vpFREE2 Forums

Why Rob Singer should be banned from EVERY vp group -- because he's no gentleman!

#1

Bill, and everyone...

I read your entire post, Bill, and as a relative newcomer to this group I'm sorry to see that there's so much static between a few members. It became obvious to me in just the first few days that many group members have a problem with Rob Singer, although at that time I had no idea who is, or why his posts were unwelcome.

Since then, a few people have told me about Rob. Also since then, I've gone out of my way to read some of his columns, including his latest. While I don't agree with much of what he's saying, there's certainly nothing offensive about the columns, themselves. I do agree with some of what he says, i.e. that luck plays a huge part in success, but I think he puts much too little value on striving for perfect play, because let's face it, you've got to be sitting there when luck "happens" in order to take advantage of it, and good play usually keeps you there longer.

That said, I understand that Rob Singer is abrasive at times, and in this case, perhaps even offensive. But this alleged incident (and as an attorney, Bill, you understand that this incident is alleged, however true it may really be) took place in another group, another site, totally seperate from this one. Maybe his remarks were cruel, stupid and intentionally hurtful. If deemed so, maybe he should be banned from the group in which he made those remarks.

But he didn't say it here. I had heard early on that he's been banned here already. If so, there are sure a lot of people acting as if he's still posting every day!

I agree that important to keep conversations relatively impersonal and relatively polite. But no one should be banned from a site because of what they allegedly said on different site, regardless of what people might think of that person personally. Singer's remarks on that other site may have been despicable, and if he broke the rules of that site, he'll probably get banned.

Also Bill, I know what it's like to get slammed. As a craps "expert" with many articles under my belt, I was slammed bigtime by a faction on the Compuserve forum a couple of years ago. It's an unfortunate part of the mix, and usually these kinds of offenders are weeded out by being systematically ignored.

Hang in there!

lb

If it had happened on this site, it would be understand

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Bill Velek
  To: vp_heaven@yahoogroups.com ; vpFREE@yahoogroups.com ; winpoker@yahoogroups.com ; frugalvp@yahoogroups.com ; Tunica_Travelers@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 9:13 PM
  Subject: [vpFREE] Why Rob Singer should be banned from EVERY vp group -- because he's no gentleman!

  For those who think that this is off-topic, I apologize; just had to get
  this off my chest. I'm cross-posting this message to a few of my other
  regular groups because I'd like folks, including newbies, to see a prime
  example of why Rob Singer has been banned on at least one VP group, and
  why we'd all be better off without him on ANY of these groups.

  Awhile back I added Rob Singer to my e-mail filter which automatically
  deletes all messages coming from him; I did this not because I dislike
  Rob, but because I was uninterested in most of what he writes. I must
  confess that I have made a _few_ comments, from time to time, about his
  flawed 'system', but I can't honestly remember saying anything bad about
  him, as a person, except perhaps that he doesn't seem to understand or
  believe mathematics -- something I find difficult to believe of someone
  who is supposed to be an engineer (at least that's what I've heard).

  Now I find this unwarranted, extremely distorted, and shamefully ugly
  post about me on VP_Heaven, which I will now try to straighten out.
  Then I am going to cancel my membership in that group so that I will
  never need to read such drivel from him again, and I hope and implore
  the moderators of my other favorite groups to PLEASE never let this guy
  join our group.

  Rob's post was prompted by this innocent comment I had put on VP_Heaven,
  which made absolutely no reference whatsoever to Rob Singer or his 'system':

  >>Why? Everyone who plays VP plays just a single session in life; it
  >>starts with the first game of their life, and it ends with the last
  >>game of their life. Pauses in your play during that single session
  >>are mere intermissions -- whether they are 5 minutes to run to the
  >>bathroom, an hour to get something to eat, 6 to 8 hours to get some
  >>sleep, a week until the next weekend excursion, or a year until the
  >>next trip to Vegas. The machines have no idea how long you're gone.
  >>
  >>My goal is always to have a good time with the money I've brought.
  >>If I'm ahead, I don't stop playing -- I play for as long as I had
  >>originally planned. If I'm behind, I keep on playing for as long as
  >>I had originally planned -- so long as I still have the money I've
  >>budgeted. Naturally, if I run out, I'm sensible enough to quit
  >>without wiring home for the mortgage money. :-/

  And for THAT, Rob Singer - Professional Gambler :-), with whom I haven't
  communicated in months, saw fit to try to tear me apart by posting this
  shameful reply (my comments are interspersed between his):

  >In a message dated 10/23/2002 7:41:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
  >rsinger1111@cox.net writes:
  >
  >Marsha: Remember, this guy posted that he goes to casinos to play one
  >nickel at a time ...

