Gaming Today

[Nash]

On an older thread Rob said that Deuces Wild was a suckers' or losers' game with no large payouts.

I had a Royal dealt to me on 50 cent Deuces Wild last Saturday morning at Rincon.

[Alan Mendelson]

I think a player who plays every day can have days when they sit at a machine and quickly hit a big winner. But for an occasional player to do it as often as Rob claims challenges even the great gambler fantasies.

[Vegas_lover]

That seems reasonable, but his stated record of big wins on short play is extremely long and goes back years, like this one from April of 2010:



Not only does it sound almost exactly the same as some of what he's posted in the past couple of days, it's got all his talking points; huge wins in a short time, knocks against the reality based VP community, and Robs glee when he believes he's causing others pain. I have a feeling you won't find him recanting that any time soon.

Here is an interesting question for you, and everyone else as well; how many times have you walked into a casino and hit a phenomenal win in your first 10 minutes? How about how many times have you seen someone else sit next to you and do the same? I've never seen either one, but few will be surprised to find out that Rob has claimed all of the following during his "retirement" play.

"I hit a dollar royal on my 4th hand of 6/5 BP after losing my first three."

"I only played ten minutes and hit a bottom line royal"

"Last night at Fandango I was also dealt my 3rd ever, (royal), on $2.
Wasn't there more than 10 minutes"

"Two hands in I was dealt AhKhQhJh10d. She was really into this now and told me to hold the straight. After I giggled and explained the hand to her, the ol' fifth card flip-over popped up again and I had a $2k royal"

And that was just some of the short ones: it would take forever to compile all the wins he claimed that were hit in less than a half hour, and even more if we include all the non-jackpot but highly unusual posts as well such as this one which might be of interest to those who were asking about Rob and DW.

That previous example of the 50 cent heart royal is interesting for another reason as well: the various stories surrounding it have changed a few times. You can read the initial report here, and in this version it was a 50 cent royal. A year later, in this VPFree post, the amount has been changed to a dollar, and there are variations in other aspects of the story as well.

Amazingly, there appears to be yet a 3rd portion to this as well. In this LVA post by BAGiant (Bob), Bob relates a text from Rob he received that showed a 50 cent heart royal that Rob claimed he hit at the Silverton. Rob was posting all his wins here, and never mentioned a 50 cent royal at the Silverton during that time period, however a few weeks later he did write:



He wrote he hit a 50 cent royal at the pizza shop, and then he texted Bob he hit a 50 cent royal at Silverton, both of which were hearts and both of which were in September. I have no idea what excuse he's going to use for this, (I just know he will have one because he always does), but the fact that both were reported as being hearts brings up the possibility he was "double dipping" on that royal, assuming he hit one at all.

And it is situations such as these that make me question everything Rob posts. It's a rare event when everything surrounding Rob's claim of a win is "clean", and that coupled with a win rate that defies common sense and a complete refusal to provide definitive proof of even one win should make every reasonable person skeptical.

And I'm still surprised how fast every discussion about his latest 100.000 "win" has died down. There's still absolutely no verification of the machine, what's the machine number?, where is it located? Is it actually a $25 machine? The fact that Alan says he's shown the picture to a knowledgeable person doesn't mean much. It's not definite. I'm also surprised how easily the argument about taking pictures of big wins was dismissed. Rob was very clear about why he edited the picture (he could get into trouble with the casino for taking that picture in the HL area) while you can clearly see in the picture of the jackpot there's another person standing in de background taking a picture of something else. Very convenient to dismiss/ignore this. Why does that happen? I believe an argument like this is very important when the "winner" is telling tales of the exact opposite.

Another thing that's very telling about Rob. Eveytime he posts some extraordinary tale of big wins the insults start flying around and discussions about his big win being real start. Few people actually believe Rob's claims and he enjoys throwing around personal insults. I believe he does this to steer away from the debate about the validity of his claims. And every time, after a couple of days of insults flying around a couple of people seem to be getting too close to the truth. Then Rob misteriously disappears for a number of days. I guess he hopes we've all forgotten about his latest SNAFU by the time he gets back.

Even Rob's retirement as a VP professional hasn't changed much. He still posts a large amount of big wins while he hardly ever plays. All these big wins came to him because of his strategy or pure luck, he's still the number 2 poster on this forum (and he's still active on other forums as well) and all of this is happening while all this VP stuff doesn't matter that much to him anymore. For somebody who's enjoying retirement so much he sure does spend an afwul lot of time playing VP and talking about it. I'm kinda surprised he even has the time to travel.

[Alan Mendelson]

And I'm still surprised how fast every discussion about his latest 100.000 "win" has died down.

It's "died down" because no one has looked at the machine to confirm the appearance of the $25 on the screen. The earliest I could possibly drive up to Vegas would be Feb. 26-27 and I'm not sure I can make it even then. And while the person I showed the photo to believes it is legitimate he can't guarantee that it is because he hasn't seen this particular machine either.

[Alan Mendelson]

Here is an interesting question for you, and everyone else as well; how many times have you walked into a casino and hit a phenomenal win in your first 10 minutes?

I'm sure it happens but it doesn't happen with any regularity to anyone... except Rob Singer.

Now, I can tell you about some "amazing wins" ---

About six months ago my son hit five (5) $1 royals in 24 hours. Four were at Caesars, 1 was a progressive at the Gold Strike in Jean on the ride up. Yet, at the end of that 24 hour period all the money was gone as he had to plow back most of the money to hit the next royal.

I've had some experiences myself:

1. I once hit a $1 royal with $100 in a machine at Rincon.

2. I once hit quad aces playing aces and faces on a $5 machine paying $2,000 with $300 in the machine.

3. I once hit two $5 progressive royals just a few hands apart at Caesars. I have to give you the details of this:

the first royal came on a $5 bonus machine and it was a progressive paying $24,000+. After I hit the royal I played one more hand on that machine and then played on another machine while waiting for the handpay where I hit quads of some kind -- I dont remember. Then I went to play craps. About eight hours later I went to the $5 Jacks or Better progressive at Caesars and deposited $200 -- hitting trips on the first play, a full house on the second play and the royal on the third play for $21,000.

Now, these three events stick out in my mind because they are the only three events like them in the more than ten years that I've been playing video poker.

Of course I have hit other royals (I had eight last year) and about 8 years ago I was dealt a royal on a 50-play machine playing nickels (paid $10k).

But over the years I've played hundreds of thousands of hands and I've played some sessions for six or eight hours at a time. I also had that drought two years ago when I didn't hit a royal in something like 170,000 hands (or was it more?).

I was also at Rincon one night about two years ago when a lady hit a $50,000 progressive royal and then about four hours later she hit another royal on the same machine for about $22,000.

And this is why Rob's claims about so many big wins in such a limited amount of play is so "magical" or "imaginative" (you decide).

[Vegas_lover]

It's "died down" because no one has looked at the machine to confirm the appearance of the $25 on the screen. The earliest I could possibly drive up to Vegas would be Feb. 26-27 and I'm not sure I can make it even then. And while the person I showed the photo to believes it is legitimate he can't guarantee that it is because he hasn't seen this particular machine either.

And don't forget that Rob completely refused to share any proof that would validate this jackpot. But then again, that's not exactly a novelty.

[Alan Mendelson]

And don't forget that Rob completely refused to share any proof that would validate this jackpot. But then again, that's not exactly a novelty.

I have mixed feelings about this.

On the one hand, he could have sent me a photo of the W2G for confirmation purposes only with the condition that I only say that I saw it. But he didn't.

On the other hand, I can understand that he thinks he shouldn't be obligated to show a W2G because no one else shows W2Gs.

However, Rob should understand that he has made some remarkable claims for someone who plays only a limited amount of video poker and based on his system would only play a few hands at these high denominations. He claims his system is responsible then he should be proud to show the proof.

Right now, he is the video poker emperor without any clothes.

[Spock]

I've had some experiences myself:

1. I once hit a $1 royal with $100 in a machine at Rincon.

2. I once hit quad aces playing aces and faces on a $5 machine paying $2,000 with $300 in the machine.

3. I once hit two $5 progressive royals just a few hands apart at Caesars.

These seem relatively normal to me, especially when considering they are kind of the "rare exception" and not the rule. Since you didn't mention any time on the first two I assume it wasn't within a few hands but that you had enough luck early on to be able to play a while, although I'd guess both probably came relatively quickly.

Your third example is of course is a little further out there, but that too is expected. Most people are going to have some wild hits/days from time to time.

I can only remember 2 different occasions where my wins were what I would consider out of the ordinary. In one I hit aces with a kicker in DDB within my first 15-20 minutes in the casino. I took my winnings and tried another machine playing bonus deuces and in a very short period of time I was dealt 1 deuce and drew 3 more and an ace. That was enough for me and I was soon heading out the door.

