vpFREE2 Forums

Rob Singer

#1

There is a lot of criticism on this board of Rob Singer. For example, one fellow wrote recently and I quote: " Some good would come from allowing Rob Singer to post here. By allowing him to post foolish theories and letting the rest of the board have at it, it would help people who may be taken in by his other advertisements to understand the error in his reasoning". This message would have been all right had not the word "foolish" been in there. Sure, it is not a big deal, but why use this word. It makes the whole message unnecessarily aggressive. Also, " Some good would come from allowing Rob Singer to post here". Who has the right to allow or not to allow. As long as a message is polite and does not attack anybody aggressively and is based on facts and opinions, not even our administrator, whom I personally respect very much for his work, has the moral right to expel this person. And this person, Rob Singer, contributes a lot more to this group than some others who criticize.

Why bash Rob for his way of gambling? As I see it he just adapted and modified a method used for 100 years by Roulette players who doubled their bet until at the end they got their money back and a little bit more. I don't want to dig too deep into this, but if Rob is happy with this system why not let him do it? After all, we gamble to have fun, don't we? I myself always play little mental games while I play and that gives me so much fun, I would not miss it. And when my wife is a little bit depressed when we have a bad day and lose 1000 Dollars I tell her not to worry about the loss because it is true, we lost 1000 $, but we had fun worth 1150 Dollars. It is all relative.

The great Mao Tse Tung said: Many roads lead to Rome, and Helmut says: There are many ways to gamble.

Administrator: I know this message is far too long. If you want, cut half of it off and throw the other half away. But I had to get this Rob-Bashing thing off my chest.

Helmut

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#2

In the past, Rob criticized the various respected gurus to the point
that his posts were very offensive. Bob Dancer, Jean Scott and others
were put down so far, that it is a miracle that they were able to
resume their various activities.
In doing so, he proved that he was not a desirable poster on this
board.

···

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 15:21:15 -0700, you wrote:

There is a lot of criticism on this board of Rob Singer. For example, one fellow wrote recently and I quote: " Some good would come from allowing Rob Singer to post here. By allowing him to post foolish theories and letting the rest of the board have at it, it would help people who may be taken in by his other advertisements to understand the error in his reasoning". This message would have been all right had not the word "foolish" been in there. Sure, it is not a big deal, but why use this word. It makes the whole message unnecessarily aggressive. Also, " Some good would come from allowing Rob Singer to post here". Who has the right to allow or not to allow. As long as a message is polite and does not attack anybody aggressively and is based on facts and opinions, not even our administrator, whom I personally respect very much for his work, has the moral right to expel this person. And this person, Rob Singer, contributes a lot more to this group than some others who criticize.

Why bash Rob for his way of gambling? As I see it he just adapted and modified a method used for 100 years by Roulette players who doubled their bet until at the end they got their money back and a little bit more. I don't want to dig too deep into this, but if Rob is happy with this system why not let him do it? After all, we gamble to have fun, don't we? I myself always play little mental games while I play and that gives me so much fun, I would not miss it. And when my wife is a little bit depressed when we have a bad day and lose 1000 Dollars I tell her not to worry about the loss because it is true, we lost 1000 $, but we had fun worth 1150 Dollars. It is all relative.

The great Mao Tse Tung said: Many roads lead to Rome, and Helmut says: There are many ways to gamble.

Administrator: I know this message is far too long. If you want, cut half of it off and throw the other half away. But I had to get this Rob-Bashing thing off my chest.

Helmut

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#3

Wow! 2 channels/forums (WinPoker and vpFree) = same news Rob Singer
Eat your heart out American Idol and So You Think You Can Dance.

When Rob Sings, Bob Dances, and Dan PaysMore (what a combo)

Past is past. This is the USA where even some murderers are given
that "2nd chance" in life. Is RS really gonna put down the others
now as he did before (according to many)? Has he done this more
than once? If not, maybe he should be given a 2nd chance!?

If he does it again, maybe someone can persuade him to join in and
maybe he show the military his technique on catching the "Royal
Trash" using the "short term" strategy.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Elliott L. Shapiro
<elliotts2345@e...> wrote:

In the past, Rob criticized the various respected gurus to the

point

that his posts were very offensive. Bob Dancer, Jean Scott and

others

were put down so far, that it is a miracle that they were able to
resume their various activities.
In doing so, he proved that he was not a desirable poster on this
board.

>There is a lot of criticism on this board of Rob Singer. For

example, one fellow wrote recently and I quote: " Some good would
come from allowing Rob Singer to post here. By allowing him to post
foolish theories and letting the rest of the board have at it, it
would help people who may be taken in by his other advertisements to
understand the error in his reasoning". This message would have been
all right had not the word "foolish" been in there. Sure, it is not
a big deal, but why use this word. It makes the whole message
unnecessarily aggressive. Also, " Some good would come from allowing
Rob Singer to post here". Who has the right to allow or not to
allow. As long as a message is polite and does not attack anybody
aggressively and is based on facts and opinions, not even our
administrator, whom I personally respect very much for his work, has
the moral right to expel this person. And this person, Rob Singer,
contributes a lot more to this group than some others who criticize.

>
>Why bash Rob for his way of gambling? As I see it he just adapted

and modified a method used for 100 years by Roulette players who
doubled their bet until at the end they got their money back and a
little bit more. I don't want to dig too deep into this, but if Rob
is happy with this system why not let him do it? After all, we
gamble to have fun, don't we? I myself always play little mental
games while I play and that gives me so much fun, I would not miss
it. And when my wife is a little bit depressed when we have a bad
day and lose 1000 Dollars I tell her not to worry about the loss
because it is true, we lost 1000 $, but we had fun worth 1150
Dollars. It is all relative.

>
>The great Mao Tse Tung said: Many roads lead to Rome, and Helmut

says: There are many ways to gamble.

>
>Administrator: I know this message is far too long. If you want,

cut half of it off and throw the other half away. But I had to get
this Rob-Bashing thing off my chest.

···

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 15:21:15 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Helmut
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

#4

There can never be enough criticism of him. His putting dangerous
strategies out & "legitimizing" them with his publicity is not "fun".
Foolish is a generous term. At least you recognize you are playing
games with yourself when you fish around off strategy. He never will.
VP not so much fun as in $$ that can help or hurt you.

There is a lot of criticism on this board of Rob Singer. For

example, one fellow wrote recently and I quote: " Some good would
come from allowing Rob Singer to post here. By allowing him to post
foolish theories and letting the rest of the board have at it, it
would help people who may be taken in by his other advertisements to
understand the error in his reasoning". This message would have been
all right had not the word "foolish" been in there. Sure, it is not a
big deal, but why use this word. It makes the whole message
unnecessarily aggressive. Also, " Some good would come from allowing
Rob Singer to post here". Who has the right to allow or not to allow.
As long as a message is polite and does not attack anybody
aggressively and is based on facts and opinions, not even our
administrator, whom I personally respect very much for his work, has
the moral right to expel this person. And this person, Rob Singer,
contributes a lot more to this group than some others who criticize.

Why bash Rob for his way of gambling? As I see it he just adapted

and modified a method used for 100 years by Roulette players who
doubled their bet until at the end they got their money back and a
little bit more. I don't want to dig too deep into this, but if Rob
is happy with this system why not let him do it? After all, we gamble
to have fun, don't we? I myself always play little mental games while
I play and that gives me so much fun, I would not miss it. And when
my wife is a little bit depressed when we have a bad day and lose
1000 Dollars I tell her not to worry about the loss because it is
true, we lost 1000 $, but we had fun worth 1150 Dollars. It is all
relative.

The great Mao Tse Tung said: Many roads lead to Rome, and Helmut

says: There are many ways to gamble.

Administrator: I know this message is far too long. If you want,

cut half of it off and throw the other half away. But I had to get
this Rob-Bashing thing off my chest.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Helmut Wolf" <hewolf@c...> wrote:

Helmut

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#5

There can never be enough criticism of him. His putting dangerous

strategies out & "legitimizing" them with his publicity is not "fun".
Foolish is a generous term. At least you recognize you are playing
games with yourself when you fish around off strategy. He never will.
VP not so much fun as in $$ that can help or hurt you.

Re: this and other posts on RS...... Isn't it wonderful how well we can rant and rave and slam a guy that cannot post to this group and defend himself. What fun. True democracy and freedom of speech at work.