  Actually, I usually play one _quarter_ at a time because the odds are
  better than the nickel machines; however, I'm not too proud to admit
  that I have _often_ played nickels, and if I could find JOB 9/6 on a
  nickel machine, especially at a bar, then I'd play it rather than
  quarters -- and yes, I'd probably play one nickel at a time. It's my
  money, my time, and my own business. If I have fun doing that, why
  would Rob or anyone else care a hoot?

  >... and sit at the bars to get as loaded as possible before he crashes

  I won't deny that I like to drink, but I never said that I sit there and
  get loaded. And I never said that I _ever_ drive after I've been
  drinking; the fact is that I get a pretty good buzz, but my wife does
  all the driving -- and she _might_ have one, or at the most, two alcohol
  beverages all day long. But just like Rob always grossly exaggerates
  just about every thing that comes out of his mouth, so he's done it now
  with this defamatory statement about me.

  >... and loses his allotted $80 per trip to somewhere in the South where
  >he plays.

  That would be in 'Tunica', Rob. Well, I don't need to be a big spender
  like Rob to have a good time. I guess I'm just a cheapskate; is that a
  crime? As long as I _tip_ well, which I _always_do_, I don't see why
  the amount that I budget is anyone's concern. Maybe I can afford to
  lose more ... and maybe I can't. That's my business.

  >... Supposedly, his wife supports this ironic behavior of a man who
  >purports to be a DWI attorney. ...

  Irony?! What? That I drink but _DON'T_ drive, ... and yet I'm a DWI
  attorney? _ALMOST_ irony, Rob, but you didn't quite make it, as usual.
    And I never said what my wife supports, approves, disapproves, or how
  she feels about anything. She doesn't like me to smoke, and I smoke.
  I'm sure she doesn't like me eating as much as I do, since I'm
  overweight. And she probably doesn't care that I drink as much as I do,
  since she drinks hardly anything. So, ... is she supposed to divorce
  me? ... or never come to the casinos with me? ... or nag me while I'm
  gambling?

  >... And I believe he is. It's easy for him to say
  >that we play just one loooong session. He doesn't really know whether he's
  >coming or going, ...

  Yet _another_ personal attack, without any factual basis whatsoever.

  >... and it shows in the foolish and incomprehensible posts he makes.

  I'm surprised you bother trying to read them, Rob, if you find them so
  foolish and incomprehensible. At least I was smart enough to start
  filtering you when I felt that way about your posts; the only reason I
  saw this was that someone else repeated it. And I can well understand
  how my posts would be incomprehensible to you; maybe my posts are the
  problem ... do you think? I'd be much more concerned if the many people
  I respect and admire on these groups shared your sentiments, but somehow
  I doubt that this is true -- judging from the numerous conversations
  I've had with those folks.

  >He's continually soft as a grape in what he writes, ...

  Soft? Because I'm generally pretty damned polite? ... apologetic when I
  make a mistake? ... and gentlemanly? It's called "good manners", Rob.

  >using no thought
  >or understanding other than that which supposedly tells him why he cannot
  >win. ...

  Well, I'm not the brightest nor the most gifted, and I've made my share
  of mistakes -- which I've openly admitted here from time to time. But
  at least I'm trying to learn and understand, rather than close-mindedly
  insisting that I'm right and the all the other professional gamblers and
  mathematicians are wrong. And I try my best to share what I've learned
  with newbies, rather than to mislead them; yes, Rob, if your system
  'really' worked, you are nonetheless misleading newbies by not fully
  explaining all of your secret 'special plays'.

  >... He's an amateur loser, ...

  As opposed to a _professional_ loser?

  >... and all he does is seek attention ...

  You've posted constant rants, rambling and drivel, and have participated
  in _EXTENSIVE_ flame wars and quarrels -- constantly and repeatedly
  wasting Internet resources and the time of most members -- all in the
  defense of your _inflated_ego_, and now you have the audacity to say
  that all I do is seek attention.

  >... on these boards with posts of wonder laced with corn.

  ?? Whatever! The rest of Rob's nonsensical juvenile tirade is snipped.

  *****

  Anyway, if anyone other than Rob has actually taken the time to read to
  the end of this post, let me express my appreciation to all those of you
  on VP_Heaven who have offered a warm welcome and useful advice. I hope
  to continue exchanges with you fine folks on the various other groups
  where I post, such as WinPoker, VP_Free, Frugal Video Poker, and Tunica
  Travelers, but VP_Heaven has now lost all appeal to me; my final act
  regarding VPHeaven will be to visit the Yahoogroups website and
  terminate my membership.

  Bill Velek

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
  vpFREE Home Page:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE

  vpFREE Links:
  http://www.lvcm.com/tomesims/VP/Links.html

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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

#2

Since then, a few people have told me about Rob. Also since then, I've

gone out of my way

to read some of his columns, including his latest. While I don't agree

with much of what

he's saying, there's certainly nothing offensive about the columns,

themselves.

  I must disagree. Exposing a novice or not real bright person his system
is a lot like giving that person a can of kerosene and a book of matches and
telling him or her that using them on their money will have a beneficial
result.
His advice is irresponsible and dangerous.

I do agree with some of what he says, i.e. that luck plays a huge part in

success,

  That is not at all the case. Even in fairly short sessions, a bad game
will
be a lot tougher on your bankroll than a good one. A bad day of FPDW might
cost
you 3 or 4 hundred. On 9-5 DDB, that same bad day would probably cost you a
grand.
The argument that, in the short term, it is not important what game you play
is just plain wrong. Even if we make the comparison between 2 similar
games, the
impact is clear. Look at 9-6 JOB vs. 8-6 JOB. If you play a few sessions,
let's say
20,000 hands of dollar play, you will expect to be about thousand dollars
better off
if you choose the 9-6 game. This is much closer to the short term than the
long
term. If you happen to run good in this run, you will might win $1,000 on
the 8-6
game, but had you been on the 9-6 game, you would be up $2,000. So, if you
win on
a bad game in the short term, you will still win a lot less than you would
win on
a better game, assuming equally good luck.

but I think he puts much too little value on striving for perfect play,

because let's

face it, you've got to be sitting there when luck "happens" in order to

take advantage

of it, and good play usually keeps you there longer.

  Right. Winning VP is a war of patience. You have to survive the bad hands
with relatively small losses so that when the big hands come, you actually
have a
profit.

  QZ

#3

If you discount the role of luck completely, you are wrong. Even professional card counters know that they've got to be lucky in addition to being good. Trying to eliminate luck as a factor is just as misleading as it is to tell a novice that he can "bull" his way through a session relying on luck alone.

There is absolutely no question that correct play is extremely important because it keeps a player in the game longer. In a sense, if it makes you feel better about it, being good helps you make your own luck. But perfect play, all by itself, isn't enough, and it's misleading to act as if it is.

lb

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Quad Zilla
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 12:56 AM
  Subject: RE: [vpFREE] Why Rob Singer should be banned from EVERY vp group -- because he's no gentleman!

  > Since then, a few people have told me about Rob. Also since then, I've
  gone out of my way
  > to read some of his columns, including his latest. While I don't agree
  with much of what
  > he's saying, there's certainly nothing offensive about the columns,
  themselves.

        I must disagree. Exposing a novice or not real bright person his system
  is a lot like giving that person a can of kerosene and a book of matches and
  telling him or her that using them on their money will have a beneficial
  result.
  His advice is irresponsible and dangerous.

  > I do agree with some of what he says, i.e. that luck plays a huge part in
  success,

        That is not at all the case. Even in fairly short sessions, a bad game
  will
  be a lot tougher on your bankroll than a good one. A bad day of FPDW might
  cost
  you 3 or 4 hundred. On 9-5 DDB, that same bad day would probably cost you a
  grand.
  The argument that, in the short term, it is not important what game you play
  is just plain wrong. Even if we make the comparison between 2 similar
  games, the
  impact is clear. Look at 9-6 JOB vs. 8-6 JOB. If you play a few sessions,
  let's say
  20,000 hands of dollar play, you will expect to be about thousand dollars
  better off
  if you choose the 9-6 game. This is much closer to the short term than the
  long
  term. If you happen to run good in this run, you will might win $1,000 on
  the 8-6
  game, but had you been on the 9-6 game, you would be up $2,000. So, if you
  win on
  a bad game in the short term, you will still win a lot less than you would
  win on
  a better game, assuming equally good luck.

  > but I think he puts much too little value on striving for perfect play,
  because let's
  > face it, you've got to be sitting there when luck "happens" in order to
  take advantage
  > of it, and good play usually keeps you there longer.

        Right. Winning VP is a war of patience. You have to survive the bad hands
  with relatively small losses so that when the big hands come, you actually
  have a
  profit.

        QZ

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
  vpFREE Home Page:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE

  vpFREE Links:
  http://www.lvcm.com/tomesims/VP/Links.html

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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

#4

If you discount the role of luck completely, you are wrong. Even professional
card counters know that they've got to be lucky in addition to being good.

Well, the true professional card counters I know don't rely on luck. They totally
rely on good play and bankroll. To do anything else is setting yourself up for a high
risk of ruin. They'll also do anything else that is legal to get an edge. (I'm not a pro
card counter, but I know a few - as does the list moderator.)

Trying to eliminate luck as a factor is just as misleading as it is to tell a novice
that he can "bull" his way through a session relying on luck alone.

For negative EV games only the standard deviation, commonly referred to as
luck will get you a win. For a positive EV game, proper bankroll and flawless play
is the key. The bankroll is what kills a lot of wannabe pros in all games.

···

From: Lawrence Boxer <ljboxer@earthlink.net>

#5

Well, the true professional card counters I know don't rely on luck. They totally

rely on good play and bankroll. To do anything else is setting yourself up for a high risk of ruin. They'll also do anything else that is legal to get an edge.<<

EH, I never said card counters *rely* on luck. I said that they know that luck plays a role in their results. That, in part, is the reason for the huge bankroll required. Big Players bet big when they "know" the tens are coming. But if the tens don't come, due to deviations in distribution, they're still in the game for when things go right. Unexpected deviations are, in essence, bad luck. Counters know what should happen, but sometimes it just doesn't happen. Even the best counters don't win every time.

For a positive EV game, proper bankroll and flawless play is the key. The bankroll is what kills a lot of wannabe pros in all games.<<

Well, some people say that even in short sessions, which you'd assume would have a lower bankroll, perfect play translates to a win. You're saying that perfect play is the determining factor, *if* the bankroll is high enough. IOW, if you play correctly and have enough money to keep churning, ultimately you will win? And that's not misleading and dangerous to novice players or those who are, to quote another post, "not to bright?"

A few facts (not theories):

All casino games are designed to give the edge to the house. The only beatable popular game in the casino is BJ, because it is the only game where what *has* happened has an effect on what *will* happen, and so is to some degree forecastable.

No player at a game in which the payoffs are based on a distribution curve can reasonably *expect* to see that curve reflected at any given time. Any distribution curve is a reflection of what will happen over a very long time. Few players are at any given game long enough to witness that distribution.

What most players actually do see are deviations in the curve. When all the deviations are added up, over time, the normal distribution curve then emerges. Always. The House is always there for the normal curve, but players rarely are there for it. For that reason...

...the house will beat the pool of players all the time, regardless of whether there are some individual winners.

Perfect play is important. It's very, very, very important. So is luck.

lb

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Edmund Hack
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 6:55 PM
  Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Why Rob Singer should be banned from EVERY vp group -- because he's no gentleman!

  From: Lawrence Boxer <ljboxer@earthlink.net>

  > If you discount the role of luck completely, you are wrong. Even professional
  > card counters know that they've got to be lucky in addition to being good.

  Well, the true professional card counters I know don't rely on luck. They totally
  rely on good play and bankroll. To do anything else is setting yourself up for a high
  risk of ruin. They'll also do anything else that is legal to get an edge. (I'm not a pro
  card counter, but I know a few - as does the list moderator.)

  > Trying to eliminate luck as a factor is just as misleading as it is to tell a novice
  > that he can "bull" his way through a session relying on luck alone.

  For negative EV games only the standard deviation, commonly referred to as
  luck will get you a win. For a positive EV game, proper bankroll and flawless play
  is the key. The bankroll is what kills a lot of wannabe pros in all games.

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
  vpFREE Home Page:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE

  vpFREE Links:
  http://www.lvcm.com/tomesims/VP/Links.html

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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

#6

What exactly are you saying? Average luck is plenty sufficient,
given the other necessities.

gj

···

On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Lawrence Boxer wrote:

If you discount the role of luck completely, you are wrong. Even professional card counters
know that they've got to be lucky in addition to being good. Trying to eliminate luck as a
factor is just as misleading as it is to tell a novice that he can "bull" his way through a
session relying on luck alone.

There is absolutely no question that correct play is extremely important because it keeps a
player in the game longer. In a sense, if it makes you feel better about it, being good helps
you make your own luck. But perfect play, all by itself, isn't enough, and it's misleading to
act as if it is.

lb

#7

--- In vpFREE@y..., "Lawrence Boxer" <ljboxer@e...> wrote:

A few facts (not theories):

All casino games are designed to give the edge to the house. The

only beatable popular game in the casino is BJ, because it is the
only game where what *has* happened has an effect on what *will*
happen, and so is to some degree forecastable.

I suspect there may be a few people here who dispute this fact:-)

#8

Are you unaware that there are actually some 100+ percent VP games, and

some that are so close that with cash-back added, you definitely have an
edge over the house -- WITH PERFECT PLAY?<<

No Bill, not unaware of that. however 100%+ ER machines don't come with any guarantee that there will be no longterm diviations. Most important, I am not saying that perfect play at a 100%+ ER machine cannot result in a win. I am saying that perfect play at a 100%+ machine does not *guarantee* a win.

Over the longterm the percentages (on those machines) may favor the player, but because of the deviations you really don't know what the longterm is. A session, a week, a month, a year, a lifetime?

That is why I caution people (particularly novices and the "not too bright" <not my words>) *not* to totally discount luck as a factor.

lb

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Bill Velek
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 1:21 PM
  Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Why Rob Singer should be banned from EVERY vp group -- because he's no gentleman!

  Lawrence Boxer wrote:

  > A few facts (not theories):
  >
  > All casino games are designed to give the edge to the house. The only
  > beatable popular game in the casino is BJ, because it is the only
  > game where what *has* happened has an effect on what *will* happen,
  > and so is to some degree forecastable.

  Are you unaware that there are actually some 100+ percent VP games, and
  some that are so close that with cash-back added, you definitely have an
  edge over the house -- WITH PERFECT PLAY?

  Cheers.

  Bill Velek, Attorney at Law
  Please don't 'drink & drive' ... but if you do, remember us.
  DUI- & DWI-Lawyer Referral Service: http://www.velek.com/dwi

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
  vpFREE Home Page:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE

  vpFREE Links:
  http://www.lvcm.com/tomesims/VP/Links.html

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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

#9

[snip]

Over the longterm the percentages (on those machines) may favor the player,
but because of the deviations you really don't know what the longterm is.

Um. If I know the EV and the standard deviation, I can calculate what the "long
term" is. The formula is in any number of math books on gambling and random
processes.

A session, a week, a month, a year, a lifetime?

Depends on the game. The lower the player edge, the more hands it takes. The
higher the standard deviation, the more hands it takes.

Edmund

···

From: Lawrence Boxer <ljboxer@earthlink.net>

#10

If I know the EV and the standard deviation, I can calculate what the "long

term" is. The formula is in any number of math books on gambling and random
processes.<<

You raise an excellent point. But the SD represents the range of the average, so in any given trial much of the raw data will be below the average. So again, the element of luck cannot be totally discounted, which is where this whole thing started.

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

#11

Actually, the "long term" is infinity. But as the number of hands increases, assuming consistent play strategies, you get closer and closer to the expected return. Most regular players should approximate that expected return after a couple of years and a million hands or so.
   Luck does matter, especially for the short term, which is probably defined by how your sessions are running. Every regular gambler has probably had a nasty losing streak or two (I lost nearly $4K in one last year, playing quarters, but made it back on a good streak) and a good streak or two.
   May everyone's winning streaks outlast their losing streaks.

Elaine
   
Lawrence Boxer <ljboxer@earthlink.net> wrote:>>If I know the EV and the standard deviation, I can calculate what the "long
term" is. The formula is in any number of math books on gambling and random
processes.<<

···

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site

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