Discussing Rob Singers Systems

[slingshot]

Slingshot, several times you've indicated you have a gambling problem. Do you? And if you do why do you continue to tempt yourself by still going to casinos and even reading a forum like this?

Or, do you think you are properly managing the problem you had?

I have a close relative who was addicted to sports betting, lost everything and almost lost his life, and went thru GA programs. He is now so opposed to anything connected with gambling that if you said to him "I bet those dark clouds will mean rain before noon" he will respond with "I don't bet."

You're right. I shouldn't even be here. Thanks, Alan.

[redietz]

That was sarcasm, Alan. People who have beaten the casinos obviously know they have an edge on the casinos. So these are the people you are saying should beware because they may get addicted. Think about the sheer lunacy of saying that. They are addicted to making money, I guess.

Meanwhile, you think the poor souls who lose for 30 years on an annual basis, because they define donating x amount of dollars per visit as "entertainment," aren't really the folks who have an addiction problem. It's all fine because it's entertainment and they intend to lose. So that's okay; it's not an addiction.

Step back and read what the hell you're saying. Some of it reads like shilling for the casinos; some of it makes zero sense.

[redietz]

Perceptions of probability in these threads is sometimes very interesting. Arci has already figured the odds against Rob having done what he claims to have done -- winning at video poker -- playing his negative games. Arci, I do not recall the exact number, but I think it was .3% or less. Or maybe it was .03%. No matter, I'll use the bigger number. Now Alan was perfectly fine with accepting that Rob had beaten the odds and won despite the probabilities involved. What Alan is not fine with is the idea that Rob somehow paid very little in taxes on his winnings. This, according to Alan, hurts Rob's credibility.

Now I ask you, what are the odds that Rob paid very little in taxes? Do you really believe they are significantly less than .3%? We have two claims, and I have to say that to me Claim #1, the video poker claim, is much tougher to statistically swallow than Claim #2, the no tax claim.

Anyone else have an opinion?

[Alan Mendelson]

redietz, are you saying that someone who goes to a casino maybe twice or three times a year but always loses is addicted?

I think the people who are addicted are more likely the so-called "advantage players" who are armed to the teeth with a bankroll and believe that the more they play the more they will win.

Given a choice between which player has a problem -- I think the so-called advantage players who think they have it all figured out have got a problem. And I think players who go to a casino for entertainment don't have a problem because when it is no longer entertaining, they quit. Do advantage players quit when it's not entertaining? No, because the math tells them there is no reason to quit.

Again, I am going to ask you: who has the problem? Someone who can quit when it's no longer fun, or the "advantage player" who says there is no reason to quit.

When you tell me that you reject win goals and loss limits, it tells me that you have a problem.

[Alan Mendelson]

Now I ask you, what are the odds that Rob paid very little in taxes? Do you really believe they are significantly less than .3%? We have two claims, and I have to say that to me Claim #1, the video poker claim, is much tougher to statistically swallow than Claim #2, the no tax claim.

redietz, I think you also claim to be a professional gambler. What percentage of your profits are paid as income tax? (I am assuming you have have profits.)

[arcimede$]

I think the people who are addicted are more likely the so-called "advantage players" who are armed to the teeth with a bankroll and believe that the more they play the more they will.

Given a choice between which player has a problem -- I think the so-called advantage players who think they have it all figured out have got a problem. And I think players who go to a casino for entertainment don't have a problem because when it is no longer entertaining, they quit. Do advantage players quit when it's not entertaining? No, because the math tells them there is no reason to quit.

Once again Alan shows us he is mathematically challenged and clearly making up scenarios to fuel his fantasies. Notice how he basically claims that APers never stop playing. They play 24/7/365 according to Alan. That is what would occur if they do not quit. Alan, let me clue you in. APers quit when they want to. This could be after playing for 10 minutes or 10 hours. Your clams are nothing but silly nonsense. This stupidity should be left to Singer where most people know he is intentionally lying.

Again, I am going to ask you: who has the problem? Someone who can quit when it's no longer fun, or the "advantage player" who says there is no reason to quit.

