Nearing Completion of Evaluation of RS system (not)

Why are you implying that Frank doesn't know this information already?

To channel my inner Frank without quoting Norse mythology. Money seems to be back on LVA despite having quit. Money quit that session of LVA and started a new session of LVA. In Money's mind this might make sense. To the rest of us, we see that Money took a break and now is back. His post count didn't restart at 1. It continued from the previous number. Just like in Video Poker. It's all one big continuum. Doesn't matter if you quit for a minute or quit for a month. The concept of sessions is all in your head.

If we are going to "guide" Frank's analysis, I'm curious if Frank's analysis looks at the Taleb distribution as described in Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets by Taleb as a description of the Singer System.

Snidely this info is NOT for Frank. Its meant for everyone else who thinks Singer advocates playing machines with poor paytables. If your going to criticize Singer just be sure you have the right info. Singer's biggest problem is that "his reputation precedes him" and hearsay has become "fact". I know that Frank has spent time with Singer but for the most part none of you ever spoke with him directly.

I returned to talk about Singer only because I know the guy and I understand most of his system. I don't play his way but I see some value in it. I just want him to get a fair shake. His play isn't really much different
from how most recreational players play the game. He runs into problems from the APs and the math experts who see the purpose of playing differently.

Nothing will ever be resolved by Frank or me or anyone else because Rob's system has different goals than anyone who plays strictly by the math.

Actually there is really only one question: did Rob really win nearly a million dollars playing video poker? To me the proof of his method is what's on his tax forms. That's all the proof I need to know there is something right about how he played. A lot of you are going to say he played "wrong" and he did play "wrong"... All the way to the bank.

Experienced tax professionals understand that there are OFTEN SIGNIFICANT differences between actual income, i.e. increase in net worth, and what appears on a tax return. A tax return is an official document, and as such would be admissible evidence. However, its probative value is QUITE limited.

If you think that a tax form could somehow prove the efficacy of a gambling "method," then you are what is commonly refered to as a "dim bulb."

Taleb's work was referenced in the more recent 2011 book I read entitled "The Drunkard's Walk". Good stuff. Shocked me and that's not easy to do. The problem is that the very reasons randomness fools people is because of brain structure and cognitive processes which are more entrenched than an Alabama tick in summer, so even if you show them where they are being fooled, it will only make them think you are.

The most successful stock prognosticator of all time correctly predicted which way the market would turn 17 out of 18 years. I am also quite happy to say I would NOT follow his advice if my life depended on it, since he worked for a sports service and made his picks based on which devision won the World Series of Baseball.

In random events results tell us little to nothing about the process that created them, and only through use of things like CHI squared and Bayesian Inference can we get anything useful out of them at all. Sadly most people think "Bays" is some kinda spice. I visited his grave in England as a child.

~FK

Video Poker Crackpot Index

5 points starting credit.

1 point for every statement that is in conflict with generally accepted theories.

2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

3 points for each internal inconsistency.

5 points for every supposition that is maintained despite prodigious empirical evidence to the contrary.

5 points for each instance of specious data expressed as fact.

5 points for each defamatory reference to Dancer or Wong.

10 points for each baseless claim that widely accepted theories are fundamentally erroneous.

10 points for boasting of happiness unrelated to the topic at hand.

15 points for boasting of a lack of academic degrees, insisting that formal education is not only unnecessary but also an impediment to creative thought.

20 points for lamentations of being misunderstood by APers.

20 points for defensive citations of real or imagined ridicule inflicted by the academia, mathematicians or gambling experts.

30 points for insisting that if critics cannot disprove a theory, then it must of necessity be true.

30 points for claiming to be the victim of a conspiracy by the AP establishment.

40 points for professing to be privy to information that is secret or to which no one else has access.

Does this mean that you now have all of the information about Singer's system and a complete understanding?

Maybe he hit his loss limit?

He has a tax return, and really, that is all he needs.

So, here's what RS posted on Alan's site:

Alan, I haven't been here or looked at LVA for a few days but Frank asked me to send these answers to you.

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

I know the lies & rumors are out there about how I only choose to play negative or lower paytables. But to those who've read my site, my Gaming Today column for nearly 8 years, or virtually any vp forum from the past, they'd know that I used to primarily play 10/7DB as my 300-credit game, wherever it was available, up to as high a denomination as possible--including the $100 game that used to be in the HL room at the Atlantis. But since the demise of that game I switched to DDB and ultimately SDBP & TBP+ as my main 300-credit games. Paytables vary on these games, and I've always chosen to play the best table available at the casinos I played at. I USUALLY DID NOT, however, choose my casinos based on what paytables they had, because my strategy can consistently beat any of these game's paytables out in Nv. today, and I DID NOT require any Royal Flushes to have a winning year.

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

The Singer Play Strategy (SPS) utilizes only one win goal: a minimum of $2500 with a session bankroll of $57,200. This is money won from the machines only and does not include any slot club fluff. Each Jan. I set a yearly overall win goal, and I always said I would quit playing professionally upon turning 60--which I did to the day--or as soon as I attained a cumulative $1,000,000 profit. I came up $16,000 short of that goal after about 12 years of play.


3. What is the goal of your system?

The goal is to hit my minimum win goal for the session and then go straight home.

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

The special plays that deviate from optimal strategy have the single very important goal of allowing as many opportunities as possible, based on simple hold-by-hold risk analyses, to hit that session-ending or near session-ending jackpot hand. For instance, if I'm allowed a theoretical 200 hands on SDBP and maybe 15 of those hands give me a session-winning opportunity based solely on an optimal hold, my special plays will allow possibly 10 or more ADDITIONAL opportunities--and not always on less overall hands since there are many small to medium other winners that are realized using the special plays. But even with a small reduction in overall hands played because of the use of the special plays, it's the overall NUMBER of session-ending opportunities from both optimal as well as special play holds, that's most important.

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

A machine's paytable is really not of ultimate importance in SPS. As stated above, I will always look for and play the bast paytables for the games SPS uses in the casino I choose to play at, but it is the casino that is more important than the paytable. By this I mean what the offer includes, how comfortable I am playing there, how they operate their high limit slot room, etc.


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

If "long term winner" means havin a winning record after 10 or 12 years, I can attest to that. If I had started this a dozen years earlier then you could double that. In short, it is an extremely reliable strategy for those with the right stuff (aka, as fully prepared as I was in every way) but it in no way is meant for someone coming to LV with 6 grand in their pocket or someone starting from scratch. That's the stuff of fantasy for the purpose of continued & shameless self-advertisement, and has proven to require those who say they do that to work normal jobs & have an income well past retirement age. You either face that curse and control it--or become a victim of it.

I guess my big question is, if Rob Singer really is prepared to lose $57,200 in order to try and win $2500? YIKES!

Good question. I still don't know for sure when Rob will deviate from correct strategy? Sometimes he says he doesn't have to.

And I am not sure when he moves up to a higher denomination or wen he moves back to a lower denomination?

And which game does he start playing -- the higher variance games or his bread and butter 8/5 Bonus game?

I sense there are no hard and fast rules which would make it impossible to do an independent test. I have asked Rob to explain these points in another interview.

Most of Rob's system is based on playing $10/coin games. A couple of quads in Bonus Poker and Rob could hit his $2500 win goal without the controversial mumbo jumbo that has everone freaked out. I often reach $1250 profits on $5/coin 8/5 bonus without having to resort to any special plays. All it takes is a couple of lucky quads.