Bob

#6

<<True democracy and freedom of speech at work.>>

I think you have a private mailing list confused with the US Constitution.

This group is for people who want to understand video poker. People who
deliberately post misinformation cannot be criticized too much.

Cogno

#7

People who
deliberately post misinformation cannot be criticized too much.

Another slam and personal opinion, to which, I do not subscribe. I want all the information and make up my own mind, not spoon fed and let around by the nose, by so-called experts.

Bob

#8

<<I want all the information and make up my own mind, not spoon fed and let
around by the nose, by so-called experts.>>

I doubt many would disagree with that sentiment. There are many fields open
to opinion, such as art, music, and literature. Mathematics is not one of
them. It is proved that no progression system can produce an expectation of
profit from a negative-expectation bet. For that information to be wrong,
all of mathematics would have to be wrong.

Cogno

#9

No problem....
Go to freeVPfree and ask Rob Singer to tell you all about how his system works. He will be happy to tell you.
Then you can make up your own mind.
Rob should never be allowed on this Forum, without being strictly moderated. I have had many discussions with him
over the years and can tell you 2 things that even he will not dispute.
1. He is a very prolific poster.
2. He is a very fast typist.

You add those two features together and you can see how this forum could be inundated.

Regards
A.P.

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Bob Sommer - Top of the World Coins
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 3:19 AM
  Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Rob Singer

  > People who
  > deliberately post misinformation cannot be criticized too much.
  >

  Another slam and personal opinion, to which, I do not subscribe. I want
  all the information and make up my own mind, not spoon fed and let
  around by the nose, by so-called experts.

  Bob

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#10

Cogno Scienti wrote:

I doubt many would disagree with that sentiment. There are many
fields open to opinion, such as art, music, and literature.
Mathematics is not one of them. It is proved that no progression
system can produce an expectation of profit from a
negative-expectation bet. For that information to be wrong, all of
mathematics would have to be wrong.

A few simple observations:

Singer's "system" differs from a max-EV approach in that it seeks to
increase the opportunity to "quit while ahead" through increased
variance. That's at the very heart of it and I find it entirely valid
within that framework. No doubt, it doesn't change the underlying EV
of the play one whit. And, it's the epitome of a short-term play system.

Thought of in terms of the recent PDF discussion, variance broadens
out the curve and typically increases the proportion of the curve
(i.e. probability) that lies above any given profit threshold.

Given the substantial increase in loss risk, I don't consider it
prudent for any player that I know personally, nor for most of the
players that participate here to the extent their nature is revealed.
However, show me a player that has their "eyes on the prize" and has
little concern about the downside and I'd have to admit that the
strategy may be appropriate.

···

------

Discussions of this "system" are appropriate here. Discussions of
Singer's tactics, behavior in threads, or any other personal
observation isn't. Such banter, so long as he's excluded from
responding, has no purpose consistent with the aim of this group.

------

I consider any suggestion that Singer misleads players ludicrous.
Players do more than a sufficient job of misleading themselves (if
that's what you want to call play that's not consistent with max-EV)
and tailor their play toward their own personal goals.

While there are some players who've been persuaded by Singer's
arguments to abandon max-EV strategy, of those I've met who espouse
Singer strategy there are none who wouldn't otherwise latch onto some
other non max-EV play style. Further, with few exceptions, those
players who claim to use Singer strategy in their play show every sign
of having distorted his guidance to suit their own psychological
needs. Looseness within that guidance bears some responsibility.

Bottom line, this is truly a case where "Caveat Emptor" applies.
There's no need for a VP Player Protection Agency.

------

'nuf said? :wink:

- Harry

#11

Who said I play off strategy? Do you think I am nuts?
Helmut

···

======================
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Boutot" <vegas_iwish@yahoo.com>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 10:20 PM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Rob Singer

There can never be enough criticism of him. His putting dangerous
strategies out & "legitimizing" them with his publicity is not "fun".
Foolish is a generous term. At least you recognize you are playing
games with yourself when you fish around off strategy. He never will.
VP not so much fun as in $$ that can help or hurt you.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Helmut Wolf" <hewolf@c...> wrote:

There is a lot of criticism on this board of Rob Singer. For

example, one fellow wrote recently and I quote: " Some good would
come from allowing Rob Singer to post here. By allowing him to post
foolish theories and letting the rest of the board have at it, it
would help people who may be taken in by his other advertisements to
understand the error in his reasoning". This message would have been
all right had not the word "foolish" been in there. Sure, it is not a
big deal, but why use this word. It makes the whole message
unnecessarily aggressive. Also, " Some good would come from allowing
Rob Singer to post here". Who has the right to allow or not to allow.
As long as a message is polite and does not attack anybody
aggressively and is based on facts and opinions, not even our
administrator, whom I personally respect very much for his work, has
the moral right to expel this person. And this person, Rob Singer,
contributes a lot more to this group than some others who criticize.

Why bash Rob for his way of gambling? As I see it he just adapted

and modified a method used for 100 years by Roulette players who
doubled their bet until at the end they got their money back and a
little bit more. I don't want to dig too deep into this, but if Rob
is happy with this system why not let him do it? After all, we gamble
to have fun, don't we? I myself always play little mental games while
I play and that gives me so much fun, I would not miss it. And when
my wife is a little bit depressed when we have a bad day and lose
1000 Dollars I tell her not to worry about the loss because it is
true, we lost 1000 $, but we had fun worth 1150 Dollars. It is all
relative.

The great Mao Tse Tung said: Many roads lead to Rome, and Helmut

says: There are many ways to gamble.

Administrator: I know this message is far too long. If you want,

cut half of it off and throw the other half away. But I had to get
this Rob-Bashing thing off my chest.

Helmut

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#12

Albert Pearson wrote:

Rob should never be allowed on this Forum, without being strictly
moderated. I have had many discussions with him over the years and
can tell you 2 things that even he will not dispute.
1. He is a very prolific poster.
2. He is a very fast typist.

On these 2 counts, I'm keeping my eye on my inbox for my moderation
notice :wink:

- H.

(no argument with your initial statement)

#13

Another slam and personal opinion, to which, I do not subscribe. I

want

all the information and make up my own mind, not spoon fed and let
around by the nose, by so-called experts.

Bob

I invite you to take a look at RS's recent exchanges on VPFREE and I
think you'll change your mind. Lot's of heat, very little light. IMHO

#14

<<I consider any suggestion that Singer misleads players ludicrous.>>

I concluded years ago that his claims of being a consistent winner using his
system are fictitious, and I don't see how anyone can consider that anything
but misleading. I recall computing the risk of having a losing session using
his strategy (less the secret sub-optimal-ER play variations) to be
somewhere between one out of every six and seven trials, which is in fact
what he reports on his web site. However, he seems to understate his average
loss for the losing sessions of only $4048 versus the total possible loss
per session of $57,200, claiming a large overall win. He claims a maximum
loss of $33,960, which means the average loss for the rest of his 30 losing
sessions is only $3050.93. Given that a loss under his system involves
losing 400 credits at the highest denomination machines, less the cashouts
made from going ahead 40 credits in a session, plus the losses from all the
previous denominations, this average seems impossible to achieve unless the
$33,960 loss was the only time he ever advanced past the $5 level and lost.
He claims to have made it through the $100 level "a few times," so he either
was extremely lucky, selectively edited out big losing sessions, or simply
made up the results.

I tried his system myself on a simulator and quickly booked a net loss, as
mathematically expected. The more time passed, the more unlikely that claim
became, and his refusal to allow anyone to watch him play removed, for me,
the consideration that he was simply having extremely good luck.

He writes on his web site:

<< I was on a mission to expose all the misleading information being dished
out daily by every other video poker writer around.>>

That is clearly misleading. Most other video poker writers do not dish out
daily disinformation as he claims.

<<These mathematical models, probability theories, nonsensical risk-of-ruin
calculation charts, and of-no-added-value bankroll requirement spreadsheets
all LOOKED good to people because of their irrefutable basis in math, but
have no validity to players wanting to gamble TODAY to win money.>>

They are irrefutable, but have no validity? What could he mean?

I think it's important to point out the pattern of deliberate misinformation
in order to protect the casual reader from being taken in.

Cogno