Vegas Free-for-All

jpcos5

Jul 2, 2011
9:25am

Quote

Originally posted by: FrankKneeland

Quote
Originally posted by: jpcos5
Quote
Originally posted by: FrankKneeland
Quote
Originally posted by: MoneyLA

When I designed the M progressive I intentional set it up so it wasn't a progressive that ever needed to be locked up and played by a single team (if hypothetically one even existed). Going in and playing at one's convenience and leaving when you get tired works just fine and that's the only method we intend to adopt.

Word on LVA roughly 1 or 2 months or so ago, was that Dancer designed the M progressive. What gives?

Not sure. I wasn't involved in "the word on LVA a couple of months ago".

It was my idea. I designed it. Bob helped set up the meeting where we pitched it to M. Nothing more on his side.

Also, I thought it up in response to a direct request from someone on vpFREE to try to find a way to get casinos to bring back fast progressives. If not for the vpFREE poster it would not exist.

I adapted it from a casino mistake I had seen elsewhere that came and went. My innovation was to formulate a game structure that was hopefully sustainable for the casino and alleviate the need for "here today gone tomorrow".

Thats not what Bob says. here is his article of 5/10/2011. 2 totally different stories. So who is really telling the truth?

05/10/2011
A Different Type of Progressive at the M

Frank Kneeland, my co-host on my "Gambling with an Edge" radio show on Thursday evenings, primarily plays video poker progressives. He and I challenged ourselves to come up with a type of progressive that is good for the player and profitable for the house. And we wanted to avoid the boom-or-bust cycle that makes a progressive playable very occasionally for a very short period of time --- and then unplayable for weeks until the progressive built back up again. And the biggest challenge, of course, was to convince a casino to put this sucker in after we designed it.

We think we succeeded on all accounts, and the launch day will soon be upon us. The new-fangled progressives will be found in the very near future at the M casino for both quarters (20 machines) and dollars (10 machines). This notice is a little bit early (The electronic parts to make this work are not "on the shelf." It will take some time to make these progressives work, and the slot director there is working diligently on), but it WILL happen soon and you'll need to do some homework to get ready for it.

MoneyLA

Jul 2, 2011
9:39am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: FrankKneeland
Could someone explain "short-term-play" to me?

I need us to reach a consensus on a number of hands to signify "short-term".

Without a fixed number the calculations become difficult or impossible.

Frank that is an excellent question. I don't think even Rob has a figure in mind and it certainly isn't some threshold number such as one million hands.

From my conversation with Singer, his position is that no one plays enough hands of video poker to see the "long term" which is every possible combination of hands that would justify playing a "long term strategy." Hence, his position is to take advantage of the dealt cards that give him a shot at making a win, reaching his win goal, and leaving. He also argues that over the long term only the casino will win and the return for the long term even with cashback and promos isnt worth the effort. So again he says to take your shot at the short term possibilities presented to you.

He does not dispute the long term math. This is very important. In fact, he says he follows the "math" 95% of the time. He just says -- in effect -- why be married to it when youre not going to be at a machine for the long term. And so a key part of his "system" is to take your shot at hands that might give you a big enough win as a short term player so that you can hit a win goal and leave the playing floor to enjoy the rest of your visit or life.

Frank, this should be an essential part of your conversation with Rob because it is the basis for his entire strategy. What is said here may or may not accurately reflect what Singer will tell you. There is too much hearsay and fabrication about his system on the web which is why I spent several days with him in Vegas in an attempt to have him really explain what it is. Even his two books dont go into much detail. The books are more philosophical than offering strategy or practical advice.

Me personally? I don't follow Singer's strategy. I learned VP from Dancer's system and from reading Grochowski's book and columns. I've followed Dancer for years and attended his lectures on occassion.

When I explain VP to people I explain what I come to know as the long term strategy which is why when I am dealt 4 to the royal with a straight or flush, I break up those hands to try for the royal. (Singer would do the same thing, by the way.) But so far this year, I have played more than 92-thousand hands (I figured that based on my tier score with Total Rewards) and even though I play the correct long term strategy on potential royal flush hands, Im yet to hit one this year after those 92,000+ hands. It is very frustrating to have this much bad luck.

Personally, I hope to be a long term player over many more years of short term sessions. But at the age of 60 perhaps you'd like to figure my odds of doing that?

Some of the posters here will say they can't put a number on what is "long term play." Well, there is no number to differentiate short term play from long term play either.

FrankKneeland

Jul 2, 2011
9:57am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: jpcos5

Quote
Originally posted by: FrankKneeland
Quote
Originally posted by: jpcos5
Quote
Originally posted by: FrankKneeland
Quote
Originally posted by: MoneyLA

When I designed the M progressive I intentional set it up so it wasn't a progressive that ever needed to be locked up and played by a single team (if hypothetically one even existed). Going in and playing at one's convenience and leaving when you get tired works just fine and that's the only method we intend to adopt.

Word on LVA roughly 1 or 2 months or so ago, was that Dancer designed the M progressive. What gives?

Not sure. I wasn't involved in "the word on LVA a couple of months ago".

It was my idea. I designed it. Bob helped set up the meeting where we pitched it to M. Nothing more on his side.

Also, I thought it up in response to a direct request from someone on vpFREE to try to find a way to get casinos to bring back fast progressives. If not for the vpFREE poster it would not exist.

I adapted it from a casino mistake I had seen elsewhere that came and went. My innovation was to formulate a game structure that was hopefully sustainable for the casino and alleviate the need for "here today gone tomorrow".

You are correct. I helped him write that article. Guess I'm not that good at editing.

The actual process we used to generate that article was as follows.

1. I sent Bob an outline for what I thought it needed to say.
2. He wrote up a rough draft.
3. Then he sent it to me for corrections and additions.
4. I didn't catch or correct the comment you seem to feel conflicts with what I've said recently.

Though I didn't remember the exact words we used. I think my thinking at the time was to share the credit more or something. Honestly, I didn't care all that much about taking credit for the idea then or now. If this really bothers you just email Bob, I'm sure he'll be happy to answer it to your satisfaction. He's already said on-air multiple times it was my idea. Guess you don't listen to the show.

Easiest way to settle this is just asking Bob.

jpcos5

Jul 2, 2011
12:03pm

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: MoneyLA

Quote
Originally posted by: FrankKneeland

Frank, this should be an essential part of your conversation with Rob because it is the basis for his entire strategy. What is said here may or may not accurately reflect what Singer will tell you. There is too much hearsay and fabrication about his system on the web which is why I spent several days with him in Vegas in an attempt to have him really explain what it is. Even his two books dont go into much detail. The books are more philosophical than offering strategy or practical advice.

.

Great point! There are way too many people fabricating lies on this forum. Posters tend to make up bullcrap as the need arises.
Too many times I have read posts that read "Singer does this" or "Singer said that".
Not once have I seen any evidence that even remotely corroborates any anti Singer posts.

BobOrme

Jul 2, 2011
12:43pm

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: jpcos5

Quote
Originally posted by: MoneyLA
Quote
Originally posted by: FrankKneeland

Frank, this should be an essential part of your conversation with Rob because it is the basis for his entire strategy. What is said here may or may not accurately reflect what Singer will tell you. There is too much hearsay and fabrication about his system on the web which is why I spent several days with him in Vegas in an attempt to have him really explain what it is. Even his two books dont go into much detail. The books are more philosophical than offering strategy or practical advice.

.

Great point! There are way too many people fabricating lies on this forum. Posters tend to make up bullcrap as the need arises.
Too many times I have read posts that read "Singer does this" or "Singer said that".
Not once have I seen any evidence that even remotely corroborates any anti Singer posts.

Aw geez! What Rob writes may or may not accurately reflect what he will tell you. What Rob tells you may or may not accurately reflect what he has written.

MoneyLA

Jul 2, 2011
4:03pm

Block User

Right now, the only "evidence" that is remotely permissable in court are the videos that I did with him. Because there -- in his own words -- and with his own demonstrations -- states what he would do under certain circumstances. There is plenty of "evidence" in those videos for all of his critics, as well as info for those who really want to know what he is all about. Make up your own minds about its value or lack of value. But when you say he said this and he said that it is meaningless to anyone who has an open mind. Frank says he is going to make his own examination of Singer's strategy and system, and everyone should welcome that because I don't think Frank has been tainted by all of garbage that has been written here and on other sites... and we all know that a lot of garbage has been written.

What is it you scientists say-- garbage in, garbage out? well, let's let Frank do his thing.

daMule, I think, is typical of many of Singer's critics with a belief that Singer can't possibly be right about anything because of the garbage that he has thrown around. And early on in this thread Frank said that we should separate personal opinions about the man and his behavior from an objective look at his play. And guys, that is the mature thing to do.

Frank might come back, for example, to rank his system anywhere from a zero to a 100 on a scale of 1-to-100, but I am trusting Frank to come back with that "rank" based on an objective look at the system and its unique purpose and not on the personal garbage that many of us are all too familiar with.

MoneyLA

Jul 2, 2011
4:13pm

Block User

Back to the subject about whether it is better for a team to control all of the seats for a progressive...

Arc wrote: "Mule explained it to you. The team could hit a losing streak with all seats taken and even though they eventually hit a royal they don't make up for the losses."

Thanks, I understand your point.

I misunderstood the concept of a "positive" progressive. I was under the impression that once the jackpot reached a certain point it would offset the losses for all additional play, so that if the team controlled all of the seats at this "positive return level" that there could be no net loss.

snidely333

Jul 2, 2011
4:58pm

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: MoneyLA
Right now, the only "evidence" that is remotely permissable in court are the videos that I did with him. Because there -- in his own words -- and with his own demonstrations -- states what he would do under certain circumstances. There is plenty of "evidence" in those videos for all of his critics, as well as info for those who really want to know what he is all about. Make up your own minds about its value or lack of value. But when you say he said this and he said that it is meaningless to anyone who has an open mind. Frank says he is going to make his own examination of Singer's strategy and system, and everyone should welcome that because I don't think Frank has been tainted by all of garbage that has been written here and on other sites... and we all know that a lot of garbage has been written.

What is it you scientists say-- garbage in, garbage out? well, let's let Frank do his thing.

daMule, I think, is typical of many of Singer's critics with a belief that Singer can't possibly be right about anything because of the garbage that he has thrown around. And early on in this thread Frank said that we should separate personal opinions about the man and his behavior from an objective look at his play. And guys, that is the mature thing to do.

Frank might come back, for example, to rank his system anywhere from a zero to a 100 on a scale of 1-to-100, but I am trusting Frank to come back with that "rank" based on an objective look at the system and its unique purpose and not on the personal garbage that many of us are all too familiar with.

So, it's basically impossible to evaluate Singer's system because Singer's system is not defined well enough.

MoneyLA

Jul 2, 2011
5:14pm

Block User

Snidely, there is a lot of truth in this statement: "So, it's basically impossible to evaluate Singer's system because Singer's system is not defined well enough."

When I approached Singer about doing the interviews with him, I asked him where his so-called "special plays" were published? Because this is what I was interested in -- the so-called special plays. He told me they never were, they were in bits and pieces on his website and in his newspaper column from years ago. And that's when I proposed to him to meet in Vegas, do the interviews and to put it on my website. We actually had two different meetings in Vegas with video tape sessions.

The first was when I wanted to interview him about his claim/belief that VP machines were not random. You can see that entire interview, unedited, along with the info I presented from the NGC. The second session was about the special plays.

In fact, there is more about his system that is still not fully explained -- and Singer maintains these are done on a case by case basis. This is why, he says, he follows the "math" 95% of the time, deviating only when certain situations arise. Even his "special plays" are only used in "special circumstances."

It's not as simple as Singer claiming that 2+2=5 as others have said.

In fact I never questioned him about his strategy about moving up in denominations when he is losing, and I asked him about doing another interview session just on this particular subject. He told me about it, but we never got into details.

jatki

Jul 2, 2011
5:41pm

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego

Hilarious! DD

J

«‹22 ›»

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:

Diamond Membership

$3 per month

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Limited Member Rewards Online

Join Now

Platinum Membership

$50 per year

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Exclusive Member Rewards Book

Join Now

Hello LVA