Rob Singer has taken his act on the road again.

http://www.gamblingforums.com/thread...66/#post-13218

He milked this board to death, but the above one was DOA. It's the walking dead over there. Lol, another guy thought he was going to get rich with a gambling message board. He built it recently, put in a lot of work to hype it up, but nobody (except a hundred bots a day) came. Go figure.

MrV speaks of a malignancy at the Wuz's. At least also it's contained. Bit-by-bit, cancers grow until all is too late. A few aging members with 1000's of useless posts in the final analysis, and a few new guys with 10's of posts of fluff. Some seem to be registered each day, to superficially add to the count. The Wiz, BBB, and a couple of other diehards flood the board with filler.

LarryS thinks the Never Wuz is a Wiz; and the Wuz thinks he has something left to protect.

Rob sounds like a reasonable, accredited dude until you ask him a question he doesn't want to answer. I've always wondered why Alan didn't simply ask him, in the videos, something like, "Do you really think you are the only person who has come up with this strategy? What would a group of professional mathematicians think?"


Rob has trained hundreds. I guess they all lacked his discipline, or we'd have heard from them by now.


P.S. I trained my cats how to handicap college football. They won't spill the beans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Rob has trained hundreds. I guess they all lacked his discipline, or we'd have heard from them by now.

---

slingshot, regnis, coach belly... They all seem to be on his side. Have they made their $1 million yet?

Rob's strategies work in answer to the question, "I want to play video poker in a few sessions, have the best chance to walk away with a nice sized profit, and don't mind if I give up a little EV in the quest to hit something big. Can you show me how to play in order to accomplish that?"

His strategies would be a disaster for any kind of long term play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Rob's strategies work in answer to the question, "I want to play video poker in a few sessions..."

His strategies would be a disaster for any kind of long term play.

---

How do you define a session?

Is it a certain number of hands, or hours played?

How many sessions is a few?

How many sessions constitutes "long term play" ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

How do you define a session?

Is it a certain number of hands, or hours played?

How many sessions is a few?

How many sessions constitutes "long term play" ?

---

The answers to all these questions are cached in this forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie

slingshot, regnis, coach belly... They all seem to be on his side. Have they made their $1 million yet?

---

Bet I could do well. Anyone got $172,000 So I can give it a shot?

5% profit is only a nice size if you start with a nice size bankroll.

Dan, I am glad you wrote this because it really does sum up Rob's strategy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Rob's strategies work in answer to the question, "I want to play video poker in a few sessions, have the best chance to walk away with a nice sized profit, and don't mind if I give up a little EV in the quest to hit something big. Can you show me how to play in order to accomplish that?"

---

But, I think this needs a little qualification:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

His strategies would be a disaster for any kind of long term play.

---

Isn't all long term play a strategy for disaster unless, of course, you are playing the "positive expectation games" that don't actually exist anymore?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie

slingshot, regnis, coach belly... They all seem to be on his side. Have they made their $1 million yet?

---

Slight correction eddie. I am a fan of Rob's disdain for the long term and positive EV as a certainty of winning. I am also a fan of his short term make a quick hit and leave philosophy.

I have no idea if it will work for anyone else, or even if it really worked for him. But the fact that he questions the idea that long term beat your brains out play on a barely positive game is the road to riches is what draws me to him.

And I will admit that after some run ins of my own with Arci about some simulations that I had done, other than when he talks about Arci's wife or health or personal things, I do like to see him agitate Arci.

I am a craps and horse player. So no--I haven't made a million in VP. I have always stated that I am a long time loser in VP playing the best games available to me and standard play.

When there's a reasonable discussion about my method of play then "my act" will usually appear.

I agree, what Dan said makes sense. However, he tends to discredit himself whenever he gets into the "long-term" part of the discussion. And I can't completely fault him: those who have not really put the right amount of thought into something they still don't understand will always automatically revert back to the original cookbook and true-believe it because that's the easiest way. I don't need to re-hash the same information about why he's wrong once again. If he were truly motivated to comprehend the details, then the fact that I've profited well over a million dollars since dropping my AP "state of mind" in late 1999 would make the statement "a short term session unrelated to any that have come before or that have yet to come" would be something very reasonable to him. But since he chooses not to do any learning or work on this, he prefers it being safer to disbelieve. I can't argue with whatever it is that makes him feel comfortable.

Red, you've seen this before: no one plays exactly as I do so no one will be out there winning like I do. Everyone I've trained uses what they've learned to formulate their own method of play within their comfort zone. None of them are professionals and all they wanted is to have more enjoyment playing while losing less or winning for a change. Most of them tell me they're successful. Why would they tell anything to a critic like you.

What remains astonishingly amazing to me is that people who believe they're intelligent when it comes to playing video poker, somehow choose to continually misrepresent what they espouse about my method. On the one hand, they nearly bulldoze their way into the discussion about how they firmly believe playing for a 5% win in a single session using tiny EV-reducing special plays that go for the session-ending big winners along with increases in denomination & game volatility, is entirely possible most of the time NO QUESTIONS ASKED. Yet it confuses me when these same people inexplicably proclaim that it has to be only a one-time-event! And here's where they choose fuzzy rather than clarity. "Please explain this".

It's like they think the opportunity I have on that first "easy-money" session disintegrates somewhere somehow, without explanation--just as a demand or something. And then, whenever I slap some sense back into them about how their wavering belief system begins not to hold water, they R-E-A-C-H by claiming "the one big loss will wipe out all those little winners"....only to be scolded, taught, and reminded that there is such a thing as BIG WINNERS, and they happen far more often & are almost always larger than those big losers.

If you can't understand this people, then at least educate yourselves on why it's stupid to be tipping on casino hand pays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Rob has trained hundreds. I guess they all lacked his discipline, or we'd have heard from them by now.

---

And nobody paid him anything, or bought his books or articles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Yung

And nobody paid him anything, or bought his books or articles.

---

And strangely everyone reveres the ones that DO charge! Seems like EVERYONE should be winning with all the info!

It's like a question without an answer (or, conversely, an answer without a question). Something unto itself. However, what gives away the real thing is some sort of exertion.

With all the corruption, theft, and "games" in the world - not to mention all the feel-good overcompensating charity stuff and talk shows, in turn - real discoveries are all we have. Best of all, the sort which can't be discovered by anyone another than oneself. (Far out there?)

Anyway, let's hope Alan sticks around. Get my fix here. I find the brainwashing at the Wizard's almost unbearable at times. (It interferes with (ongoing) mojo or something. Actually explaining superstition, and making the imaginary real, isn't quite the same. Will head back there in another six months.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

When there's a reasonable discussion about my method of play then "my act" will usually appear.

I agree, what Dan said makes sense. However, he tends to discredit himself whenever he gets into the "long-term" part of the discussion. And I can't completely fault him: those who have not really put the right amount of thought into something they still don't understand will always automatically revert back to the original cookbook and true-believe it because that's the easiest way. I don't need to re-hash the same information about why he's wrong once again. If he were truly motivated to comprehend the details, then the fact that I've profited well over a million dollars since dropping my AP "state of mind" in late 1999 would make the statement "a short term session unrelated to any that have come before or that have yet to come" would be something very reasonable to him. But since he chooses not to do any learning or work on this, he prefers it being safer to disbelieve. I can't argue with whatever it is that makes him feel comfortable.

Red, you've seen this before: no one plays exactly as I do so no one will be out there winning like I do. Everyone I've trained uses what they've learned to formulate their own method of play within their comfort zone. None of them are professionals and all they wanted is to have more enjoyment playing while losing less or winning for a change. Most of them tell me they're successful. Why would they tell anything to a critic like you.

What remains astonishingly amazing to me is that people who believe they're intelligent when it comes to playing video poker, somehow choose to continually misrepresent what they espouse about my method. On the one hand, they nearly bulldoze their way into the discussion about how they firmly believe playing for a 5% win in a single session using tiny EV-reducing special plays that go for the session-ending big winners along with increases in denomination & game volatility, is entirely possible most of the time NO QUESTIONS ASKED. Yet it confuses me when these same people inexplicably proclaim that it has to be only a one-time-event! And here's where they choose fuzzy rather than clarity. "Please explain this".

It's like they think the opportunity I have on that first "easy-money" session disintegrates somewhere somehow, without explanation--just as a demand or something. And then, whenever I slap some sense back into them about how their wavering belief system begins not to hold water, they R-E-A-C-H by claiming "the one big loss will wipe out all those little winners"....only to be scolded, taught, and reminded that there is such a thing as BIG WINNERS, and they happen far more often & are almost always larger than those big losers.

If you can't understand this people, then at least educate yourselves on why it's stupid to be tipping on casino hand pays.

---

Rob, since you and only you (and presumably your hundreds of trainees) know exactly what to do when, nobody else is qualified to run simulations of your strategies. Do I have that right?

Soooooo, have you or your trainees ever run simulations of your strategies? If so, what were your results? If you haven't run simulations, why haven't you?

Inquiring minds want to know.

I can answer that... AGAIN... for you redietz. The "math" and the "simulations" will show that Rob will lose. Rob even admits that the "math" will show his special plays will lose. But what the "math" and the "simulations" cannot figure is Rob getting out of his seat once he won some money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I can answer that... AGAIN... for you redietz. The "math" and the "simulations" will show that Rob will lose. Rob even admits that the "math" will show his special plays will lose. But what the "math" and the "simulations" cannot figure is Rob getting out of his seat once he won some money.

---

Actually, my simulations also included loss limits and win goals and still did not result in increasing the ER of the game. Sorry, nothing Singer pushes has any basis in fact. Aren't we still waiting for those promised analyses from the 3 mathematicians hidden away in a storage locker? The only thing anyone gets from the little man is lies and then more lies to cover up the previous ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Actually, my simulations also included loss limits and win goals and still did not result in increasing the ER of the game.

---

Of course not, Arc. The expected return is based on the pay table. Anything else you are doing simply guesses at what Rob might do and what might happen as Rob plays.

I am 1000% positive that Rob will NEVER claim he has a better ER than what the paytable says the ER is. I am 1000% positive that Rob only looks at one thing: how much cash he has when he leaves.

Ironically this same sort of argument is going on over at the Wizard's forum over the game of craps. There is one member who says he can have better results with dice influencing, while another member says the "dice influencer" can't alter the odds of the game. And in fact, the DI cannot alter the odds of the game. The odds of the game are based on the combinations of two six-sided dice. But that doesn't mean the DI can't produce more winning combinations.

What you seem to be missing is that sometimes the math does not apply to the result. DI does not change the odds in craps. And Rob's method does not change the ER in video poker.

Robs system has well defined win goals and loss limits, that's not the problem. The wizard said he couldn't run a sim because of Robs claim that the machines aren't random.

The return is based on frequency and payout. If you can influence the dice to land on 12 more frequently than 1/36, then the return/HE is now changed.

If I play 9/6 JOB with proper strategy, the return is 99.54% (HE is 0.44%). But if I use some weird strategy or make any alterations to the strategy (i.e.: hold 3-card RF over a high pair), the return is no longer 99.54% and the HE is no longer 0.44%. Alan if you don't believe me, next time you're at Caesars or Bellagio, play 500 hands of 9/6 JOB or 8/5 BP, using your regular strategy. Then play 500 hands of the same game, but hold every single dealt card. Let us know if that changes your mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quahaug

Robs system has well defined win goals and loss limits, that's not the problem. The wizard said he couldn't run a sim because of Robs claim that the machines aren't random.

---

Actually no, it doesn't. Rob's said it (win goal / loss limit) also depends on how he's doing for the year and other stuff.


Of course he'd try to squirm out of his system being run by a simulation with some bogus excuse that the "machines aren't random". How much evidence does he have that supports this claim? Even with the assumption the games aren't random, it'd still definitely be possible to code a simulation, with the non-randomness part included in the code (i.e.: when holding 4 cards, make the re-draw card be the same as the original 5'th card more frequent than expected on a random game).

Quote:

---

WoV is a platform for queers, idiot smokers, potheads, sick transvestites/transgenders, fat-asses, girly-men, atheists/agnostics, foreigners, minorities, self-proclaimed mensas too chickenshit to back up their hide-behind-their-computer words, and poor people who suck from the system. So anyone who rails against it is only telling the truth. Shack has seen better days. Why he continues to pimp himself out to that collection of freaks is a mystery.

---

http://www.gamblingforums.com/thread...-38#post-13293

White-collar scamming pays more than blue-collar scamming. Then again, you have to waste all of your life with it, and throw away any hope of an actual career in the real world. Then again, you have to have any hope of an actual career in the real world.

No gambler/gambling mentor has made anything of himself in the real world. Some have tried, but they all got caught. Even Thorp.

RS__ I have never played in a casino where the HE at craps changes with the frequency of certain numbers rolling. If that were true the payoffs on the bets would not be fixed. Players might have their own actual return but there is only one expected return for every game whether it be craps or video poker. And despite Rob's comments that machines may not be random he still plays the same machines the rest of us play.

The only reason you can't simulate his strategy is you can't know when he's won enough or lost enough. There are no other reasons.

Yes, Rob's system is wrong and can't work according to the math. But he makes it work each time he stops playing with a profit. Simulate that.

It can't be simmed because he just makes shit up as he goes in typical ploppy fashion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

It can't be simmed because he just makes shit up as he goes in typical ploppy fashion.

---

Is "ploppy" some new word you picked up reading articles online? I don't think you ever contributed a substantial comment or information ever on this site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

RS__ I have never played in a casino where the HE at craps changes with the frequency of certain numbers rolling. If that were true the payoffs on the bets would not be fixed. Players might have their own actual return but there is only one expected return for every game whether it be craps or video poker. And despite Rob's comments that machines may not be random he still plays the same machines the rest of us play.

The only reason you can't simulate his strategy is you can't know when he's won enough or lost enough. There are no other reasons.

Yes, Rob's system is wrong and can't work according to the math. But he makes it work each time he stops playing with a profit. Simulate that.

---

Wrong. Robs win/loss goals for SPS are fixed absolute values and never deviated from. He says all the time the key to his system is sticking exactly with the plan. 57k bankroll 2.5 k minimum win 57k minus soft profit stop loss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Is "ploppy" some new word you picked up reading articles online? I don't think you ever contributed a substantial comment or information ever on this site.

---

The wannabe choir boys at the Wizard's still haven't learned the fundamental tenet of life: the Devil has the upper hand, or dibs. (Even in and over the math and physics.)

