Arcimede$ IRS Transcripts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Yes...you sent for all those years, when you knew that only 2011-2014 were available...because that's what it said on the form you sent in.

---

Funny, you had no problem with Singer saying we should request forms from as far back as 2001 when it "says right on the form" that you can only get the last 7 years.

Fact is, it doesn't say "right on the form"4506T-EZ that you can only get 4 years of transcripts. That is hidden in the instructions which is why I didn't see it when I first filled out the form and sent it in. I only accidentally happened to see it the next day which is when I commented on it.

You are so full of lies one might think you really are Singer.

Non specific answers allow for non specific and broad explanations. See the Chewbacca defense for clarification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by james40

The question is, do you make enough to afford two RV's?

---

I think he has 4, complete with 4 separate cell phones and numbers each :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by james40

Non specific answers allow for non specific and broad explanations. See the Chewbacca defense for clarification.

---

Great episode BTW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

Great episode BTW.

---

One of my all time favorites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Silly lie. The agreement was we would both provide our tax returns. I went ahead and sent in for mine to put the pressure on Robbie.

Why do you constantly lie?

---

I'm not lying here.

You didn't provide your tax returns for years 2000-2009.

The pressure was on you.

Rob offered to pay for your returns for 2000-2009...you declined..."save your money" you wrote.

Then you sent for transcripts for 2011-2014, and other years that you knew would not be available.

Big deal...that only proves that you are a phony.

Why are you taking it so hard? I'd love to see the IP addresses at play here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

I'm not lying here.

You didn't provide your tax returns for years 2000-2009.

The pressure was on you.

Rob offered to pay for your returns for 2000-2009...you declined..."save your money" you wrote.

Then you sent for transcripts for 2011-2014, and other years that you knew would not be available.

Big deal...that only proves that you are a phony.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Funny, you had no problem with Singer saying we should request forms from as far back as 2001 when it "says right on the form" that you can only get the last 7 years.

---

Rob always declared that transcripts would not meet the conditions of the challenge...and as it turns out they didn't!

Don't bother with transcripts, he warned, transcripts won't work. But you sent for them anyway.

The issue of more than 7 years was for returns...not transcripts...and the question of what was available was addressed here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

I can confirm one thing--the returns are not automatically destroyed after 7 years. This is our government that we are talking about--returns are available for many years beyond the seven year period just due to the way our government/IRS operate. I have been able to get returns for decedent's well beyond 7 years when necessary. There is no guaranty--but what's the harm in requesting them.

Since Rob has agreed to pay the cost, where is the downside Arci?

If I were as certain that Singer is a liar as most of you are, I would do anything I could to expose him once and for all. Get the effin returns, in full, ordered from the IRS!!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by james40

The question is, do you make enough to afford two RV's?

---

Alan makes enough to rent all of us an RV for an annual get together in Las Vegas. All in favor, say Aye.

Coach, um, what do arci's transcripts have to do with Rob's claims?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by james40

Why are you taking it so hard? I'd love to see the IP addresses at play here.

---

I'm trying to get Rob Singer to send his tax returns for any years available from 2000-2009.

That can't be done by brow-beating Rob, the best way is for arcimede$ to comply with the challenge he agreed to,
and send in his tax returns for years 2000-2009. He hasn't done that.

Alan can check or post the IP addresses to assuage the suspicious or paranoid among us.

I'm an East Coast guy. I have posts on the Trip Advisor Atlantic City Forum dating back to 2011.

Do you suppose that Singer would have established an TA identity in 2011, to use as an alias here in 2016?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Coach, um, what do arci's transcripts have to do with Rob's claims?

---

I answered this 10 times already you blockhead.

Now where is the link to your sports-writing?

Only if we can get Rob Singer to hold a special training session. I need to have a winning trip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Alan makes enough to rent all of us an RV for an annual get together in Las Vegas. All in favor, say Aye.

---

Why are you so upset? The person involved has left, you are defending a ghost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

I answered this 10 times already you blockhead.

Now where is the link to your sports-writing?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by james40

Why are you so upset? The person involved has left, you are defending a ghost.

---

What do you mean "defending" ?

I'm trying to get arcimede$ to comply with the agreement he made, so then Singer must comply.

That's the only way to resolve this...10+ years of name-calling sure hasn't worked.

So you are just performing a public service for the board?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

I'm trying to get Rob Singer to send his tax returns for any years available from 2000-2009.

That can't be done by brow-beating Rob, the best way is for arcimede$ to comply with the challenge he agreed to,
and send in his tax returns for years 2000-2009. He hasn't done that.

Alan can check or post the IP addresses to assuage the suspicious or paranoid among us.

I'm an East Coast guy. I have posts on the Trip Advisor Atlantic City Forum dating back to 2011.

Do you suppose that Singer would have established an TA identity in 2011, to use as an alias here in 2016?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by james40

So you are just performing a public service for the board?

---

And what are you doing?...cracking-wise and reviewing cartoons?

That's great...good for you.

Cartoons? I take it you're not familiar with the Chewbacca defense? I don't know that I would call South Park a cartoon. Nope, I'm killing a rainy, dreary day that washed out all my plans outdoors. What's your excuse?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

And what are you doing?...cracking-wise and reviewing cartoons? Great.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

I'm not lying here.

---

Facts say you've been lying constantly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

You didn't provide your tax returns for years 2000-2009.

---

You can't get tax forms for most of those years. Your comment is beyond silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

The pressure was on you.

---

Nope. Another silly lie. This has always been about Singer verifying his claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Rob offered to pay for your returns for 2000-2009...you declined..."save your money" you wrote.

---

That was when it appeared we could get transcripts. Look how quickly he has avoided sending Alan the $150 for just the 3 years that are available.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Then you sent for transcripts for 2011-2014, and other years that you knew would not be available.

---

Another lie. How long is your nose?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Big deal...that only proves that you are a phony.

---

Projection at its finest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

I'm trying to get Rob Singer to send his tax returns for any years available from 2000-2009.

That can't be done by brow-beating Rob, the best way is for arcimede$ to comply with the challenge he agreed to,
and send in his tax returns for years 2000-2009. He hasn't done that.

---

I never "agreed to" send in forms for 2000-2009. How many lies is this now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

To this degree, I agree with coach belly. I do not think Rob lied about himself. In other words, all of the speculations regarding arci and advantage video poker players, and other people, because they were presented as facts, could be considered lies. But I don't think Rob would consider himself a liar in that he very carefully avoided specifics regarding himself. Those three "mathematicians?" Never named, for example. Rob may have been counting his accountant, his son-in-law, and the neighbor kid taking eighth grade geometry, but they could all be considered "mathematicians," since the word itself does not necessarily refer to professionalism or any accreditation. Number of sessions won and amounts? Nothing ever precisely claimed. Times the martingale failed? Always avoided, but he never said it had never failed. He simply said the big wins outnumber the big losses by a lot. True, in terms of number of wins versus number of losses. But not necessarily true, in fact probably false, if net dollars total are the criteria. Rob never made it the criteria. Again, there is probably a reason for that.

---

Singer has given numbers for many things back on freevpfree. He even specified the nationalities of his 3 math guys. So, your comment is not valid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

I never "agreed to" send in forms for 2000-2009. How many lies is this now?

---

"any years available" just like it says...you phony.

The following disputes your weasely reasons for not sending returns

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

I can confirm one thing--the returns are not automatically destroyed after 7 years. This is our government that we are talking about--returns are available for many years beyond the seven year period just due to the way our government/IRS operate. I have been able to get returns for decedent's well beyond 7 years when necessary. There is no guaranty--but what's the harm in requesting them.

Since Rob has agreed to pay the cost, where is the downside Arci?

If I were as certain that Singer is a liar as most of you are, I would do anything I could to expose him once and for all. Get the effin returns, in full, ordered from the IRS!!

---

Coach seems to have adopted the perspective that Rob should only back up his claims if someone who made no claims does what coach says. Rob seems to have an aversion to making anything after 2009 available for inspection. Why would that be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

But I don't think Rob would consider himself a liar in that he very carefully avoided specifics regarding himself. Those three "mathematicians?" Never named, for example.

---

Actually, they were:

Las Vegas Poker Players: Be Very Afraid

Near the bottom of the page:

James Hudong--Hong Kong (now China if you weren't aware).
Franz Schaeffler--Germany
Graham (can't remember right now)--UAE, of Australian decent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Number of sessions won and amounts? Nothing ever precisely claimed.

---

There were, such as in This podcast where he said (at 17:20)

This year I had a very unusually lucky year, I hit four royals, I played 25 hours total, and I won directly from the machines 192,000 dollars.

Most of the later posts he made in the "big wins" section of this forum also state the approximate time he played and what his profit was.

There are scores of things he stated out there, but because he wrote more on forums than Tolstoy wrote in "War and Peace" it's easy to forget them.

I think coach is possessed by the ghost of Rob Singer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spock

Actually, they were:

Las Vegas Poker Players: Be Very Afraid

Near the bottom of the page:

James Hudong--Hong Kong (now China if you weren't aware).
Franz Schaeffler--Germany
Graham (can't remember right now)--UAE, of Australian decent.

There were, such as in This podcast where he said (at 17:20)

This year I had a very unusually lucky year, I hit four royals, I played 25 hours total, and I won directly from the machines 192,000 dollars.

Most of the later posts he made in the "big wins" section of this forum also state the approximate time he played and what his profit was.

There are scores of things he stated out there, but because he wrote more on forums than Tolstoy wrote in "War and Peace" it's easy to forget them.

---

Absolute gold!! I laughed....a lot!!!

This was the funniest thing I have seen today.

"There are scores of things he stated out there, but because he wrote more on forums than Tolstoy wrote in "War and Peace" it's easy to forget them."

I liked all the speculation and pictures on who the three math guys were :-)

The Three Stooges was LOL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

I liked all the speculation and pictures on who the three math guys were :-)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Coach seems to have adopted the perspective that Rob should only back up his claims if someone who made no claims does what coach says.

---

Your are incorrect there, Oscar Madsion.

My perspective is not that Rob should not release his tax information unless arcimede$ complies with the conditions that he agreed to...rather that he will not. There's a difference.

Will Rob release the info after arcimede$ complies? I don't know, but I'm not willing to dismiss the possibility like everybody else has,
so let's find out...OK?

Round and around we go...but it's not about what I say...it's about what arci said he would do...and he hasn't done that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Rob seems to have an aversion to making anything after 2009 available for inspection. Why would that be?

---

My understanding is that arcimede$' "prove it, liar" challenge covers the years 2000-2009.

So, anything after 2009 is not germane...it's a smokescreen...a red herring...the Chewbacca defense.

""So, anything after 2009 is not germane...it's a smokescreen...a red herring...the Chewbacca defense."

Hey...get your own material.

Has Rob Singer has appointed you to represent him in this matter? If not, you are negotiating something you have absolutely nothing to do with. Or do you???

I can't believe you are beating this dead horse after the principal player has left the forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Singer has given numbers for many things back on freevpfree. He even specified the nationalities of his 3 math guys. So, your comment is not valid.

---

I was referencing this forum alone, but I stand corrected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by james40

I can't believe you are beating this dead horse after the principal player has left the forum.

---

Then you must really be confused by your own self...reading along, commenting and asking questions.

Don't you have any more cartoons to watch?

Almost forgot to answer the question from the peanut gallery....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by james40

Has Rob Singer has appointed you to represent him in this matter? If not, you are negotiating something you have absolutely nothing to do with. Or do you???

---

Singer never asked for my help.

Actually I was called out by arcimede$ to mediate the dispute, and I'm trying to force results and closure, but the parties are being difficult, so the effort is taking many posts.

Quote
Originally Posted by arcimede$

"Now, where is belly boy to save the day?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

I'm trying to force results and closure,

---

There is no need. The results are known. It's time for closure.

Rob emailed me that he will not be returning. But we still have plans for dinner in February. Perhaps I can talk him into coming back.

I knew Rob would never present his tax returns for the reasons I gave earlier. I am sure that somewhere along the line he exaggerated something and he's afraid that one little wrong stitch will unravel everything. And that's too bad.

It's too bad he exaggerated something, and it's too bad he couldn't admit to a mistake. After all it might have been a minor mistake.

I never doubted his big wins. I never doubted that he could win on average $100,000 a year. I did question his "business deductions" and I am still not sure he did what he said he did and that might be one of his exaggerations.

Realistically, winning a hundred thou a year playing $10 and $25 video poker is not so impossible. In fact it's very possible with a little luck and with the disciplined approach that he used about quitting and going home, and then starting over another day.

What everyone else criticizes as a Martingale approach actually could win if you have the sufficient bankroll to move up to the bigger denominations.

And then everyone is forgetting something that's very important: Rob didn't always play with "special plays" or with a "martingale." Most of the time he played conventional strategy -- but he played it at higher levels than the rest of us.

Another thing: he made a big deal out of his special play winners and of course he would do that. If he said he was just another "conventional video poker player who won big" he would just be another "conventional video poker player who won big." He wanted to make a name for himself and so he emphasized what made him different-- the special plays and his strategy of quitting when ahead and hating the casinos.

I think that's what appealed to the Gaming Today publisher -- Rob had a different slant on gambling. He was not run of the mill.

I think if Rob came out and said most of his wins were because of conventional play and a big bankroll everyone's reaction would be a big yawn -- and that would not set him apart from Dancer and Scott and Grochowski. Hence -- the Rob Singer methodology was promoted.

This is just another example of why I've always said my friend Rob Singer is his own worst enemy. He just created problems for himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

The following disputes your weasely reasons for not sending returns

---

No, it doesn't. Where do you get the idea that someone's opinion overrides what is printed on the forms?

"Copies of Forms 1040, 1040A, and 1040EZ are generally available for 7 years from filing before they are destroyed by law"

Hey, feel free to call the IRS and argue with them. I'm simply quoting what is right on form 4506.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Actually I was called out by arcimede$ to mediate the dispute, and I'm trying to force results and closure, but the parties are being difficult, so the effort is taking many posts.

Quote
Originally Posted by arcimede$

"Now, where is belly boy to save the day?"

---

Looks like belly boy doesn't understand the concept of sarcasm. LOL.

Yes, this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Then you must really be confused by your own self...reading along, commenting and asking questions.

Don't you have any more cartoons to watch?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Realistically, winning a hundred thou a year playing $10 and $25 video poker is not so impossible. In fact it's very possible with a little luck and with the disciplined approach that he used about quitting and going home, and then starting over another day.

---

From what Rob has written in the past he played very little at those denominations. In his first 250 sessions he claimed to have played the $25 denomination 3 times and lost one one of those. That limits him to 2 jackpots at $25. I think he claimed to have won 88% of the time. This would mean he lost 30 times. IIRC, he didn't play at the $10 level even that often (something around 20). Hence, most of his sessions contained play at $5 or less. Also, his win goal was only $2500.

In my simulations the few winners that showed up did hit big jackpots at high denominations. From Singer's own words that did not happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Looks like belly boy doesn't understand the concept of sarcasm. LOL.

---

If you didn't asking him to get involved and he doesn't have permission from Singer to get involved, why is he here trying to broker anything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by james40

If you didn't asking him to get involved and he doesn't have permission from Singer to get involved, why is he here trying to broker anything?

---

arci called me out...he asked me to come "save the day"...the quote is above.

This challenge was evidently attempted long before I joined here.

When I first started reading the forum, arcimede$ was constantly calling Singer a liar.

I couldn't figure out why, and asked "what is the lie?"

Well that simple question set the mental patient / phony boloney arcimede$ off, and kickstarted the renewal of the challenge.

Check the Nov 2015 threads

"What is my "long term" for video poker?"

& "Did I ever show a profit?"

Your delusions are strong bro, I'm tired of reading this mess. "Good luck in saving the day".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

arci called me out...he asked me to come "save the day"...the quote is above.

This challenge was evidently attempted long before I joined here.

When I first started reading the forum, arcimede$ was constantly calling Singer a liar.

I couldn't figure out why, and asked "what is the lie?"

Well that simple question set the mental patient / phony boloney arcimede$ off, and kickstarted the renewal of the challenge.

Check the Nov 2015 threads

"What is my "long term" for video poker?"

& "Did I ever show a profit?"

---

Proves the old adage stand up to a bully and he'll run away. Well Rob ran away with his tail between his legs. Thanks Alan for exposing him by saying you wouldn't ban him and make him see the thing through. Arci was right all along these past dozen years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Also, his win goal was only $2500.

---

And if he went to Vegas once a week? That covers the $100,000 per year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

And if he went to Vegas once a week? That covers the $100,000 per year.

---

Not quite. Remember, the losses are either $57K or $17K. It doesn't take many losses to negate those wins. While the wins aren't limited to $2500, the fact he claims a high win rate and few sessions at the highest denominations would indicate his wins would be on the low side.

Of course, you're also assuming he really did gamble as he claimed. Nothing in his past would support that assumption. The more likely interpretation is his entire persona is a lie and that covers all of his claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

arci called me out...he asked me to come "save the day"...the quote is above.

---

Nonsense. If you couldn't tell I was subtlely predicting you would pop out and support Singer, then you are amazingly dense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

This challenge was evidently attempted long before I joined here.

---

So, why do you keep claiming to know all about said challenge if you weren't even here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

When I first started reading the forum, arcimede$ was constantly calling Singer a liar.

I couldn't figure out why, and asked "what is the lie?"

---

So, you admit you just showed up but felt like jumping into the middle? yeah, right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Well that simple question set the mental patient / phony boloney arcimede$ off, and kickstarted the renewal of the challenge.

---

Nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Check the Nov 2015 threads

---

We were here long before then. We know what was going on. All you did was jump in with massive confusion and silly comments. Your confusion has yet to end. Maybe you should have just butted out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

So, you admit you just showed up but felt like jumping into the middle? yeah, right.

---

Yeah, that's right.

I'm a card player, I never touched the machines until AC added bartop machines a few years ago.

I first heard about Rob Singer from some dingbat in AC who insisted that VP machines
could be programmed by the casino to be hot or cold at certain times of the day.

I googled him and found the special plays videos with Alan. Rob seemed lucid and pleasant enough.

A little more searching and I landed here.

I came to this forum without bias. I knew virtually nothing of Singer, Dancer, Crimm, Dietz, Witteles, Mendelson, etc.

The first thread I read was "Big Casino Wins and Jackpots"

About 10 posts into an otherwise friendly discussion, you pop in with some jerky wise crack,
soon followed by you calling him a liar, that his wins were faked, his photos were faked, lies, lies, all lies,
like some broken record.

I kept on reading, and your sniping vitriol was repeated on virtually every thread where he commented.

Finally...just this November...I pointed out that you have repeatedly called him a liar, and simply asked "what is the lie?"

Of course you immediately attacked me, calling me names, that I am a liar, that I am a Rob Singer alias, etc, etc.

Of course what Rob has written about you has been cruel and unpleasant, but from my perspective...you antagonized him, apparently you have been antagonizing him for YEARS.

And then, you antagonized me...without provocation....sooner or later you attacked everybody.

You sir are an asshole...plain and simple...but I'm sure you already knew that.

I tried to find out the truth about Singer's claims, you were in position to make that happen...AND YOU BLEW IT.

Instead I find myself here arguing with a stubborn, myopic, sick old man, some self-proclaimed math genius,
so-called Advantage Player, who's played $1 VP fulltime for years and managed to earn a whopping $1 per hour.

You are a sociopath and a joke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

I first heard about Rob Singer from some dingbat in AC who insisted that VP machines
could be programmed by the casino to be hot or cold at certain times of the day.

---

I am not exactly sure what you heard but there is a bit of truth to this. A couple of years ago centrally controlled gaming systems were developed which would allow a casino from a central computer to alter the paybacks on individual and banks of machines and even the entire casino if they wanted to. In effect they could make machines hot or cold.

I am not sure if any casino now uses this system. There are rules for its use in Nevada.

It's possible that some casino in New Jersey uses it -- I don't know.

It's also possible that what you heard was someone discussing the new technology.

With this central computer system, for example, a casino could switch all of its Jacks or Better games from 9/6 to 9/5 during evening hours, and then back to 9/6 during the morning. Or a casino could switch the payback on slot machines from 87% to 92% during a promotional period.

The regulations for their use in Nevada include some safeguards such as a player can't be on the machine when it's changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

A couple of years ago centrally controlled gaming systems were developed which would allow a casino from a central computer to alter the paybacks on individual and banks of machines and even the entire casino if they wanted to.

---

Revel was rumored to have that for some slot banks, but that's not what she was talking about.

She was talking about regular old Game Kings, being hot or cold during certain times of the day, without the paytables changing, and that the casino programmed them that way.

She talked about Rob Singer and his hot and cold machine theory. Isn't that one of his claims, that the machines aren't necessarily random, and he can find hot and cold machines?

I can't recall Singer claiming that here, but I believe it's been alluded to here by his critics.

He hints of it briefly in the podcast at the link provided by Spock.

The casinos do not program the machines to do anything. Shuffle a deck of cards and deal VP hands yourself all day and you'll see the same "hot/cold" phenomenon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I am not exactly sure what you heard but there is a bit of truth to this. A couple of years ago centrally controlled gaming systems were developed which would allow a casino from a central computer to alter the paybacks on individual and banks of machines and even the entire casino if they wanted to. In effect they could make machines hot or cold.

I am not sure if any casino now uses this system. There are rules for its use in Nevada.

It's possible that some casino in New Jersey uses it -- I don't know.

It's also possible that what you heard was someone discussing the new technology.

With this central computer system, for example, a casino could switch all of its Jacks or Better games from 9/6 to 9/5 during evening hours, and then back to 9/6 during the morning. Or a casino could switch the payback on slot machines from 87% to 92% during a promotional period.

The regulations for their use in Nevada include some safeguards such as a player can't be on the machine when it's changed.

---

Are we certain this confusion is not about the Class II & Class III slot machines (including VP machines)? Class III machines are what we are used to seeing every time we walk into most casinos. Their paybacks are at a fixed rate. The Class II machines are usually found in Indian casinos with looser regulations. Their paybacks can be altered on the fly even though they look like normal Class III machines, usually to suit casino-wide bingo style payoffs operating in the background as far as I know.

No... it's called server based technology. Here are some articles about it:

http://grochowski.casinocitytimes.co...ed-slots-60104

http://www.cnet.com/news/for-casino-...in-the-cards/#!

http://www.gamingtoday.com/articles/...s#.Vo53xL1Z1PE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

No... it's called server based technology. Here are some articles about it:

http://grochowski.casinocitytimes.co...ed-slots-60104

http://www.cnet.com/news/for-casino-...in-the-cards/#!

http://www.gamingtoday.com/articles/...s#.Vo53xL1Z1PE

---

It's against Nevada Gaming Regulations to create hot and cold streaks in machines. But it appears with this server based stuff they can change a payscale, say from 9/6 Jacks to 9/5 Jacks after a machine has been idle for 4 minutes. But the problem with this is the payscale change would be noticed by players. It would lead to a lot of complaints. It would have been all over the internet forums like Alan's, WoV, vpFREE, etc., by now if it were occuring.

One of the articles said it was planned for that project that was to replace the Stardust. I heard that the casinos in City Center once considered it.

Where this would be troubling would be with reel slots and video line games--unless a law were in place that they had to change the payscale to reflect the lower payback. And even if that were a law many players would still get caught in the trap. If they were allowed to change the payback by putting in a reel or video line game with the same payscale that was programmed with less winning combinations that would be very bad for players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

No... it's called server based technology. Here are some articles about it:

http://grochowski.casinocitytimes.co...ed-slots-60104

http://www.cnet.com/news/for-casino-...in-the-cards/#!

http://www.gamingtoday.com/articles/...s#.Vo53xL1Z1PE

---

This is no different than before except for the speed at which the changes occur. Casinos could always change the games by going in and changing the paytables (VP) or payback (slots). Now it can be done electronically but only on idle machines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

This is no different than before except for the speed at which the changes occur. Casinos could always change the games by going in and changing the paytables (VP) or payback (slots). Now it can be done electronically but only on idle machines.

---

Absolutely true -- this technology speeds up the process.

But it's the new "speed" for making changes that creates a problem for players. I recall the initial discussions about this technology and the examples given included:

It's Saturday morning and the tour buses are arriving -- time to increase the hold on penny slots.
It's Saturday night and there is a big fight in town -- time to lower the paytables on video poker.

What the technology allows is what I would call "opportunity pricing." By pressing a few buttons the casino can immediately change its games with the new technology while in the past it meant two-man teams going machine to machine swapping chips.

Since manpower and time are now saved, opportunity pricing can be used more often.

I'm still clinging to the ledge of Singer belief by my fingernails. Let me be a Devil's Advocate by saying absence of Rob's tax info doesn't necessarily constitute evidence of absence of Rob's wins.

Yes, it seems that Rob's credibility is all but shot at this point barring some huge surprise coming soon.

If Rob was lying about all these results over the years, why would he spend all this time and mental energy doing so over a 10-15 year period making perhaps tens of thousands of forum posts spanning many different internet message boards?

I can't imagine how much sheer mental energy Rob spent (not to mention the thousands of hours spent over the years) bolstering what many people are suspecting is a lie. What sane person would pursue such a tragic waste of time and life energy?

Just....some nagging questions I had to get off my chest....

PS. I know arci might say it's due to some sort of narcissism, but that explanation feels inadequate for some reason...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Count Room

I'm still clinging to the ledge of Singer belief by my fingernails. Let me be a Devil's Advocate by saying absence of Rob's tax info doesn't necessarily constitute evidence of absence of Rob's wins.

Yes, it seems that Rob's credibility is all but shot at this point barring some huge surprise coming soon.

If Rob was lying about all these results over the years, why would he spend all this time and mental energy doing so over a 10-15 year period making perhaps tens of thousands of forum posts spanning many different internet message boards?

I can't imagine how much sheer mental energy Rob spent (not to mention the thousands of hours spent over the years) bolstering what many people are suspecting is a lie. What sane person would pursue such a tragic waste of time and life energy?

Just....some nagging questions I had to get off my chest....

PS. I know arci might say it's due to some sort of narcissism, but that explanation feels inadequate for some reason...

---

Narcissistic Personality Disorder

Narcissistic personality disorder is a destructive preoccupation with one’s own personal adequacy, power and prestige. People with this disorder crave for admiration, have an unreasonably strong sense of entitlement and are often preoccupied with unrealistic fantasies of success, beauty and ideal love. Unlike malignant narcissism, narcissistic personality disorder is defined as a mental illness in DSM-V (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the Fifth Edition).

First of all, whether Rob won or lost is, to me, irrelevant in many ways. What's relevant is his assigning a reason to why he won or lost that doesn't really make sense. His holding up his personal success as evidence of his "strategies" being superior to plain advantage play is like a lottery winner deciding he/she won due to some reason and then touting that reason.

I actually thought Rob had won what he claimed in the years he claimed, but I'm now getting the sense that he may not have or, alternatively, he may have won it, then lost it in the years following, which would explain his reticence to share recent tax returns.

There's no disgrace in losing, unless Rob's harping about stepping up in denomination after wins was, as some have speculated, projection referencing himself. Even then at least he's giving out a valuable piece of advice. It is pretty convoluted, when you think about it, for someone to teach that stepping up in denomination after losing is a good thing and stepping up after winning is a bad thing. That kind of schizophrenic strategy is a tough sell if logic and math mean anything.

All of this "step up in denomination/quit when ahead" stuff was just illogical, non-mathematical bad advice. His "hate the casinos/do what they don't want" advice, however, was spot on, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

he may have won it, then lost it in the years following, which would explain his reticence to share recent tax returns

---

How would recent tax returns, or any tax returns for that matter, reflect a net gambling loss?

They wouldn't, but the implication is that if he balanced the wins out with losses, rather than using massive deductions as he claimed earlier, then he almost undoubtedly lost. If there are no wins listed, also, for recent years, it would suggest he wasn't really gambling. He would then have a tough time matching his claimed wins on this forum, of which he posted photos, with the returns for those years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

They wouldn't, but the implication is that if he balanced the wins out with losses, rather than using massive deductions as he claimed earlier, then he almost undoubtedly lost.

---

For recent years, if he balanced out wins with losses, so that he claimed no net win, then that means that he lost the money he won from 2000-2009...undoubtedly?...is that right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

If there are no wins listed, also, for recent years, it would suggest he wasn't really gambling. He would then have a tough time matching his claimed wins on this forum, of which he posted photos, with the returns for those years.

---

OK...assuming no wins are listed for recent years, suggesting that he wasn't gambling, then how would he have lost his "professional" winnings...if he wasn't gambling?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

All of this "step up in denomination/quit when ahead" stuff was just illogical, non-mathematical bad advice. His "hate the casinos/do what they don't want" advice, however, was spot on, I think.

---

Agreed, although I don't necessary "hate" casinos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

For recent years, if he balanced out wins with losses, so that he claimed no net win, then that means that he lost the money he won from 2000-2009...undoubtedly?...is that right?



OK...assuming no wins are listed for recent years, suggesting that he wasn't gambling, then how would he have lost his "professional" winnings...if he wasn't gambling?

---

I didn't say he had lost his winnings, if winnings there were. I said he may have. We'll never know, which is fine with me, because it's pretty much irrelevant, unless one thinks somebody's tax returns prove Rob's strategies bypassed the laws of probability. I prefer to believe Rob won.

You know, coach, when it comes to the whole topic of whether Rob "lied," to me it comes down not to the question of whether Rob's strategies resulted in his winning, but if Rob truly believed they were the key to his winning. If Rob truly believed that, he would have kept logs of number of hands and winnings and number of royals and so on. Then he would have rubbed them in our face, rather than the occasional photo op with a jackpot. We didn't see any of that on this forum. Would the proclaimed greatest video poker player ever, awash in critics, not keep such records? Considering he said he played only a few hours a week, how hard would it be? What would be his motivation to not keep those records? What would be his motive for not sharing those records?

If Rob's like your usual clairvoyant or psychic, his answer should be that record-keeping was beneath him and interfered with his process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I didn't say he had lost his winnings, if winnings there were. I said he may have. We'll never know, which is fine with me, because it's pretty much irrelevant, unless one thinks somebody's tax returns prove Rob's strategies bypassed the laws of probability. I prefer to believe Rob won.

You know, coach, when it comes to the whole topic of whether Rob "lied," to me it comes down not to the question of whether Rob's strategies resulted in his winning, but if Rob truly believed they were the key to his winning. If Rob truly believed that, he would have kept logs of number of hands and winnings and number of royals and so on. Then he would have rubbed them in our face, rather than the occasional photo op with a jackpot. We didn't see any of that on this forum. Would the proclaimed greatest video poker player ever, awash in critics, not keep such records? Considering he said he played only a few hours a week, how hard would it be? What would be his motivation to not keep those records? What would be his motive for not sharing those records?

If Rob's like your usual clairvoyant or psychic, his answer should be that record-keeping was beneath him and interfered with his process.

---

I recommend you read this again:

Narcissistic Personality Disorder

Narcissistic personality disorder is a destructive preoccupation with one’s own personal adequacy, power and prestige. People with this disorder crave for admiration, have an unreasonably strong sense of entitlement and are often preoccupied with unrealistic fantasies of success, beauty and ideal love. Unlike malignant narcissism, narcissistic personality disorder is defined as a mental illness in DSM-V (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the Fifth Edition).

I'm trying not to read it again because it's so spot on vis-a-vis Rob, it's scary. Evidently Rob is a gentle soul in person (do not know -- have not met him), but online he becomes a whole 'nother thing. The "ideal love" angle really nails it.

Hard to believe textbook definitions can come alive like that. The overvaluing of RV's, the perfect marriage, the four-cell-phone braggadocio, a way to win that is his alone, a perception that there exist "the critics," it's all unsettling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

All of this "step up in denomination/quit when ahead" stuff was just illogical, non-mathematical bad advice.

---

What he suggested was not exactly crazy. When I play video poker I know that there are times when the machine sucks my money, and there are times when the machines pay out.

The step up in denomination strategy is the HOPE that after losing XXXX dollars at a low denomination, that you will finally hit something at a higher denomination. The belief here is that machines don't stay cold forever. Now-- there is NO proof of this and the only way to test it is to have Rob's kind of bankroll. What was it, $57-thousand?? I NEVER PLAYED THIS STRATEGY but I can understand how it would be successful if you had that kind of money in your pocket.

I also understand the idea of quit when ahead, and frankly, had I quit when ahead many, many times, I would have been a very happy guy instead of being a miserable guy. Of course there are exceptions when you win big -- and then keep winning big. That's what happened to me with that $100,000 royal. If I followed Rob's strategy I would have quit after that quad that paid $5,000. The basic idea about quitting when ahead is that big winners don't come along that often. Now, be honest -- do they?

Regarding why we will never see Rob's tax returns: I think he just doesn't want us to see them, and for good reason. I don't doubt his wins either, but he told us of some stuff that he maintains was legal for offsetting his wins. I also wouldn't be surprised if he did some other funny stuff in addition to deducting groceries and dinners with his wife, and that's all I'm going to say about that.

But did Rob Singer win big? Yes. He won big. Are his tax returns Kosher? I don't think a Rabbi did his taxes for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I didn't say he had lost his winnings, if winnings there were. I said he may have.

---

OK...but you speculated that his "reticence to share recent tax returns." was because they could reveal that he may have lost his previous winnings.

Can we now agree that is not valid?...because one year's tax return cannot reveal previous year's losses.

You asserted that a return showing gambling losses negating all W2G wins "undoubtedly" means an overall loss.

Of course, net zero does not mean a loss...that's pure speculation on your part...some might even call that "projection".

But, if you are convinced that net zero actually means a loss, then that would apply to everyone...not just Singer...right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

one year's tax return cannot reveal previous year's losses.

---

Let me explain this and without referencing Rob. This is just an explanation about reporting wins and losses on your tax return.

Each year you are required to report all of your WINS. Not only your W2G wins but ALL of them. Then you can deduct from those wins your LOSSES but only up to the amount of the WINS.

As an example:

Bill won $178,653 playing poker, video poker, betting on horses, playing penny slots, and shooting craps. He reports $178,653 as his winnings.

But Bill lost $678,850 that year. That money over and above the $178,653 that he won came from his winnings from previous years, plus his inheritance, plus his job, plus credit card cash advances.

When it comes to his TAX RETURN, the only amount he is permitted to SHOW on the return as losses is $178,653 which equals his actual wins. All the other money lost will not show on his tax return.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

You know, coach, when it comes to the whole topic of whether Rob "lied," to me it comes down not to the question of whether Rob's strategies resulted in his winning, but if Rob truly believed they were the key to his winning. If Rob truly believed that, he would have kept logs of number of hands and winnings and number of royals and so on. What would be his motivation to not keep those records? What would be his motive for not sharing those records?

---

If Rob filed as a professional gambler, then shouldn't we assume that he kept gambling records?

You are asserting, that because he has not revealed the records, then he didn't keep them.

You haven't revealed your records either...does that mean you don't keep records?

What's his motivation not to produce his records? Who knows?...maybe he threw them out.

But please don't tell us YOU know...some troll would call you a liar for that.

You don't know the truth about Singer...so don't give me truly this or truly that...that's bs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

When it comes to his TAX RETURN, the only amount he is permitted to SHOW on the return as losses is $178,653 which equals his actual wins. All the other money lost will not show on his tax return.

---

My point exactly...one year's tax returns cannot show that a previous year's winnings were lost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

he may have won it, then lost it in the years following, which would explain his reticence to share recent tax returns.

---

What records do you think Rob needs? As far as wins go: he needs the W2Gs and he needs his daily logs for win and loss. He doesn't need to keep track of the number of hands, or the games he played, or the denominations. If had them, great -- but not required. And they would not show up on his tax returns.

For his Schedule C deductions he would need a log or itemized records and receipts and these would include mileage logs, hotel bills, tips he gave (LOL), meal expenses, groceries for all those parties he had for teaching people how to play video poker, and band-aid expenses for pushing the buttons so often that he got blisters.

Was he teaching people how to hit more royals? No. If he did, then he would need a tally sheet on the number of hands played and the number of royals he hit. But he wasn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

If Rob filed as a professional gambler, then shouldn't we assume that he kept gambling records?

You are asserting, that because he has not revealed the records, then he didn't keep them.

You haven't revealed your records either...does that mean you don't keep records?

What's his motivation not to produce his records? Who knows?...maybe he threw them out.

But please don't tell us YOU know...some troll would call you a liar for that.

You don't know the truth about Singer...so don't give me truly this or truly that...that's bs.

---

I think some troll just did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I'm trying not to read it again because it's so spot on vis-a-vis Rob, it's scary. Evidently Rob is a gentle soul in person (do not know -- have not met him), but online he becomes a whole 'nother thing. The "ideal love" angle really nails it.

Hard to believe textbook definitions can come alive like that. The overvaluing of RV's, the perfect marriage, the four-cell-phone braggadocio, a way to win that is his alone, a perception that there exist "the critics," it's all unsettling.

---

Don't forget the craving for admiration and the unreasonable strong sense of entitlement. Is is an eerie definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Count Room

If Rob was lying about all these results over the years, why would he spend all this time and mental energy doing so over a 10-15 year period making perhaps tens of thousands of forum posts spanning many different internet message boards?

---

Maybe the better question would be "How could anyone spend so much energy and so many forum posts over such a vast amount of time trying to convince the world he was the greatest video poker player in the world without ever being able or willing to supply a single piece of non-controvertible evidence supporting that claim?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spock

Maybe the better question would be "How could anyone spend so much energy and so many forum posts over such a vast amount of time trying to convince the world he was the greatest video poker player in the world without ever being able or willing to supply a single piece of non-controvertible evidence supporting that claim?"

---

Mental health issues are life-long issues.

I think the NPD is the biggest reason for Singer lies. Keep in mind he lost his inheritance and job back then. He had nothing to support the NPD driven mental image of himself. He also wormed his way into writing a monthly column. He needed something to write. Without his "I am the greatest gambler" persona what did he have? Zilch.

BTW, one of the attributes of people with NPD is they can be very charming. However, it is all any act. They do it whenever they think it will help them. If it ever becomes obvious an individual cannot help their self image, they drop them like a rock. We discussed this quite a bit on freevpfree.

I do wish Alan had taken him up on his offer to watch him play and explain his plays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slingshot

I do wish Alan had taken him up on his offer to watch him play and explain his plays.

---

I know his plays. Nearly all of his plays are conventional video poker plays. His "special plays" are few. Even that play where he had three queens and three to the royal, he said he faced that situation only twice in his life. And of those two times, he took his shot at it ONCE.

While his "trademark" is his special plays he plays like the rest of us play.

When I shot that series of interviews in my room at Caesars, Rob first met me and Jason downstairs in the high limit room where I was playing double double bonus VP. Rob sat next to me and watched me play and offered his advice -- except he didn't have to EXCEPT on one hold. I was dealt a high card with three low cards to a straight flush. He said, "aren't you going for the straight flush? That's the correct hold." Well, I just held the high card. Indeed three to the straight flush was the correct CONVENTIONAL play and that's what Rob was suggesting.

There were no "special plays" tips given to me -- and he watched me for awhile.

Because he TALKS about the special plays doesn't mean that's ALWAYS how he plays.

He's also had a bad rap for "quitting when ahead." Frankly, except for the APs of the world, it seems like everybody in a casino tries to quit when ahead. As I've said before I regret that many times I didn't quit when ahead.