Big Casino Wins and Jackpots

[RS__]

Playing $25/coin video poker to win one million dollars sounds like a wondrous thing to do. But Rob won $100,000 a year and did that each year for ten years. When you break it down year by year, winning $100K is not as wondrous and becomes more real and easier to accept. Don't you think?

He doesn't even need to hit a royal flush to win $100K playing $25/coin bonus or triple double bonus.

I somewhat agree. Winning $100k in a year would not be particularly out of the ordinary for a $25 TDB player. Then again, flipping a coin and it landing on heads 2 or 3 times in a row is not particularly out of the ordinary, either. But winning 10 years in a row? That's beyond extraordinary. And like flipping a coin 2-3 times onto heads isn't too interesting, doing it 20 or 30 times IS extraordinary as well.

Hitting a 4oak isn't too interesting and quite believable. Hitting 10 in a row -- no way.
Hitting a RF in 1 hour of play is believable. Hitting 10 royals in 10 hours of play is not. (On single line.)


The whole "breaking it down" thing works in some situations, namely if you want to solve a math problem or some weird riddle. But it doesn't apply to VP. And it's the crux of the understanding of how it works and makes people believe in Rob's system. Saying things like "all you gotta do is be up by a few dollars every session then quit....you'll never lose!" Sounds appealing to a lot of people because in most sessions you are ahead at some point. And I think in this way, as much as you may say you don't believe in Rob's system......you really do.....or else you wouldn't believe he's up $100k/yr for 10 years.

[slingshot]

Playing $25/coin video poker to win one million dollars sounds like a wondrous thing to do. But Rob won $100,000 a year and did that each year for ten years. When you break it down year by year, winning $100K is not as wondrous and becomes more real and easier to accept. Don't you think?

He doesn't even need to hit a royal flush to win $100K playing $25/coin bonus or triple double bonus.

Thanks for making that point, Alan. When a retiree on a fixed income plays 30 minutes or less and is lucky enough to win $60-$200 a trip, it means the wifey eats out, gets to go shopping, and I get a needed item or two. It sometimes means a month of excitement when a Royal does finally hit. I consider that entertainment in the latter years. I look forward to the next one as $200 will go to one session of 5¢-50¢ artt- my favorite game. Last time I tried won $80- took almost an hour. Great fun!

[Alan Mendelson]

RS__ if someone can win $100k in one year at $25 / coin video poker is winning that amount ten years in a row really extraordinary? I don't think so. I don't think it happens to many people and I don't think you can plan on it happening but I think it can and does happen.

Once again I think a critical part of the "believeability factor" is how much play does Rob put in?

I think if he admits he played a lot each year it becomes more plausible he had the $100k per year profit. But if he maintains that he won that much with minimal annual play but didn't hit a royal the believeability factor drops. Rob reported only one $100k royal at Bellagio.

Frankly a short run of good luck on a $25 game could easily give you a $10,000 profit in one day... or even in an hour. You can't discount the possibility that he got lucky. My favorite lucky story is about the guy who walked up to a craps table at Caesars and threw a $1,000 chip on the layout and yelled "high low." The roll was a 12. He won $15,000, took the money and left. It happens.

[redietz]

Alan doesn't respond well to (or even interpret properly) the math of these things. It becomes, well, if I saw 18 yos in a row, it's possible, maybe even probable, that Rob won 100K a year for 10 years running.

I give Rob the benefit of the doubt. He did, after all, lose half the amount he claims to have won in the previous years before he got religion. So maybe he had a horrible longshot run, then a great one. I don't know.

But allow me to appeal to the journalist in Alan and everyone. With most things, it's what people do not say that provides more info than what they do say.

Rob is a smart guy. He knows his vp. He knows his numbers. He knows his probabilities. He undoubtedly knows the odds against doing what he has claimed to do, standard deviation-wise. Yet he never, and I mean NEVER, makes mention of the odds against doing what he has done. We're talking 5000 posts here, folks, just on this forum.

He studiously avoids mentioning the odds against doing what he claims to have done. He never brings up numbers, even though he surely has some idea what those numbers are. He refers to his "being lucky" as a euphemism for "an unbelievable number of standard deviations beyond normal result." Anybody who orients to the math first recognizes this immediately. Rob says he allows "luck" to happen, but never broaches the actual numbers regarding how "lucky" he has been.

There are probably multiple reasons for this. I leave Alan and other folks to determine what those reasons might be. Alan's an investigative journalist of the highest quality. I'm sure he has a better idea than me why people go out of their way to not mention things.

[Alan Mendelson]

The journalist in me, redietz, goes back to the published articles in Gaming Today. Are you doubting the articles? Are you alleging that GT allowed Rob to publish false claims?

[jbjb]

The National Enquirer does it on a weekly basis.

[redietz]

The journalist in me, redietz, goes back to the published articles in Gaming Today. Are you doubting the articles? Are you alleging that GT allowed Rob to publish false claims?

No, I think the GT articles were completely legit. I read them at the time they were published, as I was spending about 100 days a year in Las Vegas at the time.