When you tell me that you reject win goals and loss limits, it tells me that you have a problem.

One can only chuckle at this denial of simple mathematical reality.

[arcimede$]

redietz, I think you also claim to be a professional gambler. What percentage of your profits are paid as income tax? (I am assuming you have have profits.)

Alan, there's another factor to consider when filing as a pro. You must pay FICA on your earnings. It makes claims of paying no taxes an obvious lie.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, make up your mind. You have said there is no reason to stop playing when you have a mathematical advantage. The comments have also been made that when you have a mathematical advantage the only reason to stop is for fatigue or hunger or to go to the bathroom. I think that is a problem. In fact, why do you bother to go to the bathroom? Why not bring a urinal to your seat? And I know that at Caesars, if you request it, they will bring food to you at your machine. As a matter of fact, they have machine-side service at Rincon also.

Once again Alan shows us he is mathematically challenged and clearly making up scenarios to fuel his fantasies. Notice how he basically claims that APers never stop playing. They play 24/7/365 according to Alan. That is what would occur if they do not quit. Alan, let me clue you in. APers quit when they want to. This could be after playing for 10 minutes or 10 hours. Your clams are nothing but silly nonsense. This stupidity should be left to Singer where most people know he is intentionally lying.

One can only chuckle at this denial of simple mathematical reality.

Also, what mathematical reality?? Where is the math in addiction?

[arcimede$]

Arc, make up your mind. You have said there is no reason to stop playing when you have a mathematical advantage.

No mathematical reason, Alan. I've shown you proof that your results are not determined by when you quit. I have also stated many times that a person should only play when they want to play. I've even told you I played once a week.

The comments have also been made that when you have a mathematical advantage the only reason to stop is for fatigue or hunger or to go to the bathroom. I think that is a problem. In fact, why do you bother to go to the bathroom? Why not bring a urinal to your seat? And I know that at Caesars, if you request it, they will bring food to you at your machine. As a matter of fact, they have machine-side service at Rincon also.

Who made those comments? It's like saying a person working for an hourly wage should never stop working. You need to start thinking about the rule of holes here, Alan.

Also, what mathematical reality?? Where is the math in addiction?

Mathematical reality is the universe in which most of us reside. A few folks try to claim they live in another universe. One of those would be you, Alan.

So, now Alan is trying to equate math and addiction somehow. Amazing ...

[Alan Mendelson]

I've shown you proof that your results are not determined by when you quit.

Exactly right, Arc. Results are not determined by when you quit. Which is why "advantaged players" who think they have an edge keep playing... just like addicts. Are they addicted by the math or addicted to the math?

[arcimede$]

Exactly right, Arc. Results are not determined by when you quit. Which is why "advantaged players" who think they have an edge keep playing... just like addicts. Are they addicted by the math or addicted to the math?

They are no more or less likely to quit than an hourly wage earner. How many of them keep working when their shift is done? Your claims are so silly I can't believe I'm having this conversation with an adult.

[Alan Mendelson]

Unfortunately I see going to a casino differently than you do. I think it should be strictly entertainment with no expectation of winning. Sure, it's great to win. But you play with an expectation of winning, and you are willing to set aside a prescribed amount of time in order to fulfill your expectation of winning. And I think that is what becomes addictive.

On the contrary, someone who plays only for "fun" and recreation has no requirement to play any amount of time. As soon as the fun stops, the recreational player leaves. However, the advantage player doesn't consider "fun" but instead is focused on theoretical or expected return.

Put an advantage player in front of a great expected return game and is there any reason in hell why they would close their eyes to sleep, stop to get a meal, or not use a urinal in their seat? No there isn't. And if that kind of behavior isn't addictive behavior, I don't know what is?

[regnis]

Alan-if all that anyone cared about were money, then you could say the same for any hourly paid worker. Why not just work 24/7 and never eat or sleep.

OOps-didnt see that arc essentially said the same thing above--sorry for repeat

[arcimede$]

Unfortunately I see going to a casino differently than you do. I think it should be strictly entertainment with no expectation of winning. Sure, it's great to win. But you play with an expectation of winning, and you are willing to set aside a prescribed amount of time in order to fulfill your expectation of winning. And I think that is what becomes addictive.

Alan, do you understand anything about addiction? Serious question. From your comments it appears you do not.

On the contrary, someone who plays only for "fun" and recreation has no requirement to play any amount of time. As soon as the fun stops, the recreational player leaves. However, the advantage player doesn't consider "fun" but instead is focused on theoretical or expected return.

Strawman ... and a silly one at that. Do you really believe that APers don't enjoy hitting good winners? Do you think they don't enjoy walking out of a casinos with extra cash? Really?

Put an advantage player in front of a great expected return game and is there any reason in hell why they would close their eyes to sleep, stop to get a meal, or not use a urinal in their seat? No there isn't. And if that kind of behavior isn't addictive behavior, I don't know what is?

Well, you just described many situations I have played and yet I only played when I wanted to. And, it's not just me as I've sat next to many APers. None of them fit your silly description. I know you like to be argumentative, but making up ridiculous scenarios is just plain bizarre.

[Alan Mendelson]

I admit I went off on a tangent and I said something that confuses my point. My point is this and it really was directed at redietz:

Recreational gamblers who will from time to time go to a casino, lose money within limits, but enjoyed their recreational time in the casino should not be called addicts. My point was they go to have fun with a controlled budget. But if you want to call anyone an addict then look at the "advantage players" who go to the casinos with a "war chest bankroll" and a plan that they think will beat the casinos.

Given the differences between a recreational player and an "advantage player" I think the "advantage player" has more signs of addiction than the recreational player who goes to a casino a few times a year.

Yes, Arc, I know what really makes for addictive behavior. I'm simply stating that all of the millions of people who go to casinos for a night out or to try their luck at a casino game are not addicts even if they don't mind losing their "fun money."

[arcimede$]

Alan, if a person only goes to a casino a couple a times a year at most then they certainly are not addicted. However, there are plenty of players that visit casinos on a regular basis that are not APers. In fact, these players far outnumber APers. Addiction is a compulsion to return. APers can be addicted just like anyone else. The big difference is winning players don't often suffer from the problems that can affect players who lose consistently.

Addiction is a response to stimulus. It has nothing to do with playing positive return games.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, if a person only goes to a casino a couple a times a year at most then they certainly are not addicted. However, there are plenty of players that visit casinos on a regular basis that are not APers. In fact, these players far outnumber APers. Addiction is a compulsion to return. APers can be addicted just like anyone else. The big difference is winning players don't often suffer from the problems that can affect players who lose consistently.

Addiction is a response to stimulus. It has nothing to do with playing positive return games.

I pretty much agree with you, Arc, except for this: "winning players don't often suffer from the problems that can affect players who lose consistently." Winning players can also be addicts. Addiction is not measured by wins or losses.

[redietz]

You caught me, Alan. I admit it. I'm an addict. I live in Johnson City TN about 90 miles from Cherokee Casino, which Dancer visited in a recent column, and I'm horrified to confess that I've been there four times in 12 years. I know; it's terrible. And worse than that, I wasted almost 360 minutes playing video poker on those four trips! Imagine the things I could have done with those 360 minutes. And one time, don't tell anyone --please -- I stayed overnight!

It gets worse. About once every six to seven years, I have a losing year! I'm so glad Mom, God bless her soul, isn't alive to witness those years.

It gets even worse. I'm embarrassed to admit, the last time I went to Cherokee, I saw Billy Idol. So not only am I addicted to gambling, I'm addicted to rock-and-roll! Mom always said the devil would get me.

The horror, the horror....

[redietz]

Getting serious for a moment, does the "Doctor" come before or after Mendelson? What I'm asking is if you're an MD who treats addicts or a Ph.D. who researches addiction?

Setting aside for a moment the irresponsibility of someone opining on addiction who knows nothing about it, does it not strike you as odd that the guy who has lost almost every year for 30-something years has decided the guy who has won for 40 years "has a problem?"

Someone appears to be addicted to losing. It ain't me.

[Alan Mendelson]

redietz, you lost me. What is your point?