I love how Rob asks for a bunch of proof, yet not once has never showed evidence himself.
Printable View
I love how Rob asks for a bunch of proof, yet not once has never showed evidence himself.
Dancer admitted to having a losing year recently. He lost $100,000 playing Ultimate X that year.
The 7/5 FA's were in Northern Nevada. The 8/5's FA's were in Laughlin but they were linked banks. Except, the Pioneer unlinked their 8/5 FA's in late 1999. The 8/5's came in at 101.8%. The Pioneer had promotions galore so these machines got beat to death. Surprisingly, the Pioneer left this game in for over 2 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by bocce ball
The extra $200 in the meter adds on about 0.4% to the game. I don't know the meter speeds on the game so can't fully analyze it. If the RF meter was the only meter on the game you need about a $3500 royal to be at breakeven. Rule of thumb is every $500 extra in the meter adds 1%.Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyj
Kerry Packer would be $100,000 per hand at blackjack and cover all 7 spots. Some strip casinos didn't want his action because he affected their quarterly reports.Quote:
Originally Posted by bocce ball
Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I think you guys are arguing different points. Redietz is talking about losers receiving some type of partial benefit that reinforces their addiction. On a slot machine, it could be a $3 spin that pays $1 -- creating the illusion of a win. Comps function along the same principles. A player loses $300, but receives $100 in comps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Alan, you're noting the principle that casinos in aggregate pay out less than they take in. But that doesn't preclude the possibility of individual players obtaining benefits exceeding their losses. Max Rubin's book "Comp City" offered scenarios for table players, and machine possibilities have been explored by authors such as Jean Scott.
So the 8/5's may have been only marginally profitable at best for the casino.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
That was an era of very limited public information about video poker. Did the AP/hustler community generally have accurate playing strategies?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
That's because we all take Rob at his word. You'll notice that nobody, not a soul, asked Rob to provide a photo op of his Patriots wager. That's because it's not that big a wager, and we all know he made the wager.
Red, I didn't make the bet because we changed our plans and are leaving for N. Nevada tomorrow morning, and instead, we're having a few couples over for a SB party. $1000 is not that big of a bet, but to you it is.
Notice how the AP's always hide from any kind of proof by deflecting the issue away from them. They want everyone to simply believe their bs, but when I came along and began challenging them publicly in GT, rather than prove me wrong they could only attack, which further hurt their baloney claims.
As I've said many times, proof that my strategy works better than any other, hands down, boils down to basically being optimal play with a factor involved. How that factor was derived would take a lot more space than here to explain. Either that---or going as many sessions as it takes in person with a witness or witnesses in order that the doubting Thomas's feel uncomfortable. Or, an in-person meet to thoroughly detail the factors. Wizard backed out of a bet on the session-playing method as did his team of queer, atheist "mensa geniuses". And you people are too overall stupid to understand much beyond "if it's +EV you'll win/-EV you'll lose".
Yup...too stoopid.
And you believe him. Remember when arci kept saying how much he "won every year but one" then he foolishly submitted tax info that said his "winnings" were next to nothing--and there was nothing about whether those "winnings" included an AP's magic crutch--comps? One thing is for certain: AP's will lie about their results and only other AP's will believe them....unless they say they LOSE! And when they do say they lose, they make sure the masses understand that "it was only one year out of many" and that they really have a lot of money anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Dancer further fools himself in that he got humiliated and soaked dry by Shirley for the disgusting was he treated her. His glaring hypocrisy cane into light at that time, in that all that "+EV profit" he claimed to make over the years suddenly disappeared into his ex's pockets, thereby instantly creating a -EV lifetime loser out of him.
But mickey, being the folklore loner loser that he is, likes the bs Dancer spews so he believes in it to his grave--even when paying for groceries with his food stamps. :)
Rob, if you can come up with any valid evidence that I'm on any kind of government dole, welfare, food stamps, rental assistance, social security, madicaid, or any other kind of government program, I will donate $10,000 to your favorite charity. Now get to it, Rob. You have nothing to lose.
