Breaking news!! Singer drops his escrow demand!

It should stay on your mantle for yet another year.

I already proved you lied about not knowing as you continued on after you read my response

Don't try to save him on this one. Very lame.

The only person I know that uses the term "gambling degenerates" to desribe APers is Singer. I thought it was kind of funny when this dude appeared out of nowhere to attack anyone that opposes Singer.

Perhaps it was one of his staff.

www.lvadvice.com

you might need to borrow maddyhlva's techocolored glasses if you want to read any of the things he has accused me of though.

Wow! You are OBSESSED! Singer is a loser. Get over it. You are a broken fucking record! You are sick in the head with this frigging Singer puke. ENOUGH!

Bob, in some of Singer's special plays he will hold a pat win, while "correct strategy" says to dump the pat win to try for a bigger win.

Please see example #17 on https://alanbestbuys.com/id195.html which is in Triple Double Bonus.

If you play this hand by the "correct strategy" the correct strategy tells you to throw away a sure win (full house) for a shot at a big win, but if you miss you have given up some chips from a dealt full house and are left with trips.

Now Bob, what surprises me is that you tells us that you broke up dealt straight flushes to try for a royal. Here's what you wrote: " I always break up a flush that is 4 to a royal by drawing one card to the royal, even when it is a straight flush." Well, if you are playing deuces wild then yes, you want to sacrifice a dealt straight flush for a shot at a natural royal. But I don't know of any other game in which "correct strategy" says you should sacrifice 250 coins (or as much as 500 for a SF in certain games) for a 1/47 shot at 4000 coins. Gee, it sounds like a Singer play. Are you sure what he says is so bad because you seem to have diverted from the correct strategy yourself??

I don't want to censor Singer's ideas, but I do censor the "stink" which is the term you used and frankly I agree with it. There is no room for "stink" on my discussion forum. If you want to discuss facts and information and opinion you are welcome to do that. I've already removed some objectionable comments by Singer -- and others. On my forum, you play by my rules. And if you think Im tainted because I won't allow the "stink" or discuss the "stink" or let others discuss the "stink" then so be it. If you think Singer's strategy stinks then by all means express your views about it.

Regarding Money Management -- there are no rules about that either. Our friend Arc says he doesnt have a win goal and I find that strange. Singer's money management is in part dictated by the size of his bankroll and when I asked him about it he said I could do the same thing by starting at 25-cent VP instead of playing $5 VP and I might give that a try but it would mean a smaller "win goal" than what I have now. But maybe that's a good thing.

I was thinking about this earlier: Arc says he wins 3 out of 10 sessions, but Arc also gave the opinion that Singer could win 80% of the time. Which is better, winning 30% of the sessions or winning 80% of the time??

Don't you think the answer depends on how much is won in the winning sessions vs how much is lost in the losing sessions?

Good point, alanleroy. But the amount of win would have more to do with the denominations. Arc has never commented on what denomination he plays. Singer says he is mostly in the range of $5/coin to $25/coin. So actually, comparing the amount of dollars won would not be fair to the player who bets the lesser denomination.