Printable View
Alan, mickeycrimm is correct. The Internal revenue laws involving setting up a business involving gambling revenue are different than normal rules and requirements, as the IRS specifically didn't want part-time incomes to qualify as "professional gambler". If you don't believe me, check with any knowledgeable tax consultant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Better yet, I'm going to call the IRS. My question will be "must your gambling income be your Primary income in order to file a Schedule C."
Do we all agree that is the issue?
I just said exactly that. Of course, Mr. Mendelson decided he's correct. He's like the George Costanza of gambling. Now, Mr. Mendelson wouldn't be mentioning this stuff because he knows Argentino had a full-time job during his professional gambler years, right? Nawwww, Mr. Mendelson wouldn't have any reason to think that, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJAlan, mickeycrimm is correct. The Internal revenue laws involving setting up a business involving gambling revenue are different than normal rules and requirements, as the IRS specifically didn't want part-time incomes to qualify as "professional gambler". If you don't believe me, check with any knowledgeable tax consultant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
No, it's not the issue. Not even close.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I did a Google search and found this high in the search results:
https://www.journalofaccountancy.com...-gamblers.html
I think these are the key words for kewlj and redietz and mickeycrimm:
" In Groetzinger, 480 U.S. 23 (1987), the Supreme Court established the professional gambler standard: "If one's gambling activity is pursued full time, in good faith, and with regularity, to the production of income for a livelihood, and is not a mere hobby, it is a trade or business." The burden is on the gambler to prove this status."
What is full time? What is full time for a Vegas player who commutes from Arizona?
What about a professional poker player who only plays in a dozen big money tournaments in a year? Is he not entitled to file a Schedule C because he doesn't sit at tables 40 hours a week?
Well now alan, that depends on whether your hypothetical poker player has a job other than playing poker.
In light of the recently bumped "Singer at bat" thread, I want posted confirmation from the mighty Rob that he is agreeing to these terms before I proceed. Time to put up or shut up Argentino.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJI see we are back to $900K. Amazing how half a million disappeared from the equation in a matter of minutes. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerIf I were able to get my tax returns from 2000-2009 the answer would be yes of course. But I'd make it for the $984,000 I won net during that time period---just as I did with that other homo Fezzik, when he and the fabled HP gang went down in a smoke that still lingers over LV.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
I'm surprised mickey. Why aren't you asking the same question of kew over my physical challenge? That tells me you would lose such a challenge to me also and you're afraid of it, just like him! C'mon, at 69 yrs. old I can't be THAT good, right?
But that is ok.....I accept the figure $984,000. I will contact Bob Nersesian and have him draw up papers that you and your attorney can agree to. We will then schedule an appointment, hopefully immediately, (like next week) with Tompkins and Peters at which time we will both deposit certified checks into an escrow account and get this ball rolling. I am confident Tompkins and Peters will be able tp retrieve your tax records through the IRS, since they will be doing so on your behalf.
Let's say you were a judge in the federal Tax Court. A poker player says he plays in six $25,000 tournaments a year and cashes in two of them for a net profit of $15,000.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
That's $165,000 of winnings vs $150,000 of entry fees .
Between tournaments he flips burgers for $15,000 a year and is given a W2 by his employer.
You're the judge: can he file a Schedule C for playing poker?
As burger flipping is his primary (i.e., regular) income, I'd vote "hobby," so no Schedule "C" for him.
see: informative article on point: https://www.journalofaccountancy.com...-gamblers.html
Mr. Mendelson is just playing; I think he knows better. Not only that, there's an eerie silence on Argentino or Mr. Mendelson verifying that Argentino was not employed anywhere when he was a professional video poker player. See, if Argentino was employed elsewhere, that eliminates the likelihood of his filing as an individual professional gambler. It leaves him with the option of starting up a Gambling Entity, but there are a number of consequences if that is what he did:
1) He has never mentioned starting a Gambling Entity.
2) Nothing the Gambling Entity did or accomplished can be attributed solely to Argentino.
3) There is no way to actually know, at this point, who was involved in the Gambling Entity.
I know as much about taxes as I do about The Flying Nun, but it has slowly, frighteningly dawned on me that that is more than most here.
Look, rub two neurons together and use your brains. Think about what a conversation would look like between somebody who lost five straight years playing video poker, offsetting big W2Gs with losses, who then decided after hitting a couple of big jackpots one calendar year that he was a professional gambler or that his Gambling Entity could reasonably be expected to show a profit. Gambling Entities are held to a different standard than most businesses. You have to demonstrate a likelihood of success, some model, some math, that makes long-term profits at least possible.
IRS Agent: So, I see you lost five years in a row to the tune of $450,000.
New Pro: Yes, but I'm now a professional.
IRS Agent: How's that? What's different?
New Pro: Well, I came up with a couple of new systems. I'm the only one who knows them. You wouldn't understand the math.
IRS Agent: Well, sir, that sounds reasonable to me. Let's give you a "professional" imprimatur.
Much of this origin story is just silly. If you're the face of a Gambling Entity, it's the same as heading a Pick Six conglomerate at the track or hosting folks who want to play slot machines on live feeds via other's contributions. There are myriad ways to maneuver money into one's own pocket via tax takeouts from the pools and then balancing wins and losses and all that. It's fifth grade scamming, but it probably still works today. Does anyone realize (except monet) how the suggestion of a 50/50 split with the Gambling Entity administrator deciding exactly when to stop a session -- does anyone realize how that opens the door to half a dozen different freerolls and tax scams?
Monet, speak up, man.
I'm busy with football, so use your neurons and ask, "If I were setting up tax trickeration and 50/50 freeroll scams, how would I do it?" The answers will come to you. Just pretend you're J.R.Ewing (yeah, I'm old).
If I get a chance later this month, I'll spell out how a Gambling Entity can provide cover for all sorts of nonsense, and how some tax manipulations can work. Regnis and monet both likely know this stuff better than me.
I can actually answer this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonLet's say you were a judge in the federal Tax Court. A poker player says he plays in six $25,000 tournaments a year and cashes in two of them for a net profit of $15,000.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
That's $165,000 of winnings vs $150,000 of entry fees .
Between tournaments he flips burgers for $15,000 a year and is given a W2 by his employer.
You're the judge: can he file a Schedule C for playing poker?
I work for myself as an engineer and work part time as a "carpenter" for my buddy. He issues a w-2 for my work (we are so above board that I have my own personal insurance which is expensive).
That second job of gambling made a profit, probability with documented earnings. Yes, you should claim and I believe you can use Schedule C,
I use two separate Schedule C's. I will not act as an expert if gambling is a second source of income.
Anyhow, I file two different Schedule C forms. Yes, ultimately I will take all my expenses out of the job that pays my 98% of my salary, but both jobs are listed on separate Schedule c's.
This is the same old shit Argentino pulls to get out of every bet. Change the conditions. Keep changing them until the other party gets tired of it and goes away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerIf I were able to get my tax returns from 2000-2009 the answer would be yes of course. But I'd make it for the $984,000 I won net during that time period---just as I did with that other homo Fezzik, when he and the fabled HP gang went down in a smoke that still lingers over LV.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmSo, Rob. Are you going to accept the challenge or not? A simple yes or no will suffice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I'm surprised mickey. Why aren't you asking the same question of kew over my physical challenge? That tells me you would lose such a challenge to me also and you're afraid of it, just like him! C'mon, at 69 yrs. old I can't be THAT good, right?
So what? That ex Mayor of San Diego took a billion dollars in W-2G's on her way to losing her fortune....and never tried to file as a professional.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerMore dumb mickey assertions.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmFrom Tax Help For Gamblers by Jean Scott and Marissa Chien:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
"....filing as a professional gambler using Schedule C has its own set of problems. First, the IRS imposes rigid requirements on anyone wanting to claim gambling as his "business," although these are not all set in stone; individual situations are considered. However, court cases have established that your intent must be to make money as a PRIMARY SOURCE OF INCOME; it must not be just a hobby."
By Rob's own words he went to the casino one day a week for an average of four hours. And he has said he had other income plus his wife's income. Do you really think the IRS would consider Rob's limited activity in casinos a profession and his primary source of income....especially considering that his gambling activity would not generate tax dollars to the IRS?
When there's some years where a million or millions of dollars in W2G's are involved, let's hear exactly how the IRS is inclined to believe one is not the professional gambler they file as. I'm waiting mickey..... And can you show me where it says how much time is required to be spent winning/playing and how they'd be able to match that up to how much time I played? Oh and you forgot this--I drove 4-13 hours each way among all locations around the state. And, I spent hours training, writing, and doing things a pro gambler/writer/consultant does.
You're so dumb.
This is the most laughable line you've ever written. Talk to ten different IRS agents and you will get ten different answers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Now we know why Rob went to the casino only one day a week. He went on his day off from work.
