> suggested strategy for Single Play Video Poker. I will not repeat
> everything that is suggested there, but I will say that I

followed

> the instructions using the Frugal Video Poker software in the
manner
> described below.
>
> Rob Singer advises to play 100 credits in a succession of

machines,

> starting with dollars, and increasing in volatility, BP, DB, DDB,
TB.
> If the 100 are lost, then you go to the next machine, if the 100
are
> recovered –after you recover what you lost subsequently- you go
back
> to the first machine. If a machine hits and hits, you pocket
winnings
> in increments of 40, but if you go down 100, then you go up the
next
> machine. When 400 units are lost –mind you, this is not all

moneys

> lost since there are 40 units here and there that might have been
> won, so the net money lost could be less than $400- you go up to
the
> next denomination, $2, and repeat the exercise, only going back

to

$1
> BP when all hundred units are recovered, plus a profit of at

least

40
> units. If all this is obscure, it is explained in much more

detail

in
> the above-mentioned article.
>
> Frugal is very nice for doing this exercise. I opened eight
sessions
> in the machines above and in $1 and $2 denomination, ready to

open

> more if I had to go to the $5, $25 and $100 denomination. I took

a

> paper with me to write results of sessions. I considered my
bankroll
> to be $17,500; and my goal was to win $2,500. I named the

sessions

> 1SingerBD$1, 2SingerDB$1, 3SingerDDB$1, 4SingerTB$1, etc., etc.

The

> machines I chose were all negative machines, but not too bad

ones,

> things like 8/5 BP, 9/5 DDB, etc. I then played according to the
> above recipe, and this is what happened.
>
> On my first `circuit' I lost 100 in BP, I lost 100 in DB, I lost
100
> in DDB and I lost 100 in TB. Then I lost 60 units in $2 BP (-

$120)

> and when I was playing $2 DB, I hit four aces, 800 units, and
$1,600.
> This led to a profit of $1,040 and to another circuit.
>
> On the second circuit I lost $400 in the $1 denomination, won $80
on
> two-dollar BP, and hit quad threes in $2 DB, for a net circuit
profit
> of $370.
>
> The third circuit was easy, I did not have to go up to the $2
> denomination, as I hit a quad in DB, and made $105.
>
> On the fourth circuit I hit a quad on two dollars Bonus, and

ended

> with a profit of $40.
>
> My last circuit was the fifth, where I hit the most quads. Here I
> made $340 on dollar Bonus, I lost $60 in dollar Double Bonus,

lost

> $100 each on dollar DDB and dollar TB. Then lost $120 in two

dollar

> Bonus, lost two hundred each on two dollar DB and DDB, and ended

up

> getting two quads in two dollar TB for a profit of $1,350 there.
This
> circuit made me $910.
>
> Adding up the profits from all the circuits, I made
> 1,040+370+105+140+910 = 2,565.
>
> So I have to say that this morning, on the Frugal software, the

Rob

> Singer strategy for Single Play Video Poker worked beautifully. A
few
> comments are in order. Was I quad lucky? Yes! I could go back to
all
> the sessions and add the number of hands I played, 2,579 hands,

and

> the total number of quads were ten. The average number of quads
> should have been six, so I had a higher number of them than
average.
> Did I play correct strategy? Yes! I do not play some of those

games

> well, but I asked Frugal to give me the best play when undecided.
The
> mistakes were minimal. Would I have won had I played the
`advantage'
> method? Well, the `advantage' method would tell me not to play,
since
> all machines were negative, so according to that method I would
> neither have won or lost. If I had played it on just the BP game,

I

> would not have won.
>
> I must have to say that it seems Rob Singer is much more honest
than
> he is given credit. In the article on the strategy he says
> that "Losing has happened very seldom - less than 7% of the time,
and
> my average loss is around $7000." So he does not tout his system

as

> something infallible. This should satisfy the mathematical

purists

> who say his method is a type of Martingale, and thus it will fail
if
> played for the end of time. Those times when the method does go

up

to
> the very high denominations, and not produce a hit in the $100
> denomination can be really painful, I imagine; but I think every
> gambler should be careful going to the $100 denomination, unless

he

> has a very large fortune.
>
> Will I use this system in a casino? Sure. Now, I know it will

work

> differently all the time, and I hate risking too much money. What
> I'll probably do is divide everything by 20 in casinos where the
> lowest denomination is nickels, and divide everything by 100 in
> casinos where the lowest denomination is cents. Doing those

changes

I
> will try the method above, why not? If it works I'll be happy,

and

if
> it does not, I will stop before losing too much.
>
> Now, I know this pudding of a post is not a proof, but I hope it

is

···

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

a
> distraction from the usual dialogue of the type, "you are a liar
and
> a sham", "and you are a slide rule and an old man." LOL.
>
> Royals to both of you,
>
> E

[rgmustain]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "superquadfullhousroyalistic"
<erchalb@c...> wrote:

You know? I sometimes have this fear that VP message boards work

for

the casinos, and that you work for the message boards. I will tell
you why. I am reprimanded, insulted, and put in moderation or

ignored

for suggesting sensible things, yet some people who support

advantage

play are not even questioned when they advise people to play full
coin on negative machines because of the touted "Royal premium".

Yet

they will ban Rob Singer and his strategies for being `dangerous'
and `devilish' or at least `mathematically unsound'. You yourself

in

a reply to one of my posts on the matter of short coin play
said, "you have to ask the player his goals." It seems to me when a
novice asks if he should play a JB 6/5 game full coin or not, the
first reply should be that he will lose more money playing full

coin.

Not if you respect the persons' right to set their goals and
expectations. It could be worse, they could be playing slots. I once
tried to tell a gambler that machines were not "turned ON/OFF". He
got very angry with me for suggesting such lunacy.

Anyway, you are probably not a spy for the casinos and I'm being
paranoid, but they say that just because you are paranoid does not
mean they are not out to get you. Now, let me reply to your post.

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

wrote:

> Ed,
>
> A couple of things to think about:
>
> - Would you be happy putting all the effort into going to a

casino

> and leaving when you are up $105/100 = $1.05 (or even $5.25)? Or,
if
> you hit a RF on that penny machine for $40, will that be fun?

-I have mentioned that I often play one coin on negative machines.
I'm in that sense, let's say, Scottish or Dutch. Two trips ago I

hit

a penny Royal in a NYNY 100 play machine. I was, of course, not as
happy as when I hit a full coin Royal on a dollar machine, but a

win

is a win. A Royal on a penny machine is more fun than a Full House

on

a dollar machine because the cost to get it is less.

   I will not play exactly as Singer plays, even when following his
system. I believe everyone has his own preferences and

psychological

tolerances, and life circumstances that influence his play. I do

not

live in Arizona and thus I do not visit Las Vegas often, but only a
few times a year. Instead of driving back to Arizona after the

profit

you mention, I will go out on the Boardwalk to see the ocean, or on
the Strip to see a fountain show, and then go back to the casino.

For

me a little walk outside will have to take the place of a drive and
sojourn in Arizona.

That's fine. Rob's theory that the VP fairy resets expectations the
next day is pure baloney anyway.

>
> - All of the games you tried on FVP may not be available. Do you
have
> alternatives?

   -I know most if not all casinos on the Strip and Atlantic City
have some form of Bonus Poker, Double Bonus, and Double Double

Bonus.

The pay tables I played on Frugal, 8/5, 9/6 and 9/5, respectively,
are all widely found on Strip casinos. The only game I'm less
familiar with is Triple Bonus, but I believe I have seen it at
Bally's and Caesars. In any case, one alternative to TB that I have
seen –at Luxor and NYNY, to name a couple- is Triple Double Bonus.

There are a few places like AC, LV, Reno and Tunica/Gulf coast where
you should have no problem finding these games. Just remember they
are negative.

>
> - Will you play very bad payback machines (like 6-5 bonus or 9-6
DB),
> if standard paybacks are not available.

   -For the Rob Singer method payback is secondary.

That's the BIGGEST problem with his method.

All the versions
of the games he recommends –except the Triple games I mentioned-

pay

the same for equivalent quads, and from the reported simulation in
Frugal that I made, it seems that is the most important fact in his
method, the pay on quads. In some casinos I will not find 8/5 BP,

but

often 7/5 BP. You see, for some purposes an optimum pay table is

not

necessary. One of the posts I was mostly criticized about was one
where I said I had $200 in free play at a casino with no positive
games, and a casino I did not like. My problem was how to play it

to

get the most money in cash and go somewhere else. The solution I
found –and it worked for me- was to find a very bad pay table with
relatively low volatility and two coins for two pair, in a low
denomination. The casino had games with better pay tables at higher
denominations. Well, I was treated like a Salem witch in the XVIIth
century for suggesting that. Was sternly told that the $200 in free
play was just part of my lifetime bankroll, and I should play it at
the best machine available there. I did not listen, of course. I
played it in nickels, one line, 4,000 games, and ended with most of
the $200.

I once had 1/4 hour before I caught a plane to play off a $100
ticket. I threw it in a slot machine and ended up with $125.

Had I played dollars, 40 games, with a pay table with a few
percentages more in my favor, I would have ended with less money.
Anyway, this long paragraph is just to say that the pay table could
be crucial if you are going to spend your life on a machine, but

for

other purposes it is not. The Singer method is a short term one

that

does not demand positive pay tables, and that is fine with me when,
and if, it works.

Are you sure it's short term?

>
> Remember, you do have a better than 90% chance of winning. It's
that
> 10% that can kill you. It's not unusual for someone to be
successful
> at first and start upping their base machine denom. Even starting
at
> a quarter requires that you eventually play on a $5 machine to

have

a
> 5 level progression.

   -Yes, I agree, the bankroll in the Singer method is huge, more
than I'm willing to gamble. Now, if I lose, I can quit. If I win I
can go on. I am doing a second simulation in Frugal and am ahead
right now $495. The problem is that I had to go to a $5 Bonus
machine. In real life I would not do that. I said above I would

adopt

the RS method to my psychological comfort zone. At most Strip

casinos

I can play 5 cents, 10, 25, 50 and then dollars. That is five

stages.

Considering there are four machines on each stage, I go through 20
games. At places like Palms or MonteLago I can start at pennies and
go up to two pennies, and so on. These are seven denominations, 28
stages. At these last two casinos I can do it mostly on positive
machines. Let me tell you that positive machines are no assurance

for

winning in the short term. I used another RS method at MonteLago,

one

in an article of a month or two ago, going up in denomination. It

did

work a few times giving me profits of over a hundred each time. I
used it starting in pennies. At one session I had to go up to

dollars

and it was not my intention to play dollars, so I gave up and went

to

play Blackjack.

That's why I mentioned this in the first place.

   I agree the Singer method does not work all the time. Singer
himself agrees it has not worked for him some 7% of times. Now, if
that is true, that is fine with me. Advantage play does not work in
two thirds of the sessions. I believe `advantage' play could be

much

worse. Just imagine a lifetime of play on a single positive game,

and

ending on the left tail of the bell curve. That, to me, is the

worst

nightmare.

You're still on a bell curve with the Rob's system. Imagine a
lifetime of play with an even bigger overall loss.

Dick

[mubowor]

>
> -For the Rob Singer method payback is secondary.

That's the BIGGEST problem with his method.

But that is not a "problem" with his method. He has said that if you
find 10/7 DB in multi plays, use that in his multi play system. He
has also said that you can use positive machines. I followed just
that advice casino MonteLago and was successful in several sessions
but one where I would have gone to a denomination I did not want to
play at. These sessions had positive machines. I remember, for
example, 10/6 DDB which pays back 100.06% -MonteLago also
has "cashback" given in freeplay. As I see it, the only problem with
his method is that it does not work, according to him, 7% of the time.

By the way, I did another simulation in Frugal and won another
$2,500. Then I did yet another Frugal simulation using the multi play
system he has on the same page as the other system. I won 2,500 base
credits again -in dollars had I chosen that as my first machine in a
casino, $125 had I chosen nickels as my first machine, something I'm
more likely to do. After all these successful simulations, I'm afraid
the BIGGEST problem with his system -aside from the 7%- might be that
the Random Number Generators in casinos behave in a very different
way than that in Frugal, and I will be surprised in a real casino. Of
course, I can always just try all of this at Palms, MonteLago, or a
place like that, and if the systems do not work there, at least I
have as a consolation the fact that since I played in positive
machines, all I have to do is keep playing to win, LOL. We'll see.

> The Singer method is a short term one
that
> does not demand positive pay tables, and that is fine with me

when,

> and if, it works.

Are you sure it's short term?

I believe even the most confirmed advantage VP pro will tell you that
a week in Las Vegas, even playing ten hours a day, is the very, very
short term.

> At one session I had to go up to
dollars
> and it was not my intention to play dollars, so I gave up and

went

to
> play Blackjack.

That's why I mentioned this in the first place.

In the simulations I have made in Frugal, if I start with nickels,
then dimes, then quarters, I have not yet gone over above quarters.
I'm fine with playing quarters; as a matter of fact, I do that in Las
Vegas a lot. The only difference now will be that when trying the
Singer system, I will have a methodology to distribute my VP playing
time in the different machines and denominations.

People working at casinos always tell you "it takes money to make
money". I'm looking for a system where it takes very little money to
make a lot of money. Neither 'advantage' play, nor the Singer system
is that, but at least in the second system I save time.

You're still on a bell curve with the Rob's system. Imagine a
lifetime of play with an even bigger overall loss.

Dick

Well, one does have control as fas as how much money to risk in
games. If what happened in simulations happens in casinos, even with
negative machines, then I might win more frequently on trips to Las
Vegas. If either the 'advantage' siren, or the 'progressive' siren
sing about risking more than I'm comfortable with, be assured I will
go play Mystical Sirens, a nickel per line. Who knows? I might get
999 free spins in the 'Splish Splash' bonus.

Kicker Quad Aces to all.

[vpFREE4]

You know? I sometimes have this fear that VP message boards work for
the casinos, and that you work for the message boards. I will tell
you why. I am reprimanded, insulted, and put in moderation or ignored
for suggesting sensible things,

Of the four degradations that you cite, I suspect that being "ignored" is
the one that concerns you most.

In any event, your reference to being moderated on vpFREE is gratuitous,
misleading and inaccurate. You aren't moderated for "suggesting sensible
things" but because you have a long history of concocting contrived posts
which use untrue or questionable hypotheses which often require remedial
follow ups.

Your trolling activities are welcome on FREEvpFREE, but not on vpFREE.

yet some people who support advantage play are not even questioned when
they advise people to play full coin on negative machines because of the
touted "Royal premium".

This is a good example of one of your concocted, contrived, untrue
hypotheses.

Advantage players wouldn't play negative machines, unless there was an
overriding reason to do so. If they were forced to play a negative situation
over a selected period of time, they would play one coin, very slowly. OTOH,
if they were forced to play a specified amount of coin-in on a negative
situation, they would play full coin.

And, I don't believe that you can document "any" (much less "some") instances
on any message board where "people who support advantage play are not even
questioned when they advise people to play full coin on negative machines
because of the touted 'Royal premium'." If you can, it would be an aberration
or an oversight because advantage players do not blindly advocate playing full
coin in negative situations as you infer.

vpFREE Administrator

···

On 11 Aug 2004 at 14:19, superquadfullhousroyalistic wrote:

[bonuspokergod]

Super, next time out try Rob's "Advanced Romp" strategy, it's tons of
fun, racks up the $$, takes very little time and generates just as
many offers in the mail as guru play does, only difference is you
will win $$ in the process (which is the whole point of gambling)
instead of playing for hours on the same denomination and losing time
& time again.

I've yet to leave the casino with empty pockets and racked up quite a
streak with using it, using very so-called "negative" games. I'm
talking 6/5 & 7/5 BP and 8/5 DDB. As he says, DISCIPLINE rules the
day. Take your cashouts and move on. Points do not matter,
paytables do not matter, yes play the best they have at the casino
where you happen to be, but hey, when in Vegas, I'm playing the big
strip joints, not some guru dump that pays 1 more credit for
FullHouses, yippeee!

And once again kudos to you for at least trying Rob's stuff.

···

People working at casinos always tell you "it takes money to make
money". I'm looking for a system where it takes very little money
to
make a lot of money. Neither 'advantage' play, nor the Singer
system
is that, but at least in the second system I save time.

go play Mystical Sirens, a nickel per line. Who knows? I might get
999 free spins in the 'Splish Splash' bonus.

Kicker Quad Aces to all.

[rgmustain]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "superquadfullhousroyalistic"
<erchalb@c...> wrote:

> >
> > -For the Rob Singer method payback is secondary.
>
> That's the BIGGEST problem with his method.

But that is not a "problem" with his method. He has said that if

you

find 10/7 DB in multi plays, use that in his multi play system. He
has also said that you can use positive machines. I followed just
that advice casino MonteLago and was successful in several sessions
but one where I would have gone to a denomination I did not want to
play at. These sessions had positive machines. I remember, for
example, 10/6 DDB which pays back 100.06% -MonteLago also
has "cashback" given in freeplay. As I see it, the only problem

with

his method is that it does not work, according to him, 7% of the

time.

The amount of time his methods works IS dependent on the payback of
the machines being played. This is a fact with Martingales systems
like Robs. This has been proved over and over. Don't believe the
progression of volatility has any effect. It's just a disguise.

The higher the payback the more often it will work. For example, if
you have a 50-50 chance of reaching your goal on each level you'll be
successful 31 out of 32 attempts (~97%) of the time. If these games
are negative you'll still lose money over time. You should keep track
of how often you win at a given level in FVP to have a better
understanding of how often it will work. AT 400 credits/level I don't
think the chances are even 40-60.

By the way, I did another simulation in Frugal and won another
$2,500. Then I did yet another Frugal simulation using the multi

play

system he has on the same page as the other system. I won 2,500

base

credits again -in dollars had I chosen that as my first machine in

a

casino, $125 had I chosen nickels as my first machine, something

I'm

more likely to do.

Don't even mention dollars as an example if you'd never play it as
the base of a progression.

After all these successful simulations, I'm afraid
the BIGGEST problem with his system -aside from the 7%- might be

that

the Random Number Generators in casinos behave in a very different
way than that in Frugal, and I will be surprised in a real casino.

If they are indeed RANDOM then this statement is ridiculous.

Of
course, I can always just try all of this at Palms, MonteLago, or a
place like that, and if the systems do not work there, at least I
have as a consolation the fact that since I played in positive
machines, all I have to do is keep playing to win, LOL. We'll see.

Good idea, but then you will have done nothing to prove or disprove
Robs' system.

> > The Singer method is a short term one
> that
> > does not demand positive pay tables, and that is fine with me
when,
> > and if, it works.
>
> Are you sure it's short term?

I believe even the most confirmed advantage VP pro will tell you

that

a week in Las Vegas, even playing ten hours a day, is the very,

very

short term.

You missed my point. If you use his system, and have success, then
you will continue to use it for the rest of your gambling life. For
you, that would be the long term.

> > At one session I had to go up to
> dollars
> > and it was not my intention to play dollars, so I gave up and
went
> to
> > play Blackjack.
>
That's why I mentioned this in the first place.

In the simulations I have made in Frugal, if I start with nickels,
then dimes, then quarters, I have not yet gone over above quarters.
I'm fine with playing quarters; as a matter of fact, I do that in

Las

Vegas a lot. The only difference now will be that when trying the
Singer system, I will have a methodology to distribute my VP

playing

time in the different machines and denominations.

Just remember, you haven't done nearly enough sims to understand
anything statistically significant. That would take 100s of sims.

People working at casinos always tell you "it takes money to make
money".

What does this mean? People have stuck a few dollars into megabucks
and walked away with millions. Sounds like BS to me.

I'm looking for a system where it takes very little money to
make a lot of money. Neither 'advantage' play, nor the Singer

system

is that, but at least in the second system I save time.

Do you now. Time to do what?

> You're still on a bell curve with the Rob's system. Imagine a
> lifetime of play with an even bigger overall loss.
>
> Dick

Well, one does have control as fas as how much money to risk in
games. If what happened in simulations happens in casinos, even

with

negative machines, then I might win more frequently on trips to Las
Vegas.

That is true. Just remember more often does not mean more money.

If either the 'advantage' siren, or the 'progressive' siren
sing about risking more than I'm comfortable with, be assured I

will

go play Mystical Sirens, a nickel per line. Who knows? I might get
999 free spins in the 'Splish Splash' bonus.

I can see it now. You go out and lose money and Rob will say, "of
course, you didn't have the discipline to follow my system exactly."
and you will have proven nothing.

[mubowor]

I will not start a never ending dispute with you since we don't agree
on what is contrived, questionable, true or even civil, and we never
will. As for what is in the various message boards, people can read
them and find out if they are interested; I will not gossip by
mentioning different message boards and different people.

> You know? I sometimes have this fear that VP message boards work

for

> the casinos, and that you work for the message boards. I will

tell

> you why. I am reprimanded, insulted, and put in moderation or

ignored

> for suggesting sensible things,

Of the four degradations that you cite, I suspect that

being "ignored" is

the one that concerns you most.

In any event, your reference to being moderated on vpFREE is

gratuitous,

misleading and inaccurate. You aren't moderated for "suggesting

sensible

things" but because you have a long history of concocting contrived

posts

which use untrue or questionable hypotheses which often require

remedial

follow ups.

Your trolling activities are welcome on FREEvpFREE, but not on

vpFREE.

> yet some people who support advantage play are not even

questioned when

> they advise people to play full coin on negative machines because

of the

> touted "Royal premium".

This is a good example of one of your concocted, contrived, untrue
hypotheses.

Advantage players wouldn't play negative machines, unless there was

an

overriding reason to do so. If they were forced to play a negative

situation

over a selected period of time, they would play one coin, very

slowly. OTOH,

if they were forced to play a specified amount of coin-in on a

negative

situation, they would play full coin.

And, I don't believe that you can document "any" (much less "some")

instances

on any message board where "people who support advantage play are

not even

questioned when they advise people to play full coin on negative

machines

because of the touted 'Royal premium'." If you can, it would be an

aberration

or an oversight because advantage players do not blindly advocate

playing full

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFREE" <vpFREE@C...> wrote:

On 11 Aug 2004 at 14:19, superquadfullhousroyalistic wrote:
coin in negative situations as you infer.

vpFREE Administrator

[mubowor]

I believe that is the strategy I tried at MonteLago, because of the
date of the article. I had read it before my latest trip to Las Vegas
and tried it on those machines starting in cents, and going up to two
cents, nickels, etc. This is the strategy where I won over a hundred
dollars a few times, and then when it carried me to a denomination I
did not want to play, I stopped and played Blackjack. Now that I read
this strategy again, I believe I was not playing the exact same one
but something vaguely similar, according to what my memory told me at
the time. I will try to do a series of simulations in frugal when I
get the time.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bonuspokergod"
<bonuspokergod@y...> wrote:

Super, next time out try Rob's "Advanced Romp" strategy, it's tons

of

fun, racks up the $$, takes very little time and generates just as
many offers in the mail as guru play does, only difference is you
will win $$ in the process (which is the whole point of gambling)
instead of playing for hours on the same denomination and losing

time

& time again.

