https://www.gamblingforums.com/threa...e-2#post-46391
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Yung
The problem with Rob's old Gaming Today columns was that, after about a dozen columns, he simply repeated himself. Nothing wrong with that, but after 10,000 posts and a decade's worth of columns, one would suspect he would get around to some mention of his statistics somewhere for some period of time. But no.
The thing about Argentino -- as with most things, you can usually learn more from what isn't written than what is. Argentino just ignores math altogether.
It's all about luck. That pretty much washes the gambler's hands of the results. Which implies the results weren't pretty.
So Singer is posting on GF? LOLOLOL! Well, he's been banned from everywhere else. I imagine he's talking loud and trying to draw a crowd. You can bet he's looking for someone to argue with. He can't stand not being able to troll....and that's what he's up to no doubt, trying to suck people back onto that site so he can smear them. He's a POS.
I actually joined that forums months ago to view some of Rob's posts and we both quit posting months ago-the usual hecklers chimed in from the start. In your dreams.
You're always full of half truths. All the figures he gave on some of his holds and relationship of math to win goals- or did you just ignore them?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by Bill Yung
The problem with Rob's old Gaming Today columns was that, after about a dozen columns, he simply repeated himself. Nothing wrong with that, but after 10,000 posts and a decade's worth of columns, one would suspect he would get around to some mention of his statistics somewhere for some period of time. But no.
The thing about Argentino -- as with most things, you can usually learn more from what isn't written than what is. Argentino just ignores math altogether.
It's all about luck. That pretty much washes the gambler's hands of the results. Which implies the results weren't pretty.
Yeah, okay, sling. Go find one post in the 5000 here where he stated his numbers of hands per royal or number of hands per four-of-a-kind. He claimed to somehow circumnavigate probability, but never actually gave hard numbers. For him to win, he would have had to magically generate more royals or four of a kinds than probability predicts.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshotYou're always full of half truths. All the figures he gave on some of his holds and relationship of math to win goals- or did you just ignore them?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by Bill Yung
The problem with Rob's old Gaming Today columns was that, after about a dozen columns, he simply repeated himself. Nothing wrong with that, but after 10,000 posts and a decade's worth of columns, one would suspect he would get around to some mention of his statistics somewhere for some period of time. But no.
The thing about Argentino -- as with most things, you can usually learn more from what isn't written than what is. Argentino just ignores math altogether.
It's all about luck. That pretty much washes the gambler's hands of the results. Which implies the results weren't pretty.
Rob always skirted math, which was a smart move on his part.
Without the math to back him up it should not have been too tough for someone who actually knows gambling math to objectively disprove his claims, i.e. call bullshit, brand him a liar, and kick him into the corner.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
What, he was never challenged by a Math Boy?
Absolutely he has...over and over and over again. That is really the whole issue. Singer, a lot like Alan, refuses to accept the math. But unlike Alan, who just acts goofy, Singer's response to the math that disproves his claims is that he gets nasty to the person stating the math.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterVWithout the math to back him up it should not have been too tough for someone who actually knows gambling math to objectively disprove his claims, i.e. call bullshit, brand him a liar, and kick him into the corner.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
What, he was never challenged by a Math Boy?
End result: They both end up residing in a fantasy world, where they see and do what is mathematically impossible.
Is that what you call math? That just about explains the mentality of this forum. I wish I had never posted here.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzYeah, okay, sling. Go find one post in the 5000 here where he stated his numbers of hands per royal or number of hands per four-of-a-kind. He claimed to somehow circumnavigate probability, but never actually gave hard numbers. For him to win, he would have had to magically generate more royals or four of a kinds than probability predicts.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshotYou're always full of half truths. All the figures he gave on some of his holds and relationship of math to win goals- or did you just ignore them?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Rob always skirted math, which was a smart move on his part.
Arcimede$ was versus Argentino from the beginning. What interested me was how Argentino sidestepped all math discussions with appeals to human will, or what percentage of sessions ended with wins, or win goals creating profit on negative expectation games. He was the Uri Geller of video poker.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterVWithout the math to back him up it should not have been too tough for someone who actually knows gambling math to objectively disprove his claims, i.e. call bullshit, brand him a liar, and kick him into the corner.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
What, he was never challenged by a Math Boy?
He was also an incredibly careful writer. He almost never claimed to actually be able to win going forward. He simply divided his video poker playing life into AP, wherein he said he lost his ass. Then came his productive years using "his systems," wherein he won 900K or something. Then came the present, wherein he was retired and therefore not responsible for still making a profit.
He was the classic paranormal claimant. His personal relationship with the former publisher of Gaming Today gave him a public window and some alleged gravitas. When that window closed, he hitched onto Alan.
His latest posts seem so detached and vague.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
All that aside, the martingale betting system works just fine, and has quantifiable, though variable, mathematical advantage. The problem is that we would run out of money when we lose the big bet. Even with a significant other edge, we would eventually lose the big bet with the martingale. After all, Kelly betting is sort of an inverted martingale to guard against bankruptcy. Therefore, we would require another manner in which to exploit the fundamental principle of the martingale, along with some other edges, if and where available, to defeat a negative expectation game.
Yessirreee, Bob, as long as those "some other edges" turn it into a positive game. LOL. You're not really going to argue for the wonders of the martingale, are you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill YungHis latest posts seem so detached and vague.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
All that aside, the martingale betting system works just fine, and has quantifiable, though variable, mathematical advantage. The problem is that we would run out of money when we lose the big bet. Even with a significant other edge, we would eventually lose the big bet with the martingale. After all, Kelly betting is sort of an inverted martingale to guard against bankruptcy. Therefore, we would require another manner in which to exploit the fundamental principle of the martingale, along with some other edges, if and where available, to defeat a negative expectation game.
Sorry, Mr. Yung, I played on the Penn State math department grad hoops team, which is like staying at a Holiday Inn Express. I may not have known what they were talking about half the time, but no amount of verbiage (and a martingale) is going to turn a negative expectation game into a positive expectation game. A martingale may have a "quantifiable, though variable, mathematical advantage" -- whatever that is vis-à-vis what is the key question -- but it provides no advantage at a gaming table unless you've suckered some poor bastard into betting against your "session win rate," which is what Argentino repeatedly tried to do.
I guess if it were a true Martingale method, that would definitely be true. And no way a 25-50¢ player could last with such a small bankroll. It is a 4-6 level of betting- so my game would be 5-10-25-50¢ increase- with the possibility of returning to lowest level. The most I could lose is $200 a session. And there is always the stipulation to finish the game on another machine if felt necessary. Many times this never is necessary- but several times I've won this way- which also extended my playing time. So, no- I don't end up with a ridiculous betting amount as the strategy can work at all denominations. I repeat for the 100th time- it is NOT a Martingale strategy- or else I couldn't afford it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill YungHis latest posts seem so detached and vague.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
All that aside, the martingale betting system works just fine, and has quantifiable, though variable, mathematical advantage. The problem is that we would run out of money when we lose the big bet. Even with a significant other edge, we would eventually lose the big bet with the martingale. After all, Kelly betting is sort of an inverted martingale to guard against bankruptcy. Therefore, we would require another manner in which to exploit the fundamental principle of the martingale, along with some other edges, if and where available, to defeat a negative expectation game.
There's no reason to bring this morons name up. He's nothing but a useless system seller. Slingshot should be a multi-billionaire by now following this fool around.
I'll give partial defense of some in that, back in the 90's when the Gaming Today Singer column ran, people just were not very hip to the math of video poker and probability in general. So when front page column after front page column ran, a lot of people assumed it had to have some credibility.
I'm sure sling is well on his way to a Winnebago, a Hellcat, and being well hung. Not sure about the video poker winnings, however.
Sling, shouldn't you be rich by now using Singer's marty?Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshotYou're always full of half truths. All the figures he gave on some of his holds and relationship of math to win goals- or did you just ignore them?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by Bill Yung
The problem with Rob's old Gaming Today columns was that, after about a dozen columns, he simply repeated himself. Nothing wrong with that, but after 10,000 posts and a decade's worth of columns, one would suspect he would get around to some mention of his statistics somewhere for some period of time. But no.
The thing about Argentino -- as with most things, you can usually learn more from what isn't written than what is. Argentino just ignores math altogether.
It's all about luck. That pretty much washes the gambler's hands of the results. Which implies the results weren't pretty.
You are betting more when you are losing. It's a martingale.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshotI guess if it were a true Martingale method, that would definitely be true. And no way a 25-50¢ player could last with such a small bankroll. It is a 4-6 level of betting- so my game would be 5-10-25-50¢ increase- with the possibility of returning to lowest level. The most I could lose is $200 a session. And there is always the stipulation to finish the game on another machine if felt necessary. Many times this never is necessary- but several times I've won this way- which also extended my playing time. So, no- I don't end up with a ridiculous betting amount as the strategy can work at all denominations. I repeat for the 100th time- it is NOT a Martingale strategy- or else I couldn't afford it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill YungHis latest posts seem so detached and vague.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
All that aside, the martingale betting system works just fine, and has quantifiable, though variable, mathematical advantage. The problem is that we would run out of money when we lose the big bet. Even with a significant other edge, we would eventually lose the big bet with the martingale. After all, Kelly betting is sort of an inverted martingale to guard against bankruptcy. Therefore, we would require another manner in which to exploit the fundamental principle of the martingale, along with some other edges, if and where available, to defeat a negative expectation game.
Then get lost. Go post at GF where your hero is.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
Singer's posts on a half dozen forums number in the six figures. He has never ever put up any math on his plays or anyone's else's. Math doesn't exist to him.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzYeah, okay, sling. Go find one post in the 5000 here where he stated his numbers of hands per royal or number of hands per four-of-a-kind. He claimed to somehow circumnavigate probability, but never actually gave hard numbers. For him to win, he would have had to magically generate more royals or four of a kinds than probability predicts.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshotYou're always full of half truths. All the figures he gave on some of his holds and relationship of math to win goals- or did you just ignore them?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Rob always skirted math, which was a smart move on his part.
Gone! And I would appreciate being taken from the forum list. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmThen get lost. Go post at GF where your hero is.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
V, arcimedes doesn't post here any more but he took Singer to task repititiously over the math for years. It started on FREEvpFREE in the early 2000's where arci posted as mroejacks. Then it went to the Las Vegas Adviser Sports Forum and Videopokerforum where arci posted as Shadowman. He did the best job of anyone of showing Singer is a fool.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterVWithout the math to back him up it should not have been too tough for someone who actually knows gambling math to objectively disprove his claims, i.e. call bullshit, brand him a liar, and kick him into the corner.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
What, he was never challenged by a Math Boy?
Here's some of the Singer vs. Shadowman threads at Videopokerforum:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...KHcoQ7P2R7n2dZ
This was enough to bring me out of forum retirement. Some of you have taken some cheap shots at Rob knowing he can't respond.
I'm not going to defend everything about Rob's claims and I can't because I'm his biggest critic over his tax manipulations.
But I have to make this clear: Rob follows the math of video poker, and makes adjustments to conventional strategy in an attempt to get lucky.
Redietz: Rob would tell you the same thing Dancer or Grochowski would tell you about the chances of getting a royal or quads. Rob even spelled it all out in my videos with him on www.alanbestbuys.com with the math. But Rob will sometimes drop a full house to draw for quads hoping to get lucky. And sometimes he will drop trips hoping to get lucky and hit a royal.
Rob never claimed to beat a negative expectation gsme, but he did say that with some luck you can have some big winning hands that will let you walk out as a winner.
You can twist and turn his comments all you want to but that's the truth about the Rob Singer system. It's that simple.
I'm going to make a brief comment, then step aside for more math proficient to comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Let's get tenses right here. Rob claims his system wins, as opposed to "has won," which would refer exclusively to his personal history and not the mathematical verifiability of the systems themselves.
"The system" or "systems," however, lose on negative expectation games. That is mathematically verifiable. Argentino, of course, would submit that some Rube Goldberg machinations that nobody knows but him are the magical difference. Since nobody knows his manipulations completely, any analysis of his procedures is incomplete and flawed. Unfortunately for Rob, unless he's rewritten probability, what he recommends is not a winner going forward no matter what he does.
The following assumes Rob tells primarily the truth about his personal history. That is certainly open to debate, but let's give him complete benefit of the doubt. What Argentino has managed to do is conflate what he has done (has won) with what will happen in the future (will win), and sell the latter as truth based on the former.
Alan, go over to Gambling Forums and look at the time stamps on Rob's posts then look at the time stamps in this thread. You will see that he started flaming us first. He's actually baiting us trying to get us to go back over there and post. But YOU know what the result of that will be. We will just get smeared all to hell and back by YOUR BOSOM BUDDY. He's going to continue to smear us anyway whether we show up there or not. So why don't you go over there and tell Rob to knock it off like you are trying to tell us to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
And how do you know Rob manipulated his taxes? You never saw his returns. I suspect the reason why he wouldn't show you his returns is because they don't show a gambling win that he could write anything off against.
And wise up. Rob plays you for a fool.
Boy, I could say something here. ;) But I will bite my tongue. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Mr. Argentino is over there with the roulette geniuses. I actually do feel badly for him. I got around to reading my accolades just now, but I didn't really understand his point. Can someone help me out? His writing reads like he's on a bender.
I guess I need to mention I had a killer year over there and finished third in The Wise Guys. Have to look up my password.
Thanks, Alan. The only thing I would add is that most decisions are based on win goals- whether mini goals or session ending goals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Dear Readers,
I found my password for GF and replied politely to Rob. Please let me know if I was appropriately generous in my thanks to him.
And "Hey, Mr. Mendelson," I have some additions to "the package." Won eleven consecutive games and finished third in The Wise Guys contest last year, finished third again in Northbet's Pick the Pros (back to back thirds in a contest with thousands of people -- not shabby, eh?). Had Georgia at 45-1 to win the title in football. So if you want another package, just let me know.
And my girlfriend did better than me! That should be worth a package of its own!
But Rob will sometimes drop a full house to draw for quads hoping to get lucky. And sometimes he will drop trips hoping to get lucky and hit a royal.
how does one account for the loosey goosey "sometimes" when doing sims to verify anything.
that is so vague....how can anyone claim math as his friend, and then "sometimes" throw it away. Make up your mind.Embrace mathm throw math away.....but this off and on affair he has with math is silly.
That's classic paranormal quackery style, LarryS. He varies his holds based on variables only he can perceive, such as whether a machine is running hot or cold and so on. He'll drape this nonsense in some cloak of jargon and verbiage, but he'll never spell it out precisely. He's been claiming these systems for 25 years, and there's no all-quirks-included absolute formula for what he does when. That's the same style as employed by psychics and fortune tellers and systems sellers forever and ever.
If he doesn't spell it out, it can't be disproven, so he simply does not spell it out. Like psychics and potion purveyors, he avoids the kinds of statements that can be disproven. It's a key style strategy.
Science is based on experimenting to disprove. Argentino, like most paranormal claimants, wants to insert variables (and jargon) regarding human will, or luck, or hidden variables, like "hot and cold" machines. These variables make his systems faith-based and immune to disconfirmation.
I have asked him on many occasions two simple questions. First, how would you go about disproving your systems? Second, at what point in percentage return would your systems fail -- 98.0, 97.5, 94.2? He never has an answer to either. I'm sensitive to the second, in that if all sports betting went to 6-5, I would simply retire immediately. I could profit at that ratio, but my profits would be radically reduced, so why bother? And at 7-5, I could not profit. So I have immediate answers to these kinds of questions. Argentino does not.
LarryS I will answer your questions. Rarely does Rob not follow the correct math of video poker. His critics will not acknowledge this but it's the truth. Rob has told me, and you can read the articles and watch the videos, that he plays the correct math 95%+ of the time.
When does he divert from the math? When he needs a big win to make up for previous losses. That's all.
His best example of this is when he broke up trip queens to go for a royal and he got the royal. Rob called it a once in a lifetime event but his critics think he does it all the time.
Another example: breaking up a full house with three aces to go for quads. His critics think he does it all the time but in reality Rob never does it playing 8/5 Bonus poker, and he might do it playing 7/5 and he always does it playing 6/5 Bonus. But guess what? Dancer would also break up a full house with 3 aces when playing 6/5 Bonus.
And then there is the other great misunderstanding about Rob. Rob never advocates playing lower pay tables and ALWAYS says to play the BEST paytables available. Rob's critics won't acknowledge that either. So redietz's question about returns and paytables is moot. I doubt Rob has ever played 6/5 Bonus in his life and 8/5 Bonus is his main game.
The reality is there is a lot of misinformation and lies about how Rob really plays.
Aw yes, well Mr. Mendelson, how about commenting on Rob's posted claim over at GF that he "continually gets texts begging for money" from my "shysters."
Any idea about the origins of that misinformation?
Or how about the rambling references to my keeping my girlfriend away from Rob due to his "ten inches." Or the reference to the "sick connection" I have with arci, which must be the fact that we both lost our wives awhile back?
So is my keeping my girlfriend away from Rob due to his "ten inches" also misinformation in your mind?
Your whole act has worn thin, Mr. Mendelson. You're supporting someone who is blatantly and publicly lying about people. You should be ashamed.
Mr Dietz you and Rob Singer have your own battle of egos. Keep me out of it. Im here only to point out what Rob told me about his strategy and system and to remind everyone that they can see the videos for themselves. I'm not here to fight in your sandbox.
Wrong, Mr. Mendelson. You defend this guy, you stepped in my sandbox.
Welcome.
Your friendship with Mr. Argentino is going to prove to be a very public embarrassment for you and your family.
There is nothing in my interviews with Rob Singer where you are mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Well, Argentino has evidently hit a brick wall trying to get my personal details, so he's decided I invented being married and so on. Undoubtedly trying to have me state my late wife's name or origin or something. Back in the day, he was at least entertaining.
Mendelson's the problem here. He's propping Argentino up. The only reasonable thing to do is put Argentino's more crass and vile comments next to Alan's commentaries defending him and see what certain people think of the Mendelson family and business supporting such a reckless, racist, homophobic clown. Everything I need is available. It won't even require creative editing.
What is your problem redietz? Where have I ever mentioned your late wife or supported Rob's nasty comments about you or anyone else?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
And just what embarrassment are you going to cause me and my family?
Yes, and they were all started by Singer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Singer purports to beat negative expectation video poker games using a highly dangerous martingale system of increasing the bet as he loses. He says he recognizes and adjusts to hot and cold cycles. The problem with that is the streaks one see's are all in the past and have no bearing on the future. If you take a real deck of cards and play the game on the kitchen table you will also see streaks. It's the inherent nature of a deck of cards when they are being shuffled. But what you see is in the past. You cannot predict whether a streak will continue or not.
Alan, this has been going on for years. No one has misrepresented Singer's system except....Singer. He's quite the tap dancer. He has more routes than Greyhound Bus Lines. And his lugubrious penchant for attacking and smearing people that simply disagree with his theories has gotten him banned from all the major gambling forums.
Why don't you get Rob to put together a white paper on video poker and deliver it to scientists/mathematicans around the world. Let them vet it and see what their answers are. You won't get anywhere arguing with us about it.
You appear to be supporting the rambling lies of a racist, homophobic, martingale quack. You seek to make him credible, as if your association with him isn't going to follow you, your former business, and your son.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonWhat is your problem redietz? Where have I ever mentioned your late wife or supported Rob's nasty comments about you or anyone else?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
And just what embarrassment are you going to cause me and my family?
It's a brave new world, Mr. Mendelson. Your business and your family are entwined with Mr. Argentino and everything he says and does. It's just a matter of publicizing that to the correct people.
Mickey, Rob never claimed to beat negative video poker. All he's done is win at certain times and then said he quit when ahead.
Now I can't tell you if his reported profits are true and after all Rob has told us that he uses all sorts of deductions to offset his video poker profits. So we'll never know.
However he has presented the math of his special plays as well as the conventional plays for all to see. He has been 100% clear that his special plays are all at a disadvantage to the conventional plays. He has never denied the math. He has only said that less than 5% of the time (and that could mean less than one-tenth of one percent of the time) he has hoped a special play would give him luck.
Do not confuse that with his other hostile words.
Frankly, Rob's system of playing full pay 8/5 Bonus Poker with a conventional strategy 95%+ of the time is easier to believe than claims that someone can earn $500 a day playing must hit by low level slots five days a week because that would mean the slot player is winning 20% more than Singer's $100,000 a year.
No. I'm pointing out what Rob Singer told me in the interviews. I suggest you read again what was written starting with the very first paragraph explaining what my purpose was.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzYou appear to be supporting the rambling lies of a racist, homophobic, martingale quack. You seek to make him credible, as if your association with him isn't going to follow you, your former business, and your son.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonWhat is your problem redietz? Where have I ever mentioned your late wife or supported Rob's nasty comments about you or anyone else?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
And just what embarrassment are you going to cause me and my family?
It's a brave new world, Mr. Mendelson. Your business and your family are entwined with Mr. Argentino and everything he says and does. It's just a matter of publicizing that to the correct people.
A personal and public note to redietz: why don't you just ignore Singer's offensive talk including talk about your late wife? Is it really important for you to carry on this battle? I don't think anyone cares.
A personal and public note to mickeycrimm: why don't you ignore Rob as well? What's the point of arguing? What can you win and what would he lose by continuing?
I rarely get a must hit play. There are much stronger plays around anyway. Alan, a whole new generation of vulturable games have hit the casinos nationwide in the last couple of years. They are still being installed in places. These games can be found from one end of the country to the other. In other words, it's boom times for advantage players. I haven't seen anything like it since the late nineties. I'm currently not spending much time in Montana.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
And remember, I once offered to show you what I do. You did not take the offer and continued to criticize, not believe. Your opinions are based in ignorance until you see it.
PS: Since you came back does this mean Fat Belly is going to come out of the woodwork too?
Mickey are you now willing to be on TV?
What you state as a purpose is irrelevant. People state purposes all of the time. Stating a purpose doesn't relieve anyone of responsibility for consequences. What matters are the consequences of your support for a ranting, racist, homophobic martingale quack who slanders people on a regular basis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonNo. I'm pointing out what Rob Singer told me in the interviews. I suggest you read again what was written starting with the very first paragraph explaining what my purpose was.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzYou appear to be supporting the rambling lies of a racist, homophobic, martingale quack. You seek to make him credible, as if your association with him isn't going to follow you, your former business, and your son.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
It's a brave new world, Mr. Mendelson. Your business and your family are entwined with Mr. Argentino and everything he says and does. It's just a matter of publicizing that to the correct people.
Your taping of him, your support of him, your friendship of him reflects on you, your business, and whoever currently runs your former business. You are associated with him. You have propped him up repeatedly, and you are largely responsible for any credibility he currently has.
People should know these things about you, your family, and your business. And they will.
Redietz why don't you call me a kike?
How much are you willing to pay? If I'm going to be spilling the beans to a mass audience I demand to be paid well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
What guarantee do you give that you will perform as expected?Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmHow much are you willing to pay? If I'm going to be spilling the beans to a mass audience I demand to be paid well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Redietz, I've no dog in this fight but in the interest of clarity I'll point out that in supporting singer alan does not become singer.
Your fight is with his friend, not with alan, so why not go to GF or wherever else your nemesis is posting these days and go toe to toe with him directly?
Enough with the surrogates.
STFU clown...what are you the moral conscience for everyone on the internet?...all you want to see is more internet drama while you sit at your desk and whack yourself off, waiting for another ambulance to chaseQuote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
Fuck off, douchenozzle.
I don't post at GF, I care little as to what goes on there.
Alan left and returned to protect his buddy, who cannot post here because he is nuked.
Fair is fair.
I wouldn't say I'm protecting Rob. Rather, I think I'm reminding everyone just what Rob has said about the math of video poker including that he follows the math of the game and plays the games with the best returns and that he acknowledges that his special plays are at a mathematical disadvantage to the conventional plays. Now I think everyone understands that and if you still don't understand that then watch the videos on my website and watch Rob say those things.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
Playing negative EV VP you are going to lose X. Playing it at double the stakes you are going to lose X x 2. Playing it at quadruple your are going to lose X x 4. Playing it wrong with make you lose even more. No getting around this. Thats why Sling isn't a multi-billionaire yet and still plays for chump change. IT DOESN'T FUCKING WORK!!
I must admit that I haven't found the magic bullet yet because I have never had an annual profit gambling. But I've also played positive expectation video poker games and damn't I didn't have a profit doing that either.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
This really is all that need be said, jbjb. But I will add to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
Here are the facts of the Rob Singer.....story: Presumably the person posting as Rob Singer had a full career as a executive. You will note that he did not earn his money from VP play. I am not knocking this career or any career choice. Just posing the question....why would someone who discovered the holy grail, and could make as much money as he desired, work and go through the daily grind (even at the higher end) until retirement? :rolleyes:
And the answer is that this person has not discovered the holy grail. This person is a negative expectation, degenerative type gambler. Their higher end career earnings provided them with the means to play and lose regularly. Hopefully he has not lost everything he worked for, for a lifetime, but living in a RV, in someone else's driveway, mooching electricity and internet from friends and family is not a good sign.
His tales of winning a million dollars playing negative expectation games are just that...."tales". There is an old joke....how do you win a million dollars gambling? You start with two million and play until you have 1 million. That seems closer to Rob Singer, or whatever this person is calling themselves, actual journey. :rolleyes:
Remember your grandfather who went to the race track, 2-3 times a week for a lifetime? When you asked his how he did over a lifetime...he would always say "about even". This Rob Singer person's claims are along those lines. Against the mathematics and nothing more than wishful thinking.
What changes this situation from your grandfather's rather harmless "I am about even over my lifetime", is writing a book. It's no longer a man trying to justify his losses to himself or grandson with his fantasy. Now it becomes an agenda! An attempt to deceive for profit. And this is precisely why this Rob Singer person becomes so combative, so utterly nasty and attacks anyone who rightfully challenges the mathematics of his fantasy claims.
To try to stem the damage from those that rightfully point out the impossibility of these claims, the agenda driven person needs a few voices to speak up in support of his fantasy claims. This is often where sock puppets enter the picture and this Rob Singer person has been a master of that. And if this person is good at his craft of deception, he may find a couple gullible people to speak up in support of him (as in this case) or find some other shyster type, willing to speak up and enable him and Alan Mendleson has filled that role nicely.
Just think about this: You have one person living in a fantasy world that thinks he saw lightning strike 18 times in a row vouching for a guy who claims to have won a million dollars grinding at a negative expectation game. That would be funny....if it wasn't so sad. :(
If Alan were still a news journalist he would lose his job over his association with Singer.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
For those following along with this drama, you can flip over to GF to see this Rob Singer person respond. But note his response will not include anything concrete that disputes anything I have said, but rather, personal attacks against my sexuality or god knows what. Nothing concrete, because there is nothing concrete. His whole thing is an alternative fantasy world.
And GF is the perfect place for this 'person'. Yes, many of us that are now here, myself included, participated at GF. But upon the owner exposing himself as a scam artist type, most of the legitimate members of the AP and gambling community left. So it is kind of fitting that this Rob Singer person become the star attraction of such a site. ;)
Incorrect, Mr. V. I wish it were as you say, but that would be the same as saying that the Stanford Research Institute had nothing to do with the financial and reputational success of Uri Geller. Uri Geller, without the imprimatur of the SRI, would have been a niche novelty. It was when a respected scientific establishment was manipulated and bamboozled that Geller's public stock rose. The problem, in that case, was the SRI.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
People had to be willing to take on and debunk the credibility, competence, and honesty of the SRI as much (or more) than debunk Geller. It was the old story -- once established professionals were invested in Geller, it took yeoman's work to flip the script. The SRI's reputation took a monstrous hit, and deservedly so.
Some people said as you just said, but there was no way to debunk Geller without debunking the SRI. Geller, by the way, was about as nasty when challenged as Argentino, but without the rampant racism and homophobia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmIf Alan were still a news journalist he would lose his job over his association with Singer.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
We live in a day and age where associations cost. If Alan were in news, he would take the same kind of hit that Stanford Research Institute took regarding their endorsement of Uri Geller. The fight is simply to allow anyone who interacts with Mr. Mendelson in the real world to appreciate the significance of his ongoing support and friendship with someone like Argentino. That requires no sleight of hand -- just some work. The necessary information litters these pages. Let the public judge for themselves if acorns fall far from the tree, in terms of Mr. Mendelson's family and business concerns.
Let's return to the basic question. There was an allegation that Rob Singer had no respect for the math. In truth from the very start of my interviews with Rob he always referred to the math and even admitted his special plays were at a mathematical disadvantage.
Redietz made false statements about Rob and the math.
Everything else is a side issue.
Remember that $10,000 bet I tried to make with Singer? He ran for the hills. Do you think I would put $10,000 up if I wasn't guaranteed to win?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonWhat guarantee do you give that you will perform as expected?Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmHow much are you willing to pay? If I'm going to be spilling the beans to a mass audience I demand to be paid well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
It's Singer's fault that he was nuked. What? We're supposed to shut up because he got himself nuked? If he wasn't such a deushbag he would still be posting here.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
Rob does not play the best paytables possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonI wouldn't say I'm protecting Rob. Rather, I think I'm reminding everyone just what Rob has said about the math of video poker including that he follows the math of the game and plays the games with the best returns and that he acknowledges that his special plays are at a mathematical disadvantage to the conventional plays. Now I think everyone understands that and if you still don't understand that then watch the videos on my website and watch Rob say those things.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
Let's talk about this mickeycrimm because I'm going to propose this to several of the TV stations I work with. So please answer these questions:
1. What will be your starting bankroll?
2. What game or games will you be playing?
3. How much money do you guarantee you will win?
4. How long will it take you to win that amount?
I will take your answers to the TV stations to see if there's interest in a program.
Personally, if you told me that you had a starting bankroll of $50 and could turn it into $500 within 8 hours guaranteed I think there would be high interest.
Rob on the other hand said with $55,000 he could make something like $3,000 and frankly that wouldn't excite anybody.
See, for a statement to be false, it has to be false. Argentino has never reported his royals per number of hands or his four of a kinds per number of hands. In fact, he claims such statistics are unnecessary to evaluate his system(s).Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
So Mr. Mendelson, why don't you explain what false statements Argentino made?
How about that I am texting him?
That I keep my girlfriend away from his due to his ten inches of manhood?
That I was never married?
Shall I go on?
Argentino's math is the side issue. The main issue is his character, and your character for defending him, popularizing him, and failing to disengage from a racist, homophobic, ranting, slandering quack.
That is the main issue. You should be ashamed. Anyone who interacts with you should be ashamed. Anyone involved with you from a business perspective needs to be informed of your associations.
Sorry, but in my interviews he said he plays the best pay tables available.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmRob does not play the best paytables possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonI wouldn't say I'm protecting Rob. Rather, I think I'm reminding everyone just what Rob has said about the math of video poker including that he follows the math of the game and plays the games with the best returns and that he acknowledges that his special plays are at a mathematical disadvantage to the conventional plays. Now I think everyone understands that and if you still don't understand that then watch the videos on my website and watch Rob say those things.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
Perhaps you're confused with his other statement that he can win on lesser paytables?
Singer says his primary game is 8/5 Bonus.
I don't recall Dancer or Grochowski reporting their royals per number of hands either.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzSee, for a statement to be false, it has to be false. Argentino has never reported his royals per number of hands or his four of a kinds per number of hands. In fact, he claims such statistics are unnecessary to evaluate his system(s).Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
So Mr. Mendelson, why don't you explain what false statements Argentino made?
How about that I am texting him?
That I keep my girlfriend away from his due to his ten inches of manhood?
That I was never married?
Shall I go on?
Argentino's math is the side issue. The main issue is his character, and your character for defending him, popularizing him, and failing to disengage from a racist, homophobic, ranting, slandering quack.
That is the main issue. You should be ashamed. Anyone who interacts with you should be ashamed. Anyone involved with you from a business perspective needs to be informed of your associations.
8/5 Bonus is a 99.17% game. Nowhere close to the best payscales in video poker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonSorry, but in my interviews he said he plays the best pay tables available.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmRob does not play the best paytables possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Perhaps you're confused with his other statement that he can win on lesser paytables?
Singer says his primary game is 8/5 Bonus.
Actually, if you can find the 35/8/5 BP where all quads pay 175, that's a 99.6613% game.
Seems like Rob Singer should be the one to respond to this. I don't recall him invoking the 5th. Let's hear his testimony.
Dan???
Dan won't reinstate Singer. That leaves redietz to attack me, as if I'm Singer and I'm responsible for everything Singer has said.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
No, no no! You don't get to say this. Your actions of not only defending but enabling Singer's "alternative reality" nonsense, both as this forums owner and later as a participant means you have forfeited that right. And your own admission that you returned from "retirement" JUST to defend Singer, only confirms that you still adhere to this agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You simple don't get to stand there and cry that you are innocent of robbing the bank, while the dye from the exploding dye pack is still on your hands. :rolleyes:
I returned from "retirement" to set the record straight. All along Singer has been concerned with and followed the math of video poker. The other statements about Singer ignoring the math were lies.
I guess today's question is whether assembling Mr. Mendelson's own words, putting them in columns parallel to Argentino's postings, and distributing them to those who have contact with Mr. Mendelson and his family is "attacking" someone.
Seems like a stretch to use someone's own words as an "attack." No editorializing, no interpretations, and no additions are even necessary. Just letting people know who associates with whom. Seems like a public service to me.
Incorrect. I have asked Rob many times what the fail points of his systems are. Is it 98% return vp, 95%, 94%, 80%? When do the systems fail? Rob says there is no fail point. That is completely ignoring the math. Not reporting one's own statistical results is also ignoring the math.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I'd say "good try, Mr. Mendelson," but actually your apologetics are pretty pathetic.
This is Barney,
I greatly appreciate strategies of both the Singer and the Mickey. The Singer strategies have been hit and misses but the LID has made much monies to help me obtain the bestest casino dates. The Mickey slut machine devices strategy is much more consistent and provides free monies for gas and buffets. Both of these young gentleman should be applauded for sharing their most greatest wisdom.
Thank you very much
Rob has said he can win on any pay table. Why? Because of his money management -- not the pay table.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzIncorrect. I have asked Rob many times what the fail points of his systems are. Is it 98% return vp, 95%, 94%, 80%? When do the systems fail? Rob says there is no fail point. That is completely ignoring the math. Not reporting one's own statistical results is also ignoring the math.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I'd say "good try, Mr. Mendelson," but actually your apologetics are pretty pathetic.
While you are fixated on paytables, Rob counts credits and heads for the exit.
And it's been said millions of times before, money management can't win against a house edge. If you want to be delusional and believe him, go for it. We need the suckers in casinos!
Since I've never had a profitable year gambling shouldn't you be arguing this with Singer? I can only repeat what he told me in my interviews with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb