Printable View
I actually remember the title of this article from Rob Singer's old website VPTruth. It was an article from many years ago and he did discuss that $35k loss in that article.
Whatever happened to that website? Why was it shut down?
Considering how brutal VP is with such few winning hands vs. tons of losing hands...even the best VP player in the world (whoever that may be!) will have losing sessions, yes?
Count, great memory! I shut my website down when my wife and I decided to become full-time RVers, and I had retired from playing vp professionally when I hit age 60. I had a great run in the casinos, I had several books published, I was on multiple TV and radio programs throughout my career, and of course I wrote what will forever be the most popular column ever in Gaming Today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Count Room
I do, however, have most of what was on my website saved, and if I ever get the time there are a lot of things people have been asking me to resurrect somehow.
That article you brought up about my biggest loss to date (and ever, as it turned out): It was nothing out of the ordinary since I always kept my site and GT readers up-to-date on how the strongest vp player in the world was doing, cumulatively.
It's this "humble" attitude that's causing people to not take you seriously at all. People might actually listen to what you have to say if you would tone it down a little. But unfortunately that doesn't seem to be in the cards considering the last 500 of your posts. This is not intented to start a fight but maybe it gives you a reason to do a little self evaluation.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Nope. I've been a tremendous success in every aspect of the vp world I chose to be involved with, and that will never change. What happens in the aftermath such as here or anywhere else, is simply me bloviating as a result of that success. It is secondary stuff in my life now, and the only thing I have to lose is whatever time I put into whatever I choose to put it into. Others look at it differently, but that's only because the game is still a controlling factor in their lives, and I will always remain a controlling factor within their heads. Ask arci especially, about that one :) He's only here because he has never been able to defeat me in a debate, he showed up on the Wizard's forum after he heard I took the spotlight over there, and he's feeling awfully sorry be ever bothered to follow me onto VegasRex. But what's most satisfying is how he's stuck in limbo on vpFree while I post at will.
So Vegas_lover, you can see how this stuff just isn't that important to me anymore as video poker is a passing form of entertainment these days. We're enjoying too many things thee days because I was astute enough not to selfishly get my wife involved in vp, and thus hooked on playing. It's all in how respectful one treats the game and those close to them.
Quite the contrary Rob, this is all very important to you. I didn't mention Arci in my message to you but still you have to drag him in every chance you get. Looking at all the discussion on this forum there's no such thing as a loser or a winner. I can tell you this, most people (readers) don't look at you as the winning party in these discussions. Arci's replies approaching your statements from a mathimatical angle, in general, sound way more thoughtful than yours. But as I said before, there's no limit to your ego and that's why Alan's forum probably won't turn into a forum with many participants. You being the main reason why people stay away. Not because they realize you're right, but because as Alan stated in a different thread: you are a pompous a**Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
For someone who cares so little about this all, you sure do spend a lot of time posting.....(only 900+ posts from a person who doesn't care.......who are you trying to convince?)
Go ahead, you can have the final word, I'm not going to put any more effort in talking some sense into you. Mission impossible.....sorry Alan.
P.S. it's simply disgusting how you drag Arci's wife into your vendetta every single time. I would qualify that the behavior of a 4 year old. You sir have absolutely no manners!
Singer claims video poker isn't "important to me anymore" which is why he posts on very VP forum he can find. Even a cave man can see what a joke that statement is.
I've never commented on the Wizard's forum, so what does say about Singer and the truth?
Vegas_lover, you have to understand that whatever Singer says you can just about count on the opposite being the truth. He comments here to try and convince people he is a somebody. Real men don't have to convince folks of their merit. They already know inside if they have been successful. Now, phonies on the other hand ...
You can go to the wayback archives and get a lot of them. I found it was best to begin at 2007. So if you get tired of all the meaningless accusations, and like to refresh your memory,this site is great. If you read carefully each article, you can assimilate some of the finer, oft missed, points of his strategy. For instance, in one article on sdbp, I believe, he actually gives info on some of the ways he decides when to use his special plays.Quote:
Originally Posted by Count Room
I never read the original article so I have a question which I will ask WITHOUT a personal attack:
Rob, how did you JUSTIFY leaving the casino after chasing your losses (that's what your system says to do) and leave down 35K?
Vegas_lover, this is the only forum I've posted regularly on since we left Phoenix last year (the other being vpFREE but not so much), and I do so only because of the fair method Alan uses in his criticisms of some of the ways I approach playing. Otherwise, this wouldn't be worth my time and as you can see, some people have always understood my message. Why keep insulting arci? Because it's fun and it gets to him, I enjoy seeing how creative he gets when he lies about me, and having had a bunch of strictly-by-the-math geeks work for me over the years, I know how much pride they have in trying to hide their frustration from others while pretending everything is C-O-O-L :). Chipping away at that is just plain fun!
Alan, I'm not going to say that the SPS does not "chase losses" because at the end of the day, that's what it does. But it does so in quite a different way than any other method would see it work. I stop after running thru all 2400 credits without any more 40+ credit cashouts, which means I still have tens of thousands in my pockets when leaving. That has happened numerous times. What you can't get your head around is how in the world someone can actually have the DISCIPLINE to do what they say they are going to do when gambling! You find it impossible that someone could really just get up and leave when down that much. Well, if I didn't follow this strategy to the letter then I could easily kiss that $984,000 profit I made goodbye.
I really think you just don't comprehend how the strategy is played. I see you're believing since this is a simple "chase your losses" strategy then why quit down $35k when there's thousands more in my pocket left to bet? But the strategy doesn't allow for that and there's good reason why. That's also the way a problem gambler/AP would approach it, and SPS defeats that in its tracks. If you understand the concept of cashing out every time a 40+ credit profit is attained while putting in into a soft profit pool, and more importantly for you in this particular instance, if you understand the strategy's 1st goal concept of returning to the next lowest denomination as often as possible as I run through those 2400 credits--and that the 400 credits on ANY level can be played many, many times in the same session--then you would not be so fixated on how I can just get up and leave after taking such a beating.
Rob I have lots of discipline and my discipline says you don't lose thirty five thousand dollars gambling no matter how much you have in your pocket.
I'm not defending losing 35K at a go, but really, what's the difference between losing 35K a thousand at a time or all at once? If recreation/fun time/entertainment or whatever you want to call it is not an issue, you're better off losing it in one fell swoop. Saves gas money.
For most gamblers the fun IS the issue. Some gamblers might lose $35K over 10 years and consider it well worth the cost for the entertainment received.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Then SHAME on people! I read the Las Vegas yellow pages, and all those listed entertainers are in need of work. At least a hundred pages worth. Why not employ these entertainers instead of playing video poker?? Where is the morality?
And my discipline says you don't say you're gonna quit after once-thru on freeplay, then watch $8000 go south because you just can't stop craving the action.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
It's all a matter of how you prepare, plan, and then follow thru. It's also a matter of gaming bankroll ($35k was 20% of mine) and if one even HAS a separate gambling bankroll--which I suspect you do not.
Let me ask you this. You don't see the problem with losing $2500 you bring with you, and then going to the cashier or ATM's to get more? You think it's OK to just keep playing beyond what you came with, just because you are losing? That's what you're saying to me--I should have kept playing, even in the face of a very successful strategy to date that had me stopping always at certain win of loss goals. Maybe I could've bought a golf cart instead of this RV, and met up with arci for some exhilarating rounds of golf instead! :)
If I remember correctly I won about $65000 that year, so gas wasn't really an issue. Besides, as a Schedule C filier, I deducted basically everything in my life having to do with Rob Singer, and gas was pretty far down on the list.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Vegas_lover, I just saw something I missed earlier. You said arci gives good math responses. I agree, he does and he knows the math very well. But, while vp is a game that's grounded in math for the casinos, it is far different when it comes to individual players. That's where his disconnect resides and apparently always will, seeing that his remaining life is pretty much defined from here on out. Theory is king when it comes to the casino side of the machines, but reality rules from the other side. The only way to consistently beat the machines is to know that, believe in that, and structure your strategy around that. Where strict math is the end-all for the casinos and probability theory-based classroom books, it is simply an imperfect guide for the knowledgeable player. Without ingenuity, a player will end up chasing hands and slot club fluff like every AP addict, they'll end up working their entire retirement like Bob Dancer, or they'll end up stepping into their grave penniless like Skip Hughes. There is FAR more to vp than trying to keep up with the math.
Rob, my friend, we are in two different worlds. You are in the world of a professional gambler, and I am just a guy who goes to a casino to have fun and get some thrills. You are compelled to win, and I would like to try to win. You need to win because you are on a mission to win, and I just want to get my entertainment.
You wrote:
I don't need the discipline you need because I am not on a mission to play and win. You must win or you will consider yourself to be a failure at your "profession" -- a profession that you not only followed religiously but also was your public life in the media. That's a tough load to carry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
However, your criticism of me leaves out a few details: first, while I gave back about $8,000 of winnings, I still came back with a $2,000 profit. That's very different from losing $35,000 and coming back only with write-offs for your taxes as you did. Further, that $35,000 represented 54% of your net win for that year according to your post above. For a professional to suffer a one time loss equal to 54% of your annual win is very poor money management -- and you claim to be the expert of money management and discipline.
You also make it seem that I took that $8,000 and climbed to the roof of Caesars Palace and threw the cash into the wind and let it scatter all over Las Vegas Boulevard. What you fail to acknowledge is that I used the $8,000 not only for the enjoyment of the games, but also in an attempt to win more. Can you -- a professional -- fault a recreational player for trying to win? If you can fault a recreational player for trying to win, then what the heck are you doing when you place a bet?
You also wrote:
You actually let yourself lose 20% of your gaming bankroll in one visit? That is also poor money management in any business, and especially in a business as insecure and as unreliable as the business of gambling is. You never answered this question so I am going to ask it one more time: how long did it take you -- how many trips did it take you -- to recoup that $35,000 loss that was suffered in one trip/visit? Again, since you have a "system" of cashing out and leaving when you reach a $2500 win goal, it literally could have taken you 14 trips or longer to recoup that $35K -- and if you had more losing sessions albeit smaller losing sessions -- it would take you even more sessions to recoup the loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
You are correct that I don't have a bankroll for gambling because it is a discretionary expense. I also don't have a bankroll for going to the movies or going out to dinner. It's just something I do when I want to do it. I don't have to go to a casino therefore I do not need to have a bankroll set aside. Going to a casino fits into my budget the way other recreation fits into my budget. Just the idea that you must have a "bankroll" reinforces the importance of gaming for you -- but we know that because you are a professional.
So now we get to the bottom line: you should not apply your professional standards and practices to the other tens of millions of us who are not professional and go visit Las Vegas for the fun of it, for the excitement of it, for the thrill of it, and for the dream of winning. When all is said and done, we go home to our jobs and we are not compelled to go back because its our profession and our public persona.
I'm not a professional gambler, Rob. Heck, I've never had a winning year. I do it for fun. Does that rub you the wrong way that people can go to a casino and have fun without being on a mission?
Everything you think about and write about and talk about is beating the casinos, beating the machines. Wow, that's a heavy burden.
Rob, I just noticed what you wrote in the other thread about playing live poker:
This only reinforces what I said before: you are not a happy gambler. You are driven, obsessed with winning and beating the casinos. That can be a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
It makes no difference whether the money is lost in one trip or over ten years, but in this case it is a "professional" who lost $35k in one visit which represented 54% of his yearly income; and this professional claims to have strict money management skills and discipline. There is something wrong with dropping 54% of your "annual gambling income" in one visit by a "professional" who gambles regularly and with "a plan."Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
One just has to laugh at the silliness of this comment. It appears in Singer's universe the math only works part of the time. Absolutely hilarious .... and total nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Once again Singer uses the word "theory" when discussing math. That's something no educated person would do. Theories are unproven, yet well supported, claims. Math itself deals in proven algorithms. So, the question is whether Singer is this ignorant or if he is intentionally dishonest. Either way he's not a person anyone should listen to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Notice how Singer sets up this last claim by first lying about the math. If you fall for the lies then this seems logical. However, the math doesn't care about Singer's lies which is why APers consistently win and those who follow silly nonsense from people like Singer end up losing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
This is why Singer ends up attacking people like me in any way possible including attacking my wife. He realizes the truth will not work so he changes the subject in order to avoid discussing the facts. It's really pretty simple.
Let's not get into a pissing match over the use of the word "theory." We are not discussing math as a theory, Arc. What Rob refers to is the theoretical belief that a player will have the return as stated in the paytable for a game.
Rob's position is that since no player is at the game for the long term that their own individual return will differ.
Actually, Arc, you don't disagree with that idea either -- and no one does.
So, this is just another war of words over words that we've all heard before.
This is getting boring....