What I'm saying is that Rob never attaches a number to his "luck." He knows to at least a ballpark degree how many standard deviations above would be required to do what he's done. The odds against doing that never get mentioned.

[Rob.Singer]

Red, you've never seen me post any odds against me doing what I have done because the odds, as I've said time & again, we're in heavy favor of me doing it successfully.

Sure, when you use the simpleton formula (which every AP uses without thought) of "play with positive odds and you will win and vice-versa) then any AP head will spin as freely as yours does. But as I've said, there are well thought out factors applied to the approach I use, which in turn expects an 85% session win rate and overall positive results using a relatively small 5% minimum win expectation.

It is very difficult for tiny minds to wrap themselves around this.

[Rob.Singer]

I was responding to what Alan said. I didn't say I think you solely played $25 TDB, just that I did the math for that.

I don't care to do the math for it, but I think $25 TDB would have the best shot at winning $1M (except for $50 or $100 denom games).

Flawed thinking. And of course, you'd say winning is very possible on +EV $25 games, and basically impossible on $25 -EV games. The strategy goes FAR beyond that type logic.

[slingshot]

Red, you've never seen me post any odds against me doing what I have done because the odds, as I've said time & again, we're in heavy favor of me doing it successfully.

Sure, when you use the simpleton formula (which every AP uses without thought) of "play with positive odds and you will win and vice-versa) then any AP head will spin as freely as yours does. But as I've said, there are well thought out factors applied to the approach I use, which in turn expects an 85% session win rate and overall positive results using a relatively small 5% minimum win expectation.

It is very difficult for tiny minds to wrap themselves around this.

This is so simple. And it amazes me a critic can understand the possibility of winning $10,000 at $25 level but have trouble understanding reaching a $2,500 win goal getting there.

[redietz]

Red, you've never seen me post any odds against me doing what I have done because the odds, as I've said time & again, we're in heavy favor of me doing it successfully.

Sure, when you use the simpleton formula (which every AP uses without thought) of "play with positive odds and you will win and vice-versa) then any AP head will spin as freely as yours does. But as I've said, there are well thought out factors applied to the approach I use, which in turn expects an 85% session win rate and overall positive results using a relatively small 5% minimum win expectation.

It is very difficult for tiny minds to wrap themselves around this.

So, Rob, can I quote you as saying that the odds were in your favor to win 100K a year for 10 years on negative EV games?

I mean, that is what you're saying, isn't it? Or are you not saying that? If not, what were the odds against you winning 100K a year for 10 years?

[Rob.Singer]

Of course the odds were in my favor playing SPS using a mix of +&-EV games early on and then almost entirely -EV games thereafter, just as the odds are in my favor these days when I infrequently play RTT & ARTT on mostly -EV games. And none of it has ever been a straight mathematical calculation because obviously that theory favors only the casinos, regardless what the vp EV is.

Further, wrap your confused mind around these: first, these odds have always been the expectation of what might happen in a single session, multiplied by a particular # of sessions. And secondly, besides predicting a very successful long-term, to-the-death marriage on my wedding day, my video poker results have been my next most successful prediction.

I only wish I could predict a Trump victory. Now THAT would be 100% good luck.

[jbjb]

Naturally, Rob has NO PROOF of this and only a theory of his bogus profits. :-)

[james40]

So, Rob, can I quote you as saying that the odds were in your favor to win 100K a year for 10 years on negative EV games?

I mean, that is what you're saying, isn't it? Or are you not saying that? If not, what were the odds against you winning 100K a year for 10 years?

Here's a quote from Alan, I think he said it best:

One quote that comes to mind is this:

"It must be true, I saw it on the Internet."

Frankly I don't believe anyone. I've seen tax returns that were improperly prepared, and I've seen claims that I have a hard time understanding why anyone with such knowledge would spend their time here telling us how great they are.

[RS__]

Rob, what kind of plays were you on when you were an "AP"?

[redietz]

Quick note regarding wins: my girlfriend tied for first this week in Heritage Sports' Race to the Superbowl Contest with an 18-2 record. She lost the Saints/Seahawks and the Vikings/Bears games. While it wasn't a boatload of money (six people tied), it is something to win versus a couple thousand people. She's listed as "Betty" on the results page.

We're now tied in the season-long contest, both sitting in about 120th place out of a couple thousand. So no 25K win on the horizon this year for me. I'll be lucky to beat her.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob's mathematical proof of his system has never been published. I believe it's in the storage locker. If we ever saw it then this line of attack would be over either because it was correct or because it's wrong. Rob?

[redietz]

I think the three mathematicians who verified the work are also in that storage locker -- Michael Myers, Elmer Fudd, and Bigfoot. Myers, at least, gets a one night furlough each year.

[ddb1]

The problem with EV is that you just can't spend it, or even put it in the bank.

The proceeds (results) from a winning session, be it -EV or +Ev, are gladly accepted everywhere.

[Rob.Singer]

Rob, what kind of plays were you on when you were an "AP"?

25c thru $1 9/6 job, & 8/5 BP with triple pay for four 7's, which (both) included at least 1.5% in cash back and at least 3% in comps.