Arc's transcripts have arrived at Axis Media. I haven't seen them yet. Tony at Axis told me they were in today's mail.
Printable View
Arc's transcripts have arrived at Axis Media. I haven't seen them yet. Tony at Axis told me they were in today's mail.
inb4 "they're not part of the original agreement so I'm not turning in my tax stuff to Alan because arc is a degenerate and I have 2 RVs paid for with cash and 401k because my system works and I wrote off all $1M of winnings when reporting to the IRS even though I still had leftover money for the RVs, Mexicans are evil, and wise up."
The drama builds ... LOL. I'm really interested in the number of years they provided.
Arc I had Tony open only ONE envelope to be sure the IRS was sending your transcripts and not audit notices for me or subpoenas for a tax fraud investigation of someone else (LOL).
The one envelope contained ONE YEAR'S transcript of yours. There were ten envelopes in all. I suspect that means ten years of transcripts -- one year per envelope.
While Tony at Axis knew something was coming from the IRS about this he didn't expect ten separate envelopes and he sounded worried for me. I'm sorry I wasn't there to see the expression on his face when he took them out of the office mailbox.
Well, if it truly is ten years and they contain all the information as claimed by IRS documentation, then Singer no longer has any excuse whatsoever.
I think Red will need to change his odds. Or, did that game expire?
Doesn't change a thing. Arci proposed/I accepted tax returns, not transcripts, which don't break down my schedule C's. Pretty simple, really.
So if he likes transcripts he can spend the remainder of his lonely life at home with them, while I spend my time with a breathing wife. :)
As I stated long ago, we will never see Singer's tax information. There's only one reason for that. They show just what a complete loser he is.
The previous wager has ended with -340 No -- Rob will not send in his taxes as the winner.
There is no line on the current event as hell is more likely to freeze over than Rob sending in tax forms.
Anyone reading Rob's schtick has to be bored by now. His credibility has hit an iceberg. Whatever class he had has already sunk into the briny deep.
He had no credibility from the first day he first burst onto the gambling scene.
I'm not a tax guy. Can somebody please explain why Schedule Cs will be a key component in seeing that Rob has won what he claimed as opposed to transcripts? Rob has failed to spell this out clearly. And why doesn't Rob just provide his Schedule C's if that is the issue?
Rob makes no sense here. If transcripts are all that is needed for arci to demonstrate his winnings, great. That doesn't mean Rob is limited to just providing transcripts.
I won't be in the office till Monday. I don't know if Arc ever filed a schedule C.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
The question is what would a transcript for a Schedule C show?
Thank you. You summed it up exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
He summed it up from a point of not having the knowledge of transcript differences between a schedule A (which arci filed) and a schedule C (which I filed). However, if you know the difference and have seen the difference, it is very clear. Maybe not to the liking of a critic; but it is very clear. And, why don't I just submit returns while he submits transcripts? How about I ORDERED THEM THE LAST TIME ONLY TO SEE ARCI FOLD IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME, AND I HAD TO GO THRU HOOPS TO CANCEL & GET MY MONEY BACK. THIS TIME HE DOES WHAT HE SAYS--FIRST. Did that get thru to you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Red's question revolves around assuming arci's transcript clearly identifies gambling wins on the 1040 (which I'm sure it does) vs. the true amount of gambling losses. I'm going out on a limb and predict that he ordered a transcript for himself given the short amount of time it seems to take to receive one, and that there was sufficient inconclusiveness as to what the overall net gambling results were....and that's why he changed the terms.
The 2nd--and most important part here--is why I will only stick to the tax forms and not waste time with transcripts. Red asks what's the difference. Well, a Schedule C transcript does not conclusively detail what were net wins and what were losses. They show the gross win along with other income like book royalties (and I have others) but because my business of gambling, consulting, training & writing involved many "deductible expenses" as you already know and which are not separately identified on a transcript, this bunch of geniuses on here will break the report down into its finest criticism so as not to come to any final conclusions, thereby keeping all of the bozos in their "safety zone" of Singer-hating supposedly without the "facts". Remember, the purpose of this exercise is to obtain a review by Alan that's fool-proof. In my case, only my tax returns will do that. And redietz, the reason I'm not just "showing a copy of my Schedule C" is because that's part of what you get when you order a tax return, complete with copies of all W2G's, 1099's etc. That's why I accepted the challenge as it was proposed. Arci predictably changed his terms after I accepted because he's terrified of seeing a report of finality that says I actually won as I said I've won.
Why a 70-year old and several mid-60 yr. olds have to be involved in something stupid like this is a question all by itself. I feel more white-trashy by the minute going along with this nonsense, but if it'll make arci's misfortune & pain go on for the rest of his life then I'm all-in, which is why I agreed with the returns. Either way, my comfortable life will continue, and I smile every second of the day about our differences where it counts. :)
As anyone can see who looks at a Schedule C, Singer is lying once again.
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040sc.pdf
On line 5 is gross profits. That line should tells us exactly what was won. It would also appear in any transcript as well. So, once again it is conclusive evidence that Singer is a fake. Then on lines 8 - 27 are all the expenses that he told Alan he used to offset the wins. Clearly, those would also appear in any transcript.
As for the claim that other income would appear, all that would do is increase the net win making Singer look better. If the gross profit was more than 100K and Singer told us that xxx amount was the for gambling wins I doubt anyone would doubt him. What we have doubted is whether he had wins at all. In fact, many folks doubt he ever filed a Schedule C at all so the existence of one in a transcript would provide some support for his claims.
Finally, no one is "terrified" of seeing Singer's tax forms out in the open except Singer himself. As anyone can see a transcript of the line items would be conclusive proof that he won as he has claimed. The expenses shown would be conclusive proof of his exemptions. There is one and only one reason for Singer to not submit them to Alan .... he lied. He never won a cent gambling and his entire persona is one big lie after another.
PS. I wonder where belly is hiding?
I'm not hiding.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
I did my part, and await Alan's examination of whatever forms he received.
It's obvious arci's nervously trying to cover for his real reason on changing conditions mid-stream, while his lies keep flowing as he scrambles to find words to hide them.
Read the form first arci. Gross receipts is the W2G's among other things, and gross profit (line 5) includes a lot more than the losses (meaning some of the deductions I claimed, in case you try to spin it). A transcript doesn't give the breakdown nor does it include the audit report, which the return does.
You've got lots of time on your hands and clearly video poker has both consumed & destroyed your life. So read the thing before trying to twist it next time. And if you want to bet that I never filed a Schedule C, I'll be glad to get Alan one for 2008 or 2009 if they're available. Let's make it for $25k and Alan holds escrow, shall we?
I'm so sorry your wife's not there to brow beat her due to more Singer-caused frustration any longer. Guess you'll just have to figure that one out for yourself this time.:)
Why doesn't Rob just order the tax returns and be done with it?
I just tried to obtain transcripts for 2008/2009 and it tells me whether form 4506-T or 4506-EZ is filed you cannot get more than the current year plus the past 3 years. This is straight from the IRS site. So where/how is it even possible to obtain the ten years of transcripts? Alan said above that he received ten envelopes, and arci gave the impression that he asked for ten years worth. What does it take to get ones older than three years?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I just found this discussion on an IRS forum:
I called 3 weeks back and requested for Tax Transcripts for last 5 years (2006-2010). They sent me transcripts for 2007-2010 and a letter for 2006 explaining they only issue transcripts for current and past 3 years.
I saw posts on this forum where people got their transcripts for last 5 years. So I called again, spent another 30 min on phone and asked for 2006 transcript. The lady said that it is not a problem and ordered it. In couple of days I got the another letter explaining that they don't issue transcripts for years that are older than 3.
----------------------------------------------------
So maybe all those envelopes Alan received are year-by-year rejection letters for the older years? Sounds like what a Gov't. agency would do.
I already addressed that above genius. Now please put on your penguin clothes and go back in and make your twelve bucks an hour.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
It is hilarious watching Singer project his current emotional state. You can pretty much count on everything he claims I'm feeling is, in fact, his own feelings.
- "nervously trying to cover"
- "his lies keep flowing as he scrambles to find words to hide them"
- "video poker has both consumed & destroyed [his] life"
- "brow beat her [his own wife] due to more [arci]-caused frustration"
- "trying to twist it next time"
Singer can no longer hide the truth. He will scramble around making a complete fool of himself but no one is falling for his silly claims. Anyone can look at the Schedule C form and clearly see Singer is lying.
This is going to only get better as Alan verifies my wins over the years.
Arci, instead of showing us all how very lonely and hurtful the holiday season can be for those who've buried a spouse :), how about answering how it's possible to get transcripts for any of the years I filed as a professional gambler. C'Mon, I'm trying to get 2008 + 2009 ordered for Alan.
So stop all the pre-shock posturing, accept my simple bet, and give me some help here. Or, you can get some credibility back and send Alan your filled in 4506 form to order 2005 thru 2009 (which he will mail in) tax returns like you originally proposed (remember that?) And when he receives them I'll do the same. Just as it was from the start, and all your lying & running around trying to disrupt your original challenge will be labeled "expected, but no harm/no foul".
Hahaha! Dollars to donuts arci's finding himself backtracking over his comments that he can get 10 years of transcripts. The scrambling around his little duplex must be hilarious right now!....although not having that sickly zombie around has GOT to be helpful and inspiring.
I like this. Every time arci thinks he's being clever, he gets slapped down again. And that's what I like about know-it-all nerds: they keep coming back for more.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Has ANYTHING going right for you over the past 5 years?
I think I just realized something. The years Rob won, he was "a professional." The years he lost, he was "an AP" or "retired."
I have some friends like that. The nights they pick up women, they are single. The nights they go home to their wives, they are not. Makes sense.
What a great New Year's present. I'm having so much fun watching Rob squirm.
Rob, you've been telling your followers for ten years that there is no way arci ever had even one winning year. That goes along with your schtick of "AP's can't win" by using scientific methods. Of course, you really had no way of knowing whether arci won or not. You just invented the whole thing up in your convoluted mind to further your own agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
What lies to your followers will you come up with next after its proven that arci is a winner?
Hope springs eternal doesn't it, Rob. That's about all you can hope for now, isn't it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
The only followers he has are the alter egos he creates like Jerry Logan.Quote:
Originally Posted by slobdinger
Jerry Logan is a friend and he sent me a text on Christmas. He's also someone I've trained and from what I hear he is still having success. That has to be why you think he's me or something. Arci does that all the time on various forums (see his coach belly misrepresentations for proof right here) and looks foolish every time he does it. No wonder you wish to stay anonymous.
No mickey, wrong again. If you noticed, arci cherry-picked a few years then said he asked for 10. That means he knew he could submit one or two years where he stated he had won, then tried to pull the wool over everybody's eyes by pretending to know all the other losing years would arrive when in reality he could read the form and knew they wouldn't. Safe again...or so he thought. But even a monkey can win 2 out of 10. Ask yourself something real: Why do you think he changed from tax returns to transcripts? Bingo! Because he knew he'd have to show mostly losing years with returns, thereby perpetuating all of his AP lies with that transcript deception. He in fact bailed himself out, but only uneducated drifters like you wouldn't see that.Quote:
Originally Posted by slobdinger
I'm actually hoping there's 10 years of transcripts in there. Then we'll know he duped Alan with his own made-up transcripts mailed in phony IRS envelopes from a city that doesn't mail them out.
Besides, if he shows even 1 year where he claimed a win and happily paid taxes on it, what kind of fool would that be? What Schedule A filer who wins doesn't mitigate all claimed wins with claimed losses on Schedule A? I don't believe you know any of this though because you never file. At least yet.
You know the facts better than that. I've won as a professional and now as retired. If I were a loser since retiring from pro play I wouldn't bother with vp any longer.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Methinks you struggle with effective verbage at times.
That would be "verbiage," Rob.
So what is the gist of all this? I've followed this forum forever, and arci never claimed to have won every year. So what exactly is the point of his giving Alan his transcripts? To demonstrate that he's had winning years?
And Rob won't give Alan his transcripts or returns why exactly? So that -- help me out here -- he won't demonstrate what? I'm confused.
If arci has won and his taxes show that, does that mean Rob's "AP's cannot win" rant has been debunked? Hell, nobody believes that, anyway.
If there are 10 years of transcripts from arci, then Rob says arci is duping Alan with made-up transcripts in fake IRS envelopes from phony cities? Rob, what the hell are you smoking? Do you hear yourself, man? Come on, get a grip here.
Rob's been nipping eggnog today.
More projection. LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Gee Rob, you told us you already ordered tax forms for those years and then cancelled it. Why would you need help?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I only proposed we get our tax information to Alan. I've never cared how we did it. Everyone already knows you are simply deflecting to avoid facing reality. You will never send Alan your forms. Your tax forms demonstrate you lied. By not sending in for the forms you also demonstrate you lied. End of story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I never said I could get 10 years of transcripts. I stated I sent in for the 2004-2014 years and we would see what would happen. If Alan really got 10 years (actually 11 years), I will be completely surprised. The IRS will have exceeded my expectations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Rob's projection already told us .... he is "scrambling". He is hoping he can come with something, anything ... to escape the hole he has dug for himself. I think he realizes the whole transcript vs. photocopy argument is a loser. He has nothing else. It's your basic catch 22. This is the end.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Instead of sympathizing with arci, you might like to use the facts to form a reply. So please explain, if the forms say only 3 + the current year's transcripts are available--and if somehow 10 show up in the mail--what would be your conclusion? Got anything? Or do you feel "safer" ignoring it again?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Now for the good part. In the "Final Opportunity" thread, our friend arci said this:
Good news folks. I found another IRS form, 4506T-EZ, which assumes the requested form is the 1040 and does not appear to have any date restrictions. While you can fill out the form online, you cannot submit it directly. So, I will print off one for the dates 2011-2014. I will then send in another form for 2007-2010 and yet another for 2004-2006. That should be sufficient. Those are all the years I have claimed to have won (except for 2014).
Hmmm....this looks like not 10, but ELEVEN YEARS that the liar asked for (which he obviously already knew only 4 would be available). Even more obvious is how he tried in vain to make everybody believe he was "doing his darndest" to retrieve more than the 4 allowable years, just to keep that needed perception "alive & well". And, at the start he was only interested in Alan reviewing my professional filing status years, known to all as 2000-2009. So why did he suddenly change his own conditions from tax returns to transcripts? My side is already splitting--It's just too laughable to say again.
Yet TODAY in this thread, he says this:
I never said I could get 10 years of transcripts. I stated I sent in for the 2004-2014 years and we would see what would happen. If Alan really got 10 years (actually 11 years), I will be completely surprised. The IRS will have exceeded my expectations.
Really? Exactly where did you say "we'll see what happens"? Now, with the heat turned up to HIGH, it's suddenly "I will be completely surprised--the IRS will have exceeded my expectations"!!
Oops!....I'm sorry arci. :) Every one of those forms he said he sent in clearly states that transcripts can be sent out, for free, for the current year and the past 3 years only. Further, on the IRS website which any "mensa" would take the time to read before making any kind of claim on something so important to him, it also very clearly states that if the taxpayer wants earlier copies of transcripts they would need to fill out form 4506 and get TAX RETURNS at 50 bucks a copy.
Like I've said multiple times: Arci changed the conditions as soon as I accepted to fetch tax returns. He's caught in his own trap again, and I've proven him a proven liar once more. Just toooo funny!
Now please my good pal, go back to crying over the wife you put into her grave years earlier than she should have. You keep getting caught lying on here and you'll even embarrass that hick mickey. And how ya gonna spin these facts arci? Let's see some more of that "Robbie" & "projection" stuff you repeat every time I seriously get on your nerves....
Rob, I'm still confused, man. Are you saying Alan has fake forms in his office mailbox or not? If the transcripts are valid, what is your beef? You are bothered by the IRS doing more than is stated on their site? What's so wild about that?
squirm, robbie, squirm. It's hilarious watching you squirm.
The little worm is squirming big time. Notice how he has now resorted to trying to redefine what I stated. First our worm reposted this item that I posted when I first found the simplefied EZ form:
"Good news folks. I found another IRS form, 4506T-EZ, which assumes the requested form is the 1040 and does not appear to have any date restrictions. While you can fill out the form online, you cannot submit it directly. So, I will print off one for the dates 2011-2014. I will then send in another form for 2007-2010 and yet another for 2004-2006. That should be sufficient. Those are all the years I have claimed to have won (except for 2014)."
But skipped over where I said a little later:.
"As for what years Alan is getting, I sent in forms for 2004-2014. However, upon reading the instructions again I suspect Alan will not get them all ... "
As is obvious, I missed the restriction stated on the back of the form that says you only can get 4 years. Hence, I then posted the above item to clear it up. What does Singer claim?
"he obviously already knew only 4 would be available"
Nope, I did not know that when I sent in the form. I only figured that out the next day which is when I posted the update.
Now, what does any of this have to do with him sending in his tax forms? ZERO. It is all more BS to try and deflect away from the fact he has been completely stripped naked of his claimed persona and everyone can see he came up a lot short.
Funny, Rob is clearly out-numbered on this forum....yet he's been kicked off of every other gambling forum...and he's STILL trying to push his views on people. I'll him that, he doesn't give up -- the little engine that could.
No I didn't say that. I said that I read both forms (as should everyone interested in this), I read the IRS site, I called the IRS, and I asked my "friend" at the IRS; they all clearly said that you can only receive transcripts for the current year plus the 3 prior years.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
While some may want others to believe it's entirely possible that the IRS will "exceed expectations" or in your case "do more than is stated on their site" I have been told on the phone as well as in person that transcripts are not allowed BY LAW to go out over 3 years past. Should they suddenly appear in what Alan has, then there's a 99.99% chance they are fake. Would you agree with that or are you still sticking to the "it wouldn't be so wild" theory? If so then I invite you to do everything I did and see what you come up with. And for a pathological liar like arci who prides himself at being smarter and more cunning than anyone else anywhere as well as his current "going nowhere" status with nothing to lose, don't bet against it.
BTW after talking to my son-in-law, sending out fake transcripts is probably pretty simple to do given the motivation. All one needs is a transcript in their hands for the boilerplate, and anyone with a computer can make their own up complete with the IRS logo and address etc. The tough part would be the envelopes, because of the restriction/penalty stated for using their postage for personal purposes. There are ways around everything however, and never put it past a nerd who's life has already fallen apart to do the unexpected when it comes to his ego.
Arci face it--trying to deny that a know-it-all "didn't know everything" and "I wasn't trying to give the perception that I really REALLY wanted to get all 11 years sent in for my usual devious reasons" on what is obviously the most important event in your life since burial day, is simply satisfying to see.
But I'll ease up on the pressure for now if you turn to answering why you suddenly changed from tax returns to transcripts as soon as I agreed. Even your caveman could see the sweat dripping from your shiny forehead after that one. And, you entered into this challenging me to show my years of tax returns as a professional gambler. You even go so far as to claim I never filed a Schedule C! So now, without the ability to keep a believable whine going about my not getting the transcripts since they just aren't available, and there is only either 1 or 2 years of tax returns possibly available ('08/'09) while you previously stated that so few a # of years would be inconclusive evidence as it pertains to me, what is it you expect?
I'll give you the opportunity to be clear here and be truthful for a change.
I do get a chuckle out of Singers acrobatics. We will see what the IRS sent when Alan has time. It's possible they sent all the years or they may have sent none or anywhere in between.
As anyone can clearly see, Singer is in total panic and we don't even have a single transcript. These actions betray him. Why does he care? Simple. When your entire self-esteem is based on a lie, and that lie is being exposed, the mental distress is raging. We are seeing the result.
BTW, I love the added projection:
- there's a 99.99% chance [he is] fake.
- And ... a pathological liar
- his current "going nowhere" status
Funny is right! Mickey's been permanently banned from THIS forum, and he carries on as if he's at an open bar.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
Arci: As Rob implied, I can just see those big dewdrops of sweat trickling down your shiny forehead after your sending out those fake transcripts as your ego is soon to be destroyed. Any last words before it all comes crashing down on you? <wink>
This has gotten bizarre. The odds that arci has sent fake transcripts: about as long as a sequential royal.
We all await Alan's report on the mystery envelopes. Cue the Mission Impossible theme for arci's counterfeiting expertise.
Redietz, did you ever read any books or watch any documentaries about Hitler shortly before the fall of Berlin? (even the movie "Downfall" would serve this purpose)Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
He still thought he could win the war even though his army units were decimated and the Allies were at his doorstep.
I really wish Rob would have not cancelled his tax returns. For the price of a spare tire on one of his RV's he could have earned lifetime respect and adulation from all the members of this forum to which he has devoted over 4,000 posts.
Rob--as someone who has pretty much sided with you in the couple years I have been on this Forum, you really need to step up and send something to Alan. Whether it is full returns, transcripts which you could then explain if they don't clearly show what you are wanting them to show, or the key to the storage locker---send something or you really are looking bad here.
What Arci's returns show was never really the issue here. His providing the returns was always just a means to get you to send yours, and now you aren't doing it and you are looking bad. Step up before it's too late.
Agreed with regnis. I will also admit I have long held a sliver of hope that Rob was telling the truth about all that he said. Like Alan, I was also intrigued by the idea of walking away a winner from VP sessions with -EV games given proper discipline and structural progression.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
I actually feel disappointed this may all be a lie because I have read Rob's materials off and on for many years (including the entertaining VPTruth articles).
I don't support Rob's progressions or theories, but I also read the majority of columns Rob wrote for Gaming Today. We were both living in Las Vegas (me for 100 days a year; Rob year-round) at the time. He is a pretty decent writer, and he was entertaining when he wasn't hateful. I do support Rob's general tooth-and-nail philosophy regarding casinos -- do as they don't want you to do and all that.
He seems, however, to be a bit on tilt with this latest topic.
This is why I am laughing about this entire "challenge." Who wouldn't try to offset modest wins with losses so there is no tax liability? It certainly can be done and the IRS probably wouldn't raise an eyebrow over it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Even a hundred thousand dollar annual win could be considered "modest" for a frequent player and could be easily offset with losses. It's when someone wins a million dollars that you probably would face IRS scrutiny.
If Arc paid taxes on a gambling profit my hat's off to him! He deserves a medal.
But Rob, what makes you different is that you claimed you offset your average $100,000 per year wins not with losses, but with hokey pokey business deductions for having dinner with your wife, buying groceries, and hosting parties. So Rob tell us: why do something controversial when the simple way out would be just to report losses? A profit of $100,000 a year is not hard to hide for a high denomination player, and especially for one who played at multiple casinos and may not have had a players card tracking all play.
Honestly Rob, unless I see your tax returns showing something different, I can't possibly think or accept that you offset your wins with dinners, groceries and parties and I don't care who told you it was okay to pull off that kind of hokey pokey. I posted what the IRS guidelines are previously, and everyone can read them just as I did. I think your tax returns are going to show modest "business deductions" and routine losses just like every other gambler with a profit does. Maybe you did actually have a profit but I don't think the Rob Singer we all know would ever want to pay taxes. So my guess is -- drum roll please -- your tax returns will show both losses and business deductions wiping out your wins.
Just to reiterate -- I don't have any winning/profitable years so I didn't have to do any hokey pokey when I filed taxes for all the years I've been going to casinos. And here's some ammunition for you, Rob, so you can start your 2016 insults: even with my $100,000 royal in October of 2015, Rob, I didn't have profit for the full year. That $100,000 profit was too little, too late to offset the previous 9 months of gambling and what I lost playing after. And I'm not ashamed at all because while I don't have a profit I didn't go into a deep hole, nor will I have to file bankruptcy. I was a recreational player and that $100,000 royal gave me plenty of recreation following the win and offset the losses I had in the previous nine months or so.
So Rob, if you want to insult me, go ahead. I'm prepared. You always insult me when the going gets tough -- because you hope I will suspend you so that you have an excuse for not responding to everyone else on the forum. Well Rob, NO suspension is coming. This time we're going to see it through to "the end."
Now, with that said, at "the end" you might be due for a giant apology and a giant atta-boy for really having on average $100,000 per year of profits, and for really offsetting your entire tax liability with dinners, groceries and parties. And if that's what I see when/if I get your tax returns I will become your biggest cheerleader.
Remember Rob, I never doubted that you won the money you said you did. It makes perfect sense to me that a high denomination player like you who quits when ahead, could total up profits of $100,000 per year. What I doubt is your claim about offsetting the taxable gains with dinners, groceries, parties and other hokey pokey business deductions and getting an OK from the IRS in audits.
Prove me wrong, Rob, by showing me the returns.
Exactly right. It's always been about Rob proving what he has always claimed. Arc, please don't be offended by this: who cares if Arc won or not? I don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Arci, change your name to Arciavelli, master manipulator and document forger, I like it.
I was just thinking that there may be a logical reason why all my tax forms made it to Alan. What if someone from the IRS was following this forum. They saw Singer's claims and like Alan thought they seemed a little strange. They didn't like the idea of Singer pushing the idea that just about anything could be deducted from gambling winnings.
As a result, they pushed through my request. They may not legally have been able to review Singer's returns (without an audit being electronically identified), but they wanted to know. Now, when Singer refuses to send Alan his forms it will be obvious he is a liar and never won a cent let alone made all those silly deductions he claimed.
The IRS may also have been interested to see if I actually won money and reported it. When Alan reports the information they will know I was honest.
Of course, the probability of this is low but still ....
That's always been pretty obvious. I think the only one really interest was the Belly Singer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
My faking skills will become legendary as it appears I can fake a postmark from a city where I could have no idea the IRS forms would come from. Probably an IRS logo or stamp on the documents as well. Or, maybe I intercepted Alan's mail and then stuck in the forged documents all the while continuing to post comments from by local IP address. Obviously I have the ability to teleport those 2000 miles to LA (or I'm logging some massive miles).Quote:
Originally Posted by Count Room
LOL.
Arcimede$ is really David Copperfield. I knew it all along.
"AHA! He is a magician -- he just admitted it, he's a magician and forged all the tax transcripts! He intercepted the mail and snuck in the forged documents! Bah, now I don't need to turn in my tax stuff, cuz THAT proves I'm a winner using my always-losing-always-chasing system! My $1M was all written off as expenses, including my RVs I bought later on somehow, wise up."
A little confusing regnis. Send Alan what for which years? No one has answered that question yet because arci changed his terms after I agreed to them. That's how he has always operated whenever the possibility of my confirming what I've done gets close to happening. It's hard dealing with a weasel.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
The only way this does anything for me is a full disclosure with tax returns together with W2G's, 1099's, the audit report, and now it seems proof of filing Schedule C....And for multiple years. When I agreed to do it arci panicked. Now I'm not even sure I can get anything other than 2009, where I retired as a pro at the end of April and there is no audit report for that year.
I went at Fezzik and the HP bunch with a $640,000 cash bet escrowed at the Casuarina casino, for the same type of disclosure and covered by Gaming Today & the LV Sun. This time I offered to do this for free, if in fact it can be done at all this far into the future. So no, if a loser-in-life like arci is going to escape his own terms out of fear, then that's the way it is. His only position has always been to get me to NOT send in my returns, just so he can keep lying about how I never won and never had the intention of showing returns. According to that fool, I was willing to lose my public bet had Fezzik & company called my bet. So at this point I don't care anything about what a few critics think if they can't see the truth in all this. And like I said, this nonsense isn't very high up on my importance list. It is on arci's though. Just ompare his "life" to mine right now....
So again Alan, after all that you effectively missed the point: which returns? 2009 is not nearly a representative year with only four months of play, and I don't remember if I filed a C or not. 2008 is possible complete with audit report, but is it still available? And guess how important all this is to me these days. Too bad you weren't reporting about this when "Gaming Today Columnist Lays Down The Gauntlet" made the front pages of 2 LV papers. I wonder who's side you'd have been on when the cash was in escrow....Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You didn't have to tell us what an obsessive compulsive gambler you really are. I already knew, and I suspect everyone else does too. What I'm surprised at is how you constantly can't take the high heat I throw by moaning about how your business is at risk when sponsors or other business associates read my truthful beliefs that you are a gambling addict--and why. They can read Alan. They're not stupid. And I guess jbjb & RS__ were right all along. You never told us how far in the hole you were before hitting the big royal, and you've done nothing but lose on the $25 machines lately and if I'm right, you've been humbled by the $100 machines also. That's exactly what problem gamblers do: go UP in denomination when they hit it big. You'll never be a gambling winner, now I get it. You just don't know how to stop--or when. And I'm ashamed for you, because if you listened to me or let me train you properly, you would never be boasting about what a loser you are on a forum. 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? These "people" you fear might read this don't even NEED to read it to know what's going on.
This tax return thing is all about me--I know. I also say who cares about what arci shows. My belief is what's important about him--which is the only thing interesting about him--is how he led his long time wife straight to the grave for an early death thru casinos when he could have & should have extended her life with a much more healthy lifestyle. I'm sure he has a very proud nerd of a son.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
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.
You asked for the truth Alan, and you got it. They're only insults to you if you accept them that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
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.
Wrong Alan. I have NOTHING to prove---unless there's anyone brave enough to put some money on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
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.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
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.
squirm, robbie, squirmQuote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer