tax transcripts have arrived

I'm going to say that my best guess is that Rob had the returns he claimed for the Fezzik wager, but that any tax disclosures after he "retired" would probably show significant losses, as would returns prior to the Fezzik-wager bracketing years. If I remember correctly, and Rob can tell me if I'm wrong, Rob made no announcement about "retiring" until after the fact, meaning he did not declare being a non-professional in advance of being "retired." If there are posts announcing his "retirement" in advance, well, that would be helpful to see.

A statistician would say he was giving himself another way of breaking a data run into discrete, separate compartments for no good reason. We have the "losing years," ostensibly due to playing as an "advantage player." Then came the winning years, ostensibly as a "Singer player." Then the "retired years," which Rob doesn't really want to include in the data run. Add them all together, and the numbers are probably not very significant. Rob prefers to break them up and assign reasons for this and reasons for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Doesn't matter that you never filed bankruptcy like I did in '96. Why do you not have a house? Why can you not keep a wife?

---

Here we go again. So you got a battle axe at home, Rob. Big deal. I heard you have to take her with you everywhere you go because she's to ugly to kiss goodbye.

No Rob. Still haven't touched a $100 video poker machine. And congratulations for not wasting any time starting your 2016 year of insults.

By the way, W2Gs are not part of tax returns unless they show tax withheld. Is this another of your "escape clauses" so you can back out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I'm going to say that my best guess is that Rob had the returns he claimed for the Fezzik wager, but that any tax disclosures after he "retired" would probably show significant losses, as would returns prior to the Fezzik-wager bracketing years. If I remember correctly, and Rob can tell me if I'm wrong, Rob made no announcement about "retiring" until after the fact, meaning he did not declare being a non-professional in advance of being "retired." If there are posts announcing his "retirement" in advance, well, that would be helpful to see.

A statistician would say he was giving himself another way of breaking a data run into discrete, separate compartments for no good reason. We have the "losing years," ostensibly due to playing as an "advantage player." Then came the winning years, ostensibly as a "Singer player." Then the "retired years," which Rob doesn't really want to include in the data run. Add them all together, and the numbers are probably not very significant. Rob prefers to break them up and assign reasons for this and reasons for that.

---

Red, you should know that many of my GT articles clearly described me as being a professional player, and several times I mentioned that I filed Schedule C because I played for a living. I also stated numerous times in those articles as well as on my site from Day One that I was going to retire from pro play when I either attained $1million in net profiting, or the day I reached 60 years old. It was always as simple as that, and your theory above is really, really off the mark.

As far as "losing big" post-retirement, it didn't happen. Believe it or not, doesn't matter. I've even stated here that I've actually done BETTER/year on avg. because of a handful of huge hits (while having the wherewithal to quit playing immediately after each win) since May of 2009. Except for this and last year because video poker isn't important to me now. It pisses the minions here off, that I know. That's just the way it is. Arci can lie about it and you can believe him. He needs the prop-up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

No Rob. Still haven't touched a $100 video poker machine. And congratulations for not wasting any time starting your 2016 year of insults.

By the way, W2Gs are not part of tax returns unless they show tax withheld. Is this another of your "escape clauses" so you can back out?

---

You asked for the truth Alan, and you got it. They're only insults to you if you accept them that way.

With a requested tax return comes copies of all W2's, W2G's, 1099's, etc.--read the IRS site. This is like arci claiming he knows everything about transcripts, then "can't read" where they're only available for 3 or 4 years. And I would want and expect those to be included anyway.

But admit it Alan, you aren't really interested in any of that. You just want to see my expenses deductions because it amazes you that someone would actually dig that deep into finding every loophole and break possible, you know, like GE did by hiring a load of ex-IRS employees. I happen to have a current one at my fingertips.

That said, I'll repeat myself to you because I'm used to doing it. I'll send in my request for 2008/2009 tax returns after you receive arci's 1 or 2 tax returns, just as he originally proposed.

Someone once said that a monkey could show a profit for a year or two, so what is the point of 2008/09 returns if not to cherry pick data? I don't see how/why Rob would have changed his style of play since he "retired," so the last six years would indicate whether he wins or not. Or am I missing something?

Rob even in the year I had $1.29-MILLION in W2Gs I did not include a W2G with my return. There is no need to. The IRS has their own copies. Read the instructions.

Also: why would anyone boast of a taxable casino profit online? It's almost like putting on Facebook that you just robbed a bank.

Sorry. The thread was accidentally locked for several hours. This is a problem that we have sometimes.

I see Singer is scrambling like crazy. Alan better open up those transcripts soon or Singer will have turned himself into a real mess. LOL. I can only wonder if he realizes how bad he looks.

On Monday I will go to the office. I will photograph the envelopes front and back to show the envelopes are sealed and authentic. Remember one envelope is already open.

Special note to Rob: even if I won a million dollars in a casino there would be no reason to post it on a website and there would be every reason in the world to report I didn't have a profit.

For me -- someone with nothing to prove -- there is no reason for me to talk about profits. You have something to prove. I don't.

I will reiterate---ROB----send something. Stop arguing about how Arci changed the rules. Send what you believe is appropriate as you are looking worse by the minute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

On Monday I will go to the office. I will photograph the envelopes front and back to show the envelopes are sealed and authentic. Remember one envelope is already open.

Special note to Rob: even if I won a million dollars in a casino there would be no reason to post it on a website and there would be every reason in the world to report I didn't have a profit.

For me -- someone with nothing to prove -- there is no reason for me to talk about profits. You have something to prove. I don't.

---

Wrong Alan. I have NOTHING to prove---unless there's anyone brave enough to put some money on it.

You keep confusing me with someone who cares what the little people think about him. Sure I once did, and I had constant, sometimes high-profile arguments with the critics over that. But the mere fact that I was able to expose the AP lie and show over & over again that someone could win consistently playing elsewise, in what quickly became a very popular weekly column for nearly 8 years--and the VERY satisfying fact that I shut the biggest critics up when it was shit-or-get-off-the-pot time--I've already won this game.

I happen to think you, as a businessman and forum owner, do have a responsibility to at least portray someone who at a minimum has the gambling habit under control, especially if you're gonna be blabbing about winning big wins and throwing it all and more back in. I don't understand that approach.

Rob, when you say portray in the above post, do you mean (1) Alan should act as if he has his gambling under control or do you mean (2) that he should help publicize someone who has gambling under control? Does the word "portray" refer to Alan or you? I thought #1 until you added the second part of the sentence beginning with "especially," then I was forced to think you meant #2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

I will reiterate---ROB----send something. Stop arguing about how Arci changed the rules. Send what you believe is appropriate as you are looking worse by the minute.

---

Regnis, you have my permission to worry about how I look to a group of mostly chumps, whom I could probably pay to adjust their attitudes. What you should be doing is encouraging arci to request those 2 simple years and your wish will be granted.

Tomorrow is a great day of football. Sink your teeth into that for a change. Forget about this gambling baloney. I'd rather clean the pool (which we all just came in from swimming BTW) than sit at a video poker machine anyway.

Rob I can afford to play $25 video poker.

You have a controversial system and methodology which is always under attack. Yes, you have something to prove. You have to prove your controversial system works or worked.

Mathematically it can't be proven. So here's your chance. I thought you'd jump at the chance?

Your hesitancy is what's confusing and raises doubts. Why not send me the proof to shut up your critics once and for all?

My guess is on Monday I will have at least some proof of Arc's claims.

And Rob don't piss me off. I might be the last supporter you have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Rob I can afford to play $25 video poker.

You have a controversial system and methodology which is always under attack. Yes, you have something to prove. You have to prove your controversial system works or worked.

Mathematically it can't be proven. So here's your chance. I thought you'd jump at the chance?

Your hesitancy is what's confusing and raises doubts. Why not send me the proof to shut up your critics once and for all?

My guess is on Monday I will have at least some proof of Arc's claims.

And Rob don't piss me off. I might be the last supporter you have.

---

Here's the simple version: arci knows very well which years he wants to show so he cherry-picked them, and he knew all those other years' transcripts were unavailable so he made believe he was gonna show them as winning years. Why else do you think he didn't want the tax returns? Bingo!--because he doesn't want to show those losers. It isn't that difficult to decipher.

I know you can play the $25 games but you shouldn't be. You said you have a $5000 gambling budget when you go to LV. That's barely enuf to be playing the $2 games.

Yes my strategy is very controversial, and tax transcripts would have only added fuel to the fire. And the 1 or 2 tax returns? No "AP" would ever stop criticizing and lying about me with so small a sampling. But I said I would do it if arci did. After all, isn't that what he proposed And isn't that what this is all about? Work on him--he's the logjam.

Relax--you're not my last supporter. But it's not that bad a position to be in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Here's the simple version: arci knows very well which years he wants to show so he cherry-picked them, and he knew all those other years' transcripts were unavailable so he made believe he was gonna show them as winning years. Why else do you think he didn't want the tax returns? Bingo!--because he doesn't want to show those losers.

---

I dont think anyone really cares if Arc won or not. Arc plays the same strategy I do (but a different game) so if he won I wouldn't be surprised. If he didn't win, I also wouldn't be surprised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

I know you can play the $25 games but you shouldn't be. You said you have a $5000 gambling budget when you go to LV. That's barely enuf to be playing the $2 games.

---

what makes you think I play for hours on end? I have a budget. I play a level of games that interests me. If I win I can continue playing. If I lose -- I quit. That's exactly what happened on this trip. I ran into bad luck and quit.

Edited to add: If you read my trip report you'd see that I also played $1 VP and did pretty well at it. When I had those winnings I played at a higher denomination. You have a problem with that -- but I don't. I always move up in denomination after I win. It makes sense to use winnings to try to win more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I dont think anyone really cares if Arc won or not. Arc plays the same strategy I do (but a different game) so if he won I wouldn't be surprised. If he didn't win, I also wouldn't be surprised.
what makes you think I play for hours on end? I have a budget. I play a level of games that interests me. If I win I can continue playing. If I lose -- I quit. That's exactly what happened on this trip. I ran into bad luck and quit.

---

I've agreed that it's not important if arci wins or loses. Who cares? AP's are nothing more than people who have the same knowledge about the game as the rest of us. And just like us, they win if they get lucky and they lose if they do not. The only thing that separates them is in how they self-value their slot club benefits, enuf so as to give them the perception that EVERY year is a winning year. But why wouldn't you expect him to do what he said in the challenge, esp. after my acceptance? I 100% do, and as I said, I'd do it for free since this whole thing is really a million miles away from my center of importance now.

I only expect you play a lot when you win. But playing the $10 or $25 games on a $5k budget is taking big-scale pot shots. People get lucky doing that, but not often. So it's not a great approach overall.

Rob what happened on my New Year's trip is typical of what happens when I decide to move up to $25 VP: I was winning nicely at $1 VP with quad aces and a straight flush. Then I moved up to $5 VP and got quad 3s for a $1,000 and then went to $25 VP where I hit nothing.

When I hit the $100,000 royal remember that that followed several trips where in succession I had $20,000 royals.

You can't make judgments about people and how they play with your limited knowledge. Stop doing it. And don't criticize people about their lifestyles either -- you don't have the same values others have.

And about divorces? We don't know if someone who has been married forever is happy or if he/she has been tortured ever since their wedding night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Here's the simple version: arci knows very well which years he wants to show so he cherry-picked them, and he knew all those other years' transcripts were unavailable so he made believe he was gonna show them as winning years. Why else do you think he didn't want the tax returns? Bingo!--because he doesn't want to show those losers. It isn't that difficult to decipher.

I know you can play the $25 games but you shouldn't be. You said you have a $5000 gambling budget when you go to LV. That's barely enuf to be playing the $2 games.

Yes my strategy is very controversial, and tax transcripts would have only added fuel to the fire. And the 1 or 2 tax returns? No "AP" would ever stop criticizing and lying about me with so small a sampling. But I said I would do it if arci did. After all, isn't that what he proposed And isn't that what this is all about? Work on him--he's the logjam.

Relax--you're not my last supporter. But it's not that bad a position to be in.

---

squirm, robbie, squirm