Meanwhile, the Wuz speaks eagerly of a mythically silly 100-mile bicycle ride on his 51st birthday. More chicken-eating contests, and casino games which he just can't wait to give a try. "Look at me! Please." What a dud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quahaug

Wrong. Robs win/loss goals for SPS are fixed absolute values and never deviated from. He says all the time the key to his system is sticking exactly with the plan. 57k bankroll 2.5 k minimum win 57k minus soft profit stop loss.

---

A minimum win goal is not fixed. A minimum win of $2500 could be $2500 or it could be $97,000.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

A minimum win goal is not fixed. A minimum win of $2500 could be $2500 or it could be $97,000.

---

Aren"t wins and win goals different, Alan?

The minimum is fixed. You can't go home until you have at least 2.5k or more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quahaug

The minimum is fixed. You can't go home until you have at least 2.5k or more.

---

I think we are interpreting the English language differently. But I'm not going to argue about it. In the scheme of things it means nothing. How much Rob wins is not my concern. How much I win is.

But I think your statement is fundamentally incorrect. Rob has gone home without winning. He has had losing sessions. By your statement he could not leave unless he won his $2,500.

I wonder how many times Rob did win exactly $2,500? I'm going to guess he probably never did. I'm going to guess he met his win goals with wins that ranged from $2,501 up to $97,000 when he won the $25 royal at Bellagio.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I think we are interpreting the English language differently. But I'm not going to argue about it. In the scheme of things it means nothing. How much Rob wins is not my concern. How much I win is.

But I think your statement is fundamentally incorrect. Rob has gone home without winning. He has had losing sessions. By your statement he could not leave unless he won his $2,500.

I wonder how many times Rob did win exactly $2,500? I'm going to guess he probably never did. I'm going to guess he met his win goals with wins that ranged from $2,501 up to $97,000 when he won the $25 royal at Bellagio.

---

Of course he had losing sessions and obviously would not be winning exactly 2.5k. That's the MINIMUM win.

I still don't understand your point? He said his minimum win goal is $2500. That doesn't mean it's a minimum win. He very well could decide to leave the casino after winning only $50.

Win goals are not "do or die" and I'm afraid you are making it out to be as a do or die thing.

A goal is an objective. it is not fixed.

What is fixed is a loss limit.

When you are on a freeway and the sign says 55 MPH speed LIMIT it means that's as fast as you can go according to the rules of the road.

So getting back to Rob's win GOAL it is a guideline and it is not fixed. On the other hand a win "limit" would be fixed. But I don't know anyone who has a win limit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I think we are interpreting the English language differently. But I'm not going to argue about it. In the scheme of things it means nothing. How much Rob wins is not my concern. How much I win is.

But I think your statement is fundamentally incorrect. Rob has gone home without winning. He has had losing sessions. By your statement he could not leave unless he won his $2,500.

I wonder how many times Rob did win exactly $2,500? I'm going to guess he probably never did. I'm going to guess he met his win goals with wins that ranged from $2,501 up to $97,000 when he won the $25 royal at Bellagio.

---

He was down $3k and playing the $25 machines? If he's at -$3k, shouldn't he be playing the $5 or $10 machines?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

He was down $3k and playing the $25 machines? If he's at -$3k, shouldn't he be playing the $5 or $10 machines?

---

I don't know... ask him. I don't play his way.

Alan, you don't understand Robs system. The most important aspect of winning according to him is to stick to his plan religiously and that includes win/loss goals/ limits. I originally was responding to RS saying he changes win/loss goals and your claim than it can't be simulated because of that. The only reason it can't be simulated is because of Robs claim that the machines aren't random.

Arci claims he wrote a sim but based on random hands and it lost money.

Also Alan, if he quit with a fifty dollar "soft" profit then he would be ending his session down $57,150. (it would be nearly impossible to do so however). That's how the system works. But as you said, you don't understand it anyhow.

I think you are making too much about Rob's comment that the machines aren't truly random. He might have said that, yet, he claims to have profited a million dollars over ten years playing those non-random machines.

Frankly, I think quoting Rob that the machines are not random is a weak excuse. I think the real reason you can't simulate his play is because you don't know when he decides to quit.

But again, I don't care when he quits. I also don't care about his play -- I don't follow it.

What I do follow and believe is that win goals and loss limits can help you pocket money.

Win goals allow you to say "I'm going home with this much money."
Loss limits make you quit when you have lost the amount you were willing to risk on that particular visit or trip.

The rest of Rob's strategy I don't follow or understand.

Quote:

---

R[ob]S[inger], one thing you said is very true regarding family and how gambling can hurt others in the family. I read the dedication on Barry Greensteins book(Ace on the River), and he apologizes to his family for how he treated them while he was gambling. It was heartbreaking, and brought tears tomy eyes as I read it in a bookstore. He apologized for ignoring them as he watched his sports that he bet on.So I can see the trap gamblers fall in, and applaud you wanting to avoid that trap...So that part rings true and has a basis for believability .

However it doesnt explain why you continued to live such a long distance from your job. By moving closer you would have been able to spend more time with your family. You would have less driving time.

What also doesnt ring true is that people would see your success, and learn your methods, but yet change your methods to suit their needs. WTF? Why would they change anything? They see your results, they come to you for advice, then they go off and change your advice.

Is that why there isnt a slew of testimonials? Because they learned your advice and then for no real reason deviated from it?

THAT.....i dont buy.

---

LarryS, from http://www.gamblingforums.com/thread...e-2#post-13356

Bill this quote you posted above is ridiculous. The way I read it, this guy LarryS is criticizing Rob for making overnight trips to Vegas? And from what Rob told us he made one trip a week? And this guy Larry thinks Rob would have been better off living in Vegas instead of living in Phoenix?

I'm sure Rob would like to comment on this himself but it seems to me that Rob didn't want to live in Vegas -- period. And he drove to Vegas for one overnight trip a week. My understanding is Rob didn't go to Vegas for extended stays and he talks about how he would sometimes go there, hit his win goal and then leave without even staying the night in the hotel.

To me this LarryS criticism is just another reach -- trying to find something to criticize Rob about.

In regards to those who Rob trained or said he trained: I have no idea how many there were. But I am going to guess that very few if any had Rob's budget and therefore had to change from Rob's model play. Even if Rob sat with me and taught me his method, I couldn't play his model because I don't have a $57,000 budget. Even after I hit that $100K royal I didn't have a $57,000 budget (because I paid taxes, ex wife, lawyers).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Bill this quote you posted above is ridiculous. The way I read it, this guy LarryS is criticizing Rob for making overnight trips to Vegas? And from what Rob told us he made one trip a week? And this guy Larry thinks Rob would have been better off living in Vegas instead of living in Phoenix?

I'm sure Rob would like to comment on this himself but it seems to me that Rob didn't want to live in Vegas -- period. And he drove to Vegas for one overnight trip a week. My understanding is Rob didn't go to Vegas for extended stays and he talks about how he would sometimes go there, hit his win goal and then leave without even staying the night in the hotel.

To me this LarryS criticism is just another reach -- trying to find something to criticize Rob about.

In regards to those who Rob trained or said he trained: I have no idea how many there were. But I am going to guess that very few if any had Rob's budget and therefore had to change from Rob's model play. Even if Rob sat with me and taught me his method, I couldn't play his model because I don't have a $57,000 budget. Even after I hit that $100K royal I didn't have a $57,000 budget (because I paid taxes, ex wife, lawyers).

---

Starting at 50c, you only need $3,500 to go to $5 level on his most popular artt strategy for one session. I know the 50c level is a hangup, but you don't stay there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Even if Rob sat with me and taught me his method, I couldn't play his model because I don't have a $57,000 budget. Even after I hit that $100K royal I didn't have a $57,000 budget (because I paid taxes, ex wife, lawyers).

---

You and Singer just have to iron out a craps system for the masses. An undeniable combination?

Somehow, I bet book to follow - about the system in the making - would be another huge success.

There is no craps system. Just hope the dice show the numbers you bet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

There is no craps system. Just hope the dice show the numbers you bet.

---

Looking (beyond pure system play) sure beats the hell out of arsing around with the stunts the AP's "think" they're pulling. I thought I had seen just about everything out of those smarty pants over the years, until the Wuz banned four of them last week for flagging to erase a post which might have been of only questionable marginal value to the public. How far off the radar does one have to become to worry about, nay, insidiously plot to prevent a meaninglessly few harmless people on an over-the-hill gambling forum - fewer still in Vegas - from availing also themselves of a bit casino offer? OMG!

Shackleford was angry because he, like the casinos, needs the "ploppies" (I call 'em AP's "ploopies" over there, idiots with two o's instead of one.) I guess that makes RS__, for one there, a real turd scumbag revealed. A real rodent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Yung

Shackleford was angry because he, like the casinos, needs the "ploppies" (I call 'em AP's "ploopies" over there, idiots with two o's instead of one.) I guess that makes RS__, for one there, a real turd scumbag revealed. A real rodent.

---

How am I a "real turd scumbag" or a "real rodent"? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Of course not, Arc. The expected return is based on the pay table. Anything else you are doing simply guesses at what Rob might do and what might happen as Rob plays.

I am 1000% positive that Rob will NEVER claim he has a better ER than what the paytable says the ER is. I am 1000% positive that Rob only looks at one thing: how much cash he has when he leaves.

What you seem to be missing is that sometimes the math does not apply to the result. DI does not change the odds in craps. And Rob's method does not change the ER in video poker.

---

Of course you're right Alan, and arci's only claiming these things because his agenda is one that's based on lies concerning everything about me. That's why he's been made to suffer so much in life--karma.

My strategy focuses on one single point: to give good luck (ie, a large, potentially session-ending winning hand) more opportunity to show up. And that's done by increasing denomination, increasing game volatility, playing games like SDBP that pay a whopping 600 credits for quad face cards, 400 for 2's thru 4's, 800 for Aces, and either 300 or 400 for the SF. It DOES NOT claim to advance the ER of the game prior to playing it, in fact, it claims to do the exact opposite if anyone remembers watching the videos Alan put up. It DOES increase the ACTUAL RETURN vs. the ER of the game, and significantly so.

No one has all the info needed to do a factual, accurate simulation of SPS. Whatever arci claims on this is a result of his only trying to look good here. And the wizard has the same problem--he never wanted to sit with me and understand it fully enough to be able to do a credible sim. If he's claiming he couldn't run one because I told him the machines aren't random, that's a lie also. I've told him face-to-face and said the same things the past 10 years--that although I may not believe that every machine is 100% random 100% of the time, everything about my strategy, approach & play assumes that they are. If he's saying that now then he's only trying to appease the collection of theory-driven armchair gamblers over there who have nothing nice to say about anybody unlike them.

Wise up guys....and stop making things up.

Karma is undoubtedly why Rob has won all of these years. It's undeniable.

ro·dent

noun
plural noun: rodents

A gnawing mammal of an order that includes rats, mice, squirrels, hamsters, porcupines, and their relatives, distinguished by strong constantly growing incisors and no canine teeth. They constitute the largest order of mammals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Karma is undoubtedly why Rob has won all of these years. It's undeniable.

---

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/i...1117bWb7WQ6m1A

Quote:

---

As far as these testimonials--I keep in touch with over a hundred people I trained. Through the years a number of them have come on different forums to explain their experiences, yet they ALWAYS get insulted/chased away by the envious and the haters. A favorite tactic is to claim they're me in alias form. So you can see why they choose to stay away from this stuff. I was prepared for all the BS from the start. Most of these people aren't. Understand that for almost 8 years, I put the weekly hurt on all the self-proclaimed vp "AP's" with my column in Gaming Today, and they will never get over it. So they attack anywhere they can to scratch that unattainable itch they have over me.

About the distance from the job: it wouldn't have been unusual to sell a house in one place and move close to where the work was. However, it was never really on the table because my wife had over 30 years with the aerospace co. she worked at, and it would not have made sense to mess up her continued employment, pension and other retirement benefits for what I was doing. And remember, living apart during the week or whatever was not an option, since us being together more often was one of the main reasons I changed careers in the first place.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I wonder how many times Rob did win exactly $2,500? I'm going to guess he probably never did.

---

I agree...my point exactly...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Arc has cleared me to post the results from the four years of transcripts:

2012
won 4,000

2013
won 4,000

---

Quote Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
I wonder how many times Rob did win exactly $2,500? I'm going to guess he probably never did.

That is correct. It would also be correct to say that I have never won $2501, $2503, $2504, $2505, $2506 in any of my sessions. I believe I did win $2502 once and $2510 once. All the other wins were greater and/or much greater than $2500.

Those numbers arci claimed on his transcripts--you can tell when you go back thru his posts in those years that he's lying. Guess he didn't expect the scrutiny. After all, EVERYBODY wins an exact round amount.

I wonder if he's learned his lesson.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Those numbers arci claimed on his transcripts--you can tell when you go back thru his posts in those years that he's lying.

---

Pathological liars always think everybody else is lying...because lies are their frame of reference.

Acrid is a pathological liar.

I had him pegged from my day one...when he called me a liar...that was a red flag.

I was right about him, just like I was right about the donkey...and about the donkey's liitle ditz bird.

Wise up.

I see our two resident liars are projecting their own tendencies. Notice how they still can't point to a single lie I've ever made. All they can do is cry in their misery while refusing to place a mere $300 at risk to see my 2010 and 2015 results. LOL.

I think it's very unusual that the reported wins on a tax return only include the W2G wins. That is not proper reporting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I think it's very unusual that the reported wins on a tax return only include the W2G wins. That is not proper reporting.

---

Since I've already explained this before, I can only wonder why you bring it up again. The actual win is the difference between the W2G and the losses. I can only shake my head that you would repeat this nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Since I've already explained this before, I can only wonder why you bring it up again. The actual win is the difference between the W2G and the losses. I can only shake my head that you would repeat this nonsense.

---

It's not nonsense. It's actually a violation of the IRS rules and procedures. What you are telling us via your tax returns is that you never had a winning day without a royal flush. Therefore you underreported your daily wins, which underreported your adjusted gross income, which altered your actual tax liability.

When I report my gaming results, I include net wins for each day even if I am a net loser for the year. Yes, my net wins do increase my adjusted gross income and that in turns lowers the value of my Schedule A deductions. But that's the way it is and that's what the rules say to do. Yes, I am penalized on my taxes even though I am a net loser.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

What you are telling us via your tax returns is that you never had a winning day without a royal flush.

---

acrid outed himself with those tax transcripts.

If he is willing to lie to the IRS under penalty of law,
then everything he has posted anonymously on the internet over the years is all bullshit.

He is a total fraud, a pathological liar, and an asshole to boot.

I held back posting what I did about his tax returns. But he called Singer a liar one too many times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I held back posting what I did about his tax returns. But he called Singer a liar one too many times.

---

Yes you were much more diplomatic back in the day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Yes you were much more diplomatic back in the day.

---

Now I can call them as I really see them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

It's not nonsense. It's actually a violation of the IRS rules and procedures. What you are telling us via your tax returns is that you never had a winning day without a royal flush. Therefore you underreported your daily wins, which underreported your adjusted gross income, which altered your actual tax liability.

When I report my gaming results, I include net wins for each day even if I am a net loser for the year. Yes, my net wins do increase my adjusted gross income and that in turns lowers the value of my Schedule A deductions. But that's the way it is and that's what the rules say to do. Yes, I am penalized on my taxes even though I am a net loser.

---

The IRS statements are very ambiguous and have changed over the years. The reason I do it this way is because of reported audits. I've read too many reports of people trying to use their actual win totals and then getting audited because it is lower than the W2G. Since then I use W2G total because that removes any chance of an audit of this type. This year is a perfect example. My win totals were well BELOW the W2G total. My AGI is MUCH, MUCH higher (over $150K) due to using the W2G total. It cost me a lot of money, but it is consistent. Over the years I would say the overall effect is to cost me money.

I'm still waiting for all the losers to come up with that $300. Where is it mama belly? Where is the little man? Why are you guys afraid to back up your name calling with some money? Could it be because you are nothing but a narcissistic jerks?

I thought arci's tax returns to Alan were privileged information. So let me ask straight out -- did arci give Alan permission to publicly post information outside of the initially agreed upon information or not?

The reason I ask is that had I met Alan in a social setting this last year or two, I would probably have shared some information that would have fallen under the aegis of "off the record." If "off the record" doesn't mean much, it's good to know this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I thought arci's tax returns to Alan were privileged information. So let me ask straight out -- did arci give Alan permission to publicly post information outside of the initially agreed upon information or not?

The reason I ask is that had I met Alan in a social setting this last year or two, I would probably have shared some information that would have fallen under the aegis of "off the record." If "off the record" doesn't mean much, it's good to know this.

---

I've seen Alan twice in a casino and considered saying hi I'm RS. Had an idea that if there was anything I told him and asked not to tell to others, he'd protect the information.....he wrote something about being a journalist and facing jail time or something for not revealing his source. But after thinking about it, Alan didn't really seem like the kinda person that would protect that information....at least the interactions I've had with him on forums.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

The IRS statements are very ambiguous and have changed over the years. The reason I do it this way is because of reported audits. I've read too many reports of people trying to use their actual win totals and then getting audited because it is lower than the W2G. Since then I use W2G total because that removes any chance of an audit of this type.

---

Too much double talk here, Arc. You told us before you reported your W2G royals. Are you telling us you had NO OTHER daily wins EXCEPT for the Gross Wins from the royals?

Under IRS rules you are obligated to report all daily gross wins and then you offset them. I find it hard to believe that you only had daily wins when you happened to have hit a royal. What kind of an AP doesn't have other daily wins?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I thought arci's tax returns to Alan were privileged information. So let me ask straight out -- did arci give Alan permission to publicly post information outside of the initially agreed upon information or not?

The reason I ask is that had I met Alan in a social setting this last year or two, I would probably have shared some information that would have fallen under the aegis of "off the record." If "off the record" doesn't mean much, it's good to know this.

---

I violated nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

I'm still waiting for all the losers to come up with that $300.

---

What do you need the $300 for...you dead beat piece of acrid trash?

So we are clear that I violated nothing, this is from the original thread with Arc sending me his tax returns:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Arc has cleared me to post the results from the four years of transcripts:

2011
won 24,045
loss 22,230

2012
won 4,000
loss 2,220

2013
won 4,000
loss 3,003

2014
won 26,000
loss 26,000
no win on the year

I am now going to open the thread to discussion. Arc said he would respond on the thread to any questions about his results.

---

Note that in two years he reported ONLY the wins from two Royals and NO other winning days. Again I ask, is this the performance of an AP?

So arci agreed that anything in his tax records could be publicly stated or discussed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

My win totals were well BELOW the W2G total.

---

So you entered bogus win totals to show a profit.

Like I wrote earlier...the guy is a total fraud.

I'm trying to find the thread with Rob Singer's tax returns. Can anybody provide the link?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I'm trying to find the thread with Rob Singer's tax returns.

---

Keep trying you lowlife sissy

It's fun to live at the YMCA...isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Under IRS rules you are obligated to report all daily gross wins and then you offset them. I find it hard to believe that you only had daily wins when you happened to have hit a royal. What kind of an AP doesn't have other daily wins?

---

Wrong, that interpretation is very recent. Before that all that the IRS said was you need to report winnings and then they checked the total against the W2G. Hence, their own verification procedure determined what was acceptable on the 1040 form. In both 2014 and 2015 my W2G total was higher then my session wins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Note that in two years he reported ONLY the wins from two Royals and NO other winning days. Again I ask, is this the performance of an AP?

---

The tax return has nothing to do with being an AP. You already know this because it has been discussed before. Is Alan now trying to be an asshole? The only reason I provided my return was to demonstrate that Singer is a fraud. Mission accomplished. What's hilarious is Alan is still claiming he thinks Singer won when it is so obvious he never won squat.

Now, I'm still willing to provide 2010, 2015 to anyone who want to lay out just $300 betting my average win over the period wasn't 5 figures. I'd need to have won almost $56,000 in those two years. If my performance is so bad then why doesn't anyone take me up on the bet? Come on mama belly, why are you being so impotent? Are you always this limp in everything you do?

Thanks to the Internet it is easy to do a Google search and find a pdf of the actual IRS instructions for reporting gambling wins for the tax year 2012. The instructions are:

2012 Form 1040—Lines 21 Through 24
Gambling winnings, including lotteries, raffles, a lump-sum payment from the sale of a right to receive future lottery payments, etc. For details on gambling losses, see the instructions for Schedule A, line 28.

Note that there is nothing here about "adjusting" the gambling winnings because of any interpretation. Indeed ALL winnings were to be reported with deductions for losses on Schedule A.

Based on that, and it has never changed to the best of my knowledge, I wrote this earlier in this thread:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Under IRS rules you are obligated to report all daily gross wins and then you offset them. I find it hard to believe that you only had daily wins when you happened to have hit a royal. What kind of an AP doesn't have other daily wins?

---

Please note what Arc said in a post above:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Wrong, that interpretation is very recent. Before that all that the IRS said was you need to report winnings and then they checked the total against the W2G. Hence, their own verification procedure determined what was acceptable on the 1040 form. In both 2014 and 2015 my W2G total was higher then my session wins.

---

So I need some clarification here as to what Arc is saying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

The only reason I provided my return was to demonstrate that Singer is a fraud.

---

And all that you demonstrated is that YOU are a fraud.

You've admitted to submitting inflated win figures...so you lost in each of the 4 years that you sent to Alan.

Now you want to bet on what your returns show for some other years? LOL

Your returns are all bogus...you've already admitted that...they can't prove that you've won.

If you need $300, go back to hitting up old ladies at the slots for bus money...you bum.

Alan gave Rob enough rope to hang himself. Thanks Alan for exposing the true fraud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Thanks to the Internet it is easy to do a Google search and find a pdf of the actual IRS instructions for reporting gambling wins for the tax year 2012. The instructions are:

2012 Form 1040—Lines 21 Through 24
Gambling winnings, including lotteries, raffles, a lump-sum payment from the sale of a right to receive future lottery payments, etc. For details on gambling losses, see the instructions for Schedule A, line 28.

Note that there is nothing here about "adjusting" the gambling winnings because of any interpretation. Indeed ALL winnings were to be reported with deductions for losses on Schedule A.

Based on that, and it has never changed to the best of my knowledge, I wrote this earlier in this thread:




Please note what Arc said in a post above:



So I need some clarification here as to what Arc is saying?

---

Surprisingly, I was almost going to agree with Arci on something----you are more likely to run afoul of the IRS by declaring more than your W-2G gambling winnings. It is almost as if they know you are trying to pull something if you declare more than the W2G.

However, nothing has changed in the last few years. The law and its application are the same as they have been for decades. Even though I haven't practiced as a CPA in over 30 years, I work with/assist many gamblers with IRS problems and jackpot winnings. I would say that each situation is different, but the law does require each winning day to be declared.

I did have one fun case with a client who was a famous Illinois politician that went to jail for other reasons (don't try to Google it---the number of Illinois politicians in jail is too long). That individual had 1.75 million in slot/VP jackpots in one year, and yet was a net loser. We beat the IRS but the individual got 8 years for other crimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Keep trying you lowlife sissy

It's fun to live at the YMCA...isn't it?

---

Lowlife? Well, that either means I frequent a 70-seat New York city restaurant or I am morally unacceptable to my community. I am having lunch with some administrative sorts today, and I will poll them as to my being a lowlife and report back here.

Sissy? Well, I do attend the occasional transgender drag show, and I will be seeing an independent film tonight featuring kings, queens, and in-betweens, but I like to think not many people would actually view me as a sissy. I will poll the folks today. One was an all-state athlete, and we compare workouts on occasion -- maybe he can guide me away from being a sissy. I will report back later. The Rangers with whom I occasionally did PT probably did view me as a sissy -- at least a third of them were faster than me, and they did much better on obstacle courses than me.

The YMCA? First off, I'm not Christian. But I have no qualms about hanging at the YMCA - in fact, I coached youth basketball at a Y for a couple of years.

Now this is the part where, if Alan were in his social defender mode, he would step in and say coach is being racist and gay-bashing and sexist and a bunch of things. But perhaps Alan has retired himself from that role.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I like to think not many people would actually view me as a sissy. The Rangers with whom I occasionally did PT probably did view me as a sissy

---

So how many is not many?...since the Rangers...having met you...thought you were a sissy too.

Redietz you should contact the forum owner about the insults. But I wonder why you even bothered making the response?