Arc's tax returns only showed wins from W2Gs playing his $1 game. He said that here, on the forum. So, we don't really know if he actually had greater winnings. We do know that he showed a profit. It's possible that his profits were even greater, or they might not have. We'll never know. But we do know he showed a profit.
There are many other gamblers who would be happy showing any kind of a profit. I am one of them. I admit to not having a profit despite two $100K royals in two years. However, I do have a profit at video poker -- and it's because of craps that I have an annual loss.
About Bob Dancer: I think he very well could have profits of six figures or more each year without the casinos banning him. And there are several reasons why:
1. If his profits come from multiple casinos, he will not show up on the radar at any one casino for being a huge winner. Dancer's profits could conceivably be something like $50,000 per casino and no casino would care about that.
2. Would any casino want to take a black eye for banning Dancer if he won less than $100K in a year? I don't think so.
3. Frankly for a casino to bar any gambler there has to be something "else." Card counters in blackjack are an exception, I think if you successfully count cards you're not going to be welcomed anywhere except if you are a very small player. One of my TV buddies is a card counter but goes to Vegas maybe once a month and plays just enough at low denominations to win a couple of thousand at different casinos. No one bothers him. Winning one or two thousand dollars at big casinos allows him to fly under the radar.
In summary: casinos need winners. If no one won, no one would play. It might as well be Dancer.
Alan, casinos do ban winners of any amounts who they determine they can't make a profit off of. I play -EV games with 2 winning trips to SP--profit of only $26,700--and they decided I'm not worth their time any longer. I've won even less at Silverton and much less at Tropicana Laughlin and all on those terrible negative games, and they don't accept me under most circumstances. Casinos also have been said to ban AP's who only play in certain "advantageous" ways, whether they win or lose. That's Dancer to a tee.
SS isn't a govt entitlement program. You get it if you've ever worked in private industry.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
People can actually deduce things about you based on your slug life. Whole you have such low standards that make you believe an insufficient income is the bomb, the rest of the civilized world wouldn't want your fate if it came with a Madonna blow job. And just add it all up--you make truly stupid claims of "making six figures yearly" from nickel & 25c VP & keno in the middle of nowhere that you have never been able to support, back up, or prove, and you brag about being a bum, a hobo, and a loser with no dental plan, yet you expect others to believe you shun the Obama dole. It's easy math mickey. You're a lowlife loser, or else you would NEVER have gone to a dump like Montana.
I agree. Some casinos do have win tolerances regardless of who you are. My take is that Sweat Pointe tolerates him because he's somewhat friends with the owner and because of his classes that keeps the saps returning there. Personally, I'm not a fan of his. He needs to rely on promos and such to make a profit. Table games don't require such things.
In addition, it's possible that Dancer has negotiated loss rebates, which it's unlikely he'd report.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
Like I said, Rob. It's $10,000 to your favorite charity if you can show that I'm on any kind of government assistance. Put up or shut up, slug. And you keep on with this put up proof stuff. YOU HAVE NEVER PUT UP ANY PROOF. So why don't you finally put up some proof. You don't have any, do you, slug?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Yes, I know, Rob. I worked in private industry until I was 40 years old. I've received letters from SS telling me I'm eligible. You filed at 62, the moment you became eligible, because you needed the money after blowing your dough at negative expectation video poker. I don't need the money now so will get a bigger check when I do file.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Dancer got his card restricted at MGM. He was no mailed a long time ago by Stations. His was no mailed from Boyd. In a recent column he lamented Stations buying the Palms because that would make Palms dead in the water to him. Dancer plays under his real name in the casinos not by his pen name.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Hopefully, these links work.
Booting Players The Suncoast Way-Part 1 of 2
http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2013/1029.cfm
Booting Players The Suncoast Way-Part 2 of2
http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2013/1105.cfm
Care to post up the proof you're banned from Silverton, South Point, or Tropicana Express?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I don't know why casinos allow Bob to play at their properties. My opinion is because casinos like South Point -- he has classes (which generally brings in unskilled players who think they have an edge), has a relationship with the owner, advertises for them, and overall has very little +EV when playing there.
Casinos like Silverton and others, he's getting very small advantages, typically less than 0.5%. With such a small advantage and with such high variance, it's difficult for a casino to determine whether a player is actually playing with an advantage or a disadvantage.
Plus, Bob is usually not playing on actual good high advantage plays. He's playing shit with less than a 1% edge.
Frankly I don't see why any casino would block someone who won $25,000 playing video poker. The reality is -- you can't INFLUENCE the game of video poker unless you are cheating. Unlike craps there are no "play rules" to follow such as hitting the back wall with both dice. You can't "count cards" in video poker unlike blackjack.
So when I hear someone has been banned or restricted from playing video poker I think there must be another problem. Perhaps the player was abusive to floor people? Perhaps the player was drunk? Perhaps the player was loud and obnoxious and caused a disturbance?
I can understand how a casino might "no mail" a big player because that player might not need any additional incentives to play. Of course if you are "no mailed" you can give whatever reason you want to as an explanation, including, "I'm just too good."
VP bans are not very common (it's not like blackjack), but they happen because the player is perceived to have an edge via comps/promotions, and the casino realizes that they are going to lose money on such a player on average.
However, as the edge is typically small and the expected gains minimal, most casinos tend to let this slide, and file it under "cost of doing business", rather than bar the player. (However, as you said, they can get no-mailed).
One of the more well known VP bans occurred to someone who wasn't even an AP. Richard "The Quiet Lion" Brodie, who was mostly a recreational VP and poker player, was among several players banned by Caesars in 2007 for simply playing high stakes VP and getting lucky.
Richard, who was Microsoft employee #55 and was credited as the creator of Microsoft Word, had a lot of money, and enjoyed playing high stakes VP at Caesars. He hit four very large royals in 2007. While the casino admitted that this was simply a function of luck, he was among several banned for playing too close to 0 EV -- basically the casino felt they couldn't make a reliable profit off players like him, so several such players were sent letters notifying them of being 86ed in May 2007.
Richard was particularly upset about this because he could no longer play at the World Series of Poker. He made enough noise in the poker community to cause several players to rally to his defense, and Caesars backed down, ultimately agreeing to let him play the WSOP provided he stayed away from video poker.
Richard requested they put in a 3-coin $100 machine. They granted his wish. Then he requested they put Deuces Wild on the machine. He didn't say "put full pay deuces wild on the machine." But that's what they did. The slot techs put the 100.76% version up. He hit his last two royals on that game. That's when the shit hit the fan for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Winpoker didn't have a strategy generating component. All you could do was practice the with it. But Tom Ski's Strategy Master did create strategies and that's the one we used. So yes, we played with accurate strategies. Besides, I can write video poker strategy with just a calculator and scratch paper.Quote:
Originally Posted by bocce ball
Then Frugal Video Poker, developed by Jim Wolf, came out and it has a strategy generating component. Bob Dancer eventually parted ways with Dean Zamzow because Zamzow wouldn't create a strategy generating component for Winpoker. Jim Wolf developed a newer version of FVP and called it Wolf Video Poker. My opinion is it's the best software out there today.
If you don't have any video poker software you can go to wolfvideopoker.com and download Frugal Video Poker for free. Wolf let's you have it for free in the hopes you will upgrade to WVP.
Barring a vp player is usually excessive because of the incremental restrictions available, and I doubt most casinos have the expertise to pinpoint players that pose a threat. Blackjack APs are identifiable because they vary their bets with the count. But there's no equivalent in vp. The highest vp skill level is basic strategy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Are casinos known to use surveillance for evaluation of vp players?
I have some old software on my computer. My VP Strategy Master version 2 is dated 1999. Not sure when the original was released, but it probably couldn't have been much before 1998.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Winpoker is definitely older. Winpoker could calculate the optimal return of most vp games, although on the old computers, the calculation probably needed a few minutes to run.
Once again mickey proves how to get caught in the "pretend it to be real" game.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Dancer & Dean Zamzow did not part ways because of some programming "disagreement". Dancer did what any losing public vp figure would do--he DEMANDED more money from the partnership, so Zamzow did the smart thing and told him to go to hell.
Dean lived nearby us in Fountain Hills, Az. at the time and we discussed this several times. Turns out he would have had to dump Dancer anyway, as his wife had a horrible car accident in Phx. and they decided to move to Texas to be with relatives who could care for her, and he was no longer in any mood to put up with Dancer's self-centered, greedy antics....brought on by you guessed it--his massive addiction to video poker and its associated array of resulting problems.
In order to end the controversy of AP's sitting there waiting for the ploppies to trigger flush attack mode, the Pioneer in Laughlin unlinked their Flush Attack's in late 1999. This proposed a new opportunity for AP's. They were 8/5 Flush Attacks with a return of 101.8% with optimal strategy. The Pioneer had a promotion everyday, usually a card of the day or double cashback.Quote:
Originally Posted by bocce ball
The action on the bank was a mixture of ploppies and AP's. The ploppies didn't give proper weight to flush cards. The AP's did. With Flush 50 strategy three-card flushes play over all the two-card royals....and the four-flush plays over the three-card royal.
Flush Attacks had a history of breaking down. Mechanics were continually working on them. When they did they would go through the screens that only mechanics were privy too. But a bystander could see those screens when the mechanics brought them up. One of those screens was the coin-in/coin out screen that showed the actual payback of the game....expressed in percent.
Every machine on the back, except one, showed an actual payback between 100% and 101%. The one exception showed a payback of 99.9%. Since the action on the bank was a mixture of ploppie and AP action I figure this was about right.
Surprisingly, the Pioneer left this game in for over two years. But in May of 2002 they cut the game to 8/6/20. The regular flush payed 6 for 1, the bonus flush payed 20 for 1. This brought the game down to 100.9% with optimal strategy. This pretty much ended AP action on the bank as there were other better games around to play. It even caused sweeping them to not be worth much.
Rob, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that without a strategy generating component Winpoker would not be able to compete with the newer software that had strategy generating components.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Rob, Bob Dancer is willing to accept this challenge from any casino. I've already discussed it with him on vpFREE.
They give him $25 denom 9/6 Jacks with 1% cashback.
He will place his bankroll in the cage and play with vouchers everyday.
All money, including cashback to be placed back at the cage when each day's session has ended.
The challenge will last for 1,000,000 hands.
A surveillance camera will be placed on him while he is playing.
Rob, with your connections in the casino industry I'm sure you can arrange such a challenge. You can finally prove Dancer a fraud.
Of course Dancer would take this. Anyone should take this.
Is Rob's stance really that Dancer wouldn't win with these parameters? Of course he would.
Yes, it's Rob's position that no one can beat 9/6 Jacks with 1% cashback.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
In his column, Dancer once wrote about playing 9/6 Jacks at the Golden Nugget where the cashback made it a 100.2% play. Thats as thin as it gets. He said they backed him off when he got into a good run.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
At 800 hands per hour, that's 1,250 hours or a little more than 52 days of non-stop play.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
If someone were to play for 8 hours a day, it would now become a project that would take more than 150 days to complete.
I am not including "pauses" for royals, quads, straight flushes, which would lock up a $25 JOB game, nor am I including breaks for the restroom, water, food, stretching legs, or being distracted by skirts.
This was a real challenge?
Another phony challenge...so impractical that it will never be accepted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Then the AP will proclaim that, since nobody accepts my challenge, then I've proved my claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Hey mickey...I'm accepting your 100 to 1 bet. I'll send Alan my $10,000 to hold, you send him your million dollars, and then you can come watch me play a million hands on my favorite bar top machine...it's probably even worse than 98%.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
It's no problem, so let me know when you are coming East. If you don't come through, then that proves that I would have been ahead after a million hands...right?
I don't have one million dollars, coach. Sorry. Oh, and you don't get to make the rules on any bet with me . I make the rules. Take it or leave it. Sorry .Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Alan, a few years ago I posed this question to Dancer on vpFREE . If offered would he deposit $500,000 with a casino and play 9/6 Jacks with 1% cashback until he either lost the $500,000 or won $500,000 from the casino. He unhesitatingly said yes. I guaranatee you he will accept the million hand challenge too. But coach is right, the offer is unrealistic. But not for the reason he thinks. You have to give casino execs a little credit. They are not stupid enough to accept such a challenge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
For those of us deficient in math, what is Dancer's expected return on the million hand challenge? And what is the expected number of hands to be up or down $500,000. I assume the latter is astronomical.
Why don't they let Richard Brodie keep playing? Let him play a -EV game.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
The more he plays, the more likely he is to lose...right?
He may be ahead now, but in the long run he will lose...right?
So put a snydicate together and raise the money...doesn't it qualify as a good play?Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
How about my $100 against your $10K? Can you handle that action?
I already asked once what the logistics would be for this bet and you never answered.
So far you've only answered that you make the rules...OK so what are the rules?
You sound like that idiot, Rob Singer.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Was this necessary?Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
When did Singer propose month-long challenges or million-hand bets?Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
Alan, was RS's statement here even remotely close to the many disparaging remarks Singer has made here that you never criticized?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You mean: two wrongs make a right?Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
I criticized Rob too many times to mention. He is his own worst enemy.
He proposes wagers with others and when no one accepts them, he claims victory. When someone does accept his wager, he welches.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Alan, was it necessary? No, but most things in life aren't necessary. Your comment wasn't necessary, either. Two wrongs don't make a right, but no one's saying they do. Plus, I'm not wrong.
To the best of my knowledge, the wagers that Rob has proposed have been both reasonable and quick to resolve. Nothing like a month long challenge or a million hand bet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
I believe Alan is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I haven't been around long enough to know of all of Singer's wagers, but I don't recall any that could not be accepted as being impractical...such as playing side-by-side for a month or a million hands. Can you offer any evidence of wagers he proposed that were impractical, where he claimed victory after nobody accepted?
Regarding Singer's bet with acrid, my recollection is that Singer's conditions were not met. Singer said the evidence must be A, acrid instead provided B, knowing full well in advance that B would not meet Singer's conditions.
mickey crimm explains the essence of acrid's deliberate error here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
You are all fools if you don't know Singer's strategy when it comes to making a real bet.
Singer this...Singer that.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Get over your attachment to Singer and let's get on with our bet.
What's your strategy?
After about 750,000 rounds on 7/5 BP, the sim showed a 0.01% chance of profit. It dropped to 0.00% around 800,000 or so when I checked it again. Unfortunately it doesn't have more digits of precision.
Rob's wagers are ridiculous because it doesn't have a thing to do with actually winning. When he cashes out a small profit, put that money into his left pocket, he considers that a "soft profit". Even if/when he loses more than that amount, he considers himself profitable. But to say he actually won in a session where he overall lost, is beyond ludicrous.
I can do $100,000 coin in and profit $50,000 every time.....well, if we consider every payout as a profit and don't consider the losses.
RS__ you actually understand Rob's system? I've been listening to him for years and I still don't.
More theoretical fantasy that keeps your wet dreams about the guy active and slushy night after night.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
You've seen others here criticize his bs about playing with such tiny "edges" when there's apparently other AP "opportunities" out there at up to +10% that they regularly tackle. Seems to me you and they ought to get your theories and stories a little bit better coordinated.
And to further clarify....putting a challenge up on an internet board between mostly anonymous folks is one thing. Publishing a challenge in a LV paper while putting up the cash escrow and identifying where it is, is quite another. It gave the Huntington Press crowd quite a piece of humble pie to digest as they embarrassingly escaped.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
As another reminder for the slackers here who've come over from that liberal transgender, atheist, and queer-loving WoV forum---that's another bunch of chest-pounders who ran for the hills after I offered to play 10 sessions for a five figure bet with them.
On the phony Dancer challenge mickey made up here, he's drinking the silly juice again. A million hands? Months of play? Dancer works jobs. Splain that mickey :)
RS__: as I've said, the only place that have barred me from playing vp over the years that have done so in writing is Bellagio, and I published the letter in Gaming Today. And as you know, no one else who has made such a claim has ever come close to providing any kind of proof of their banning, barring, or restriction. So at face value, your assertion is a bit weak, wouldn't you say. Cat got your AP tongue? :)
I understand the theory of his system. Once he's up a certain amount, he cashes out the profits which he calls "soft profits". After cashing out some soft profits, he goes back to the $1 denom and starts over again....until he has $4k in soft profits, or if he's out of money. Needless to say, it's inevitable that most session he'll have at least SOME soft-profits, even if he has a net loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
It'd be like me saying I'm going to do $100,000 coin in on a machine (cycle through $100k in action) and I will have at least $50,000 in profits. But to me (in this theoretical situation), any payout (or coin-out) on the machine is to be considered a "profit"....and once I've hit $50,000 in payouts (or coin out), then I'll have the $50,000 in profit....and I win the wager we set agreed upon....even though my NET win/loss could be something totally irrespective of that $50,000 worth of coin-out.
The Bellagio barring you from VP was not because you were "such a big winner" there or anything to do with your great play, but because you took them up on an offer and gave them very little play. Your supposed barrings at other casinos has yet to be proven, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
When did Singer propose this bet or a bet like this?Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
Rob, I don't understand the trick to the 10-session thing. You should win 75% of your sessions or thereabouts, based on your martingale style. What exactly was the proposed bet?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Just made this visit here after 5 days. This site is a replica of that movie with Bill Murray titled “Groundhog Day”.
The same small group of (5 to 7) alleged self-proclaimed AP’s endlessly repeating over, and over, and over again the same fn lame arguments which do nothing else but prove how much shit your all full off.
Eventually, every argument will lead to the AP cash challenge which never develops and once again even proves further how much fn shit your all full off.
Shortly it starts all over again, and endlessly repeats the same process. When you visit this site you already know what you’re going to read about. The only value this site has is at times the arguments get entertaining. So, when you need to laugh about gambling, this is the place.
Whatever Alan charged Dan for this place must have been Alans best deal ever. Even just passing on the maintenance fees would’ve been considered a rip off. Alan, are you still friends with Dan?
I was in the opening scene of Groundhog Day. The TV scenes were shot at KCAL and the newsroom staff was invited to sit at their desks or walk through the newsroom as reporters and staffers would do during the shooting. We were paid the SAG extra rate too, which I think was $65 for the night's work. It was a lot of fun and my first time doing something like that. We ate with the crew with the craft service --- pretty good food, too. If you see the opening shot, a very young Alan Mendelson is wearing a trench coat (it was the Northeast) walking through the newsroom. On big screens in theaters you can't miss me.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackhole
Of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackhole
Go away.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackhole
I have observed Rob's negotiations for challenges extensively in the past. His technique is to keep changing the terms and conditions until you get tired of trying to make the bet and go away. Then he will claim victory. And of course you seen what he did with arci when he got himself trapped in a bet he didn't really want to make. He welshed the bet . Rob has no honor. That's what you are dealing with, folks.
Do you remember Rob's "fifth card flip" nonsense? Rob had sworn that he had recorded over 100,000 hands of the fifth card flip and the thrown away fifth card came back the same rank 40% of the time. Shackleford and the Webmaster at videopoker.com both took him to task on this having Rob play a few hundred hands and recording the results. The results were about what they were supposed to be,6.4%. Rob, as always, chalked it up to not a big enough sample space.
At that time I was contacted by someone representing 4 individuals, one of them a casino owner in North Las Vegas, who wanted to make a challenge with Rob on the fifth card flip.Every time the card came back the same rank they would pay Rob $8000. Every time the card didn't come back the same rank Rob would pay them $1000. I told him I would let Rob know but I also told him what would happen. Rob would come with a bunch of terms and conditions. If they agreed to the terms Rob would add another stipulation . If they agreed with the extra stipulation Rob would come with another stipulation .If they agreed to that stipulation Rob would change the terms and conditions. Rob would keep running them around in a circle jerk until they got tired of trying to make the bet and went away. Then Rob would claim victory. They decided not to pursue the challenge.
Blackhole, is ignorance bliss?Quote:
Originally Posted by blackhole
Fat Belly, if you think you are going to run me around like you tried to run RS around then fuck off and die.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Singer doesn't have a system. He has tactics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I'm taking you up on your bet. 5 days ago you had no problem, now you are tapping out before setting any terms?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
99% chance coach won't go through with this in a fair manner (ie: he's going to try to put up $100k cash and ask Mickey to put up $10M or some stupid shit like that).Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
$10K was mickey's standard bet. I already offered to put down $100 at 100-1.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
I just want to be sure 1-million hands are going to be played and how will this be verified?
I have no idea...I asked mickey more than once to explain the logistics of this bet, and he hasn't answered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Fat Belly, you wont be able to keep your nose out of Singer's ass long enough to go through with the bet.
I will put up $10,000 to your $100. Challenge to take place in Butte, Montana. I will sit there and watch you lose $10,000 to the game. Terms non negotiable. Take it or leave it.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Can Alan hold our money in escrow...if he agrees?Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
What's the name of the joint in Butte?
I think I'll need a 100 play machine to get through a million hands in anything close to a reasonable amount of time.
Is it OK to play a 100 play machine? Will each deal count as 100 hands?
And..why are you getting nasty all of the sudden?
You APs seem sure do like to resort to name-calling when you get frustrated...you act like children.
That's so incredible, I had to look it up. During the summer of 2009, Rob met with two prominent video poker experts for live testing in actual casinos, first with the admin at videopoker.com, then later with the Wizard of Odds. Of course the results were within ordinary expectation, but look at the photo from Singer's meeting with Shackleford:Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
https://wizardofodds.com/blog/chat-with-rob-singer/
https://wizardofodds.com/blog/images/rob_singer-med.JPG
Rob is wearing a New England Patriots t-shirt!!!
Therefore Mickey, your argument is invalid.
Sorry. :(
The exact expected response from one of the team.Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaug
Of course we're right on track with another go around. Are you guys really this lame?
Blackhole is a parasite that doesn't contribute anything to the gambling forums.
Well, quite frankly, if it's a million hands, I don't know who can go through with this bet? Except for maybe a prisoner in solitary with nothing else to do, perhaps?Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Do you recall how many hours were required to play 5000 hands? A fast player can comfortably exceed 1000 hph on a modern game, but the old machines were typically not built for speed.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Probably a stupid question, but I'm not sure I understand the purpose of the flush 50 strategy. The obvious benefit is simplicity because I can use a single strategy throughout my play. But would it be "wrong" to vary my strategy? I would use flush 25 strategy during normal mode, and flush 125 during flush attack mode.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Wow. The Pioneer was commendably patient. Although it wasn't a simple task to change machines.Quote:
Every machine on the back, except one, showed an actual payback between 100% and 101%.
Of course, you make a valid point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
And there you have it...mickey crimm doing exactly what he has accused Rob Singer of doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Except we have direct quotes from crimm, and only hearsay about Singer...and that hearsay comes from crimm.
Fat Belly has no intention of taking the bet. He's trying to play "gotcha."Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson