NEGATIVE PERSONAL COMMENTS AREN'T
TOLERATED ON vpFREE.
2 week penalty (posting privileges revoked) for making
a negative personal comment.
Please address the message, not the messenger. For
example, you might have said:
"IMO the Singer strategy is a recipe for disaster, and I'm
very skeptical of the accuracy of his reported results".
vpFREE Administrator
On 9 Sep 2005 at 17:06, jim thompson wrote:
Rob Singer is a sleazy shill. It's not a "philosophy".
It's a pack of lies.
can members nominate threads to be sent to freevpfree?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
All right, because Mr. Thompson is presumably in vpFREE limbo for
the next couple weeks, I'll step up for him in keeping with our
esrtwhile administrator's suggestion. Here goes:
IMO the Singer strategy is a recipe for disaster, and I'm very
skeptical of the accuracy of his reported results.
I feel better already!
Pete
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, vpFREE Administrator <vp_free@y...>
wrote:
On 9 Sep 2005 at 17:06, jim thompson wrote:
> Rob Singer is a sleazy shill. It's not a "philosophy".
> It's a pack of lies.NEGATIVE PERSONAL COMMENTS AREN'T
TOLERATED ON vpFREE.2 week penalty (posting privileges revoked) for making
a negative personal comment.Please address the message, not the messenger. For
example, you might have said:"IMO the Singer strategy is a recipe for disaster, and I'm
very skeptical of the accuracy of his reported results".vpFREE Administrator
paisonvp wrote:
IMO the Singer strategy is a recipe for disaster, and I'm very
skeptical of the accuracy of his reported results.
I probably should take this over to FREEvpFREE (but that always seems
to be a sure death knell for a thread) ... IMO the Singer strategy is
entirely appropriate if it suits your play goals AND you have a
bankroll the size of, say, Wynn's. His reported results (at least to
the extent reported as of a year or so ago) seem very much in keeping
with his strategy and I accept them (got any bridges to sell me 
- H.
Harry, for the most part there is nothing harmful with the Singer play
strategies (except for some of his special plays). The problem most
people have is that he claims to have achieved them on negative
machines and that full pay machines can't be played profitably.
Personally, I have no problem accepting his results because I know
other people that have played profitably over several years with a
negative expectation. It's called luck.
Dick
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...> wrote:
paisonvp wrote:
> IMO the Singer strategy is a recipe for disaster, and I'm very
> skeptical of the accuracy of his reported results.I probably should take this over to FREEvpFREE (but that always seems
to be a sure death knell for a thread) ... IMO the Singer strategy is
entirely appropriate if it suits your play goals AND you have a
bankroll the size of, say, Wynn's. His reported results (at least to
the extent reported as of a year or so ago) seem very much in keeping
with his strategy and I accept them (got any bridges to sell me- H.
Harry, for the most part there is nothing harmful with the Singer
play strategies (except for some of his special plays).........
In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mroejacks" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
----------------------------------------------
Hi Dick,
I would respectfully disagree with this statement. I think it can be
extremely detrimental to one's bankroll to keep advancing to higher
denoms. when one continues to lose at lower denoms. As a matter of
fact, I believe that quite the opposite course of action would be more
prudent. i.e. dropping DOWN in denom. when one is riding the wrong
side of the bell curve for extended periods of time.
Just my opinion, of course.
Babe
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jackessiebabe" <jackessiebabe@y...>
wrote:
Harry, for the most part there is nothing harmful with the Singer
play strategies (except for some of his special plays).........----------------------------------------------
Hi Dick,I would respectfully disagree with this statement. I think it can
be
extremely detrimental to one's bankroll to keep advancing to higher
denoms. when one continues to lose at lower denoms. As a matter of
fact, I believe that quite the opposite course of action would be
more
prudent. i.e. dropping DOWN in denom. when one is riding the wrong
side of the bell curve for extended periods of time.Just my opinion, of course.
Babe
Babe,
My response was given from a mathematical viewpoint only. I believe
that most people are way too uncomfortable to enjoy playing at the
higher denoms required by the Singer system OR won't enjoy the lower
levels of play if they avoid the higher denoms.
In addition, one has to play a lot more hands to achieve mathematical
assurance of a given payback at each level of denom or be just plain
lucky.
As for streaks ... All good ones and all bad ones eventually come to
an end. I try not to use them in my overall approach to the game.
However, this last week I did hit the showers early after a prolonged
bad streak so I guess I pretty agree with your statement 
Dick
In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mroejacks" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
... IMO the Singer strategy is
entirely appropriate if it suits your play goals AND you have a
bankroll the size of, say, Wynn's. His reported results (at least to
the extent reported as of a year or so ago) seem very much in keeping
with his strategy and I accept them (got any bridges to sell me- H.
I have never heard of this Rob Singer guy, but any strategy of playing
postive play machines, or slightly negative games that go positive with
cash back and comps, has been EXTREMELY WELL COVERED. What has not been
as well covered is the state of current players clubs, cash back and
comps. Rather than aiming all the vitriol at Rob Singer's "strategies"
why not point the spotlight on the professional writers who are members
of this site, but, rarely if ever share their wealth of information on
specific slot clubs. Just like dancer who points to entries in the
database being outdated, but doesn't lift a finger to update the
database. Perhaps he should be barred, or the anonymous administrator,
could stop promoting his columns until he adds updates to the database.
It would also be nice to have Jean Scott add some useful content,
rather than just promoting her books and software...i.e. need some
simple tax advice...buy my book! Have a question on slot clubs buy my
book with some great outdated information! Want the information that I
am currently using...sorry charlie.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...> wrote:
Oh Harry plz, you seem to know math so you should know that
a "martingale system" NEVER works. ie: lose at a lower level, just play
at a higher level!! not even Gates can survive that, plus his
disdain ,or his ignorance, of machine paybacks or stratergy or even
locations is a clue dont you think ?
& Singer has turn down offers to verify his results from everybody
including people on this list & his current employer who were willing
to put up the money
& harry i realise your post is tounge in cheek but we do get new
members all the time & they might actually think that betting more when
losing is works.
I wont sell you a bridge, i will sell you Singer's book
M J
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...> wrote:
paisonvp wrote:
> IMO the Singer strategy is a recipe for disaster, and I'm very
> skeptical of the accuracy of his reported results.I probably should take this over to FREEvpFREE (but that always seems
to be a sure death knell for a thread) ... IMO the Singer strategy is
entirely appropriate if it suits your play goals AND you have a
bankroll the size of, say, Wynn's. His reported results (at least to
the extent reported as of a year or so ago) seem very much in keeping
with his strategy and I accept them (got any bridges to sell me- H.
I am not familar with Rob Singer's strategy, but in an earlier post
someone mentioned that part of it is moving from lower to higher
machines when you are losing. This sounds like progressionist
voodoo. There is absolutely no progression system that can work in
the long run unless you have two things. You need no limits and an
unlimited bankroll. When the day comes that either there is no higher
limit machine to play or you have exausted every cent to your name,
everything you have ever won will be long gone. An exception to this
statement would be if you are playing positive expectation video
poker, then the progression would work.
Victoria
Why do casinos barr advantage players but give wonderful comps to
progression players?
Because casinos know the math behind their games.
Victoria
casinos barr advantage players, not because they win, but because of
the writings of one bob dancer. when you teach casino management the
mathematics of video poker, they think that every person, every day, on
every "full pay machine" will win. we all know we lose more days than
we win, we hope that the winners add up to more than the losers do. if
20 advantage players play on the same day in the same casino, i believe
that the losers would lose more than the winners win day by day. at the
end of the long run, and only God knows how long that would be, all
players would be positive if we all lived that long. casino slot dept
managers do not understand the working of video poker and only because
of the writings and teachings of the aforementioned idiot, are we all
having the trouble we presently have.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Victoria Rosado" <ros4144@y...> wrote:
Why do casinos barr advantage players but give wonderful comps to
progression players?
Because casinos know the math behind their games.Victoria
bdhabm
I think you missed my point and took this for an
opportunity to attack people like Dancer. Though you
might be right.
My point is that it need not be VP, it could be
blackjack or another game where a long term advantage
could be gained. No casino wants a player with an edge
over them. Now paranoid casinos will react to people
without an edge because their management is inept, but
if there is a proven edge, they do not want you there!
All casinos love progression players if they really
know they are just playing progressions. They protect
themselves from the progressionist by having limits on
table games and machines (is there a no limit VP
machine in the world?) and having negative expectation
games.
Will a casino back off a progressionist. Yes, but
only because they either do not have a bankroll (real
low limit place) or are paranoid and do not know what
they are doing.
I play only a little VP, so my post is based upon the
world of mainly blackjack.
Victoria
test'; ">
I have learned a lot from this group the last
couple of years. Reading all these posts reminded
myself of the time a year or so ago when I had a
REALLY bad session playing 8/5 Bonus at the Casino
Royale during triple points time. I almost quit but
told myself I was not superstitious, which machine I
played mattered not and I still had 30 minutes until
triple points ended so I kept pluging and hit a Royal
for $4000!
--- mroejacks <rgmustain@att.net> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter"
<harry.porter@v...> wrote:
> paisonvp wrote:
> > IMO the Singer strategy is a recipe for
disaster, and I'm very
> > skeptical of the accuracy of his reported
results.
______________________________________________________
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
mklpryy24 wrote:
Oh Harry plz, you seem to know math so you should know that
a "martingale system" NEVER works.
I stated that "the Singer strategy is entirely appropriate if it suits
your play goals AND you have a bankroll the size of, say, Wynn's."
I stand behind that. I also think that it's unlikely that this
categorizes even one player in this group. (FWIW, the "Wynn"
reference was clear hyperbole ... but a very large bankroll is
appropriate.)
Furthermore, while this isn't a strategy that will offer the greatest
assurance of profitable play in what we think of as the "long run", it
is a strategy that may, under certain circumstances, present a greater
likelihood of achieving a desired profit over a limited period of time.
Finally, this system is not representative of the Margingale system as
originally defined. It can be reasonably termed a Martingale
modifciation ... with changes that make the system less hazardous to
the player and potentially more effective at achieving a desired
profit over a limited timespan.
My "got any bridges" comment was indeed a tongue-in-cheek reference to
the fact that I accept many improbable things in life until I have
evidence to the contrary. With respect to Singer's play claim, I have
firm acceptance and, on the surface, find it reasonably probable.
- H.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:
mklpryy24 wrote:
> Oh Harry plz, you seem to know math so you should know that
> a "martingale system" NEVER works.I stated that "the Singer strategy is entirely appropriate if it
suits
your play goals AND you have a bankroll the size of, say, Wynn's."
I stand behind that. I also think that it's unlikely that this
categorizes even one player in this group. (FWIW, the "Wynn"
reference was clear hyperbole ... but a very large bankroll is
appropriate.)
Gates dont have enuf, not even God.
Furthermore, while this isn't a strategy that will offer the
greatest
assurance of profitable play in what we think of as the "long run",
it
is a strategy that may, under certain circumstances, present a
greater
likelihood of achieving a desired profit over a limited period of
time.
HUH??? Too many "if" "buts" "maybes" & "qualifiers"
like "while this ISNT" "what we THINK" "stratergy that MAY" under
certain CIRCUMSTANCES" "greater LIKELYHOOD" "LIMITED period of time,
in the statement to be serious, you could write speeches for a
politician though.
Finally, this system is not representative of the Margingale system
as
originally defined.
It requires you to increase your bet WHEN YOU LOSE ALWAYS, read his
book, that is the martingale system, you do not need to double your
LOSING bet , only increase it.
It can be reasonably termed a Martingale
modifciation ... with changes that make the system less hazardous to
the player and potentially more effective at achieving a desired
profit over a limited timespan.
NO harry you cant modify a system that REQUIRES you increse your bet
when you lose & make it pay off, not enuff $ in the world for that.
GA is full of people who thought that.
My "got any bridges" comment was indeed a tongue-in-cheek reference
to
the fact that I accept many improbable things in life until I have
evidence to the contrary.
I take back my tongue in cheek reference since you really belive
Singer, & if you taken the time to reserch his claims that you took
to write these posts you would found your "evidence"
With respect to Singer's play claim, I have
firm acceptance and, on the surface, find it reasonably probable.
H
which claims ? evrytime he has been questioned the claims ALWAYS
change .
you have firm acceptance that it is probable?? real strong stand
there Harry. Go below the surface to find the truth.
You must not have been around early in this group when he litterly
slandered some your heros like Jean Scott Mr Dancer & our former
EXALTED leader not only on this forum but in is coloum & radio & tv
interviews & in private emails all because we had doubts & politely
ask for proof. Even when offerd the money for him to play so it can
be verefied he just got nastier & ruder.
That is why VERY PATIENT FORMER LEADER put in the Singer policy,
not because his "system" is crock.
M J
must leave now, got a 4 to 1 bet on Jeff Gordon making the chase for
the cup. need to light candles
-
mklpryy24 wrote:
HUH??? Too many "if" "buts" "maybes" & "qualifiers"
like "while this ISNT" "what we THINK" "stratergy that MAY" under
certain CIRCUMSTANCES" "greater LIKELYHOOD" "LIMITED period of time,
in the statement to be serious, you could write speeches for a
politician though.
I take it that you find greater certainties and absolutes in your
approach to vp? I suspect you are in for some surprises (at least,
"more likely than not" ;).
btw, don't read beyond what's in my post.
- H.
With respect to Singer's play claim, I have
firm acceptance and, on the surface, find it
reasonably probable. <<<
mklpryy24 replied:
which claims ? evrytime he has been
questioned the claims ALWAYS change . you have
firm acceptance that it is probable?? real strong
stand there Harry. Go below the surface to find
the truth.
You must not have been around early in this group
when he litterly slandered some your heros like
Jean Scott Mr Dancer & our former EXALTED leader
not only on this forum but in is coloum & radio &
tv interviews & in private emails all because we
had doubts & politely ask for proof. Even when
offerd the money for him to play so it can be
verefied he just got nastier & ruder. > That is
why VERY PATIENT FORMER LEADER put in
the Singer policy, not because his "system" is crock. <<<<<<
Rob Singer and successive challengers dominated
the old vp_heaven group for a long time, but it
never happened on vpFREE. Rob was a moderated
poster on vpFREE for a short time but found the
agreed on parameters too restrictive and stopped
posting, of his own accord.
vpFae