TRANSFERRED from vpFree: What EXACTLY is wrong with the Rob Singer Strategy ?

[Bill_Velek1]

BANDSTAND54@AOL.COM wrote:

Greetings

I have read a book by Singer and articles on his web page. He claims a ninety
percent win record and over half million in winnings.

Anyone can _claim_ anything, and I am suspicious when such claims can certainly be a means of promoting the sale of any sort of merchandise. If I had land for sale and told you that I had been successfully prospecting for gold on it, would you automatically believe me? I'm not saying that Rob hasn't hit any Royals, etc.; if you play enough, you'll hit some even if you're using the wrong strategy. I'm also not _accusing_ Rob of lying; I'm just saying that I'm _mightly_ suspicious, and if he's not lying, then it's only because he happens to be lucky (no, make that _EXTRAORDINARILY_ LUCKY -- more so than any readers of his books can count on. This is because, on the average -- whether we are speaking about one person playing millions of hands to reach something resembling the long-term, or if we are speaking about millions of people playing only a few hands each as part of a statistical 'pool' -- math and statistics eventually win out to rule the day. Using "Special Plays", which to my knowledge Rob hasn't revealed yet unless he has done so in one of his books (which I won't bother buying to find out), and which he admits deviate from the mathematically correct plays, defies probability to a great enough extent that I just don't believe him, personally, when he says that he has won that much. I don't care _what_ strategy you use -- Singers, or absolutely perfect max-ER, or any of Steve Jacob's 'alternative' strategies -- if we are talking about playing very many sessions at all, then the very idea that someone can win 90% of those sessions while playing games that, at best, have an edge of only a percent or two (if you can even find any like that), is simply _ABSURD_. I think we can safely assume that Rob Singer -- "Professional Gambler" -- probably has at least several hundreds, if not thousands, of sessions under his belt, and the only way that he could have managed to be able to quit while ahead for 90% of those sessions is EXTREME luck, which is always slightly possible but has nothing at all to do with his 'special plays' unless he happens to also be clairvoyant. Yet he sells his system as though it is logically sound and can be used by others with the expectations that they will probably have a similar experience, and that just isn't possible; rather, the _VAST_MAJORITY_ of people who use Rob's method, and therefore deviate from mathematically correct play, will LOSE. Period. So you have now been warned.

Although his thinking
is unconventional by mainstream standards and there is a personality conflict
among the "gurus" I see no reason to dismiss his strategy.

_You_ might not see a reason to dismiss his strategy, but anyone who understands math and statistics and simple logic will. I don't mean for that to sound condescending, but it is the truth. There are all sorts of systems out there, such as the Martindale, and they seem reasonable enough to a lot of people who are good folks who want to believe, but they just aren't able to grasp why those systems are flawed. Someone just posted recently that it seems that most jackpots are won early during a session ... perhaps within the first 300 hands ... and based on that he suggested (hopefully tongue in cheek, because he used a smiley face in a _later_ post) ... he suggested that this could be used as a basis for altering strategy after 300 hands. That is pure nonsense.

Aside from your personal feelings about the man..what problem do you have
with his method of play?

It is mathematically flawed and illogical, and it misleads people into using what can only, on average, be more of a losing strategy than mathematically correct play. Personally, I also think he is ... how should I say this ... "making grossly exaggerated claims" to help sell his book(s), and possibly for other reasons.

As far as I know Rob has not flown an airplane into any casino lately.

No, ... but he is capable of acting with considerable hostility on these groups, and is not very much of a gentleman, IMHO.

Just my opinions. Good luck.

Bill Velek

[Dan_Cox]

Why Bill Velek is wrong (several reasons).
By Rob Singer

Bill Velek seems to have an opinion on everything from drinking too
much (which shouldn't be funny to ANYONE having any kind of
responsibilities) to playing nickles on video poker. And he has a
solid knack for writing long-winded, repetitious, corny responses to
other people's posts on nearly every subject. He says he's a lawyer,
and I believe every bit of THAT. Why? Because even the clearest of
concepts sail far over his head. He believes I claim to win so often
because I'm promoting the sales of something--my book, I presume. So
what about the shameless promoting tactics utilized by his Queen, or
the self-serving "buy everything I've got to sell and give me more of
your money at my classes" Bob Dancer, who long ago has sold his soul
to the other side of the fence? I've long ago stopped taking any
royalties from the most popular video poker book of all time (because
of its straightforwardness and fearless telling of the truth) opting
instead to having any profits go straight to my webmaster -
regardless of the value - who has designed the most impressive,
informative, and useful video poker site on the web, and it continues
to evolve. I don't want...or need...anyone else's money. That should
be well-known by the fact that I regularly make trips to train people
and use my own money during many of those sessions--all at no-charge,
and unlike your other pals, I NEVER charge for advice BECAUSE I WIN
AT THE GAME THE GURUS FAIL AT.

I also see where the guru of yesteryear--Dan Paymar--chimed in about
my truthfulness. He doesn't believe me because he doesn't WANT it to
be true that my results are so extreme in the black. He can't come up
with that answer on his slide rule, so to him it just cannot be true.
So be it. But what he and Queenie (who recently sent nasty e-mails
about me to both my publishers--who responded that they always
believed she was a nut-case as well as a self-promoting phony) and
Dancer and Wong and Skip Hughes detest is that not only have I not
disappeared off the map like they all predicted and wanted me to--I
have become more popular and understandable with my common sense
approach to all video poker subjects than they all now are COMBINED.
While Skip continues to scam money from his subjects by serving up
information that can be had at no-charge in far more accurate detail
on VPFree, I continue to thrive as the longest running vp columnist
Gaming Today has ever seen--more than triple the combined runs of
Skip H. and the great Bob 'I live in a 6-month world' Dancer! And I
do it all WITHOUT the incessant selling of piles of video poker junk.
I'm sure Bill will 'drink to that'.

BANDSTAND54@A... wrote:

> Greetings
>
> I have read a book by Singer and articles on his web page. He

claims a

> ninety
> percent win record and over half million in winnings.

Anyone can _claim_ anything, and I am suspicious when such claims

can

certainly be a means of promoting the sale of any sort of

merchandise.

If I had land for sale and told you that I had been successfully
prospecting for gold on it, would you automatically believe me?

I'm not

saying that Rob hasn't hit any Royals, etc.; if you play enough,

you'll

hit some even if you're using the wrong strategy. I'm also not
_accusing_ Rob of lying; I'm just saying that I'm _mightly_

suspicious,

and if he's not lying, then it's only because he happens to be

lucky

(no, make that _EXTRAORDINARILY_ LUCKY -- more so than any readers

of

his books can count on. This is because, on the average -- whether

we

are speaking about one person playing millions of hands to reach
something resembling the long-term, or if we are speaking about

millions

of people playing only a few hands each as part of a

statistical 'pool'

-- math and statistics eventually win out to rule the day. Using
"Special Plays", which to my knowledge Rob hasn't revealed yet

unless he

has done so in one of his books (which I won't bother buying to

find

out), and which he admits deviate from the mathematically correct

plays,

defies probability to a great enough extent that I just don't

believe

him, personally, when he says that he has won that much. I don't

care

_what_ strategy you use -- Singers, or absolutely perfect max-ER,

or any

of Steve Jacob's 'alternative' strategies -- if we are talking

about

playing very many sessions at all, then the very idea that someone

can

win 90% of those sessions while playing games that, at best, have

an

edge of only a percent or two (if you can even find any like that),

is

simply _ABSURD_. I think we can safely assume that Rob Singer --
"Professional Gambler" -- probably has at least several hundreds,

if not

thousands, of sessions under his belt, and the only way that he

could

have managed to be able to quit while ahead for 90% of those

sessions is

EXTREME luck, which is always slightly possible but has nothing at

all

to do with his 'special plays' unless he happens to also be
clairvoyant. Yet he sells his system as though it is logically

sound

and can be used by others with the expectations that they will

probably

have a similar experience, and that just isn't possible; rather,

the

_VAST_MAJORITY_ of people who use Rob's method, and therefore

deviate

from mathematically correct play, will LOSE. Period. So you have

now

been warned.

> Although his thinking
> is unconventional by mainstream standards and there is a

personality

> conflict
> among the "gurus" I see no reason to dismiss his strategy.

_You_ might not see a reason to dismiss his strategy, but anyone

who

understands math and statistics and simple logic will. I don't

mean for

that to sound condescending, but it is the truth. There are all

sorts

of systems out there, such as the Martindale, and they seem

reasonable

enough to a lot of people who are good folks who want to believe,

but

they just aren't able to grasp why those systems are flawed.

Someone

just posted recently that it seems that most jackpots are won early
during a session ... perhaps within the first 300 hands ... and

based on

that he suggested (hopefully tongue in cheek, because he used a

smiley

face in a _later_ post) ... he suggested that this could be used as

a

basis for altering strategy after 300 hands. That is pure nonsense.

> Aside from your personal feelings about the man..what problem do

you have

> with his method of play?

It is mathematically flawed and illogical, and it misleads people

into

using what can only, on average, be more of a losing strategy than
mathematically correct play. Personally, I also think he is ...

how

should I say this ... "making grossly exaggerated claims" to help

sell

his book(s), and possibly for other reasons.

> As far as I know Rob has not flown an airplane into any casino

lately.

No, ... but he is capable of acting with considerable hostility on

these

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Velek <billvelek@a...> wrote:

groups, and is not very much of a gentleman, IMHO.

Just my opinions. Good luck.

Bill Velek