I've yet to leave the casino with empty pockets and racked up quite

a

streak with using it, using very so-called "negative" games. I'm
talking 6/5 & 7/5 BP and 8/5 DDB. As he says, DISCIPLINE rules the
day. Take your cashouts and move on. Points do not matter,
paytables do not matter, yes play the best they have at the casino
where you happen to be, but hey, when in Vegas, I'm playing the big
strip joints, not some guru dump that pays 1 more credit for
FullHouses, yippeee!

And once again kudos to you for at least trying Rob's stuff.

> People working at casinos always tell you "it takes money to make
> money". I'm looking for a system where it takes very little money
>to
> make a lot of money. Neither 'advantage' play, nor the Singer
>system
> is that, but at least in the second system I save time.
>
> go play Mystical Sirens, a nickel per line. Who knows? I might

get

···

> 999 free spins in the 'Splish Splash' bonus.
>
> Kicker Quad Aces to all.

[mubowor]

> After all these successful simulations, I'm afraid
> the BIGGEST problem with his system -aside from the 7%- might be
that
> the Random Number Generators in casinos behave in a very

different

> way than that in Frugal, and I will be surprised in a real casino.

If they are indeed RANDOM then this statement is ridiculous.

Well, all the machines are random according to law, but there is
random and there is random in real life. I remember a random Blazing
Sevens machine that I played in every visit for two years, and
friends played it too. On every trip I would make money in it. I
would feed it a twenty and if credits started to go up, and they did
significantly with lots of mixed bars, single bars, triple bars,
fives, etc. Whenever the machine did that, I would play it and stop
if some time went by and it did not hit something. I could count on
every trip with at least $400 on that machine with an investment of
less than a hundred. The machine would hit one out of every five
times I played it. Sometimes it paid me eight hundred, sometimes just
four hundred, sometimes a thousand. I was so sure of it, that once a
relative went to Las Vegas. I made a floor plan of the casino showing
the machine, gave this relative a hundred dollars and instructed to
play twenty at different times. Well, when the relative returned my
hundred had changed into four hundred. This went for a bit over two
years, covering some ten trips to Las Vegas. On balance I made quite
a bit of money on that machine. Unfortunately, I did not write up its
number, the casino was remodeled, and there went that experience. But
I loved that random machine.

Talking about random PCs, I once hit fifteen Royals in a week on
WinPoker. I played an hour or so every day. This has never happened
to me in Las Vegas, but I would love to encounter a machine with that
random behavior.

Please don't ask me to prove that both experiences are due to the
specific softwares of the machines played and not to an abstract
property of mathematical randomness. To me, philosophically, it does
not make a difference one way or the other; but, of course, it does
make a difference to experience these things in real casinos with
real money.

I can see it now. You go out and lose money and Rob will say, "of
course, you didn't have the discipline to follow my system

exactly."

and you will have proven nothing.

I don't want to prove that RS's method works, that's your bag with
deadin7. I will find proving his methods a very tedious endeavor. I'm
happy knowing that if I play for eternity a positive machine, I'm
sure to win, and if I play for eternity a negative machine, I will
surely lose, in spite of the system used. Heaven for a VP player is
an eternity with Full Pay Deuces Wild; hell an eternity with 8/5
Bonus. Now, advantage players take that fact and extrapolate it to
our finite existences; RS takes our finite existences as a given and
dismisses the above fact as irrelevant. So, to 'prove' his system -
actually there are many systems- I would have to quantify it the way
advantage players quantify the advantage in the long term: for such a
machine if I play so many hands, I have this percentage confidence of
being in that bracket around the theoretical long term return of the
machine. I have no interest in doing something similar with RS
methods. If I'm bothered by negative machines, I will just play
positive machines. The exercise of proving the limitations of an RS
system is one I find boring, the same as I find boring other similar
questions. For example, I'm sure the Martingale system works
sometimes. Give me a gambler with twice the capital of a casino, give
me a single zero roulette with no limit bet, and I bet you the
gambler has a probability different from zero of bankrupting the
casino by just playing a Martingale on red and black. Don't ask me to
compute that probability, I'd rather watch a movie. By the same
token, don't ask me to mathematically prove that the RS systems work.
I'm happy doing simulations -by the way, doing those simulations one
practices and perfects the different games played- and on those I get
a feel on how bad can things go, and how often, and therefore how
risky tryng one of those methods in the casino is. Infinity I leave
to God.

May Aces rain.

···

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

[rgmustain]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "superquadfullhousroyalistic"
<erchalb@c...> wrote:

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

wrote:

> > After all these successful simulations, I'm afraid
> > the BIGGEST problem with his system -aside from the 7%- might

be

> that
> > the Random Number Generators in casinos behave in a very
different
> > way than that in Frugal, and I will be surprised in a real

casino.

>
> If they are indeed RANDOM then this statement is ridiculous.

Well, all the machines are random according to law, but there is
random and there is random in real life.
I remember a random Blazing
Sevens machine that I played in every visit for two years, and
friends played it too. On every trip I would make money in it. I
would feed it a twenty and if credits started to go up, and they

did

significantly with lots of mixed bars, single bars, triple bars,
fives, etc. Whenever the machine did that, I would play it and stop
if some time went by and it did not hit something. I could count on
every trip with at least $400 on that machine with an investment of
less than a hundred. The machine would hit one out of every five
times I played it. Sometimes it paid me eight hundred, sometimes

just

four hundred, sometimes a thousand. I was so sure of it, that once

a

relative went to Las Vegas. I made a floor plan of the casino

showing

the machine, gave this relative a hundred dollars and instructed to
play twenty at different times. Well, when the relative returned my
hundred had changed into four hundred. This went for a bit over two
years, covering some ten trips to Las Vegas. On balance I made

quite

a bit of money on that machine. Unfortunately, I did not write up

its

number, the casino was remodeled, and there went that experience.

But

I loved that random machine.

Random has nothing to do with payback. I think you are confusing the
two. That machine could have been set to a higher payback by having
more winning combinations from which the RNG selects.

Talking about random PCs, I once hit fifteen Royals in a week on
WinPoker. I played an hour or so every day. This has never happened
to me in Las Vegas, but I would love to encounter a machine with

that

random behavior.

I haven't hit 15 RFs in my life playing winpoker on and off (6 years
at least). But this does bring up a difference in the way the PRNGs
work on real VP machines vs. winpoker (and I assume FVP). When you
start up winpoker the overall sequence of cards is determined. It
makes no difference how long you wait between hands. This is not true
of a real VP machine. Over the long term this should make no
difference, however, it may have an impact on short sessions like the
ones you've been using to simulate Robs' system. It's possible it
could produce a smoothing effect. Since I don't know the algorithms
used in either winpoker or FVP this is just conjecture on my part.

Please don't ask me to prove that both experiences are due to the
specific softwares of the machines played and not to an abstract
property of mathematical randomness. To me, philosophically, it

does

not make a difference one way or the other; but, of course, it does
make a difference to experience these things in real casinos with
real money.

> I can see it now. You go out and lose money and Rob will say, "of
> course, you didn't have the discipline to follow my system
exactly."
> and you will have proven nothing.

I don't want to prove that RS's method works, that's your bag with
deadin7.

On 8/10 you stated:

'This ... reminded me of the old cliché, "the proof is in the
pudding", and so I decided to try to follow the method suggested by
Rob Singer and see where it led me.'

Maybe I misunderstood your intentions, but your use of the
word "proof" led me to believe otherwise.

Dick

[mubowor]

> I don't want to prove that RS's method works, that's your bag

with

> deadin7.

On 8/10 you stated:

'This ... reminded me of the old cliché, "the proof is in the
pudding", and so I decided to try to follow the method suggested by
Rob Singer and see where it led me.'

Maybe I misunderstood your intentions, but your use of the
word "proof" led me to believe otherwise.

Dick

Today I said in my previous post,

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
_____________
I don't want to prove that RS's method works, that's your bag with
deadin7. I will find proving his methods a very tedious endeavor. I'm
happy knowing that if I play for eternity a positive machine, I'm
sure to win, and if I play for eternity a negative machine, I will
surely lose, in spite of the system used. Heaven for a VP player is
an eternity with Full Pay Deuces Wild; hell an eternity with 8/5
Bonus. Now, advantage players take that fact and extrapolate it to
our finite existences; RS takes our finite existences as a given and
dismisses the above fact as irrelevant. So, to 'prove' his system -
actually there are many systems- I would have to quantify it the way
advantage players quantify the advantage in the long term: for such a
machine if I play so many hands, I have this percentage confidence of
being in that bracket around the theoretical long term return of the
machine. I have no interest in doing something similar with RS
methods. If I'm bothered by negative machines, I will just play
positive machines. The exercise of proving the limitations of an RS
system is one I find boring, the same as I find boring other similar
questions. For example, I'm sure the Martingale system works
sometimes. Give me a gambler with twice the capital of a casino, give
me a single zero roulette with no limit bet, and I bet you the
gambler has a probability different from zero of bankrupting the
casino by just playing a Martingale on red and black. Don't ask me to
compute that probability, I'd rather watch a movie. By the same
token, don't ask me to mathematically prove that the RS systems work.
I'm happy doing simulations -by the way, doing those simulations one
practices and perfects the different games played- and on those I get
a feel on how bad can things go, and how often, and therefore how
risky tryng one of those methods in the casino is. Infinity I leave
to God.
_____________

The above is what I meant, and it was clear in my post that I did not
intend to try to tackle a mathematical justification of RS systems. I
said that you two had gotten into an argument, you demanding proof
and he putting down your insistence. I know, the cliche I used, "the
proof is in the pudding" is a bit ambiguous and I can understand why
you were misled. Let me then clarify what I meant, if it still needs
clarification after the above paragraph. By now I have used the
Singer method about three times in casino MonteLago; I have also used
RS methods in Frugal simulations six times. Yes, today I had a very
short session hitting a Royal in what I considered dimes. So after
using his system nine times, it has worked nine times. The "pudding"
to me is "hands on" experience, that is, to put the system at work
and see if it generates the moolah, as if one was cooking a pudding
to eat later. In that sense, yes, it works as far as I'm concerned, I
have eaten my pudding nine times, and I will use different RS systems
on my next trip to Las Vegas, for sure. Sure, in casino MonteLago I
went to a denomination higher than I intended to play that day, and
then abandoned the system, so I could say that for my purposes it
failed -even if it did not really fail since I did not follow it to
the end. Thus I have nine hits out of ten. Anyway, the fact that the
above is what I meant by the "pudding" should have been understood
from my post, since I went on to say that I tried simulations; but,
as I said, I understand how you could have been misled.