It gets confusing when the clowns get envious.
I'm trying to figure out why redietz now wants it to be that I was also working when I played VP professionally. Oh wait that's right--he needs to keep making it up so I won't bring up how he solicited me for money until I exposed his tactics here.
Kew you never read with comprehension. My official VP winnings from 2000-2009 was $984k. Those were my years filing as a professional gambler. File that somewhere upstairs or do as redietz does and gives his stats to his queer friend from Boeing in Calif. for safe keeping. My total VP win from over all years is about $1.5mil. Are you still shaking?
mickey why keep lying when you're down? If there were a way to do this challenge I'd do it. The idiot doesn't understand (and apparently has the dumbest "expert tax atty" in the city) who can't find the regs we all found a few years ago right here--that you cannot get tax return copies back further than 4 years in some cases and 7 in others. Make sense yet? And there has been no changes. I said if there actually were a way to have this bet I would want it for $984k. The problem is you, he, and a few other of the uneducated here can't figure out that records that old are unobtainable. He knew that when he started this nonsense.
But....when are you gonna talk the little twit into accepting my physical challenge.
Dumb. And dumber.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmSo what? That ex Mayor of San Diego took a billion dollars in W-2G's on her way to losing her fortune....and never tried to file as a professional.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerMore dumb mickey assertions.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
When there's some years where a million or millions of dollars in W2G's are involved, let's hear exactly how the IRS is inclined to believe one is not the professional gambler they file as. I'm waiting mickey..... And can you show me where it says how much time is required to be spent winning/playing and how they'd be able to match that up to how much time I played? Oh and you forgot this--I drove 4-13 hours each way among all locations around the state. And, I spent hours training, writing, and doing things a pro gambler/writer/consultant does.
You're so dumb.
It is the dark hole of taxes. How does one qualify as a professional gambler. The rules, regulations, and writings are vague, and the case law is all over the place. The first misconception is that you have to show a profit--some say 2 of 7 years. That might help but it is really only a minor factor. The facts of each case will dictate, but the most important factor is to show an intent to operate for profit. It need not be your sole income but if it is your sole source of income that helps.
How do you show an intent to operate for profit? In the case of a horseplayer, there is the time and effort put into handicapping. Subscriptions to the daily racing form, charts, race replays, etc. These unfortunately are not easy to prove. The sheer volume of wagers and the number of days that you wager are factors. Now with tournaments almost daily you can more easily prove time invested. Statements from racetrack management can be used.
Whatever the type of gambling that you are trying to prove is professional, similar evidence is needed. But the essence of the proof in court is really time. What kind of time is involved. Secondarily, do your actions seem to be that of a pro. Are you doing the right things to make a good faith attempt at a profit.
So how can you show enough time in multiple businesses? I had that problem in years in which I both gambled (horses) and practiced law. I was able to show that I operated both with the intent to profit, although it looked to the IRS like I never slept. Later, when I had a number of years where my sole income was gambling, I was questioned as to what happened to my "legitimate" income.
In Singer's case, I assume he lumped the whole VP, writing, teaching, etc. into his Schedule C as one "business". In horse racing, the same thing is done where one both owns and races horses and gambles on them. It gives the look of an intent to profit and allows for the type of deductions that Rob has claimed.
It is not for everyone. You must be organized and structured and just give the appearance of a professional. I keep a journal and all losing tickets in organized boxes. The IRS can match the losing tickets daily to my journal. I'll never forget the agent's face on my first audit when I dropped that box of organized losing tickets in his lap. I have about 30 years of those boxes in my basement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Uh oh, now "total VP winnings" are 1.5 million. And here we thought it was "net winnings." Well, that does change things a bit, wouldn't you say? Kind of like those stats during the WSOP broadcasts -- WSOP earnings $1.5 million, but they don't mention the net.
Mr. Mendelson, it turns out, could really use that 1K donation if you provide those texts and phone number where I solicited you. Why don't you be a dear and help out an old friend?
And finally, while I may be gay in 40% of all alternative universes, I can assure you GaryT is not. He's been married for 40 years with two lovely daughters. But I'm flattered that you think he might be attracted to me. Thanks, sweetie.
Red when you say these corny things you only confirm how you're a handicapper scammer in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Uh oh, now "total VP winnings" are 1.5 million. And here we thought it was "net winnings." Well, that does change things a bit, wouldn't you say? Kind of like those stats during the WSOP broadcasts -- WSOP earnings $1.5 million, but they don't mention the net.
Mr. Mendelson, it turns out, could really use that 1K donation if you provide those texts and phone number where I solicited you. Why don't you be a dear and help out an old friend?
And finally, while I may be gay in 40% of all alternative universes, I can assure you GaryT is not. He's been married for 40 years with two lovely daughters. But I'm flattered that you think he might be attracted to me. Thanks, sweetie.
Total vp winnings is obviously lifetime vp winnings so others don't look as dumb as you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Alan, I have no problem being bitch slapped if things are neutral. My original thoughts stand. For the community this is an inside joke (yes, it is in the forum). Yeah, "Columbo" should come out but I just need closure that this issue will not have closure.
Did you really think this issue was dead? I "trusted" you. At least smile when you respond.
Only one shaking is you, you pathetic old, bet welcher. It's probably Parkinsons....I would get that checked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
You a freaking 70 years old and demented. You are probably on oxygen and a scooter, like the other geriatric gambling addicts. I am literally half your age, despite your fantasy, currently in good health and run regularly, including a 5k just this morning. So fuck off you bet welching, gambling addict internet troll. Freaking ugly, crazy, cousin Eddie.
At some point you gotta work the word "net" in there. Go ahead, try to get the words out, "1.5 million NET winnings." You're psychologically blocking on this, and I can understand why. Just type slowly -- you can pull it off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerRed when you say these corny things you only confirm how you're a handicapper scammer in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Uh oh, now "total VP winnings" are 1.5 million. And here we thought it was "net winnings." Well, that does change things a bit, wouldn't you say? Kind of like those stats during the WSOP broadcasts -- WSOP earnings $1.5 million, but they don't mention the net.
Mr. Mendelson, it turns out, could really use that 1K donation if you provide those texts and phone number where I solicited you. Why don't you be a dear and help out an old friend?
And finally, while I may be gay in 40% of all alternative universes, I can assure you GaryT is not. He's been married for 40 years with two lovely daughters. But I'm flattered that you think he might be attracted to me. Thanks, sweetie.
Total vp winnings is obviously lifetime vp winnings so others don't look as dumb as you.
I posted that multiple times, as if you missed it. The jealous little people NEVER miss a post from me.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzAt some point you gotta work the word "net" in there. Go ahead, try to get the words out, "1.5 million NET winnings." You're psychologically blocking on this, and I can understand why. Just type slowly -- you can pull it off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerRed when you say these corny things you only confirm how you're a handicapper scammer in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Total vp winnings is obviously lifetime vp winnings so others don't look as dumb as you.
I like it! Badmouth me while making up things about yourself to make yourself feel relevant....even for someone with the multiple defects you have.....Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJOnly one shaking is you, you pathetic old, bet welcher. It's probably Parkinsons....I would get that checked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
You a freaking 70 years old and demented. You are probably on oxygen and a scooter, like the other geriatric gambling addicts. I am literally half your age, despite your fantasy, currently in good health and run regularly, including a 5k just this morning. So fuck off you bet welching, gambling addict internet troll. Freaking ugly, crazy, cousin Eddie.
Can you imagine, with me being in business for 40 years, with 4000 posts here, with having been on the LVAdvisor forum when it first started up, wouldn't you think the confederacy would have located one (1) solicitation or one (1) email or one (1) text message? I mean, the confederacy must have taken a decent look, wouldn't you say?Quote:
Originally Posted by DeechQuote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Alan, I have no problem being bitch slapped if things are neutral. My original thoughts stand. For the community this is an inside joke (yes, it is in the forum). Yeah, "Columbo" should come out but I just need closure that this issue will not have closure.
Did you really think this issue was dead? I "trusted" you. At least smile when you respond.
But nada. Damned shame. Keep swingin', boys.
Says the bet welching, degenerate gambler, cousin Eddie, living in someone else's driveway, mooching utilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Regnis,
Exactly how would you foresee a video poker player who had lost, say, the previous four or five years at negative expectation games, pulling off the good faith argument towards making a profit? What could you say to the IRS or your tax attorney that would sound semi-convincing?
I actually have a plausible answer to this, based on personal experience, but I was wondering if there is anything that you think would be convincing.