The other time I had $45 in free play and I got it up to a couple hundred playing STP. I wandered around trying a little bit until I settled in at a $1 BDW. Up to this point I had probably played 30-45 minutes, and after another 15-20 I thought I'd gotten 5 aces for $400 but then noticed the machine had locked up and what I had was actually 4 deuces and the ace, for $2,000. Oddly enough, I can't remember for certain but I believe those were the only 2 times I've hit 4 deuces with an ace even though I've played a lot of BDW over the years.

And this is why Rob's claims about so many big wins in such a limited amount of play is so "magical" or "imaginative" (you decide).

Neither of those words are quite right for what I'm thinking.

[Alan Mendelson]

If you ask me any W2G win is a miracle. Rob Singer has just had too many miracles for a guy who doesn't spend too much time in the video poker church.

[Vegas_lover]

I have mixed feelings about this..

I don't! Results from the past are a guarantee for the future. He has delivered zero evidence to back up his claimes. Not anything useable in over 2500+ posts. Sometimes I wonder where you find the "strenght" to have any belief in the guy

[Alan Mendelson]

I don't! Results from the past are a guarantee for the future. He has delivered zero evidence to back up his claimes. Not anything useable in over 2500+ posts. Sometimes I wonder where you find the "strenght" to have any belief in the guy

He was a published columnist for GT years back, and he does have a reputation for big wins that were confirmed back then. That gives him a certain measure of credibility. However, that doesn't mean he shouldn't also back up his newest claims especially when they appear to be so extreme -- meaning so many big wins with such little play. But he might feel that he doesn't have to back up his new claims.

Personally, if I were him, I would jump at the chance to prove the big wins to let the world know he still has his magic touch. And if he is hitting those big wins with very little play (casino win/loss statements would help establish this) he could become a video poker folk hero and probably publish another book about it.

[redietz]

Apply some logic here. He would probably publish another book about it, anyway, if (A) he had done it or (B) he hadn't done it but wouldn't run into problems posting photos of other people's jackpots.

[Alan Mendelson]

This reminds me of something that happened to me once at Caesars... I hit a $2 royal and the player next to me said "I never saw a royal before. Do you mind if I take a picture of it?" I said sure and he took the photo. Now I wonder if he showed it to his friends claiming it was HIS royal?

Another time at Caesars, the dealers were telling me that earlier in the day a shooter hit all six points for the Fire Bet. BUT NO ONE had bet the Fire Bet. Yet, several players at the table were shooting photos of the Fire Bet lamers on the layout.

"Why are you taking the photos?" a dealer said he asked the players.
Several of the players said they had never seen this before and wanted to show their friends.
And now I wonder how many of those players claimed that they had money on the Fire Bet or even that they threw the six points to make the Fire Bet?

[Spock]

... he does have a reputation for big wins that were confirmed back then.

And you know this because ????? Are we back to "because Rob said so"? It's funny how frequently that seems to be the answer to the question.

I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm just saying that there doesn't appear to be any verifiable information about it at this point, and I find the fact that Rob continually pushes it to be less than comforting.

Relying on something that can't be proven to help support another contention that can't be proven doesn't seem to be very wise.

[Alan Mendelson]

And you know this because ?????

I remember reading Rob's columns in GT. GT was one of the free papers that were available in the California card casinos. GT and some poker magazines and newspapers were at just about every seat in the casino. When you play poker there is plenty of time to "read" between hands you play. However, I wouldn't doubt that the most read page in GT was the one with the pin up girl.

[quahaug]

I remember reading Rob's columns in GT. GT was one of the free papers that were available in the California card casinos. GT and some poker magazines and newspapers were at just about every seat in the casino. When you play poker there is plenty of time to "read" between hands you play. However, I wouldn't doubt that the most read page in GT was the one with the pin up girl.

"Pin up girl" Sounds so quaint.

[Spock]

Alan, I think you may have missed my emphasis added to your original quote regarding confirmation.

I don't doubt Rob wrote a column for GT, I'm just stating that to the best of my knowledge there is no way of knowing how, or if, any of his wins were verified based on the information we have today.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, I think you may have missed my emphasis added to your original quote regarding confirmation.

I don't doubt Rob wrote a column for GT, I'm just stating that to the best of my knowledge there is no way of knowing how, or if, any of his wins were verified based on the information we have today.

You're right, we don't. Nor do we have any evidence supporting anyone's claims or reports including mine, Arc's, redietz's, regnis', Nash's and so forth.

Granted, I think we all agree that only Rob's claims are at the extreme end of amazing wins and only because of that I think Rob should show us just how lucky... or how great... he was with those wins.