Discussing Rob Singers Systems

[arcimede$]

There are essentially 8 or 9 factors to look at in determining if the activity is a hobby or a business. Profit is only 1 factor, and the 3 of 5 rule is not an actual rule but a layman's belief.

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Business-or-H...for-Deductions

"The IRS presumes that an activity is carried on for profit if it makes a profit during at least three of the last five tax years, including the current year"

Other relevant factors are (1) time and effort spent on the activity, (2) does he operate the activity as a business, and studied and trained and consukted with advisors and profwssionals, and does he maintain separate records and bank accounts etc, (3) does he intend to make a profit--early year losses are ok and economy based losses are ok, and if he has had profitable years, how much profit, (4) has he turned other businesses into profitable businesses in the past---track record, and how do his profits and losses compare from year to year--ie does he lose big and have tiny profits (hobby) or are the profits sizeable (business). I have lumped some of the various factors into a few of the above.

But don't set your mind to the 3 of 5 because it is a fallacy.

While I have stated in other threads that I am not an authority on gaming (although fairly knowledgeable), this is in my field of expertise.

I think the key is that the business shows a profit. Singer stated he never paid any taxes. That would violate the most essential rule and cannot see any auditor allowing him to file if his tax bill was zero.

[Alan Mendelson]

Looks like you're running off for some casino action!

No, Rob. But nice try.

[arcimede$]

So Alan, do you want to go ahead with this? Do you have access to a pertinent non-disclosure form? I think we should spread out the time period a little. How about the even years between 2004-2010. That's 4 tax forms but we can always go back and ask for more if this turned out to leave open questions.

I'd suggest you redact the personal info and scan in the key forms (1040, A and C). Then you could upload them for the rest of the forum to view.

Alan has little to gain from this other than satisfying his curiosity so I could see why he might not be interested. I could just go ahead and put my redacted forms online. Singer could do the same. I suspect regnis could give an educated opinion on the validity of the forms and whether they would pass an audit.

[Alan Mendelson]

I don't have to scan -- I can shoot video of the actual forms and then in editing create still frames and remove private info. If you guys have a non disclosure form for us to sign -- my entire staff because I won't be the only one to see these docs -- go ahead and send it to us. Rob has my address, so I will accept his non disclosure forms. But I would like to see the non disclosure forms first before he orders up the IRS returns just to be sure the non disclosure forms are OK.

Personally I think this is a waste of time. If Rob got away with doing things on his taxes that the rest of us disagree with then so be it -- he did it. It doesn't make any difference to me.

The only thing the tax forms might show us is that he really didn't win nearly a million dollars over ten years. But at this point I don't care. And the reason I don't care is the same reason I've given all along: I don't think it's unusual for a high denomination player to win a hundred thousand dollars a year. Yes, as whacky as his special plays might be they can deliver big wins. And yes, I fully understand how using win goals and loss limits can help generate profits.

So the bottom line is we're just going around in circles... same arguments... same discussions... and nothing will get resolved.

Now, we even have to wonder if the tax returns really prove anything. Maybe we should rather be looking at casino win/loss statements but what if Rob wasn't playing with a card?

I'm also going to go back to the beginning. I don't think his articles in Gaming Today were a fabrication. That doesn't mean he didnt have big losses to go with the big wins. But the bottom line is this: it doesn't matter to me if Rob had big wins or not. What matters is simply this: can his info help me win? I think some of his info can and has helped me win.

And so has Grochowski's and so has Dancers.

That's where I stand.

[arcimede$]

Here's one that could be used by simply replacing "invention" with "tax forms". Lot's more on the web if your search on nondisclosure forms.

http://www.freepatentforms.com/confidentiality1.htm

[redietz]

I don't really intend this in a mean-spirited way, but I have to say it, because it's funny.

Ummm, Alan, if Rob's info, and Dancers' info, and Grachowski's info has helped you win, ummmmmmm, shouldn't you have won?

And this, dear friends, is the problem when people who are generally intelligent think, because gambling appears to an accessible/understandable art and science, that they themselves can choose quality info and what is meaningful and what tricks of the trade, like win goals and loss limits, are actually useful. It's like watching generally intelligent people put scalpels in the midst of gray matter during open-skull surgery. For whatever misguided reason, they expect good results. Only the good results don't happen. But the intelligent civilians-turned-surgeons still think they've done some good, even when the patient is dead.

[Rob.Singer]

Regnis was correct: I DO own arci. Look how I forced him to come out of hiding, with his first order of business of course, being excuse after excuse for ducking the side bet on where we lived, you know, like when he kept lying about us being in an RV park near Tahoe until Alan called and made him look like a fool again Now it looks like he clearly knows he's still tossing lie after lie out of the same misguided envy--and apparently fears that the tax returns will show all properties & addresses. The funniest part is he's still trying to tell himself nobody sees how he is too cowardly and broke to bet on something he's been claiming is a sure thing for such a long time!

Alan, like I said, I do not need a non-disclosure agreement because the more info about us the better. I don't even need arci to say he'll apologize for all the lies, because he's got enough life-sapping going on in his house of pain already. And arci, no even or odd numbered years--what a dufus. Just go with 2001-2007 like I said. I want you to see the maximum allowed, and then I want to see more of your lies about yourself come back to haunt you with those so-called facts you claim to use. That ought to wratchet up the discord and conflict in the arci household. I've already submitted my form (with the $399 money order) and they say it takes 3 months.

And Alan, these returns will help you see the kinds of deductions I took that were allowed because I still have one of the audit reports with me here, and maybe we can sit down to go over them together when the returns arrive. Arci claims we paid no taxes which is of course just another lie. We had quite a bit of other income that we paid tax on. I was able to mitigate ALL of my reported winnings so that there was no liability on any of it.

[Dan Druff]

Rob asked me to point out plays of his that are not mathematically sound.

Here are two videos demonstrating this, featuring both Alan and Rob:





The basic gist of both videos:

Rob says that he will play the mathematically incorrect strategy if he is down a lot of money that session and needs a big hand to break even.

This is absolutely never correct in cash video poker play, unless you have an urgent need for that money immediately.

For example, if you're gambling your rent money, and you need to hit a royal in order to avoid getting evicted tomorrow, then you're making the right play by eschewing the mathematics and going for the royal.

However, Rob claims to be rich and successful, so this is obviously not a consideration.

Rob's approach of playing sub-optimally to get even in the current play session is a big leak, and it's likely to eat away at his profits over time.

Video poker, like blackjack, is a very mathematical game, and beating it requires that you play perfectly and give up no mistakes to the casino.

While Rob has a point that the 3-of-a-kind-versus-3-to-the-royal situation is very rare and is unlikely to impact his play much in the long run, you also see him in the previous video with the fairly common situation of a high pair with 3-to-the-royal. If Rob makes the mathematically incorrect play here a fair amount of time, that will cost him big time in the long run, especially if he plays a large number of hands at high stakes.

Basically it seems like we're dealing with a crackpot who is more interested in trying to avoid a losing session than winning in the game overall.

[Alan Mendelson]

Ummm, Alan, if Rob's info, and Dancers' info, and Grachowski's info has helped you win, ummmmmmm, shouldn't you have won?

No. Because strategy is only strategy and it is still a game that is determined by a random number generator. Ironically I have never had a winning session when I played on a positive expectation game. ALL of the royals in my life, and all of the winning sessions came when I played negative expectation games. Now, in all fairness, my play at negative games far outnumbers my sessions at positive expectation games.

This is something that I've said over and over again: playing correct strategy at a positive expectation game is not a license to win. The RNG must cooperate with your holds. Unfortunately the RNG has a mind of its own. Literally.

[Alan Mendelson]

Dan: NONE of Rob's special plays are mathematically "sound" and he admits that. Not mathematically "sound" means that the conventional play has a larger "expected return." You can see that and he admits that. But his special plays are all designed to increase the chances of a big win that according to his strategy will allow you to reach a win goal and leave. You picked example #13 which is my favorite. I think in the commentary that I wrote along with this one I said it was the whackiest of special plays. And I think Rob said only twice in his life did he ever face a situation like this.

My son a couple of years back faced a similar problem. Playing DDB he broke up a pair of aces with three to the royal and drew the royal. It was a bad play, but he got the royal. You can't tell him it was a bad play as they counted out the royal money into his hand.

