Singer revisited

[Brent_Evans]

I still don’t get the vehemence of hostility toward Rob Singer. It seems that I need to state that I’m not Rob Singer and not his sock puppet. O.K., I’m not Rob. I just don’t understand why he is usually singled-out for ridicule. His theories don’t seem too far-fetched.
   
  I read his first book and from what I’ve read there and on his site, his advice is:
   
  - Plan your play and work your plan.
  - Never play short; have an adequate bankroll proportional to the amount of action you want.
  - Set win goals and loss limits. (Singer’s suggested win goal is <15% of playable bankroll.)
  - Quit while you’re ahead.
   
  Is this arguable? These same points were made by John Patrick over twenty years ago and invoked by most every writer on gambling since then without a peep from detractors.
   
  My response here was triggered when a prior post linked to Harry Porter’s discussion of tournament play. One of the things he said that stuck with me was that variance is the tournament player's ally. I’ll suggest that an overwhelming number of VP players are always going to be in “tournament play.” For us, perfect play is an abstraction, unlikely to be obtained in live play, sims success notwithstanding.
   
  All of the paytables I’ve seen require us to hit a RF to achieve an EV of 100% or greater. I read the digests and numerous players have remarked that they didn’t get a royal for years. I’m not a math guy, but to me, having less than 100% return paytables means that even perfect play will fall short over time. Experts may screw up fewer times than I do, but they’ll still need volatility to win.
   
  If you accept that over the number of hands that we are likely to play in our lifetime, variance, luck if you will, is necessary to win, what’s the problem with Singer?
   
  He switches games to change volatility and his up-on-loss progressions are similar to many progression/regression systems used in a surfeit of casino games. The plateau of denominations seems to work because the payoff ratios, e.g., 125, 4000, are very high when compared to other casino games.
   
  I don’t want this to turn into an “I hate Rob” thread as I’m looking for enlightenment, but the fact that he’s wrong is taken as a fait accompli, and I think that’s unwarranted.

···

---------------------------------
Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.

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

[King_Fish]

Not sure where you were looking, but John Patrick has elicited howls
of laughter from knowledgeable players for a long, long time.

···

On 8/29/07, Brent Evans <brentevans73@yahoo.com> wrote:

Is this arguable? These same points were made by John Patrick
over twenty years ago and invoked by most every writer on gambling
since then without a peep from detractors.

[mroejacks]

I still don't get the vehemence of hostility toward Rob Singer. It

seems that I need to state that I'm not Rob Singer and not his sock
puppet. O.K., I'm not Rob. I just don't understand why he is usually
singled-out for ridicule. His theories don't seem too far-fetched.

   
  I read his first book and from what I've read there and on his

site, his advice is:

   
  - Plan your play and work your plan.
  - Never play short; have an adequate bankroll

proportional to the amount of action you want.

  - Set win goals and loss limits. (Singer's suggested win

goal is <15% of playable bankroll.)

  - Quit while you're ahead.

There is nothing inherently wrong with any of these. However, they
have nothing to do with the system of play he promotes. He states
that you can WIN over time playing negative games. Ever wonder why he
doesn't have a whole herd of supporters? Given his claim of over 6000
newletter recipients you'd think more of them would be vocal
supporters. The reason you won't find very many of them is obvious
when you understand the math.

  Is this arguable? These same points were made by John Patrick

over twenty years ago and invoked by most every writer on gambling
since then without a peep from detractors.

   
  My response here was triggered when a prior post linked to Harry

Porter's discussion of tournament play. One of the things he said
that stuck with me was that variance is the tournament player's ally.
I'll suggest that an overwhelming number of VP players are always
going to be in "tournament play." For us, perfect play is an
abstraction, unlikely to be obtained in live play, sims success
notwithstanding.

Suggest all you want. I doubt anyone will accept it without something
to back up your assertion.

  All of the paytables I've seen require us to hit a RF to achieve

an EV of 100% or greater. I read the digests and numerous players
have remarked that they didn't get a royal for years. I'm not a math
guy, but to me, having less than 100% return paytables means that
even perfect play will fall short over time. Experts may screw up
fewer times than I do, but they'll still need volatility to win.

This is wrong. Volatility has nothing to do with winning or
losing "over time". Playing positive paytables will give a player the
BEST chance to win over time. The more positive the better the
chances.

  If you accept that over the number of hands that we are likely to

play in our lifetime, variance, luck if you will, is necessary to
win, what's the problem with Singer?

I don't accept your premise and I think you'll find most posters on
this forum will not accept it either. Not only that, the changes
Singer promotes will not change your "luck". So it can't help you
anyway.

  He switches games to change volatility and his up-on-loss

progressions are similar to many progression/regression systems used
in a surfeit of casino games. The plateau of denominations seems to
work because the payoff ratios, e.g., 125, 4000, are very high when
compared to other casino games.

This is pure garbage. Every VP hand is independent of every other
hand. No betting scheme can help. You can take each level of the
progression and examine it. What you find is it is no different than
single denom play at the denom. The payback over time will approach
the ER of the game. So, if this is true for all denoms in a
progression how can it ever change the overall payback of the game.
Easy answer ... it can't.

  I don't want this to turn into an "I hate Rob" thread as I'm

looking for enlightenment, but the fact that he's wrong is taken as a
fait accompli, and I think that's unwarranted.

You stated you weren't a math guy ... but if you believe Singer's not
wrong then your stating VP math doesn't work. The math is simple and
the reason it's accepted is so many have succeeded using it.

The reason Singer is disliked by many people has nothing to do with
his system. It's primarily the way he treats people who disagree with
him.

If you want to discuss this further I would suggest posting to
freeVPfree where I can give more details.

Dick

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Brent Evans <brentevans73@...> wrote: