Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 62

Thread: Important Point

  1. #1
    The most interesting aspect of the Casino Catfishing thread is that Rob made the comment that his government training enabled him to render polygraph testing inconclusive.

    Now what is the point of that comment? If Rob's truth-telling, he'd have no motive for rendering results inconclusive. Rob, are you saying that somehow anything you answer on a polygraph shows as inconclusive, whether you want it to or not? Or what exactly are you saying?

    I guess we could find out.

    I still think a polygraph is the best way to examine these questions. If Rob's lying tests as inconclusive, well, good for him. If his truth-telling tests as inconclusive, well, that's a shame, because I frankly want to believe him.

  2. #2
    I think it was a brilliant choice of words by Rob, because I think the courts consider all polygraph results to be inconclusive. And by saying that the results are inconclusive, and by saying he can make the results show inconclusive results, someone who takes a polygraph could easily point to the results and say "I was telling the truth even if the machine said I lied," or he could say "I lied even if the machine said I was telling the truth."

    To have a polygraph results "stand" you would need to have the subject of the polygraph say "I believe the results of the polygraph and I will not challenge them." Then, the subject of the polygraph would be "stuck" with the results.

    But when the potential subject of a polygraph raises any doubt, then like the court system has ruled, the results could not be used as proof.

    So what Rob did was simply say, "don't bother with a polygraph."

    So I have this question: would you accept the information from his tax returns if the tax return copies came directly from the IRS and we documented that the returns came right out of the mailing envelope from the IRS? You would have to accept that we would show only the lines show casino wins and casino losses which is really all we care about anyway.

  3. #3
    Alan, first of all, I do think Rob won the money he claims to have won. I thought someone said Rob's son works for the IRS. I'd probably pass on that kind of IRS evidence, then. But that's not the issue. Rob likes to compartmentalize his play. He was this and he lost; he was something different and he won. Now he's recreational.The only real question is "Is he ahead lifetime gambling?" As in "total gambling." IRS documents won't demonstrate that, but a polygraph might.

    We don't know what Rob won where and what he lost. Neither does the IRS. The only person who does is Rob.

    But you raise a really, really interesting question. Why would Rob say, "Don't bother with a polygraph?"

  4. #4
    I'm afraid you are raising a question about "lifetime wins/losses" that is actually irrelevant.

    What is relevant, I think, is if Rob won his almost a million dollars playing his system over ten years. I also happen to believe him. He is on the record saying he lost, if I recall, a quarter million dollars before starting his system. It wouldn't matter to me if he lost five million dollars prior to starting his system, because the only thing he is being criticized for is his system.

    What happened before and after his "system years" doesn't matter.

    However, I find it ironic that if he had a "winning system" he wouldn't continue with it even after "retiring." If the system worked as a working professional, why shouldn't it also work for a part time retiree?

  5. #5
    The big difference is this is not a court of law. It's pretty obvious Rob knows he would fail the test and is looking for a way to decline your invitation.

    As for the IRS form. You would need to have Singer provide a mailing address that only Alan could access. Anything else would still lead to doubts.

  6. #6
    I mentioned the possible result of inconclusive because if I chose to I could actually make it read out that, and rather than someone crying foul afterwards by assuming I might be able to manipulate the results, I brought it up now so it could be discussed. But it doesn't change the fact that I am fully willing to go thru the procedure. As I said earlier, the where and when needs to be identified. What's funny is arci's going around pretending like he has no problem with a test, but we all know he really can't get away from the misery at home to do it. And I'll bet right now that he,would say no if we offered to take it at his house.

  7. #7
    I feel obligated to point out that it isn't "irrelevant" what Rob's overall win/losses pre and post "system" are. It is a given on this forum that Rob's system influenced his wins and losses, but only on this forum. Rob, Alan, and various others assign a cause-effect relationship to his system use. That is, at best, highly speculative. I think on most forums that would not be simply accepted. And most professional mathematicians would say his system is irrelevant, so whether he won or lost pre and post system-use may be a result of variance, not his use of an alleged system.

    That's why his overall wins/losses are interesting.

  8. #8
    But redietz we know from Rob's own statements that he lost dramatically using what he described as "advantage play" before he developed his system. Hence the question: is his system that good to account for a turnaround and a nearly-million dollars net win over ten years? I would be more concerned about his financial records during his "years of system play" more than anything else. But then, I accept that he won nearly a million dollars and I have no reason to doubt it. I also accept the strategy of reaching win goals and quitting before the machines suck it all back, and I accept that because I have seen wins come in spurts and I know that the wins don't continue indefinitely.

    What I really need to know is why honest and true IRS documents wouldn't be enough to put his critics at ease?

  9. #9
    First off, Alan, you didn't address anything I said above. Just because Rob or you or anyone wants to attribute Rob's dramatic turnaround to a system DOESN'T MEAN IT'S ACTUALLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THAT SYSTEM.

    Second, I believe Rob won the money.

    Third, didn't Rob say somewhere his son worked for the IRS or something? That's not the case, is it?

  10. #10
    Ok redietz. I'm just trying to come up with something that might be a workable solution. Of course it's up to Rob and for the rest of you to decide. But it seems to me that the more conditions you put on this "exam" the less likely it's going to happen.

    I suggested what I thought might be the easiest "proof" or "exam" of Rob's claims: tax returns ordered by mail from the IRS. I really doubt his son would tamper with the process.

    You will have to negotiate this with Rob -- if Rob even wants to negotiate. I will stand by ready to cooperate in any way I can.

    But I, like you, believe Rob won the money. I wonder how you might be able to determine if Rob would have also won the money playing conventional video poker vs. his own system?

  11. #11
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Ok redietz. I'm just trying to come up with something that might be a workable solution. Of course it's up to Rob and for the rest of you to decide. But it seems to me that the more conditions you put on this "exam" the less likely it's going to happen.

    I suggested what I thought might be the easiest "proof" or "exam" of Rob's claims: tax returns ordered by mail from the IRS. I really doubt his son would tamper with the process.
    This is a good approach. Alan could sign a non-disclosure agreement and the tax form mailed directly to him. This removes Rob from handling the documents and we all know that opening a letter and resealing it is not that difficult.

    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    You will have to negotiate this with Rob -- if Rob even wants to negotiate. I will stand by ready to cooperate in any way I can.

    But I, like you, believe Rob won the money. I wonder how you might be able to determine if Rob would have also won the money playing conventional video poker vs. his own system?
    You really can't. The hands in VP are independent hence no betting system can change the expected return. This is what any mathematician would tell you. They would unanimously agree that whatever Singer won was the result of variance. However, you would at least put to bed the questions of whether he was able to overcome the odds of .03% to win what he claimed.
    Last edited by arcimede$; 03-18-2013 at 04:48 AM.

  12. #12
    I prefer the previous proposals from months back--let's watch Rob play the system and see what the results are. Tax returns prove nothing. Let's have Rob play 4 different sessions so that 1 bad 1 doesn't skew the results. But since he would be the one at risk financially, there has to be some kind of arrangement to share the profit or loss. Alan can video the whole thing. This would also erase the suggestion that if he did win the $1,000,000 he was just exceptionally lucky. If he can repeat it 3 of the 4 times, that ain't luck.

  13. #13
    Sorry, 3-4 timers is worthless. Last year I experience both a 8 session losing streak and a 6 session winning streak. In addition, Singer's system increases variance which mean streaks longer than this become more probable. The IRS letter would be much more meaningful as it would cover all his sessions for years.

  14. #14
    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    I prefer the previous proposals from months back--let's watch Rob play the system and see what the results are. Tax returns prove nothing. Let's have Rob play 4 different sessions so that 1 bad 1 doesn't skew the results. But since he would be the one at risk financially, there has to be some kind of arrangement to share the profit or loss. Alan can video the whole thing. This would also erase the suggestion that if he did win the $1,000,000 he was just exceptionally lucky. If he can repeat it 3 of the 4 times, that ain't luck.
    Rob faced a similar challenge from a bunch over on the LVA forum. It never happened because Rob required a high-dollar bet and Rob needed to play in both Vegas and Laughlin where the machines/games/denominations were available and the challengers didn't want to travel to Laughlin, if I recall.

    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    Sorry, 3-4 timers is worthless. Last year I experience both a 8 session losing streak and a 6 session winning streak. In addition, Singer's system increases variance which mean streaks longer than this become more probable. The IRS letter would be much more meaningful as it would cover all his sessions for years.
    I think the IRS returns is the easiest, simplest way to confirm the winnings, if Rob wanted to cooperate.

  15. #15
    But he says he wins 85% of the time--so let's see him win 3 of 4 and not make this a lifelong project.

  16. #16
    The way Rob plays, he should win more than 75% of his sessions. That's clear. Winning three of four would be exactly what was expected.

  17. #17
    There is nothing to say that any tax return filed is accurate. if you already claim that Singer is a liar, then why are you so willing to accept his tax returns as fact?

    I would also never involve the IRS in anything as they are certainly the enemy.

  18. #18
    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    There is nothing to say that any tax return filed is accurate. if you already claim that Singer is a liar, then why are you so willing to accept his tax returns as fact?

    I would also never involve the IRS in anything as they are certainly the enemy.
    Are you afraid of the answer? This does not bring in the branch of the IRS that you think is the enemy. These types of requests would go through a clerical department.

  19. #19
    Why would I be afraid? I don't care if he is telling the "undeniable truth" or lying about everything. I just find any new system, concept, idea, etc. of interest and worth looking into.

    And having worked against the IRS for 35 years now--they are the eenemy and any inquiry into your account can trigger other consequences and I would tell Singer not to do it.

  20. #20
    Alan, I know you'd like to see IRS return info and while at first, seeing that I won precisely what I said I did over the years might give you a certain level of overall confidence, none of the jealous critics would ever admit to defeat from just that--for reasons identified by several posters. Then your own confidence & trust would wane, which is exactly what the,weak count on.

    FYI: at this point in my life, with only retirement income and savings in our household, I'm not concerned with whatever else might be triggered by asking for the info. My son-in-law would do it with integrity, and seeing that my last audit ended with them sending me an $800 check, I'm not the least bit concerned.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •