"Fedomalley" Says He Is On!

[arcimede$]

Let's see ... a couple of years ago, before Robbie's supposed retirement, he stated he had only played at the $100 level a grand total of 3 times out of 250 sessions. It's just another part of the nonsense he is stating so he can claim he was ready to play. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's all just a big bluff.

If he thinks he's such a sure thing then he should have no problem playing with ZERO escrow. The fact he is using this as an excuse says all there is to say about him. No substance whatsoever.

[Rob.Singer]

Yes, obviously I said I can easily beat a bad paytable because I've been doing it for years. You AP's are so convoluted in your thinking that just because a FH pays 8 instead of 9, big winners are impossible to hit. Back to the NSUD dufus again: His "analysis" claims I'll be down 1800 credits at some point, and it's only because I'm playing -EV. I guess he doesn't believe that -EV games can hit winners. Very, very strange.

One more time, my "supporters" as you call them mostly stay out of the forums. You can see many of their numbers if you look at the membership totals and compare that to how many people actually post. I've met with many of them, I've chatted with thousands of them, and I've even had some of the Phoenix locals over to my house and I've been to theirs on invites. They are decent people who dislike either being bombarded with hateful rants from arci -- who follows me around the forums with hateful posts for years now (and people wonder why I put him in his place on vegas rex -- and a few others like him, or who absolutely cannot deal with being accused of being me. Why should they put up with people like you who put saying nasty things about RS beofre decent conversation?

My play strategy is and has always been playing the $1 machine as the lowest level. You yourself have attacked my strategy and results over and over again. Are you now admitting to doing that under the same exact pretenses that Obama went after the Cambridge Police Dept. with---that he had no clue as to what he was criticizing, and he would have been better served to know the facts first?

Here's the basic strategy in very condensed & simple terms: Play 100 credits on BP. Get up 40 credits minimum at any time then cash out and restart. This can happen more than once and will only stop if a minimum +$2500 in profit is accumulated. 40 credits are now in soft profit, never to be risked again. Lose the 100 credits and play 300 credits on SDBP. Cashout every time a minimum 40 credits are won, but if after one or several cashouts you recover the lost 100 credits plus you attain at least a 40 credit profit, then you go back to 100 credits of BP.

Lose the 300 credits on SDBP then play 100 on $2 BP. Here you continue doing the same 40 credit minimum thing, and if you recover all $1 losses ($400) plus attain at least a 40 credit minimum profit (and the soft profit bank is filling up slowly) you go back to $1 BP. (The underlying concept here is that only severe addicts go UP in denomination when they win). If 100 credits are lost on $2 BP, play 300 on SDBP. Continue following the exact same path as above thru all required denominations until the soft profit bank totals at least $2500 AND you have recovered all previous losses.

The $300k is no bluff. Ask AC or Fezzik or Gaming Today, then go over to the Casuarina casino and ask them if they haven't changed mgmt. Your $1k/hour nonsense doesn't make any sense. Stick with the facts. You claimed I can't win WITH MY PLAY STRATEGY, I say I have and can, and there is only one way to protect 2 people who don't trust each other: Adequate Escrow. No nebulous types of extensions, no floating or moving targets....just solid protection. Neither one of us has anything to lose unless we lose the bet. So what's the big deal??? Don't make up that it's me who's trying to back out. You're only exposing yourself even more. I tingle at the thought of making you eat your words, I want this to be filmed so you can constantly be reminded of what a liar you've been, and the ONLY thing really left is for you to agree to deposit $300k cash as I will do. Do you understand that or do I speak German?

Re: your ponts, I will play for 30 hours but I can't guarantee I'll go over or under 15,000 hands. Ever since dumping the ridiculous AP way of playing, I've not played more than 150 hours in ANY year since. And because my play strategy--which is far more complex that simple math-only play--incorporates optimal play as well as numerous special plays that deviate from math theory and there's a constant requirement of calculations being performed, I don't believe I play as much as 500 hph. So you need to stipulate either 30 hours or 15,000 hands.

I will play up to $25 in Laughlin then $100, if required, in LV. Unless of course you can tell me from your experience where I can find the same game in LV that I mentioned I play.

Except for the escrow, these are easy details to work out. I stuill don't think you get that the purpose of me doing this is to watch you squirm awhile you eat your words and lose your money to me. For that to happen I am following the letter of the challenge, which you said you assert that I cannot win with my strategy. Now that you know you spoke without knowing what you were talking about, it doesn't change a thing. Any winning that I have the potential to achieve HAS to be protected by a fully funded escrow account.

You either agree to that or not. If you don't have that much then just say so and ask for more time to get a consortium of those "winning AP's" together for assistance. I'll tell you something, if I were you then I'd jump on that. Dancer says he has a million dollar bankroll, why not get him in on the action? He would only balk if he knew better, right?

[Rob.Singer]

Let's see ... a couple of years ago, before Robbie's supposed retirement, he stated he had only played at the $100 level a grand total of 3 times out of 250 sessions.

so let's see that "claim" arci. Back up that lie please.

[arcimede$]

so let's see that "claim" arci. Back up that lie please.

Here you go, Robbie: "And at least 4 times around that post and at least twice
in this thread, I've told you $100 (LEVEL 6) was actually played 3
times!"

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/message/4240

Don't you just hate it when the truth comes back to haunt you?

[Rob.Singer]

That's funny arci, and I'm glad you provided proof that you've been envious of me for at least the past 5 years. Now the readers wlll understand what kind of a stalker you are. Next you'll be posting threads of where you constantly made fun of my family on videopoker.com, and that one will completely wipe out any sympathy you think you're getting on LVA for how I so enjoyably tear you apart on vegas rex. Remember, what goes around comes around? Five words from the English language that you'll languish over forever.

Oh the $100 machines. Next time pay attention, but as usual, I do appreciate you taking all that time on a Sunday to research my posts on all the other forums. Me? I took my wife out to brunch . I said I had to play them about 20% of the time. As far as individual session play goes, it ended up being around 30 times because of the very heavy play i put in the past few years. And if you knew the play strategy....and if ONLY FEDO knew the play strategy....you'd both know that within a session I can play each denomination multiple times. That's what I was guessing at and referring to, inasmuch as it'll disturb you now that your little theory's been washed away.

Let me suggest something: Only do these things when you know what you're doing. I think Fedo finally got that down too. but....what else do you have going on these days anyway!

You know, it just occurred to me--you're stalking me again on yet another forum trying to supply made-up arguments just because you're frustrated over other things. This thread and forum is ONLY for the discussion of the challenge made by Fedo and isn't about you or your issues. If you want to keep posting then go ahead. I see where you were talking to yourself on LVA yesterday in the thread about me. You do get rattled about me and go over the edge at times don't you Anyway, I won't be replying mostly because I have a happy, life-loving and Healthy wife who I enjoy doing things with and I just don't have the time....like tomorrow morning when I'm taking her, my children and our grandchildren over to the Big Island for the rest of the week. Should I send you guys a post card? I'll be sure to include our happy family on the picture side!

[arcimede$]

Too funny for words.

[Alan Mendelson]

In another thread Rob Singer has proposed a lower "escrow amount" and he wrote: "I'll lower the escrow to $75k."

However, it is not clear to me if the "escrow amount" is the only outstanding issue.

He sent me a text (he says he is in Hawaii) and since his offer was in a lengthy post about other issues, I thought it would be best to isolate that point here.

[arcimede$]

The challenge was set by Dan. No escrow. If Singer wants to accept the challenge he should do it and quit whining. if not, then he needs to shut up. This is all a bluff on Singer's part to try and save face. He will never accept the original challenge.

[surfside]

The challenge was set by Dan. No escrow. If Singer wants to accept the challenge he should do it and quit whining. if not, then he needs to shut up. This is all a bluff on Singer's part to try and save face. He will never accept the original challenge.

No trying to cause trouble but would like to say a few words since Im here. To me $300000 is the same silly amount as $30000. I saw the challange was set up by fedomally(dan?) but here and on Lva he already said his proposal was incomplete and he forgot to addres escrow. The crazy amount RS proposed filled in that blank and Fedomally countered with $30000. Thats sensible because these two have said that there has to be an escrow because of distrust on both parts, which only seems reasonable if you're going to go into a bet. So arcimedes how could anyone have accepted the original challange when both agreed it wasn't 100% yet? Playing videopoker at those denominations for 30 hours and betting these amounts I would definitely want all my t's crossed and i's dotted first, you would too. You really think its a bluff? fedomally somewhere here proposed multiple $30000 escrow extensions so RS lowering it to a flat $75000 looks like a really good compromise to me. I think it could happen.
My 2cents.

[arcimede$]

Surfside, there is no need for any escrow. There never was. If Singer believed his own advertising he shouldn't care one way or the other. He would expect to win money no matter what. Not only that he could throw it in Dan's face if he did renege. Win-win for Singer. Now, explain why he would EVER think an escrow was needed?

One reason and only one, it's all a bluff and Singer already knows his system is worthless.

[surfside]

Surfside, there is no need for any escrow. There never was. If Singer believed his own advertising he shouldn't care one way or the other. He would expect to win money no matter what. Not only that he could throw it in Dan's face if he did renege. Win-win for Singer. Now, explain why he would EVER think an escrow was needed?

One reason and only one, it's all a bluff and Singer already knows his system is worthless.

Im a simple person and all I can do is read what was written about this. RS said he wanted the escrow (silly amount that itis)because he didn't trust the other guy, and then that other guy agreed he forgot to address the escrow and he didnt trust RS and so he wanted one himself. Its not just RS who wants it in other words. Dont you think your words should apply to both guys? It looks like a clearcut issue of trusting one another, or in this case not. Im not seeing a bluff by either guy. It would be good for fedomally to respond to the compromise offer though.

A question if you dont mind. If I, who doesnt know you and vice versa, challanged you to something similar, would you just trust me to pay you if I won the bet? I know I wouldnt trust anyone I didnt know and even most that I do. That looks like the only reason for having an escrow no?

[arcimede$]

This is not a typical bet. In this case Singer has always claimed he has a system that wins over 80% of the time. So, based on his own claims he is has little to no downside on the bet. It's not like he won't get paid the money he wins from a casino. You'd realize that if you took the time to understand what I wrote. He only loses if it turns out he's been dishonest about his claims and he loses at the casinos.

Of course, this is actually the case. Singer knows it as well and that is why he came up with the ridiculous number in the first place. He does not really want to play.

[surfside]

This is not a typical bet. In this case Singer has always claimed he has a system that wins over 80% of the time. So, based on his own claims he is has little to no downside on the bet. It's not like he won't get paid the money he wins from a casino. You'd realize that if you took the time to understand what I wrote. He only loses if it turns out he's been dishonest about his claims and he loses at the casinos.

Of course, this is actually the case. Singer knows it as well and that is why he came up with the ridiculous number in the first place. He does not really want to play.

I dont know..does it really matter what if anything he wins from the casino on a bet like this? That looks to be away from the whole point of the challange doesnt it? Thinking of it in those terms Id ask why not just play on one of those computer programs instead of in a casino. The challange would still be there and they would both still require an escrow as I see this. They both want escrow, not RS alone. Are you understanding that ? Isnt it now just a matter of amount, which RS came down to and maybe even below fedomally's multiple $30000 ones he put forth? I think theyre both trying, lets stay out of it and think positive with positive comments.

Does he win or lose at casinos, I dont know. Who does about anyone? All I know personally is if I sit at my 25c machine all day playing 1600 credits I usually either lose all of it or some of it even when I hit aces or lots of 4 ofa kinds. If I creeped up in coin value then it just seems that those hits would be high value enough to put me in the black. Most of the time, remembering that a loss would be large too. But at a 80% win rate the risk looks low. Too rich for my blood though so I couldnt try it.

Well have to wait to see what happened to fedomally here and on Lva. I know you have a history with RS and thats probably clouding what you say about him being not honest or not wanting to play. As an outsider he doesnt give me any impression like that at all, and fedomally doesnt either. I take it at face value.

[arcimede$]

The original offer was made and Singer basically turned it down by insisting on an escrow. I suspect Dan realized that it was unlikely that Singer would pay off so he now favors a reasonable escrow. He is actually the one who is at risk in the bet since he gains nothing if Singer reneges on paying.

Singer will never play ... mark my words. The one thing about "having a history" is you actually know a persons motivations. And, believe me there is nothing "clouding" my view. I've caught Singer in hundreds of lies over the years. It's hard to have anything positive to say about a person who lies constantly.

[surfside]

The original offer was made and Singer basically turned it down by insisting on an escrow. I suspect Dan realized that it was unlikely that Singer would pay off so he now favors a reasonable escrow. He is actually the one who is at risk in the bet since he gains nothing if Singer reneges on paying.

Singer will never play ... mark my words. The one thing about "having a history" is you actually know a persons motivations. And, believe me there is nothing "clouding" my view. I've caught Singer in hundreds of lies over the years. It's hard to have anything positive to say about a person who lies constantly.

My last post on this, your agenda is too clear and more senseless than anything. Your too angry with RS right? but only those on the outside would see it because you keep insisting he turned the bet down when he didnt and only required an escrow which fedomally agreed that he forgot to include in his prop. I respect you have a suspection of why Dan reacted as he did but it looks as if it all goes back to your feud and is not logical. Saying fedomally is at risk somehow is odd because the escrow covers that risk. How does one renege when there is an escrow? I dont get why you say such things.

The supposed lying by anyone is neither here or there when it comes to internet posts. Ive read where he says the same thing about you. Whose lies you him or both? I know factually you have lied because youve accused me of being him on 2 forums several times. Then you keep claiming RS doesnt want to play this bet when his writings are clear that he does. Why such a bold lie, you dont believe others can read? The only history of anything Ive seen through the years is a couple of the same RS dislikers talking trash because they dont like how he plays, and then he puts up or accepts challanges and they quikly retreat, like here. It looks like fedomally posted this morning on Lva in general and is avoiding the challange. Can you talk him into it instead of your usual ragging on RS?

[arcimede$]

What a bunch of nonsense. Yes, we can now see your AGENDA surfacing. What is YOUR relationship to Singer?

BTW, no one cares how Singer "plays", it's only when he starts spouting mathematical nonsense that anyone cares. Add to that his insistence on using his own player's card when he "educates" others in his worthless system and it becomes apparent to anyone with any common sense that he is pushing a con. Sorry, if you can't figure that out, but those of us who can add two and two know.

BTW, show me where I claimed you were Singer. Let's see if you can back up your assertion. I'm betting you can't.

I'm also sure Singer will never play this challenge. Con men run away when their con gets too much light.

[Alan Mendelson]

Regarding the post above, let me point out that in the course of presenting our videos about Rob Singer's "special plays" Rob was careful to point out the correct "math" for each play -- including the math that is determined by what is called the "correct play" and the math that his special play offers. In all cases, he admits that his "special plays" have an upfront disadvantage. But again, he is hoping that with some luck his "disadvantaged hold" (and that is a term that I use) will create a big win.

In my time spent with Singer he was also careful to explain that he does not avoid or disregard the math, and if I recall he says he follows the correct math of each play about 95% of the time. He puts aside the "correct math plays" only a very small percentage of the time when he feels that there is the opportunity to score a big win -- a jackpot.

You can review these explanations and see his "math" for the examples that he gave us.

Rob Singer sent me a text message asking if there has been a response to his offer of having an escrow set at $75,000 and so far I have not seen a response.

While I appreciate the discussion here, please avoid all personal attacks. We created this forum as a result of the personal attacks that destroyed the TV Spy forum for the TV industry and we don't want personal attacks to damage what we created here. We do welcome objective discussion. Thank you.