I did not use the word "proof" as a mathematical proof, but as part
ot the phrase "the proof is in the pudding". You can go to Yahoo
asks, and find out about it, and I quote them

______________

Perhaps it's a sign of our increasingly fast-paced, short-attention-
span society that even our old proverbs are being shortened and
clipped down from the original full sayings. Word Detective and other
etymology sites pointed out that the phrase originated as "the proof
of the pudding is in the eating." It means that the true value or
quality of something can only be judged when it's put to use. The
meaning is often summed up as "results are what count."
According to Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, the phrase dates back to
at least 1615 when Miguel de Cervantes published Don Quixote. In this
comic novel, the phrase is stated as, "The proof of the pudding is
the eating."

Word Detective and the American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms note
that the phrase came into use around 1600. However, a bulletin board
quotes The Dictionary of Cliches, which dates the phrase to the 14th
century. The board also mentions a 1682 version from Bileau's Le
Lutrin, which read, "The proof of th' pudding's seen i' the eating."
A page of pudding definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary also
cites the author Boileau (Bileau) as the first to use the phrase. So
it seems likely that the phrase dates back to the 1600s, though the
identity of its author is disputed.

These days, some people shorten the phrase to simply "proof of the
pudding." Even the American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language trims it down. Occasionally, it is even further abbreviated
to "proof in pudding," irritating purists who argue that the
shortened versions don't mean anything on their own. Let's just hope
it doesn't get further reduced any time soon. "Proofpudding" just
doesn't cut it.
________________________________

From the above you see that there is no hint of mathematics in the
word proof as used in the phrase. The conclusion then should have
been clear that when I used "the proof is in the pudding" I meant to
go do some simulations and see how they went.

Aces

[rgmustain]

Whatever. I was just trying to pass on MY interpretation of what you
said.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "superquadfullhousroyalistic"
<erchalb@c...> wrote:

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

wrote:

> > I don't want to prove that RS's method works, that's your bag
with
> > deadin7.
>
> On 8/10 you stated:
>
> 'This ... reminded me of the old cliché, "the proof is in the
> pudding", and so I decided to try to follow the method suggested

by

> Rob Singer and see where it led me.'
>
> Maybe I misunderstood your intentions, but your use of the
> word "proof" led me to believe otherwise.
>
> Dick

Today I said in my previous post,
_____________
I don't want to prove that RS's method works, that's your bag with
deadin7. I will find proving his methods a very tedious endeavor.

I'm

happy knowing that if I play for eternity a positive machine, I'm
sure to win, and if I play for eternity a negative machine, I will
surely lose, in spite of the system used. Heaven for a VP player is
an eternity with Full Pay Deuces Wild; hell an eternity with 8/5
Bonus. Now, advantage players take that fact and extrapolate it to
our finite existences; RS takes our finite existences as a given and
dismisses the above fact as irrelevant. So, to 'prove' his system -
actually there are many systems- I would have to quantify it the way
advantage players quantify the advantage in the long term: for such

a

machine if I play so many hands, I have this percentage confidence

of

being in that bracket around the theoretical long term return of the
machine. I have no interest in doing something similar with RS
methods. If I'm bothered by negative machines, I will just play
positive machines. The exercise of proving the limitations of an RS
system is one I find boring, the same as I find boring other similar
questions. For example, I'm sure the Martingale system works
sometimes. Give me a gambler with twice the capital of a casino,

give

me a single zero roulette with no limit bet, and I bet you the
gambler has a probability different from zero of bankrupting the
casino by just playing a Martingale on red and black. Don't ask me

to

compute that probability, I'd rather watch a movie. By the same
token, don't ask me to mathematically prove that the RS systems

work.

I'm happy doing simulations -by the way, doing those simulations one
practices and perfects the different games played- and on those I

get

a feel on how bad can things go, and how often, and therefore how
risky tryng one of those methods in the casino is. Infinity I leave
to God.
_____________

The above is what I meant, and it was clear in my post that I did

not

intend to try to tackle a mathematical justification of RS systems.

I

said that you two had gotten into an argument, you demanding proof
and he putting down your insistence. I know, the cliche I

used, "the

proof is in the pudding" is a bit ambiguous and I can understand

why

you were misled. Let me then clarify what I meant, if it still

needs

clarification after the above paragraph. By now I have used the
Singer method about three times in casino MonteLago; I have also

used

RS methods in Frugal simulations six times. Yes, today I had a very
short session hitting a Royal in what I considered dimes. So after
using his system nine times, it has worked nine times.

The "pudding"

to me is "hands on" experience, that is, to put the system at work
and see if it generates the moolah, as if one was cooking a pudding
to eat later. In that sense, yes, it works as far as I'm concerned,

I

have eaten my pudding nine times, and I will use different RS

systems

on my next trip to Las Vegas, for sure. Sure, in casino MonteLago I
went to a denomination higher than I intended to play that day, and
then abandoned the system, so I could say that for my purposes it
failed -even if it did not really fail since I did not follow it to
the end. Thus I have nine hits out of ten. Anyway, the fact that

the

above is what I meant by the "pudding" should have been understood
from my post, since I went on to say that I tried simulations; but,
as I said, I understand how you could have been misled.

I did not use the word "proof" as a mathematical proof, but as part
ot the phrase "the proof is in the pudding". You can go to Yahoo
asks, and find out about it, and I quote them

______________

Perhaps it's a sign of our increasingly fast-paced, short-attention-
span society that even our old proverbs are being shortened and
clipped down from the original full sayings. Word Detective and

other

etymology sites pointed out that the phrase originated as "the

proof

of the pudding is in the eating." It means that the true value or
quality of something can only be judged when it's put to use. The
meaning is often summed up as "results are what count."
According to Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, the phrase dates back

to

at least 1615 when Miguel de Cervantes published Don Quixote. In

this

comic novel, the phrase is stated as, "The proof of the pudding is
the eating."

Word Detective and the American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms note
that the phrase came into use around 1600. However, a bulletin

board

quotes The Dictionary of Cliches, which dates the phrase to the

14th

century. The board also mentions a 1682 version from Bileau's Le
Lutrin, which read, "The proof of th' pudding's seen i' the

eating."

A page of pudding definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary

also

cites the author Boileau (Bileau) as the first to use the phrase.

So

it seems likely that the phrase dates back to the 1600s, though the
identity of its author is disputed.

These days, some people shorten the phrase to simply "proof of the
pudding." Even the American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language trims it down. Occasionally, it is even further

abbreviated

to "proof in pudding," irritating purists who argue that the
shortened versions don't mean anything on their own. Let's just

hope

it doesn't get further reduced any time soon. "Proofpudding" just
doesn't cut it.
________________________________

From the above you see that there is no hint of mathematics in the
word proof as used in the phrase. The conclusion then should have
been clear that when I used "the proof is in the pudding" I meant

to

···

go do some simulations and see how they went.

Aces

[mubowor]

Whatever. I was just trying to pass on MY interpretation of what

you

said.

Fair enough. I should not have been too much of an anglophile in my
post and should have stayed closer to Cervantes when I used in it the
saying, and word it "the proof of the pudding is in the eating".

In any case you can see what my interest is in all of this, to make a
little short-term money on a visit to Las Vegas. Up to now I have
been lucky in the simulations, but I do not discard the possibility
of no machine paying one day, we have all experienced this. When that
happens, I hope I am not stubborn enough to keep going to the higher
and higher denominations, but quit in time. This is another virtue I
see in the Singer method, you can drop it when it does not go your
way. This is something you can't do with 'advantage' play since when
you experience its negative side, it is too, too late to do anything
about it, LOL. I know an advantage player will reply to this that by
using the Singer method often enough, one will have to drop it often
enough so as not to make it profitable. Of course, they can't say
this if it is used in positive machines, because then all you have to
do is use it, and use it, and use it until you get to something
resembling the long term.

Sorry I'm not too positive on gambling. I think if you want to make
money, you should work. If you want to make money by gambling, you
should own a casino, or casino stock. Trying to make a living by
placing bets is a risk that could or could not work out. If you enjoy
the activity of gambling, then spend entertainment money on it. Now,
this is the way I think, but I respect people who think differently
and wish them the best.

···

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

[Dan_Cox]

I found no fault with his post.

HAHAHA

Clearly a short term example, which

I've mentioned several times.

And which is exactly how every player who walks into a casino each
time plays.

However, each individual has to decide

this for himself Rob. You can't do it for them. They should

consider all aspects of using a progressive system before trying it.

Who said I decide anything for anyone other than for myself? I
realize I have a far better intellect along with the perfect personal
circumstances to do what I do more successfully than most others.
It's only you who think I push it on anyone.

No, they are NOT all available in many casinos in this country at

the denoms required for any progression. Another lie?

Read my site again, McFly. I only play for-profit in Nevada, and
those games are readilt available and very common in all parts of the
state.

> Maybe you better re-write this. And if you knew more
> about my strategies, I NEVER go up in denomination after winning.
> That's an addict mistake, not mine.

Nowhere in my response did I say anything about winning on the

FIRST

machine. Back to that reading comprehension course for

you. "Winning"

encompasses going home ahead at whatever point that occurs. You

sure

have a lot of problem understanding simple english.

Maybe because it comes from a simpleton??

It's just advantage play. Doesn't take an expert to see that.

And it doesn't take a genius to see that you will never agree with
historical data that proves positive results can be had from negative-
expectation machines, while sticking to the theory that winning can
come ONLY from 100.0000000001% or greater machines on any casino
visit.

You may very well be comfortable, but the majority of people are

not comfortable with even a one or two level progression.

I think you're giving us a personal glimpse.

That's one of

the pitfalls of any progressive system, even one using POSITIVE
games. It can lead to bankroll disintegration because it gets

people playing denominations higher than their bankroll supports.

And where have I ever said to play with anything other than the
proper bankroll?

···

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

[Dan_Cox]

The amount of time his methods works IS dependent on the payback of
the machines being played. This is a fact with Martingales systems
like Robs. This has been proved over and over.

Please provide supporting historical data or hard evidence that the
above 'assumption' is true, Mr. Math. The 7-10% of the time any of my
Play Strategies fail is directly proportional to the lack of deals I
get where there's an opportunity for a special play--and/or how often
the quads appear. Pay table affect is minimal at best, because a good
portion of my play does not play for the smaller winning hands.

Don't believe the progression of volatility has any effect. It's

just a disguise.

I knew you were worried about that because you can't feed the effect
thru your slide rule. And oh again, why don't you provide the
evidence you have that supports your statement.

If these games are negative you'll still lose money over time.

Yawn. If it's not wearing a skirt then it cannot be a boy. On and on
and on with the same nonsense.

You missed my point. If you use his system, and have success, then
you will continue to use it for the rest of your gambling life. For
you, that would be the long term.

What if he lives only one more year? What if Santa Claus stops by on
his way out of Minnesota and decides to tie him up for a few days
when he planned on playing, while Santa beds down his wife? And what
if Bob Dancer comes out with an edict that says one must play 167
million hands before anyone can be considered to be a long-term
player, while Dan Paymar toots about it being tied to some dumb royal
cycle baloney? Do you see why there is no such thing as long-term for
humans yet?

Just remember, you haven't done nearly enough sims to understand
anything statistically significant. That would take 100s of sims.

I've played about 225 "sims" in the casinos of Nevada. Care to
qualify that statement?

I can see it now. You go out and lose money and Rob will say, "of
course, you didn't have the discipline to follow my system

exactly." and you will have proven nothing.

Whenever anyone tells me they lost playing one of my strategies,
there's always a reason--and it's so far always been because they got
scared at the higher levels (to them) and didn't do what they said
they were going to do, or because they did not have a clear
understanding of what special plays were and when to use them.

···

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