Rob Singer didn't beat video poker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Did they teach you in J School the first three rules of reporting? They are:

1. Accuracy
2. Accuracy
3. Accuracy

I think you failed because you keep stating inaccurate points. Your latest "If I say something about getting checks for sports bets, is it "necessary to consult" (your words) with the NGC? I guess so."

I'm going to say it again. I didn't call the NGC about getting checks from sports bets. I called only to ask if one could be paid with chips.

Now try to get something correct you pompous ass.

---

Okay, let me sit here for a moment and digest this. Deep breath. Okay, maybe my jargon is dated. That's possible. Let me consult someone who was in management. Okay, done.

It's possible my usage is dated, but I just checked with a former fairly high-ranking managerial person, and she said I'm correct but that possibly I should have used the British spelling "cheques" to make my writing clearer. Fair enough.

Mr. Mendelson, you do know that managerial casino personnel almost never refer to chips as chips? They refer to them almost exclusively as checks or cheques. In fact, they tell novices from non-novices by the others' usage. Novices use the word "chips." Non-novices use the word "check" or "cheques."

Thus, when I was referring to sports bets paying in checks, I was referring to what the general public (and the WSOP broadcasters) refer to as chips. But casino management refers to them as checks or cheques when in-house.

I stupidly assumed you (and everyone else) knew that. That's actually my fault, as it's my duty to make things clear.

So you were wrong. I was being accurate. I was using, however, casino management jargon, which was inappropriate to a general reading public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Now if that's not just another load of crap from what's just another cowardly ap.....

Longevity my ass. You know you don't have much time left with that corrupted system of yours. So fess up and stop with the "I play bj for a living" bs. Get this thru your tiny head: NOBODY CARES....AND YOU WILL NEVER GET ANY RELEVANCE FROM ANYONE HERE. If your puny life had any value, you'd have met up with Alan and proved your stupid claims. Instead, you choose the redietz route, and claim no ap has to prove anything they say, and if you don't like it lump it, take it down the road and dump it.

See why you're nothing but a lying twit?

---

Crazy, ugly, delusional cousin Eddie. :rolleyes:

Argentino must not read the Retro Road Trip thread. My back-to-back McCusker college football profit titles are there in black and white. I was the only handicapper in the history of "Tipsters or Gypsters?" to be tops in college football profit three times.

Anyone interested can peruse the Retro Road Trip thread at their leisure.

I get the feeling Argentino has something against documentation that's not undocumented.

You know, Argentino must not actually read too many of these threads. Yesterday, he was suggesting that I surely cannot earn sports comps, which means he didn't read the "Quick Math Question" thread in Sports and Sports Betting. He really should keep up by reading some of this stuff.

No redietz. YOU were wrong. When I write about chips being cheques I write about chips being cheques. You wrote checks -- as in a check from a casino to pay a jackpot.

I spoke to casinos and the NGC about cash and chips and not checks. I could have used the word cheques on the phone but that could have been confusing when the question was about chips.

Back to school "Editor Bob."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

No redietz. YOU were wrong. When I write about chips being cheques I write about chips being cheques. You wrote checks -- as in a check from a casino to pay a jackpot.

I spoke to casinos and the NGC about cash and chips and not checks. I could have used the word cheques on the phone but that could have been confusing when the question was about chips.

Back to school "Editor Bob."

---

The jargon spelling is technically (according to the dictionary) both ways. Wikipedia (which I don't generally like) lists "casino tokens" as "chips, checks, or cheques." The Las Vegas Advisor, however, preferred the spelling "cheques" as opposed to "checks," although they allowed "checks" in the title of the question without correcting the author in the article. In a back-and-forth on WoV, some people said they used either spelling. I'd say "cheques" outnumbered "checks" about 2 to 1, although evidently non-value cheques is its own term regarding blackjack and roulette tournaments, so some people avoided spelling it "cheques" for that reason. The consensus, and I agree, is that "cheques" is to be preferred as the spelling, but "checks" is not technically incorrect. The managerial person I spoke to also said I should have spelled it "cheques" to avoid confusion, which I reported.

Editor Bob

I love it---yet once again the very corny and inexperienced redietz finds himself being schooled on another gambling issue....and then exhibits more studderring as a result.

Funny stuff, for sure! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

I love it---yet once again the very corny and inexperienced redietz finds himself being schooled on another gambling issue....and then exhibits more studderring as a result.

Funny stuff, for sure! :)

---

Be sure to check (notice the pun) the Wikipedia definition of "casino token." Argentino will be correcting them shortly. We'll all be waiting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Be sure to check (notice the pun) the Wikipedia definition of "casino token." Argentino will be correcting them shortly. We'll all be waiting.

---

I don't think he's qualified to correct anything redietz. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

I love it---yet once again the very corny and inexperienced redietz finds himself being schooled on another gambling issue....and then exhibits more studderring :confused: as a result.

Funny stuff, for sure! :)

---

Redietz here's something the experts at WOV didn't learn in J School so what they say doesn't count. As a writer you need to know if you are writing for the eye or for the ear.

You know what I'm talking about. When you speak the word cheque the ear doesn't know if it's a chip or a piece of paper for a bank transaction.

When you write for the eye there is no question what a cheque is.

When you write for the eye and you use the word check to mean a cheque you are needlessly opening the door to confusion.

If you were a good editor you would tell your writing staff to understand if the words they cgoose will be heard or read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Redietz here's something the experts at WOV didn't learn in J School so what they say doesn't count. As a writer you need to know if you are writing for the eye or for the ear.

You know what I'm talking about. When you speak the word cheque the ear doesn't know if it's a chip or a piece of paper for a bank transaction.

When you write for the eye there is no question what a cheque is.

When you write for the eye and you use the word check to mean a cheque you are needlessly opening the door to confusion.

If you were a good editor you would tell your writing staff to understand if the words they cgoose will be heard or read.

---

That's why I agreed with the casino managerial person when she said "cheque" would have reduced confusion. But anyone who took my word regarding the story should have easily understood that "check" referred to E.R. getting chips.

Basically, if you were paying attention to the story and your default mode is to believe me, there was no confusion. If your default mode is to not believe me for some reason and to search for gotchas, then the line filled your need for a presumed gotcha, as in "Accuracy, Accuracy, Accuracy!" So in those two situations, the use of "checks" served as a Rorschach test.

However, because some people may have been just glancing at the thread, I owed it to casual readers to use the "cheques" spelling. Given the same situation, I would use "cheques" next time. "Checks," however, is clearly a legitimate spelling variation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Redietz here's something the experts at WOV didn't learn in J School so what they say doesn't count. As a writer you need to know if you are writing for the eye or for the ear.

You know what I'm talking about. When you speak the word cheque the ear doesn't know if it's a chip or a piece of paper for a bank transaction.

When you write for the eye there is no question what a cheque is.

When you write for the eye and you use the word check to mean a cheque you are needlessly opening the door to confusion.

If you were a good editor you would tell your writing staff to understand if the words they cgoose will be heard or read.

---

Got to be careful Alan! When eddie gets hot under the collar because he feels his side's arguments and excuses are going down the tubes--and his idols are getting undressed before his very eyes--he has no choice but to gnaw away at your spelling of "choose".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Redietz here's something the experts at WOV didn't learn in J School so what they say doesn't count. As a writer you need to know if you are writing for the eye or for the ear.

You know what I'm talking about. When you speak the word cheque the ear doesn't know if it's a chip or a piece of paper for a bank transaction.

When you write for the eye there is no question what a cheque is.

When you write for the eye and you use the word check to mean a cheque you are needlessly opening the door to confusion.

If you were a good editor you would tell your writing staff to understand if the words they cgoose will be heard or read.

---

That's why I agreed with the casino managerial person when she said "cheque" would have reduced confusion. But anyone who took my word regarding the story should have easily understood that "check" referred to E.R. getting chips.

Basically, if you were paying attention to the story and your default mode is to believe me, there was no confusion. If your default mode is to not believe me for some reason and to search for gotchas, then the line filled your need for a presumed gotcha, as in "Accuracy, Accuracy, Accuracy!" So in those two situations, the use of "checks" served as a Rorschach test.

However, because some people may have been just glancing at the thread, I owed it to casual readers to use the "cheques" spelling. Given the same situation, I would use "cheques" next time. "Checks," however, is clearly a legitimate spelling variation.

---

It's enjoyable watching a phony like you dig your hole even deeper. Most people right now are saying to themselves "swallow the pill red and just give it up....just how much humiliation are you willing to endure?!"

I bought a Peek-a Choo-Choo hat for our big match race. I suggest a simple loop from the Las Vegas Advisor office, up Wynn, cut across Flamingo past the Gold Coast, up to the Orleans, loop around the Orleans, then back the same way to the LVA office. That way, the only traffic issue will be crossing Flamingo. I suggest 7 AM to avoid the worst of the heat, but if we wait until 8 AM, we can hit up one of the LVA office people to officially time us. Now you pick a day -- any day in August up to the 20th is good for me.

I'll be happy to call the LVA office and try to arrange a couple of folks to monitor the race. I'm sure they'll be interested when they hear that you're racing someone.

Maybe the LVA can also help you figure out if you filed your professional-gambler-status federal taxes as an individual, a proprietor, or a Gambling Entity since you seem a bit foggy on that issue. Aging does crimp the memory a bit, but I think Jean Scott wrote a book that might help jog your neurons. I know each status has an issue with your origin story, but that wasn't unexpected. Perhaps your son-in-law could recollect how you filed. Or your accountant. Surely one of them recalls your filing status. Do you remember your son-in-law's or accountant's name?

Only losers go to LV in August red. If you had any of your own money you'd go wherever it's comfortable, year round. But you can't. Besides, isn't it comfy in your Boeing boss's bed?

Alan, I didn't read all the nonsense.

I did read your reply to my question.

I understand that you said you don't know of his system works.

My question was...DO YOU THINK IT WORKS?

Yes or no?


If your son or someone close to you Asked if they should use his system to win money would you suggest to them yes or no.

I don't need any explanation. Just a yes or no... do you THINK Rob Singer has a profitable system. should people with money who want to beat VP invest Money playing Rob' s System? YOUR OPINION YES OR NO?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Only losers go to LV in August red. If you had any of your own money you'd go wherever it's comfortable, year round. But you can't. Besides, isn't it comfy in your Boeing boss's bed?

---

Now I suppose the above post could be considered trolling, but as someone who rapes dachshunds (males only) at every opportunity, I'm not too bothered.

The football season begins in August, love, and while it would be nice to have the football season start another month, I don't have as much clout with the NCAA and NFL as you do with the IRS, so I do have to go in August. I'm good up to about 108 degrees. Beyond that, it is a bit much, but that's why they pay me the big money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Only losers go to LV in August red. If you had any of your own money you'd go wherever it's comfortable, year round. But you can't. Besides, isn't it comfy in your Boeing boss's bed?

---

Redietz, this is Rob's way of saying he's chickenshit. This is the same shit he pulled with arci. "put up your tax returns. I'll put up mine. We'll see whose boss." But when arci put the returns up Rob ran for the hills. He's doing the same here. He's going to outrun everyone. Puts up a big challenge to KJ. Says KJ is chickenshit if he don't accept. But wait. Hold on, Alan, brace yourself. KJ lives in Las Vegas. LMAO! Where are you going to race KJ at, Rob? The north pole? Bwahahahhaha!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Alan, I didn't read all the nonsense.

I did read your reply to my question.

I understand that you said you don't know of his system works.

My question was...DO YOU THINK IT WORKS?

Yes or no?


If your son or someone close to you Asked if they should use his system to win money would you suggest to them yes or no.

I don't need any explanation. Just a yes or no... do you THINK Rob Singer has a profitable system. should people with money who want to beat VP invest Money playing Rob' s System? YOUR OPINION YES OR NO?

---

Holy fuck. I don't use Rob's system. I don't even know his system. I interviewed him about his special plays and I don't use special plays.

I also don't play the games Rob says to play according to his system.

Why don't you ask slingshot who apparently knows Rob's system and follows it.

Here's why these ap's are hard to take seriously when they criticize what my strategy does: they never choose to understand whatever I explain about it.

Sling doesn't fully understand my play strategy, and that's only because I've never been able to sit down with him at a machine. But he's been smart enuf to know that I say playing your own variation of what I do is far better than strict optimal play or any other defined type of play. Why? Because it is an overall complex strategy, requiring the exact same circumstances as I have in order to be successful playing it. For instance, the player must have an above average aptitude for playing poker, and there must be no wavering from the key points. And this is just the start.

And this is what's even more interesting about these street people claiming what I say is impossible to do, and what they do is the only way to win at VP. I was an AP for 6 years, then I developed my own strategy that's grounded in optimal play. Have any of these guys ever even tried to fully understand the strategy....let alone PLAY it?

Until then their rage and envy will go on (and kew will keep on whimpering like a little bitch).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Only losers go to LV in August red. If you had any of your own money you'd go wherever it's comfortable, year round. But you can't. Besides, isn't it comfy in your Boeing boss's bed?

---

Redietz, this is Rob's way of saying he's chickenshit. This is the same shit he pulled with arci. "put up your tax returns. I'll put up mine. We'll see whose boss." But when arci put the returns up Rob ran for the hills. He's doing the same here. He's going to outrun everyone. Puts up a big challenge to KJ. Says KJ is chickenshit if he don't accept. But wait. Hold on, Alan, brace yourself. KJ lives in Las Vegas. LMAO! Where are you going to race KJ at, Rob? The north pole? Bwahahahhaha!

---

Sorry you were hurt by this mickey. You need to contact eddie so you can both get thru it.

August is no time to be in LV, esp. when you have the resources we have to travel. Why would someone like me ruin my and my wife's summer by driving all the way to LV, esp. after we are now in the middle of a S. Dakota to SF to S. Dakota trip in our RV? I know this kind of affordability is foreign to a slug like you. So have your bad dream about it and try a fresh route tomorrow.

Arci was a fool and everyone knows it. I cajoled the idiot into actually sending his tax returns to a stranger...returns that had his dead wife's info also. My wife would never agree to such stupidity. I not only out-foxed him and apparently you...he actually ended up being totally humiliated when Alan reported his pathetic results. It was a fun day at the ranch.

I'll be back in Az. In Oct. if kew grows a pair and/or redietz thinks his soft life is any match for mine. What about you mickey---how about making your fat ass appear this year and we'll see just how much you can handle someone who's no little punk and has training. Or....are you gonna go crying to the ap's that "Rob always changes the ground rules" (sniffle sniffle)??