Printable View
So put a snydicate together and raise the money...doesn't it qualify as a good play?Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
How about my $100 against your $10K? Can you handle that action?
I already asked once what the logistics would be for this bet and you never answered.
So far you've only answered that you make the rules...OK so what are the rules?
You sound like that idiot, Rob Singer.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Was this necessary?Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
When did Singer propose month-long challenges or million-hand bets?Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
Alan, was RS's statement here even remotely close to the many disparaging remarks Singer has made here that you never criticized?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You mean: two wrongs make a right?Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
I criticized Rob too many times to mention. He is his own worst enemy.
He proposes wagers with others and when no one accepts them, he claims victory. When someone does accept his wager, he welches.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Alan, was it necessary? No, but most things in life aren't necessary. Your comment wasn't necessary, either. Two wrongs don't make a right, but no one's saying they do. Plus, I'm not wrong.
To the best of my knowledge, the wagers that Rob has proposed have been both reasonable and quick to resolve. Nothing like a month long challenge or a million hand bet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
I believe Alan is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I haven't been around long enough to know of all of Singer's wagers, but I don't recall any that could not be accepted as being impractical...such as playing side-by-side for a month or a million hands. Can you offer any evidence of wagers he proposed that were impractical, where he claimed victory after nobody accepted?
Regarding Singer's bet with acrid, my recollection is that Singer's conditions were not met. Singer said the evidence must be A, acrid instead provided B, knowing full well in advance that B would not meet Singer's conditions.
mickey crimm explains the essence of acrid's deliberate error here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
You are all fools if you don't know Singer's strategy when it comes to making a real bet.
Singer this...Singer that.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Get over your attachment to Singer and let's get on with our bet.
What's your strategy?
After about 750,000 rounds on 7/5 BP, the sim showed a 0.01% chance of profit. It dropped to 0.00% around 800,000 or so when I checked it again. Unfortunately it doesn't have more digits of precision.
Rob's wagers are ridiculous because it doesn't have a thing to do with actually winning. When he cashes out a small profit, put that money into his left pocket, he considers that a "soft profit". Even if/when he loses more than that amount, he considers himself profitable. But to say he actually won in a session where he overall lost, is beyond ludicrous.
I can do $100,000 coin in and profit $50,000 every time.....well, if we consider every payout as a profit and don't consider the losses.
RS__ you actually understand Rob's system? I've been listening to him for years and I still don't.
More theoretical fantasy that keeps your wet dreams about the guy active and slushy night after night.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
You've seen others here criticize his bs about playing with such tiny "edges" when there's apparently other AP "opportunities" out there at up to +10% that they regularly tackle. Seems to me you and they ought to get your theories and stories a little bit better coordinated.
And to further clarify....putting a challenge up on an internet board between mostly anonymous folks is one thing. Publishing a challenge in a LV paper while putting up the cash escrow and identifying where it is, is quite another. It gave the Huntington Press crowd quite a piece of humble pie to digest as they embarrassingly escaped.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
As another reminder for the slackers here who've come over from that liberal transgender, atheist, and queer-loving WoV forum---that's another bunch of chest-pounders who ran for the hills after I offered to play 10 sessions for a five figure bet with them.
On the phony Dancer challenge mickey made up here, he's drinking the silly juice again. A million hands? Months of play? Dancer works jobs. Splain that mickey :)
RS__: as I've said, the only place that have barred me from playing vp over the years that have done so in writing is Bellagio, and I published the letter in Gaming Today. And as you know, no one else who has made such a claim has ever come close to providing any kind of proof of their banning, barring, or restriction. So at face value, your assertion is a bit weak, wouldn't you say. Cat got your AP tongue? :)
I understand the theory of his system. Once he's up a certain amount, he cashes out the profits which he calls "soft profits". After cashing out some soft profits, he goes back to the $1 denom and starts over again....until he has $4k in soft profits, or if he's out of money. Needless to say, it's inevitable that most session he'll have at least SOME soft-profits, even if he has a net loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
It'd be like me saying I'm going to do $100,000 coin in on a machine (cycle through $100k in action) and I will have at least $50,000 in profits. But to me (in this theoretical situation), any payout (or coin-out) on the machine is to be considered a "profit"....and once I've hit $50,000 in payouts (or coin out), then I'll have the $50,000 in profit....and I win the wager we set agreed upon....even though my NET win/loss could be something totally irrespective of that $50,000 worth of coin-out.
The Bellagio barring you from VP was not because you were "such a big winner" there or anything to do with your great play, but because you took them up on an offer and gave them very little play. Your supposed barrings at other casinos has yet to be proven, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
When did Singer propose this bet or a bet like this?Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
Rob, I don't understand the trick to the 10-session thing. You should win 75% of your sessions or thereabouts, based on your martingale style. What exactly was the proposed bet?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Just made this visit here after 5 days. This site is a replica of that movie with Bill Murray titled “Groundhog Day”.
The same small group of (5 to 7) alleged self-proclaimed AP’s endlessly repeating over, and over, and over again the same fn lame arguments which do nothing else but prove how much shit your all full off.
Eventually, every argument will lead to the AP cash challenge which never develops and once again even proves further how much fn shit your all full off.
Shortly it starts all over again, and endlessly repeats the same process. When you visit this site you already know what you’re going to read about. The only value this site has is at times the arguments get entertaining. So, when you need to laugh about gambling, this is the place.
Whatever Alan charged Dan for this place must have been Alans best deal ever. Even just passing on the maintenance fees would’ve been considered a rip off. Alan, are you still friends with Dan?
I was in the opening scene of Groundhog Day. The TV scenes were shot at KCAL and the newsroom staff was invited to sit at their desks or walk through the newsroom as reporters and staffers would do during the shooting. We were paid the SAG extra rate too, which I think was $65 for the night's work. It was a lot of fun and my first time doing something like that. We ate with the crew with the craft service --- pretty good food, too. If you see the opening shot, a very young Alan Mendelson is wearing a trench coat (it was the Northeast) walking through the newsroom. On big screens in theaters you can't miss me.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackhole
Of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackhole