Yes, 99% can win!

Oct 17, 2005 3:06 AM

Over the years it’s been my play strategy against theirs — simple common sense vs. math models, probability theories and geek-like thinking. When I came out with my tested and very successful play strategy prior to the release of "The Undeniable Truth," the so-called experts said I was a loser, liar and a fraud, and that I couldn’t possibly win with a strategy that utilizes mostly negative (expected value) EV games.

Many years and hundreds of thousands of dollars later, I continue to prove them wrong. Those who said I’d be gone in 60 seconds are now eating their words. Those who proclaimed I’d be nothing more than another scam artist are finally facing up to reality. And those who just won’t hear of another play strategy that can beat the casinos rather than outsmart the video poker computers, continue to squirm.

As soon as I inform everyone that my web site allows anyone access to my play strategies at no charge, the critics then peel down the onion even further in what is always a futile effort to find a way to discredit how I play.

The latest mantra is the intonation that it is impossible for me to win unless I were to play the theoretical 100-plus percent games. Yes, as silly as it sounds, these people come right out and say I can win with a game that’s 100.0001%, but play a game at 99.9999% and it’s a certain loser! Have you ever heard anything more hilarious?

One of the key areas of my play strategy is that I am not exceedingly picky as to what the game EV is. Since I usually play at the more luxurious resorts, rarely will I find anything even near 100 percent.

But my strategy calls for me to play, if and after 100 credits are lost on either 7/5 or 8/5 Bonus Poker, games in this order of availability wherever I sit down to play: 10/7 Double Bonus, 10/6 Double Double Bonus, Super Double Bonus, Triple Bonus Poker +, and Super Aces. Searching the floor is not a part of my strategy. Being comfortable without neurotically scoping the place out is.

Because there are very few games available anywhere these days in the $5 denomination and higher that are slightly positive, the average EV of all my play over my first 251 professional sessions is highly negative. But that’s EV and not reality. No math model was ever developed that took on the short-term expectation. After playing 251 sessions, I find reality a very healthy friend.

But not everyone thinks that way. I occasionally get challenged to different type of bets, and after some disagreements they all seem to fizzle. Recently, however, a member of one of the video poker Internet forums offered me one such challenge. As is typical among those who criticize me, this person uses one of many aliases — Cogno Scienti — and has asked me not to print his true name (gee, I wonder why THAT was).

Cogno has been dogging me for quite a while, saying (what else is new?) I could not possibly win with my play strategy. To his credit, this person has a keen knowledge of what I do and how I do it, as he has read my site many times over.

So when he out of nowhere came to me and offered several bets, I wasn’t as much surprised at the gesture, but perplexed by his wording. In the first challenge he said, "Rob, you play one session, playing exclusively negative games. You must allow a mutually-acceptable referee to hold the money and observe you play. Bring your starting bankroll of $17,200 and another $17,200 to give to the referee. If you win at least $2,500, I’ll give you another $2,500. If you lose your whole $17,200 or chicken out before you meet your win goal, you give me the $17,200."

Say what? He wants 7-1 odds? Okay, so he flipped his lid on that one.

But then he came up with an even bigger doozie as follows: "Rob, tell you what, though. I’ll bet you $17,200 even money that you won’t win $2,500 before you lose the $17,200 playing your system on negative games, provided you also bet me even money for $17,200 that I can’t get at least one heads if I flip a coin 10 times. Deal?"

Hmmmm”¦ What is wrong with this guy? He knows my strategy calls for a $57,200 bankroll to win a minimum of $2,500, and he wants me to do it HOW? And then the coin flip ”¦ you see why I always state that these critics are coming out of the walls?

But it didn’t end there. This genius went on to say in his final off-the-wall offer, "Rob, tell you what. Here’s a bet for you: $250,000 that you’ll lose money over the next 50 sessions of your system, played exclusively on games with optimal payback less than 99.2%."

At first I thought this was a legitimate offer, but given this critic’s track record I re-read it several times. Then I found his usual escape clause. He first tells me that he wants me to play my strategy. Then he inserts an alteration to it by saying I must play games only at or below 99.2%. Now, he knows what games my strategy calls for and in what order. Why the modification? And then when I came back and said I would take the bet only if it’s agreed that I play only my strategy, he ran. Not only that, he needed the supporting comfort of half a dozen others who were feeling sorry for him after the whole fiasco.

I’ve come to understand that all these bets that have been offered me are done so out of extreme envy by those who just cannot find a way to beat the video poker computers with their optimal play strategy cards. So I’ve been able to accomplish what they haven’t been able to by developing my own particular way of playing. Big deal. Get over it guys. When will you ever learn.