Big Casino Wins and Jackpots

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Congrats, regnis. Nice hit.

Save some shekels. I hear the DRF is starting its own horse racing championship, and no money is taken out of the pool for administration. Maybe a worthwhile investment.

Congrats again!

---

Yes-they have been running some low entry fee qualifiers, but they made it a multi step process. The low entry qualifier ($11) gets you to the first round qualifier. Or, you can pay $95 to play in the first round qualifier. Then one of seven advance to the round 2 qualifier (or buy in for $580). If you make it that far, then in round 2 the top 10% advance to the finals later in the year.

If you make the finals, then it's 200 players. A little different format will be used. Day 1 the top 100 advance. On day 2 it is 2 pronged and 50 will advance to the final later on day 2.

The "no money is taken out" thing may be a little misdirection by them. I am not sure, but I think that applies only to the finals. I believe that there is take out along the way. But they are entitled as they have to administer the whole thing. Plus, the ratios to advance round to round are better than in other contests. I think you can also buy in for $5,000 which actually isn't bad in a real money contest but is pretty steep for this type of contest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Congrats, regnis. Nice hit.

Save some shekels. I hear the DRF is starting its own horse racing championship, and no money is taken out of the pool for administration. Maybe a worthwhile investment.

Congrats again!

---

Yes-they have been running some low entry fee qualifiers, but they made it a multi step process. The low entry qualifier ($11) gets you to the first round qualifier. Or, you can pay $95 to play in the first round qualifier. Then one of seven advance to the round 2 qualifier (or buy in for $580). If you make it that far, then in round 2 the top 10% advance to the finals later in the year.

If you make the finals, then it's 200 players. A little different format will be used. Day 1 the top 100 advance. On day 2 it is 2 pronged and 50 will advance to the final later on day 2.

The "no money is taken out" thing may be a little misdirection by them. I am not sure, but I think that applies only to the finals. I believe that there is take out along the way. But they are entitled as they have to administer the whole thing. Plus, the ratios to advance round to round are better than in other contests. I think you can also buy in for $5,000 which actually isn't bad in a real money contest but is pretty steep for this type of contest.

---

That is pretty steep, but I know a couple of people likely to buy in directly if they do not qualify. I see what you mean -- they are conducting this like a multi-stage poker tournament and taking their cut from the sub-stages. Somebody told me they intend to have their final near the NHC final date-wise. If that's true, it seems they intend to go full-on head-to-head with the NHC. A lot of people would not be sad about that.

Well, that royal will fund many sub-stages, so good luck. It'll be fun to take a few cracks at it.

Great hit, Regnis!

Was that at Horseshoe Hammond?

The VP there has really gone downhill in the last year or two. The place used to be pretty good -9/6 DDB with progressive, ULT4OAKB, ect. They might as well call it Horsh*t Hammond now.

With Indiana's tax laws on W2Gs, their best games, the $5 9/7TDB and 9/6 BDLX are unplayable (in my opinion).

Congrats again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddb1

Great hit, Regnis!

Was that at Horseshoe Hammond?

The VP there has really gone downhill in the last year or two. The place used to be pretty good -9/6 DDB with progressive, ULT4OAKB, ect. They might as well call it Horsh*t Hammond now.

With Indiana's tax laws on W2Gs, their best games, the $5 9/7TDB and 9/6 BDLX are unplayable (in my opinion).

Congrats again.

---

Why is it your opinion that 9/7 TDBP is "unplayable? It is the only version of that game I have played if I'm remembering correctly, and I have three hits worth $200k from it. Is it their "tax laws on W2G's". I don't understand what your meaning here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Is there some kind of state tax, or do you mean you had them deduct federal income tax? And why would $7 not be important enough to keep?

TDB is a highly volatile game, and playing that game because the royal is progressive (especially at 9/5) is a play only a gambler's mother could love. But all that's NOTHING compared to braving a trip thru the south side of Chicago in order to go to a casino. You're work must have been mind-boggling in order to have put together such a day. Overall with all things considered, I'd rate it at D+.

---

State tax Rob. Both Illinois and Indiana take tax on jackpots. A lousy $7.00 takes it from an A+ to a D+. You're tuff--maybe you should grade on a curve.

We have had occurrences of gamblers being followed home and robbed and even killed in addition to just the threats of driving through the south side. Somewhere in this forum I have mentioned the night I got attacked by 3 fine young men after a hockey game just off of downtown. It's an unfortunate fact of life in an otherwise great city.

---

The declined grade was achieved mostly from travelling thru "the pride of Obama country" in order to go to a casino. However, I do believe giving a $7 tip on a $5000+ handpay would cause more hatred and bad feelings than a straight- up Rob Singer stiff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

And BTW, you DO realize you really did not win anything at all, right? With that trimmed TDBP payable, every hand you played--including this one--cost you money!

---

Of course you are be facetious here, Rob. But 9/5 TDB is a 97% game. And Indiana has a 3.4% state tax on W2-G jackpots that are withheld and you can't get it back because you can't deduct losses. On dollars or higher it turns that 800 for 1 jackpot into a 763 for 1 jackpot. And it turns that 400 for 1 jackpot into a 384 for 1 jackpot. That equates to a .6% reduction in the payback of the game. So you would be playing a 96.4% game. And at $5 denom or higher the 250 for 1 hits are subject to the 3.4% tax. That's another deduction of .3%. So tell us, Rob. Can your martingale system with the special plays of sub-optimal holds beat this game?

At what payback percentage does your system fail? This is a question you have been asked before but have never answered. The great Rob Singer should know the answer to this question. Would you please give us a serious answer to it.

And could you show us your crockumentation?

First of all, you're claiming I played 9/5 tdbp at Wynn when I hit the four aces with a kicker on their $25 machine, when it was 9/7. Check out the pic that's already in the system here. It's as much a doozy for Singer haters now as it was when I posted it.

Then be sure to ask your silly pal Axel how many hits like that at that denomination his "team" has had. Aside from a ton of angst, no doubt he'll come to you for some pretend story-telling.

You didn't answer the question, Rob. At what payback percentage does your system fail? Your system would fail at some point. Would your system fail at 9/6 TDB, 9/5 TDB? Surely, the world's greatest video poker player would know the answer. What's the lowest payback percentage that your system will still work? People are dying to know.

I asked this same question of him on multiple occasions. He never answered. I don't expect him to answer now. The words "Singer" and "fail" just can't be in the same sentence.

Anybody who knew anything about his own "system" would have an answer or answers.

Textbook quackery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddb1

Great hit, Regnis!

Was that at Horseshoe Hammond?

The VP there has really gone downhill in the last year or two. The place used to be pretty good -9/6 DDB with progressive, ULT4OAKB, ect. They might as well call it Horsh*t Hammond now.

With Indiana's tax laws on W2Gs, their best games, the $5 9/7TDB and 9/6 BDLX are unplayable (in my opinion).

Congrats again.

---

DDB--it was at the Horseshoe which does have crap VP and now the worst craps tables I have ever seen. They have lost all of their big VP players and big craps players.

For those of you that play craps, the tables are so bouncy that even a soft throw will bounce up and over and out. No chance to control the dice at all. Also, the pass line is too close to the back wall so there is no open space at which to aim the dice. You almost have to hit the chips. I haven't played craps there in years and had I decided to play craps after hitting the royal, I would have gone to a different casino.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Is there some kind of state tax, or do you mean you had them deduct federal income tax? And why would $7 not be important enough to keep?

TDB is a highly volatile game, and playing that game because the royal is progressive (especially at 9/5) is a play only a gambler's mother could love. But all that's NOTHING compared to braving a trip thru the south side of Chicago in order to go to a casino. You're work must have been mind-boggling in order to have put together such a day. Overall with all things considered, I'd rate it at D+.

---

State tax Rob. Both Illinois and Indiana take tax on jackpots. A lousy $7.00 takes it from an A+ to a D+. You're tuff--maybe you should grade on a curve.

We have had occurrences of gamblers being followed home and robbed and even killed in addition to just the threats of driving through the south side. Somewhere in this forum I have mentioned the night I got attacked by 3 fine young men after a hockey game just off of downtown. It's an unfortunate fact of life in an otherwise great city.

---

The declined grade was achieved mostly from travelling thru "the pride of Obama country" in order to go to a casino. However, I do believe giving a $7 tip on a $5000+ handpay would cause more hatred and bad feelings than a straight- up Rob Singer stiff.

---

OK--guilty as charged. But I was already in the "pride of Obama country" closing a deal. As it turns out, I have always had a presence in the black business community and they are some of my best clients. And their money still counts too. So it was the closest casino to get to and I was already in the neighborhood.

Right, any 4 of a kind on either of those $5 games is taxed at 3.4% - which as MC pointed, in Indiana, is gone for good as you can't deduct gambling losses on Indiana state taxes.

Other casinos, only 5 minutes away, have much better paytables. I had some FP to run a while back and saw games like 8/5 DDB for dollars, and all lower denom. progressives were 7/5 with painfully slow meters.

I can accept mediocre games in Vegas, at a fancy place like Bellagio with excellent service and comp booze, but not at a place like HH.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

First of all, you're claiming I played 9/5 tdbp at Wynn when I hit the four aces with a kicker on their $25 machine, when it was 9/7. Check out the pic that's already in the system here. It's as much a doozy for Singer haters now as it was when I posted it.

Then be sure to ask your silly pal Axel how many hits like that at that denomination his "team" has had. Aside from a ton of angst, no doubt he'll come to you for some pretend story-telling.

---

I don't recall four aces with a kicker. I thought it was four small cards with a kicker?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I asked this same question of him on multiple occasions. He never answered. I don't expect him to answer now. The words "Singer" and "fail" just can't be in the same sentence.

Anybody who knew anything about his own "system" would have an answer or answers.

Textbook quackery.

---

I'm a klutz at figures, but I can read pretty good. I know for a fact Rob has written:
(1)Percentages have NOTHING to do with winning
(2) Playing past a reasonable win goal is the first step to being a loser.
(3) Playing past a loss goal is the second step.
That just about covers it because talking about his strategies is too far above your heads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

First of all, you're claiming I played 9/5 tdbp at Wynn when I hit the four aces with a kicker on their $25 machine, when it was 9/7. Check out the pic that's already in the system here. It's as much a doozy for Singer haters now as it was when I posted it.

Then be sure to ask your silly pal Axel how many hits like that at that denomination his "team" has had. Aside from a ton of angst, no doubt he'll come to you for some pretend story-telling.

---

I don't recall four aces with a kicker. I thought it was four small cards with a kicker?

---

Two of the hits were four small cards with a kicker. The one at Wynn that you went over there to check on that funny $25 denomination sign was four Aces with the kicker. I still have the pics if they're too hard to find on here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slingshot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I asked this same question of him on multiple occasions. He never answered. I don't expect him to answer now. The words "Singer" and "fail" just can't be in the same sentence.

Anybody who knew anything about his own "system" would have an answer or answers.

Textbook quackery.

---

I'm a klutz at figures, but I can read pretty good. I know for a fact Rob has written:
(1)Percentages have NOTHING to do with winning
(2) Playing past a reasonable win goal is the first step to being a loser.
(3) Playing past a loss goal is the second step.
That just about covers it because talking about his strategies is too far above your heads.

---

+100,000

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

You didn't answer the question, Rob. At what payback percentage does your system fail? Your system would fail at some point. Would your system fail at 9/6 TDB, 9/5 TDB? Surely, the world's greatest video poker player would know the answer. What's the lowest payback percentage that your system will still work? People are dying to know.

---

Even an idiot like you, who claims to be an expert on my strategy even when loaded (which apparently is most of the time) would know that my strategy would succeed using any pay table available on the games that I play.

Rob's a helluva writer. See, 99% of the people reading the above will conclude Rob is saying his strategy will make money in the long term. But that's not really what he wrote. He said his strategy would "succeed," which is a subjective term not necessarily directly applicable to making money. Legally, one could say a vp strategy is "succeeding" if the person wins a lot of sessions percentage-wise, even though he loses a boatload of money overall. Similarly, legally one could say a strategy is succeeding if it keeps you in the seat a certain amount of time. "Succeeding" is in the eye of the beholder. Rob knows this.

Bottom line: Succeed does not mean "making money overall for any length of time." It could mean anything. Rob doesn't define it.

It's no accident that Rob avoided any mention of making money or coming out ahead financially. He's a tricky writer. It takes an editor's eye to catch some of this stuff.

come on redietz... now you want to get into the debate about the long term?

I don't give a damn about the long term. I care only if I win each session when I play, whether that session is five minutes or a week long trip to Vegas.

If Rob has a method/system/strategy that will make me a winner for five minutes or a week long trip it's good enough for me.

If that system says quit when ahead it makes sense to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Rob's a helluva writer. See, 99% of the people reading the above will conclude Rob is saying his strategy will make money in the long term. But that's not really what he wrote. He said his strategy would "succeed," which is a subjective term not necessarily directly applicable to making money. Legally, one could say a vp strategy is "succeeding" if the person wins a lot of sessions percentage-wise, even though he loses a boatload of money overall. Similarly, legally one could say a strategy is succeeding if it keeps you in the seat a certain amount of time. "Succeeding" is in the eye of the beholder. Rob knows this.

Bottom line: Succeed does not mean "making money overall for any length of time." It could mean anything. Rob doesn't define it.

It's no accident that Rob avoided any mention of making money or coming out ahead financially. He's a tricky writer. It takes an editor's eye to catch some of this stuff.

---

Did you write the speeches for Obama or Hillary?