[arcimede$]

Alan, you never answered if you are willing to sign a non-disclosure form. Did you look at the one I provided with mentioned modifications?

Like I said, before. I think the even years between 2004 and 2010 would be sufficient. It also covers the period Rob wants to use. Since I was mainly a quarter player before 2006 I don't think anyone would find those years very interesting. It looks like Rob is going to insist on specific years so he has an excuse to back down.

[regnis]

Rob asked me to point out plays of his that are not mathematically sound.

Here are two videos demonstrating this, featuring both Alan and Rob:





The basic gist of both videos:

Rob says that he will play the mathematically incorrect strategy if he is down a lot of money that session and needs a big hand to break even.

This is absolutely never correct in cash video poker play, unless you have an urgent need for that money immediately.

For example, if you're gambling your rent money, and you need to hit a royal in order to avoid getting evicted tomorrow, then you're making the right play by eschewing the mathematics and going for the royal.

However, Rob claims to be rich and successful, so this is obviously not a consideration.

Rob's approach of playing sub-optimally to get even in the current play session is a big leak, and it's likely to eat away at his profits over time.

Video poker, like blackjack, is a very mathematical game, and beating it requires that you play perfectly and give up no mistakes to the casino.

While Rob has a point that the 3-of-a-kind-versus-3-to-the-royal situation is very rare and is unlikely to impact his play much in the long run, you also see him in the previous video with the fairly common situation of a high pair with 3-to-the-royal. If Rob makes the mathematically incorrect play here a fair amount of time, that will cost him big time in the long run, especially if he plays a large number of hands at high stakes.

Basically it seems like we're dealing with a crackpot who is more interested in trying to avoid a losing session than winning in the game overall.

You aren't saying anything he himself hasn't said about those plays. And more importantly, he states that he won because he got lucky, and his point is he, on those rare occasions when he deviates from mathematically sound play, gives himself the opportunity to get real lucky. It aint all that crazy or complicated if you listen to what he says.

I have never had the kind of luck that he seems to have had. The RNG is not my friend. But take it for what it is and hear what he is saying, and it isn't as crazy as some would try to make us believe.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, you never answered if you are willing to sign a non-disclosure form. Did you look at the one I provided with mentioned modifications?

Of course I will sign a non disclosure form. Send me the one you would like me to sign so I can review it. And when I get the documents, I am not going to release anything until I get approval about exactly what that person wants released.

I think my only job here is to make sure that the documents come directly from the IRS and they have not been altered.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, you never answered if you are willing to sign a non-disclosure form. Did you look at the one I provided with mentioned modifications?

Like I said, before. I think the even years between 2004 and 2010 would be sufficient. It also covers the period Rob wants to use. Since I was mainly a quarter player before 2006 I don't think anyone would find those years very interesting. It looks like Rob is going to insist on specific years so he has an excuse to back down.

Too funny. I came up with the years 2001-2007 before arci's "even numbered years" BS. So who's trying to back out....esp. since he knows I've already submitted the IRS form!? And to add to his public humiliation, which this effort was destined to be from the very start, he's now trying to wiggle out of providing the years he was a "quarter player" because of their "not being very interesting"!! Arci my buddy, a lie is a lie, 25c or dollars!

[regnis]

As much as many would like to see this come to an end, I would advise both Rob and Arci not to involve the IRS in any way. You are naïve to believe that calling for those returns is not without consequence. You never want the IRS to have any reason to look at you, whether it's by a simple math error, questionable items on a return, or something simple like a request for copies. This is one entity that you are better off being invisible to.

So if you can't convince Alan of the legitimacy of returns that you yourselves provide, you are better off not using the IRS to settle this contest of who has the bigger schmeckie.

[arcimede$]

Too funny. I came up with the years 2001-2007 before arci's "even numbered years" BS. So who's trying to back out....esp. since he knows I've already submitted the IRS form!? And to add to his public humiliation, which this effort was destined to be from the very start, he's now trying to wiggle out of providing the years he was a "quarter player" because of their "not being very interesting"!! Arci my buddy, a lie is a lie, 25c or dollars!

Sorry bozo, you don't get to decide the years. You are the one that made the claim that you've won every year and paid no taxes. You don't get to decide which years are reviewed. If you won't provide the requested years then we can only assume you were lying. Put up or shut up.

If anyone believes you've already submitted the IRS form they are hopelessly naive. I know you are bluffing in an attempt to avoid the issue. Why don't you want anyone to see your recent tax forms? That is now becoming a clear and obvious dodge. It was only a matter of time before you backed down. I knew it would happen.

[arcimede$]

regnis, this really doesn't involve anyone in the IRS that cares about tax returns. This is purely a service where old records are retrieved, copied and mailed. They don't care why, they are just clerks doing their job. Besides, I have nothing to hide.

Alan, here's a better form in PDF format. Download it, fill it out and upload the image. I will download your image, sign it and upload the completed form. Since I'm the only one that really cares about this issue you don't even need to download the final image unless you want to.

http://www.hbs.edu/entrepreneurship/pdf/Sample_NDA.pdf

Let me know the address you want to use to ship the forms from the IRS. I can have the form all ready to send out as soon as you provide this information. If you prefer, send everything to me in an email: mroejacks@yahoo.com and I will download the attachments.

[Rob.Singer]

Sorry bozo, you don't get to decide the years. You are the one that made the claim that you've won every year and paid no taxes. You don't get to decide which years are reviewed. If you won't provide the requested years then we can only assume you were lying. Put up or shut up.

If anyone believes you've already submitted the IRS form they are hopelessly naive. I know you are bluffing in an attempt to avoid the issue. Why don't you want anyone to see your recent tax forms? That is now becoming a clear and obvious dodge. It was only a matter of time before you backed down. I knew it would happen.

You know arci, I don't really care which years you request....and in 2010 I wasn't playing as a professional anyway. Why do you think I requested '01 thru '07 "bozo"!! So stop looking stupid, wise up, and get it done on whatever years you want as I have. What's the matter--cat got your tongue on this one? You don't want anyone to believe what's done is done, and how your window for escaping out of your own challenge is rapidly closing?

Oh, here's another gem arci stubs his toe on: he says to regnis--"Besides, I have nothing to hide." Well then my good friend, WHY IN THE WORLD ARE YOU WASTING TIME WITH THIS NON-DISCLOSURE NONSENSE? You're retired like me....AND NO ONE CARES A LICK ANYWAY!!

[Rob.Singer]

Arci, are you absolutely SURE you don't want to bet on my home addresses, seeing how sure you've been portraying your lies all these months? C'Mon, it's a SURE THING, right? And I'll even throw in a side grand that my form has already been submitted. Alan receives them, I get an additional $1000; he doesn't, you get it. I know this is not something normally said to an introvert nerd, but MAN UP FOR GOD'S SAKE!

[Rob.Singer]

Rob asked me to point out plays of his that are not mathematically sound.

Here are two videos demonstrating this, featuring both Alan and Rob:





The basic gist of both videos:

Rob says that he will play the mathematically incorrect strategy if he is down a lot of money that session and needs a big hand to break even.

This is absolutely never correct in cash video poker play, unless you have an urgent need for that money immediately.

For example, if you're gambling your rent money, and you need to hit a royal in order to avoid getting evicted tomorrow, then you're making the right play by eschewing the mathematics and going for the royal.

However, Rob claims to be rich and successful, so this is obviously not a consideration.

Rob's approach of playing sub-optimally to get even in the current play session is a big leak, and it's likely to eat away at his profits over time.

Video poker, like blackjack, is a very mathematical game, and beating it requires that you play perfectly and give up no mistakes to the casino.

While Rob has a point that the 3-of-a-kind-versus-3-to-the-royal situation is very rare and is unlikely to impact his play much in the long run, you also see him in the previous video with the fairly common situation of a high pair with 3-to-the-royal. If Rob makes the mathematically incorrect play here a fair amount of time, that will cost him big time in the long run, especially if he plays a large number of hands at high stakes.

Basically it seems like we're dealing with a crackpot who is more interested in trying to avoid a losing session than winning in the game overall.

I'm not "rich" dandy...just prepared.

Never expect a poker hack to know anything about professional vp play--especially one who advertises on-line gambling sites for income because he can't win.