Of 25-Cent Sock Puppets and Men

[Alan Mendelson]

redietz I'm just curious what your article is all about? If it's not online, just say so and that's the end of it.

If you want to claim to be a gaming expert it's okay with me. It's not going to effect how I play, or how I use win goals and loss limits.

By the way, redietz, I used my free play last night (only $150) to play TWENTY FIVE CENTS 8/5 DDB AT RINCON last night. Got quad aces twice, and my very first hand (honest, this is the truth) was a king high straight flush. Held the 9,k,Q of clubs and drew the J, 10. (Now someone tell me I should have just held the KQ ??)

[redietz]

Still no direct answers from regnis or Alan. I'll ask again:

What's more likely, that I've had articles published or that Rob has special plays that beat the machines?
What's more likely, that I've had articles published or Rob has hot-and-cold evidence in a locker?
What's more likely, that I've had articles published or Rob won a million (half a mil, actually)?

That's okay, take your time with your answers.

This is about how you know what you think you know. Rob is an expert because why?

He had hundreds of articles published in Gaming Today?
He won a lot of money?
He says so?
Alan vouches for him?

Regnis, I'm more than happy to meet with you regarding articles, if you're interested. Just message me your name, address, and phone.

[Alan Mendelson]

Redietz, let me be blunt with you. I have no beef with Arc because he makes solid contributions to this Forum. Sure we have disagreements about how he applies the math to certain issues and decisions about play but his reasoning is appreciated. It is worthwhile.

You are becoming a spammer whose goal only appears to be to criticize and cause trouble without posting anything of substance.

Go ahead and show me I am wrong by presenting your strategies, your reasoning, and your methods of play. Playing on so-called "positive expectation machines" or "games" is only part of the equation for winning. You just can't sit at a game with a positive pay table and expect to profit. What's the rest of it?

And while you're at it, why don't you tell us about some of those famous articles you wrote? I'll accept that web links are not available. My article called "Phantom Unemployment" that I originally wrote for the Washington Journalism Review is not available online. And that article not only made the White House reading list when it was first published, but also led to an overhaul for how the nation's unemployment statistics are reported. And my reports on CBS news about the shortcomings of the Consumer Price Index led to the overhaul of the way the CPI is compiled and reported. These reports were made in the 1970s... before the world wide web.

Let's find out about redietz, and never mind criticizing Rob Singer. Rob Singer has his place and he is well known. Controversial, yes, but well known. So, what makes redietz click?

[quahaug]

Still no direct answers from regnis or Alan. I'll ask again:

What's more likely, that I've had articles published or that Rob has special plays that beat the machines?
What's more likely, that I've had articles published or Rob has hot-and-cold evidence in a locker?
What's more likely, that I've had articles published or Rob won a million (half a mil, actually)?

That's okay, take your time with your answers.

This is about how you know what you think you know. Rob is an expert because why?

He had hundreds of articles published in Gaming Today?
He won a lot of money?
He says so?
Alan vouches for him?

Regnis, I'm more than happy to meet with you regarding articles, if you're interested. Just message me your name, address, and phone.

I finally understand what a troll is.

[Rob.Singer]

Still no direct answers from regnis or Alan. I'll ask again:

What's more likely, that I've had articles published or that Rob has special plays that beat the machines?
What's more likely, that I've had articles published or Rob has hot-and-cold evidence in a locker?
What's more likely, that I've had articles published or Rob won a million (half a mil, actually)?

That's okay, take your time with your answers.

This is about how you know what you think you know. Rob is an expert because why?

He had hundreds of articles published in Gaming Today?
He won a lot of money?
He says so?
Alan vouches for him?

Regnis, I'm more than happy to meet with you regarding articles, if you're interested. Just message me your name, address, and phone.

Redietz, could you please explain why someone has to MEET with you if they want to see or know more about your articles? Geez, they're only articles, and if they're half as good as you're advertising them as, why the hold-back? What's that all about anyway? It just seems to look more and more that you're not what you're saying you are.

Many of the special plays are on this site--they're not hidden. Why'd you claim THAT?

People claim lots of things on the Internet. Most of what I write has also been published in the paper. Double dose. It's up to the reader to believe in it or not. At this point in my life I don't really care what people think of or want to believe about what I've written where. But you....you appear to be in the school of neediness. You argue that you're some kind of expert at something having to do with gaming, you huff & puff and insult when people simply ASK you to identify even a small sample of what you've written, then as a 25c big brute fpdw player, you insinuate that you somehow have more gaming & casino knowledge than a true expert like myself. So people want to see how that can possibly be. Is posting a few articles so hard?

[redietz]

Well, I looked up both spammer and troll, since I wasn't sure what either meant.

Alan, I think you're using an incorrect word here. Spammers are people who sell things without incurring advertising costs. I'm not selling or promoting anything except logical thinking and the evaluation of evidence. I'm certainly not selling myself. I'm going to have to ask you to explain what you meant. Calling me a spammer is legally questionable.

Now a troll is someone who posts things in an attempt at maximum discord. If this site were "Rob Singer's Personal Playground Site," then I would be considered a troll. But it's not. In fact, given that there is an optimum way to play video poker, Rob could as easily be considered a troll, as his entire approach is argumentative given the body of research in the field. He certainly sows more maximum discord than I do.

Everything I've said is true. All questions have been logical, and point to the problems with objectivity and evidence evaluation in these threads.

Why am I posting here? The Rob Singer material -- Singer's stuff, Alan's win goal arguments, the Singer defenses -- is the best example of pseudoscientific thinking I've ever seen. The stuff posted here is textbook. What we post lives on, and I really think people may be writing dissertations regarding the examples here 50 years from now. I will certainly be using them as examples in my writings for the rest of my life.

And Rob, where did I say my articles were any good? Or that I was advertising them? Please get your facts straight for once. Most of my articles are short trash with limited substance, kind of like yours. That's not a knock, by the way, I liked the way you wrote, for the most part. I probably read half of your Gaming Today articles -- maybe more.

Rob, I have no problem meeting with you, either, if you'd like to know where my stuff was published. You might want to start with the Proceedings of the National Conference on Gambling and Risk-Taking. Then maybe, although the book itself was embarrassing, an old copy of Who's Who in Sports Gambling.

I am a bit concerned that Rob references my articles as "great" and that I'm "advertising" them, and Alan says I called my articles "famous." Great minds think alike? If either of you can show me a quote where I call my articles "good," "famous," or "great," I'll kiss Mr. Singer's derriere on the corner of Flamingo and LV Boulevard.

[Rob.Singer]

So redietz, is the Proceedings a book, or lots of articles? I'll look up what you referenced when I have a chance. You might notice that I was out this morning hitting another Royal after less than 45 minutes play on a VERY negative EV machine to those who concern themselves with such a meaningless stat--then quitting and coming home with a $3600+ profit. Of course I left no tip, and when my friend hit the $4000 Aces yesterday it was fun watching him twitch and get a sour stomach from fear when he took my advice and kept from handing his money over to the floor grunts. Tough then, but he's happy now, and that's what it's all about. In time, he won't feel a thing when he keeps his money instead of giving it away.

[Alan Mendelson]

redietz you are so out of touch with reality it defies belief. There is no science when it comes to win and loss goals, just as there isn't any math involved. Win/loss goals only have to do with an individuals tolerance for losses and satisfaction with wins. In other words -- what makes you happy. Now show me the math for that. Show me your science.

[Rob.Singer]

redietz you are so out of touch with reality it defies belief. There is no science when it comes to win and loss goals, just as there isn't any math involved. Win/loss goals only have to do with an individuals tolerance for losses and satisfaction with wins. In other words -- what makes you happy. Now show me the math for that. Show me your science.

It defies belief how anyone who says they know a lot about gambling, just can't see the extraordinary positive value of walking away a winner due to setting goals. In the other thread I show two decent winners by two different people who were wise enough to use win goals. We both won a good amount, and if we had stayed on and played a few more hours, yes we COULD have won some more, but overwhelmingly, that does not happen.

Redietz, I lost about $250k as an AP, so my lifetime profit is 3/4 million. But if I keep this streak going, who knows how high I'll end up ahead. It all has to do with the ability to set goals and use them. EV does not matter.

[regnis]

Still no direct answers from regnis or Alan. I'll ask again:

What's more likely, that I've had articles published or that Rob has special plays that beat the machines?
What's more likely, that I've had articles published or Rob has hot-and-cold evidence in a locker?
What's more likely, that I've had articles published or Rob won a million (half a mil, actually)?

That's okay, take your time with your answers.

This is about how you know what you think you know. Rob is an expert because why?

He had hundreds of articles published in Gaming Today?
He won a lot of money?
He says so?
Alan vouches for him?

Regnis, I'm more than happy to meet with you regarding articles, if you're interested. Just message me your name, address, and phone.

Red-my answer is simple. You have offered nothing to prove you have done anything at all. Rob wrote all of those columns and I assume his editor or Mr. D verified that what he was writing about had some reality. So that is my answer.

It is not important enough for me to fly to Vegas for you to show me your credentials. But if I am there in the near future, I will let you know. I did research Redietz in the Whos Who and nothing came up.

[regnis]

Well, I looked up both spammer and troll, since I wasn't sure what either meant.

Alan, I think you're using an incorrect word here. Spammers are people who sell things without incurring advertising costs. I'm not selling or promoting anything except logical thinking and the evaluation of evidence. I'm certainly not selling myself. I'm going to have to ask you to explain what you meant. Calling me a spammer is legally questionable.

Now a troll is someone who posts things in an attempt at maximum discord. If this site were "Rob Singer's Personal Playground Site," then I would be considered a troll. But it's not. In fact, given that there is an optimum way to play video poker, Rob could as easily be considered a troll, as his entire approach is argumentative given the body of research in the field. He certainly sows more maximum discord than I do.

Everything I've said is true. All questions have been logical, and point to the problems with objectivity and evidence evaluation in these threads.

Why am I posting here? The Rob Singer material -- Singer's stuff, Alan's win goal arguments, the Singer defenses -- is the best example of pseudoscientific thinking I've ever seen. The stuff posted here is textbook. What we post lives on, and I really think people may be writing dissertations regarding the examples here 50 years from now. I will certainly be using them as examples in my writings for the rest of my life.

And Rob, where did I say my articles were any good? Or that I was advertising them? Please get your facts straight for once. Most of my articles are short trash with limited substance, kind of like yours. That's not a knock, by the way, I liked the way you wrote, for the most part. I probably read half of your Gaming Today articles -- maybe more.

Rob, I have no problem meeting with you, either, if you'd like to know where my stuff was published. You might want to start with the Proceedings of the National Conference on Gambling and Risk-Taking. Then maybe, although the book itself was embarrassing, an old copy of Who's Who in Sports Gambling.

I am a bit concerned that Rob references my articles as "great" and that I'm "advertising" them, and Alan says I called my articles "famous." Great minds think alike? If either of you can show me a quote where I call my articles "good," "famous," or "great," I'll kiss Mr. Singer's derriere on the corner of Flamingo and LV Boulevard.

I went to the Proceedings of the National Conference on Gambling and Risk-Taking. Comes up with a guy named Eadington, a PHD. But since he died earlier this year I guess that's not you.

[redietz]

I guess not. So regnis, where exactly did you find a copy of Who's Who in Sports Gambling?

You wouldn't be joshing us, would you?

[regnis]

Just googling--don't have a copy. Don't even know if it actually exists. But in the few minutes on-line nothing came up.

[redietz]

So instead of just saying that you couldn't find it, you said you "researched Redietz in the Who's Who and nothing came up." That sounds as if you found Who's Who in Sports Gambling, and I wasn't in there.

Tsk tsk.

So, if you didn't find it, why report anything?

P.S. Googling something for a few minutes isn't really "research," but I think you know that.

[Rob.Singer]

I just checked several times and I can't connect any of his mysterious dots either. So why bother any more? If he can't put up a defining link, then the matter's closed.

[arcimede$]

Arci-as usual, since there are no numbers involved you completely miss the point. I don't claim to have written anything or claim to be an authority. I don't espouse any system. My name is meaningless. Whether it's Joe Blow or Paul Revere makes no difference because I don't claim to be anything. Hell--maybe I am actually Rob Singer.

If you want to make demands of others then you should identify yourself. You look pretty foolish being anonymous and then making demands. If you can't see this then what can I say.

[regnis]

If you want to make demands of others then you should identify yourself. You look pretty foolish being anonymous and then making demands. If you can't see this then what can I say.

Arci--talk about foolish. I am nobody. If you google me it will come up empty. So my name is meaningless. What about that do you not understand. Or do you want my name and address to send me a xmas card. That's ok---keep it and just wish me happy holiday on this forum.

Red on the other hand proclaims himself to be somebody. And as Singer said above, nothing in moderate research brings him up. Not gonna go much further. And Red--10 minutes of research is ample time if any reference were going to come up. It didn't. Maybe you are too old--before records go back far enough on the internet. Like when I tried to research Sailor Art Thomas for a little wrestling thing here.

[regnis]

Actually--I have reconsidered Arci. I am known here as "the blue spook". So now can I demand full disclosure from RED

[Rob.Singer]

I wouldn't bother arguing with arci about this any more regnis. It's very clear what you're saying about being publicly unknown and it not making any difference. He's just doing his thing and trying to get another provocative side discussion going so that it helps him fill in all that down time he's stuck dealing with.

Redietz OTOH is a puzzle. It wouldn't be much of an effort for him to lead us SOMEWHERE, but he chooses not to and instead tries to build up his brand--if there is one--by other out-of-place methods. And that's really unlike the very articulate poster he's mostly been. Everyone gets old I guess.

[redietz]

I'm trying to figure out, Rob, how not publicizing oneself builds up a brand. One would think if I had a brand, I might have mentioned it by now, if I were trying to "build it up." It only took, what, a couple of years for me to mention that redietz was actually my name. Guess I'm a little slow pushing the "brand."

You're right about getting old, though. I broke a rib a few weeks back, and hit the track today for a mile and a half jog while trying to not breathe too deeply. Felt old and slow. I need to maintain some training, though, for when we go speedo to speedo.

By the way, you (as a published author) should know why I wouldn't point anybody to old articles unless I had some strong reason or motivation. I'm half surprised Alan was clueless, but I'm very surprised you don't know, or maybe are pretending to not know.