alanleroy, I was only responding to the statement that Arcimedes made which was: "Do you believe $57,500 is a reasonable loss limit for a $2500 gain?"
I don't know that Singer ever went $57,500 in the hole to have to reach his $2500 win goal. You should ask him for yourself. He told me he never got close to being down that much money and never suffered a loss close to that amount.
Ya know guys, in the news business, news people sometimes report on things that they personally do not endorse or even believe in. For example, I've covered "Right To Life" Marches and reported on the goals and points of the movement. But it did not mean that I was a Right To Life follower. I've covered Republican candidates and Democrat candidates for President, but that didn't reflect how I voted. I've interviewed rapists about their crimes -- and it didn't mean I approved of what they did.
Now, I've reported on Rob Singer's system and Arcimedes attacks me and my credibility and my business. Part of my business is to present ideas and information, and that included Singer's system the same way I presented information about playing "correct strategy," and the same way in which I presented information from other gaming authors and gaming experts.
Other consumers (video poker players) should have the opportunity to hear what he has to say, the same way they should have the opportunity to read the books by Dancer and Grochowski and Scott and others. They should have the opportunity to discuss the systems, the plays, the strategies -- just as you do.
What is wrong is calling Singer a con, or allege that he is a crook, or has defrauded anyone without proof and without proving it in a court of law. You can present your information about how you differ with his strategy or opinions. No one has ever presented any evidence to me that he has conned anyone. And I certainly would not consider comments made by anonymous posters on an Internet news group or forum as credible evidence.
Arcimedes, for someone who has been assaulted on the web in a vile way with painful attacks made against your ill wife, it surprises me that you would make personal attacks against my business and my credibility for reporting on "different views." You have made comments such as "I wouldn't trust your website for anything" and "you couldn't think your way out of a paper bag." Would you attack my credibility if tonight I were reporting on a political party that you are not a part of? Would you attack my credibility if I were reporting on a financial analyst who said the stock market would go lower, when you believe the market would go higher?
I chose to report on gaming-- and I have presented information you may not agree with, but it was presented in a fair manner.
Even here I have been accused of being dumb or dense but what I had been doing was finding out information and feelings and opinions. Some of them, you might be surprised to find, ended up in my articles, in my radio show, and on TV. Thanks for the help, guys.
Many times here I have written that I don't follow the strategy of Mr Singer, but I have said his straegy or system has some value. You think otherwise and with a broad brush have said none of it has value. I ask, really, you believe none of it has value? Do you truly believe that?
Arc, in particular you've said you don't have a win goal when you play. I think that's not a good way to play -- but I don't call you a con for having that opinion even though someone following your model (not having a win goal) could cause them to give back everything they win after a big, lucky jackpot.
Mr Singer's system may violate everything you've ever learned or believed in playing video poker-- but that doesn't mean it hasn't worked for him. I find it very, very hard not to follow his idea about having a win goal and leaving the casino -- and personally it's something I wish I had followed. Having played video poker myself, I like his strategy of moving DOWN after a big win, instead of moving UP in denomination -- and not only is that a good idea, but in the game of craps "regressing bets" is standard practice used by advantage players. And so you don't agree with his special plays? OK, I dont believe in them either and Singer is not trying to con anyone because in his discussion he shows what the "optimum play" is and what is the expected return and he is upfront that his "special play" has a lower expected return -- he is not trying to con anyone.
I've pointed this out numerous tmes, but still no one will admit to seeing it: Singer advocates playing full pay machines, and if there were a positive machine he would advocate that you play that. But what he is saying is that the conditions that made advantage play possible have either disappeared or are disappeaing, and he is presenting an alternative. He claims he followed the principles of advantage play and failed miserably at it -- and he says his alternative system works.
What are some of the features of the alternative system? Playing full pay machines is one, conserving wins by moving to lower denominations is another, having a win goal and a loss limit is another, and playing certain hands -- a limited number of hands -- a certain way where with luck (variance, chance) he might be able to score a big win, or playing certain hands in such a way that he has a better chance at getting a "moderate win" instead of the jackpot that "advantage play" tells you to go for. His classic example is being dealt three Aces with a kicker in Triple Double Bonus -- he holds only the three aces and will be satisfied with his greater chance of drawing only the fourth ace. Why? Because quad aces is enough to secure his win goal and to get him out of the casino. Do you really argue with that? I guess you do.
You can disagree but that he has a different way of playing does not make him a con artist. You can disagree, but that I presented his views -- the same way I presented interviews with other gaming experts and authors -- does not mean I have been suckered into something that ruins my credibility.
It is very, very unfortunate that Mr Singer has very poor taste when it comes to making certain statements about certain persons in his disputes. I have frequently told him (as recently as last night) that he is his worst enemy. You have every right to dislike him as a person for what he has said in various message boards. He claims it was "self defense" for attacks made against him. So I said to him, "when someone spits on you, it is not okay to spit back at them."
And that will be my parting comment. You have spit on me, but I am not going to spit back at you.
As I said before, when my true identity becomes public I will stop posting here. And so the time has come. To my friend Anthony, best of luck here and we will remain friends and I hope to do more with you in the future. To my other friends who have honored my request to keep my identity private over the past few years -- thank you -- and I look forward to playing craps with you again and sharing dinners at Neros -- and to continue presenting your businesses on TV.
As they say when you buy in at the casino -- good luck -- I say to you "good luck."