I have the quote of the day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerI like it! Badmouth me while making up things about yourself to make yourself feel relevant....even for someone with the multiple defects you have.....Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJOnly one shaking is you, you pathetic old, bet welcher. It's probably Parkinsons....I would get that checked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
You a freaking 70 years old and demented. You are probably on oxygen and a scooter, like the other geriatric gambling addicts. I am literally half your age, despite your fantasy, currently in good health and run regularly, including a 5k just this morning. So fuck off you bet welching, gambling addict internet troll. Freaking ugly, crazy, cousin Eddie.
Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeechI can actually answer this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonLet's say you were a judge in the federal Tax Court. A poker player says he plays in six $25,000 tournaments a year and cashes in two of them for a net profit of $15,000.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
That's $165,000 of winnings vs $150,000 of entry fees .
Between tournaments he flips burgers for $15,000 a year and is given a W2 by his employer.
You're the judge: can he file a Schedule C for playing poker?
I work for myself as an engineer and work part time as a "carpenter" for my buddy. He issues a w-2 for my work (we are so above board that I have my own personal insurance which is expensive).
That second job of gambling made a profit, probability with documented earnings. Yes, you should claim and I believe you can use Schedule C,
I use two separate Schedule C's. I will not act as an expert if gambling is a second source of income.
Anyhow, I file two different Schedule C forms. Yes, ultimately I will take all my expenses out of the job that pays my 98% of my salary, but both jobs are listed on separate Schedule c's.
And if you can document what one of those IRS agents said and you followed the advice the law says any penalties would be dropped if the IRS agent was wrong. That's why you should write down the ID number of the IRS rep you talk to and keep notes.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmThis is the most laughable line you've ever written. Talk to ten different IRS agents and you will get ten different answers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I agree with the above but I do not go from that to giving a shirt if anyone here thinks what I say is true. .....nor would I assume that I am so important that total stangers would care enough to generate hate toward me or anyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
nor do I want proof of anything people say.
Even though it's the same regulars and we get to know something about each other....doesn't mean I care one bit if anyone believes a speck of
What I say to be true.
I have no desire to make people believe me because I have a life and in the grand scheme of things nameless unknowns even if I am familiar with them can do nothing to make me want to make them bbelive.me
Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. Rob is lying about his lying. He actually said in one of his posts not long ago that his lifetime winnings was 1.4 million, not 1.5 million. But in actuality, that's what he claims to have won since 1999. In some of his posts Rob has stated that he lost $250,000 in the four years prior to 1999....and he says that's because he was playing the classic AP method. Although he has never said exactly what he was playing in those four years. He doesn't want to talk about it for some reason.
So in a true accounting Rob's (possibly imaginary) lifetime win would be 1.15 million. And that over 23 years. What is so spectacular about that? If it's true it amounts to about $50,000 a year, not the $100,000 a year that, in his creative accounting, Rob like's to report.
Rob, you started in 1995. I started in 1996. I've got some bad news for you, bro. This is going to tear your whole world apart. And I'm sure, with your hurt feelings, you will come with some hate filled posts about it. I've made more money in gambling than you have, Rob. Please don't cry. If you do could you do it alone. It's so unbecoming.
For those that are interested, tax man, Russell Fox , was recently on GWAE (he is a recurring guest):Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerUnfortunately for the redietz guess, what a professional gambler does in any year or years prior to begin filing as such, is totally irrelevant. Yes he wants it to BE that a recreational gambler who loses is not allowed for some strange reason to then begin filing as a pro. But his limited knowledge once again bites him in the wrong place. And filing as a pro gambler does not require you show a profit every single year, although I did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deech
Keep trying idiots. You'll continue to see how close you can get to the mickeycrimm model of excellence.
No, what I clearly said is that you can switch from recreational to professional as long as gambling is your full-time sole income source. If it's not, then you should not. My apologies. I was not aware you were not employed by others during your stint as a professional. That clears up many things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBWp5gpqTMM
More silly making it all up because you're so upset with the way things go. But a bum like you has no other option, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
It's very close to $1.5mil...and climbing. I don't include my waste-of-time AP years--irrelevant. Only the years since, which have been, to your dismay, all winners. And of course you've made more money than me gambling! Your car shows it, your lifestyle shows it, and every anonymous person who posts about it on forums makes a ton of money gambling!
You should throw a winners party for the monet's and the kew's and the entire WoV cast of anonymous AP characters who claim great gambling success like you. :)
Face it mickey, virtual lives are not real lives. It's not hard to see why people like you and kew choose to pursue the relevance of being successful gamblers as anonymous people online. Hard lives yield odd fantasies. And you can't even get that part right with all the contradictory statements you continually make about yourself.
There was a simpler challenge. Fezzik offered to meet Rob Singer at his favorite licensed casino machines, and match any wins and losses. For example, if Singer won $2,000, then Singer would keep those winnings, and Fezzik would pay Singer an additional $2,000. But if Singer lost $3,000, then Singer must also pay Fezzik $3,000. This is very simple to understand and administer. Obviously Singer refused the challenge, because he is an internet blowhard poseur.
There is plenty of capital ready to fade Singer's action. It would be easy for Singer to arrange the Fezzik challenge, but he will never do it. So this whole thing is quite boring to me. I've seen this movie, and know how it ends.
So why didn't you take that challenge, Rob? You only have to win one session. It's crazy you turned this down. When you hit your $2500 or higher win goal you actually get payed double that. Absolutely stupid you turned that down. That is, if your "system" really works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim Lee
A new anonymous hack arrives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim Lee
There was no "simpler challenge". Let's see it. And what's a "favorite licensed machine"?
Obviously there's still Fezzik/HP crowd fans out there who are still reeling from the humiliation of the Fezzik fizzle. I'm just glad I published it in LV so everyone could see what big mouth phonies his AP crowd was. I still tingle to this day. :)
It looks like Fezzik is still ready to go with that bet. So what say you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerA new anonymous hack arrives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim Lee
There was no "simpler challenge". Let's see it. And what's a "favorite licensed machine"?
Obviously there's still Fezzik/HP crowd fans out there who are still reeling from the humiliation of the Fezzik fizzle. I'm just glad I published it in LV so everyone could see what big mouth phonies his AP crowd was. I still tingle to this day. :)
Let's keep on the subject of the current challenge. A current challenge can easily be verified with money put into escrow.
It looks like Fezzik's challenge is current.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I wonder who Kim Lee is........
It's not a "current challenge". If so let's see it. Let's see the proposed parameters. The first point I'd expect to be clarified is where the escrow was said to be held, and how much. Obviously whoever came up with this phony challenge was too stupid to think it thru. I'd expect an escrow of $402,499 for Fezzik since its possible, albeit not probable, that I'll play the $100 machine. Then, how many sessions. My liability will be as much as $114,600/session. So go ahead kim, multiply $402,499 by X amount of sessions. I can handle it--what about all these "capital-heavy" big shots this poster's talking about?
Is your head spinning yet mickey....er, I mean, kimmy?
Nope. Nothing about your fiction writing makes my head swim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Haha! So let's see the link to this "current bet!"
Then you can go for that "swim" :)
Kim Lee says he can get you all the action you want. That sounds current to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Then see if you can get him/eddie/Spock/whomever to lock in the bet parameters, and identify where all their "capital" will be escrowed at. You know, things that make bets Real.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmKim Lee says he can get you all the action you want. That sounds current to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Rob Singer, since you have been making extraordinary claims for years, it is not my obligation to jump through hoops. But $114,600 in mutual escrow is acceptable. Let me know where and roughly when you want to meet.
For the mathematically challenged---the $114,600 is how much I could, if everything went very badly for two sessions of play, lose. I would have to pay you $114,600, or twice my session bankroll of $57,200. You following this? However, since my strategy plays dollars thru the $100 machines and I theoretically could be ahead $2499 just before hitting a $100 royal in each session, you would owe me $402,499 X 2, or $804,998. But I'll accept your escrow, from all that "capital" out there, of just $402,499 because whatever amount I win in one or two sessions, it will be more than gratifying to watch a phony like you and your "capital-heavy backers" go down in humiliating flames.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim Lee
Wise up before you make any more uninformed post that get mickey wet.
I offered the same challenge more recently, and Rob declined it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim Lee
[QUOTE=Rob.Singer;72192]That is fine. Please contact attorney Bob Nersesian to arrange escrow for that amount. I will escrow after you. It appears you have already ducked this offer from Fezzik and Dan Druff, so I will be unsympathetic to further evasions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim Lee
Looks like I am traveling to Vegas soon. I promise to sit in my favorite seats, the bleachers.
That's nonsense. You added in one of those silly stipulations that I play some odd combination of denominations that are outside of the strategy you question. Why, I have no idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffI offered the same challenge more recently, and Rob declined it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim Lee
[QUOTE=Kim Lee;72197]Since you are the one proposing the challenge, as I did with that coward Fezzik when I put up the verifiable escrow first and published it in two papers so they actually could and did confirm the funds were there up front, it is you who must escrow first. Or, perhaps more appropriately, you and that merry band of capitalists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerThat is fine. Please contact attorney Bob Nersesian to arrange escrow for that amount. I will escrow after you. It appears you have already ducked this offer from Fezzik and Dan Druff, so I will be unsympathetic to further evasions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim Lee
I accept Bob N. as the escrow holder. Let me know when the cash is there and I will both contact him for written verification and then hand-deliver my portion.
Now that the easy part is over, I will play $1 thru $25 at the Aquarius in Laughlin, and if required, the $100 machine at Bellagio. Dates TBD. What do you propose? Whatever the dates, I'll play beginning at 11pm so we'll have less distractions.
By the way Mr. "Kim": I know Bob. Holding $500,000+ escrow isn't gonna be free. I paid Casuarina $10,000 to do this when I challenged Fezzik. That should be your responsibility. If you'd like me to discuss this with him I'll be happy to.
Dan---do you recognize there are no 25c games involved, and that there ARE $25 & $100 games??
You do? Can I ask under what name do you know Bob? I had a discussion with him very recently about you and he didn't seem to have a clue who you were by either Robert Harry Argentino, or Rob Singer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I just called his office and left a message about the pending escrows and what his fee would be. I'll be very surprised if he's heard of Mr. Kim. When he returns the call I'll report. Kim you can call him also: 702.385.5454
Kew I've met him at a G2 Conference as RS about ten years ago. That's how I know him. Not sure why or if he'd remember me.
So why would you introduce yourself to an attorney as Rob Singer? Why not use your real name? Oh, yeah, nevermind….I forgot you have judgements and fraud ruling against you in your real name. Not surprised you are running from it. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I hope Bob is willing to get involved holding the escrow, but unless he has had a change of heart, I don't think he will.
Why would he owe you double. All he has to do is match the amount you win. That is, if you win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerFor the mathematically challenged---the $114,600 is how much I could, if everything went very badly for two sessions of play, lose. I would have to pay you $114,600, or twice my session bankroll of $57,200. You following this? However, since my strategy plays dollars thru the $100 machines and I theoretically could be ahead $2499 just before hitting a $100 royal in each session, you would owe me $402,499 X 2, or $804,998. But I'll accept your escrow, from all that "capital" out there, of just $402,499 because whatever amount I win in one or two sessions, it will be more than gratifying to watch a phony like you and your "capital-heavy backers" go down in humiliating flames.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim Lee
Wise up before you make any more uninformed post that get mickey wet.
But you said you kow him as "Bob" not Robert Nersesian. You made it sound like you are both very familiar with each other. Like you two are chums or something. Sneaky, sneaky, Rob.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
You're such an inexperienced dummy in real life scenarios mickey. His name's the same as mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmBut you said you kow him as "Bob" not Robert Nersesian. You made it sound like you are both very familiar with each other. Like you two are chums or something. Sneaky, sneaky, Rob.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
[QUOTE=mickeycrimm;72209]But you said you kow him as "Bob" not Robert Nersesian. You made it sound like you are both very familiar with each other. Like you two are chums or something. Sneaky, sneaky, Rob. So you met briefly in a crowded hall and went right into discussing how much he charges for holding money in escrow?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Bob should not really be discussing who he knows and dosesn't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJSo why would you introduce yourself to an attorney as Rob Singer? Why not use your real name? Oh, yeah, nevermind….I forgot you have judgements and fraud ruling against you in your real name. Not surprised you are running from it. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I hope Bob is willing to get involved holding the escrow, but unless he has had a change of heart, I don't think he will.
Mickey, as fas as I know he has always told people to just call him Bob.
Nope. Sorry, Robert Harry "Bob" Argentino. You are the one who is outclassed. You can't get your lying bullshit by anyone here. So you thought jacking up the escrow would scare Kim Lee off? Doesn't look like you scared him worth a shit. But you'll think of something that will get you out of the bet. You always do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerYou're such an inexperienced dummy in real life scenarios mickey. His name's the same as mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmBut you said you kow him as "Bob" not Robert Nersesian. You made it sound like you are both very familiar with each other. Like you two are chums or something. Sneaky, sneaky, Rob.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Again with the inability to think things out. And absolutely bad math. But that's to be axpected from a school dropout.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmWhy would he owe you double. All he has to do is match the amount you win. That is, if you win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerFor the mathematically challenged---the $114,600 is how much I could, if everything went very badly for two sessions of play, lose. I would have to pay you $114,600, or twice my session bankroll of $57,200. You following this? However, since my strategy plays dollars thru the $100 machines and I theoretically could be ahead $2499 just before hitting a $100 royal in each session, you would owe me $402,499 X 2, or $804,998. But I'll accept your escrow, from all that "capital" out there, of just $402,499 because whatever amount I win in one or two sessions, it will be more than gratifying to watch a phony like you and your "capital-heavy backers" go down in humiliating flames.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim Lee
Wise up before you make any more uninformed post that get mickey wet.
He's matching what I win/Im matching what I lose. My liability for two sessions tops out at $114,400. His liability tops out at not double as you say, but over $800k. I'm giving him a break but if you keep acting stupid it'll go back up.
He can discuss who he knows or doesn't know. He actually does this all the time. He is not suppose to discuss a "client" or anything about a case.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfBob should not really be discussing who he knows and dosesn't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
You are not giving anyone a break. You are trying to scare him off talking big money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerAgain with the inability to think things out. And absolutely bad math. But that's to be axpected from a school dropout.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmWhy would he owe you double. All he has to do is match the amount you win. That is, if you win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
He's matching what I win/Im matching what I lose. My liability for two sessions tops out at $114,400. His liability tops out at not double as you say, but over $800k. I'm giving him a break but if you keep acting stupid it'll go back up.
But as I told everyone. It should be a flat bet for even money.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmYou are not giving anyone a break. You are trying to scare him off talking big money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerAgain with the inability to think things out. And absolutely bad math. But that's to be axpected from a school dropout.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
He's matching what I win/Im matching what I lose. My liability for two sessions tops out at $114,400. His liability tops out at not double as you say, but over $800k. I'm giving him a break but if you keep acting stupid it'll go back up.
There is no way in hell I would lay 8 to 1 in such a situation.
You guys are discussing something that will never happen.
He proposed the bet dopey, and you were hot all over about it until you finally caught on. He wanted to short-change his escrow, but based on his ground rules he left it up to me to figure the numbers out for him....and apparently, you.
Reality now begins to hurt, doesn't it. And guess what--if Kim were serious he'd never walk away with his tail between his legs in the middle of the important parameters'discussion.
You couldn't lay 8:1 on a $100 bet.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Mickey read his first post proposal. You'll see the talk-tough words "match ANY wins and losses".
Obviously, the idiot didn't know what he was getting into. And you've proven to be just as clueless by your constant effort lessen to his shame.
I know. Rob is the cowardly lion "Put 'em up!!! Put 'em up!!!" And he is always running backwards when he says it. It'll probably come down to aQuote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
"you put up the escrow first."
"No, you put up the escrow first."
"No, you put up the escrow first."
"No, you put up the escrow first."
Rob is the one that originally layed out a challenge. He should put up first. But he won't. Its his way of getting out of it.
It's not the amount of money. It's the principle of an advantage player. I would not accept 8 times the liability my opponent has on such a bet. It's foolish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerYou couldn't lay 8:1 on a $100 bet.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
[QUOTE=mickeycrimm;72227]It's not the amount of money. It's the principle of an advantage player. I would not accept 8 times the liability my opponent has on such a bet. It's foolish. The bet should be a specified sum at even money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerYou couldn't lay 8:1 on a $100 bet.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Once again mickey, the dope proposed the bet in that manner. And you have no idea if he's an AP or not.
But I agree with you--only a fool would propose that amount of liability for himself.
To me this seems like it's over. Another Singer victory and another crushing AP defeat. Get over it. You won't drink so much tonight. Now I have to leave another message for "Bob".
Better luck next time. And let "Kim" know what you think of him.
Rob should be permanently banned. He is changing the term of a bet....YET AGAIN. This is reneging on a bet, the worst form of dishonesty and lying.
I hope Dan Druff doesn't let Singer get away with this again.
Who cares? We all know the only thing Rob has left to escrow is some shitty camper truck. You all are wasting time with this nonsense. I bet the stench of feet and ass is strong in that camper. No one is going to accept that collateral.
Rob, have you been nipping on the Moose Drool again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
OK kew, I copied what the bet was word for word. Show me where it was changed and I'll bring you an 18-yr. old horny little boy.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
If you had your way the whole board would of been banned long ago except for you and the members you PM or associate with.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Did gaming investigate the El Cortel yet and find any evidence of cheating the players?