Nearing Completion of Evaluation of RS system (not)

First, you are not the NT Times or Post. They both have more than 400+ users/subscribers. I certainly do not need any lessons on freedom of the press. I've served my country, thank you very much.

Franks has discussed many of the questions in his round about way, and has clearly stated he is doing everything he can to be neutral in his assessment. He has stated he has no point of view until his evaluation is complete.

I may be childish, but I have morals and try to be polite. I do not know what your true motives are in posting your message at this time, and do not want to guess. But I do have my suspicions that part of it is to drive traffic to your site for better ratings in the search engines, so that you may profit financially.

Rob is perfectly capable of defending himself. Historically, he has done so in the past, commenting on things written on one forum in other places. Even naming names. Just not here. And he brought it on himself.

I do believe that the reason RS is unwelcome on so many forums is not because of his VP system or writings about gaming, but because of his personality and his offensive writings unrelated to VP strategy or systems.

He has become the person that so many "Love to Hate". He will not be teaching any Dale Carnegie courses. That is the way he is, and he will not change unless it profits him.

Call this discussion what you will. It is still MHO that you have taken part of Franks work that has been discussed here, and are attempting to make it yours.

Dear Roadtrip, these are the questions I asked Rob Singer to respond to on my Forum:

1. Do you prefer to play on short pay tables or full pay tables?

2. What are your win goals, and what is your bankroll for your win goal?

3. What is the goal of your system?

4. What is the purpose or goals of your "special plays"?

5. Is the return/paytable of the machine important or unimportant for your system? Please explain.

6. Can your system make a player a "long term winner"? If so, how?

These questions are to get Rob's comments specifically to respond to comments made here-- on this thread-- over the last several pages. The main question being #1 and what his belief is about winning and playing at less than full pay paytables. This is not an infringement on Frank's work.

There will be plenty of discussion and reaction to Frank's work.

Roadtrip, get over it.

I see no problem with including these questions. Much of this was already covered. Some was not. My Q&A format with Rob has been far more conversational and less direct questioning since simple direct questions failed to proved understandable answers, or generated yet more questions. Each of my 10 or so questions to Rob has been averaging around 2000 words back and forth, with as many as 3 rounds to get anything approximating resolution. We don't speak the same language. It's been a struggle.

Anyway these questions of Money's are simplistic and easy compared to mine. Consider it no problem.

Here's one of my questions so you can compare:

FK: We know your special plays favor large payouts. The larger payouts of these jackpots should be counterbalanced by their less frequent occurrence. The return of all pays on video poker is a function of both size and frequency, size alone does not make something worth going for. Stated another way, to come out ahead going for things like 4 Aces over lesser paying hands with far greater frequency, one would need to get the larger hands more often than the math says one should to come out ahead. Since adopting your special plays you are ahead. How do we know you wouldn't be ahead even more had you not made them?

(In a scientific experiment comparing two things one would do both and compare results. You did only one of the two things and are comparing your results to something you didn't do. I'm not sure how that works or how you can be sure of anything with only half the information required to make a comparison. You are comparing what you did to what you didn't do. That appears to be impossible.)

Frank this one will surprise you: look at the video for Special Play #15 which is actually going for a smaller payout with more chances to hit it than what proper strategy tells you what to do. Were you aware of this one? Also look at the video for #16.

this is hilarious.

moneyla makes yet another attempt to draw traffic to his website with his tired "blah its unfortunate rob cant post here" blah blah blah, as if we all werent aware that to talk directly to rob, we could go to moneyla's site. we all know that, yet we dont go there. hmm, i wonder what that is. could it be because we dont care?

then moneyla posts questions to rob singer.....answers them himself. so even if you DID care to read robs answers, you still dont get to.

toolbag.

I created a transcript of all the videos with all his special plays word for word. But thanks.

Already done.

Frank would those special plays contradict the premise that Singer only goes for the big wild plays? As you put it: the larger payouts with less frequent occurence? In a sense Singer could be described as sometimes taking fewer long shots nd being more conservative, is that possible?

Really! Really Now. You think it is immature that we talk about Rob and he can't defend himself.

Well if he would have behaved himself on here then he would not have that problem.

The large preponderance of Singer's plays favor large, what he calls, "session ending jackpots"...with a couple of tiny exceptions. No, I would not call his system "more conservative".

Of more interest to me are his use of the words: "session" and "ending".

How about you wait for the whole thing?