To my friend: stop going to casinos.

[mickeycrimm]

Please do not criticize me for this but I need to check some alleged facts here. It was written above that Rob had said and/or accomplished the following and I'd like to know if these statements are true and if these events are possible. These come from kewlj's post.

His claims have zero basis in mathematics. 4 royal in 5 hours play, playing only free play. Special magical plays. Progressive betting and stop limits turning -EV games into +EV.

1. First question is, can you win at video poker without your win having a basis in mathematics? In other words can you get lucky? And hasn't Rob repeatedly said he plays conventional strategy which is based on math more than 95% of the time and why is this ignored?

2. Is four royals in five hours of play that impossible?

3. Is it also possible that he did have substantial free play offers and even banked and stored free play? (I used to regularly get $2500 of free play from Caesars when I played big.)

4. Did Rob ever claim that he made a -EV game a +EV game through progressive betting and stop losses? In all the years I followed Rob and spoke with him I never heard him say he turned a -EV game into a +EV game, but he did say he won money at -EV games. Is winning at -EV games impossible?

Mickeycrimm wrote something above that needs clarification. Mickey wrote that Rob " hid behind a phony name until arci exposed who you really are." Which phoney name was this? I ask because there have been so many allegations that I've lost track.

Jbjb wrote "Hes a scammer. His M.O. is to say he'll train you for free. You use your own money to learn. If you win, he wants a cut." I need some more information about this too. Who has been trained by Rob and then Rob asked for a cut of the win? By the way there were also allegations that Rob had his students play on his club card and this was never proven. In fact has anyone ever come forward to say they were actually trained by Rob?

He invented the pen name Rob Singer for a reason. He didn't want anyone to know who he was. His history with arci goes back to the early 2000's on FREEvpFREE where arci posted under a username something like "mroejacks." Through his posts Rob had given up enough information about himself that arci, a pretty good detective with a computer, was able to determine who Rob was, Robert Harry "Bob" Argentino, and where he lived. And he discovered that Argentino wasn't living in a big house that he bragged about but a small apartment. An apartment that Argentino was later evicted from.

[Alan Mendelson]

Mickeycrimm do you have any idea how many TV news reporters and anchors don't use their real names because their true names aren't considered to be attractive or they might be ethnic? This criticism of the use of the name Rob Singer is ridiculous.

And I don't recall anything about an eviction. I recall a lawsuit over a small payment that wasn't made when Rob left a rental.

And what's wrong with rentals? One third of Americans live in rentals including some very wealthy people in New York and California.

[mickeycrimm]

Mickeycrimm do you have any idea how many TV news reporters and anchors don't use their real names because their true names aren't considered to be attractive or they might be ethnic? This criticism of the use of the name Rob Singer is ridiculous.

And I don't recall anything about an eviction. I recall a lawsuit over a small payment that wasn't made when Rob left a rental.

And what's wrong with rentals? One third of Americans live in rentals including some very wealthy people in New York and California.

My criticism is of Rob's use of a fictitious name but calls out other forum members for using fictitious names. Don't you see the hypocrisy in that, Alan? Rob did not voluntarily expose his real name years ago. It was exposed by others.

[Alan Mendelson]

No mickeycrimm he used a pen name. Hundreds of writers, actors, newscasters use pen names or stage names or fictitious names. Nothing wrong with it.

Are you really Mickey Crimm? You have said Mickey Crimm is not your correct name though you are part of the Crimm family.

[mickeycrimm]

No mickeycrimm he used a pen name. Hundreds of writers, actors, newscasters use pen names or stage names or fictitious names. Nothing wrong with it.

Are you really Mickey Crimm? You have said Mickey Crimm is not your correct name though you are part of the Crimm family.

Yes, I have said that.

[kewlJ]

Please do not criticize me for this but I need to check some alleged facts here. It was written above that Rob had said and/or accomplished the following and I'd like to know if these statements are true and if these events are possible. These come from kewlj's post.

His claims have zero basis in mathematics. 4 royal in 5 hours play, playing only free play. Special magical plays. Progressive betting and stop limits turning -EV games into +EV.

1. First question is, can you win at video poker without your win having a basis in mathematics? In other words can you get lucky? And hasn't Rob repeatedly said he plays conventional strategy which is based on math more than 95% of the time and why is this ignored?

2. Is four royals in five hours of play that impossible?

3. Is it also possible that he did have substantial free play offers and even banked and stored free play? (I used to regularly get $2500 of free play from Caesars when I played big.)

4. Did Rob ever claim that he made a -EV game a +EV game through progressive betting and stop losses? In all the years I followed Rob and spoke with him I never heard him say he turned a -EV game into a +EV game, but he did say he won money at -EV games. Is winning at -EV games impossible?

Mickeycrimm wrote something above that needs clarification. Mickey wrote that Rob " hid behind a phony name until arci exposed who you really are." Which phoney name was this? I ask because there have been so many allegations that I've lost track.

Jbjb wrote "Hes a scammer. His M.O. is to say he'll train you for free. You use your own money to learn. If you win, he wants a cut." I need some more information about this too. Who has been trained by Rob and then Rob asked for a cut of the win? By the way there were also allegations that Rob had his students play on his club card and this was never proven. In fact has anyone ever come forward to say they were actually trained by Rob?

Alan, just stop. It is time you stop defending this nonsense. Rob is seriously disturbed. He is living in a fantasy world where his sock puppet supporters are his friends. Alan, you aren't helping him by defending him like this. You are enabling a very sick person. Contributing to his sickness.

In answer to your questions. For the hundredth time, You can not grind your way to over a million dollars profit playing a -EV game. You need something to make the game +EV to do that. And that is what Rob's claim is grinding....over 10 years.

As per the hit 4 royal in 5 hours using Free play. Hitting 4 royals in 5 hours is not impossible (like 18 y.o.'s in a row) but it is very, very unlikely. It would be extremely rare. Now you have to ask yourself (as a real and objective journalist would), why are all these extremely unlikely events and outcomes part of Singer's claims? One of these claims is not impossible, but the accumulation of many unlikely claims is. Stop turning a blind eye to this shit Alan.

Many, many other inconsistencies as well. In one breath Rob says he doesn't play rated. In the next he got over 5 hours worth of free play. That is a lot of free play. How do you get that playing unrated.

As for jbjb's claim. That is a serious claim. If that is true, and it has been alluded to here several times, that is worthy of this person being banned permanently as he is at most other forums. If true, he is using this forum to scam players for profit. I have often wondered just what this Rob Singer person's angle was. I knew it had to be something involving financial reward beside promoting that stupid book that has been debunked by everyone credible, I just didn't know what that financial benefit might be. This claim would explain it.

I hope you are not in on this Alan. And really you are, whether you knowingly aided this guy or not, because this kind of scam just cannot work without other members aiding and enabling the perpetrator. And that has been your role since day 1 Alan. It is time for this to stop.

[Bill Yung]

You pineapples have to be the dumbest in the lot. Singer, the big scammer?

Those guys really do live in expensive houses. Not to mention the write-ups on them across the internet, from persons who have had dealings with them, etc. The internet is full of stuff against the minor players, as well.

Nothing like molehills turning into mountains, and gamblers. You guys "investigate" the ones you shouldn't, but not the ones you should.

[Rob.Singer]

Please do not criticize me for this but I need to check some alleged facts here. It was written above that Rob had said and/or accomplished the following and I'd like to know if these statements are true and if these events are possible. These come from kewlj's post.

His claims have zero basis in mathematics. 4 royal in 5 hours play, playing only free play. Special magical plays. Progressive betting and stop limits turning -EV games into +EV.

1. First question is, can you win at video poker without your win having a basis in mathematics? In other words can you get lucky? And hasn't Rob repeatedly said he plays conventional strategy which is based on math more than 95% of the time and why is this ignored?

2. Is four royals in five hours of play that impossible?

3. Is it also possible that he did have substantial free play offers and even banked and stored free play? (I used to regularly get $2500 of free play from Caesars when I played big.)

4. Did Rob ever claim that he made a -EV game a +EV game through progressive betting and stop losses? In all the years I followed Rob and spoke with him I never heard him say he turned a -EV game into a +EV game, but he did say he won money at -EV games. Is winning at -EV games impossible?

Mickeycrimm wrote something above that needs clarification. Mickey wrote that Rob " hid behind a phony name until arci exposed who you really are." Which phoney name was this? I ask because there have been so many allegations that I've lost track.

Jbjb wrote "Hes a scammer. His M.O. is to say he'll train you for free. You use your own money to learn. If you win, he wants a cut." I need some more information about this too. Who has been trained by Rob and then Rob asked for a cut of the win? By the way there were also allegations that Rob had his students play on his club card and this was never proven. In fact has anyone ever come forward to say they were actually trained by Rob?

Alan, just stop. It is time you stop defending this nonsense. Rob is seriously disturbed. He is living in a fantasy world where his sock puppet supporters are his friends. Alan, you aren't helping him by defending him like this. You are enabling a very sick person. Contributing to his sickness.

In answer to your questions. For the hundredth time, You can not grind your way to over a million dollars profit playing a -EV game. You need something to make the game +EV to do that. And that is what Rob's claim is grinding....over 10 years.

As per the hit 4 royal in 5 hours using Free play. Hitting 4 royals in 5 hours is not impossible (like 18 y.o.'s in a row)

Kew likes to disregard proof because AP's never utilize it in their silly claims.

I'm wondering how kew makes peace with the 3 royals along with four A'sw/kicker--all on the same $2 single line machine at SP in June 2-1/2 years ago (did you get that spock....as you STILL can't find a way to spin or dispute my nearly $3million retirement account ) which were accompanied by something he just couldn't live with: all four W2G's, hahahaha!

The idiot is a total phony and he spends so much time railing against me because he knows how and why I know everything about his make-believe world.

Squirm some more kew. I LOVE it!

[Alan Mendelson]

Kewlj are you really going to tell us no one wins playing -EV games?

[AxelWolf]

No one that plays like Rob does.

[jbjb]

Kewlj are you really going to tell us no one wins playing -EV games?

Nobody, yes NOBODY, can make a living playing -EV games.

To answer your question, you have to define "winning." Anyone can "win" on any given hand, slot pull, roll of the dice, etc. But the longer you do it, the less likely you'll be ahead.

[redietz]

Kewlj are you really going to tell us no one wins playing -EV games?

Nobody, yes NOBODY, can make a living playing -EV games.

To answer your question, you have to define "winning." Anyone can "win" on any given hand, slot pull, roll of the dice, etc. But the longer you do it, the less likely you'll be ahead.

I wanted to thank jbjb for highlighting some of the language obfuscation that I have to think certain people are purposefully employing. When one says, "Are you saying nobody wins at negative EV games," present tense is being employed. Note that the present tense divorces the statement from any grounding in a time frame or number of hands and leaves the statement abstract and vague. Now obviously, the author could choose to ask the same question in a more precise and clear manner, either referencing a time frame or a number of hands or employing the phrase "will win" as a stated predictor. But the author chose to not employ precise terms or clarify his question. One wonders why the author chose that construction.

These kinds of writing choices are purposeful, and one should follow up by asking the author why more concrete questions weren't asked.

The implication I draw from this kind of writing choice is that the author is either trying to be purposefully vague or to draw the person asked into making what would be an inappropriate response like, "Nobody wins at negative EV games." That response is inappropriate because it lacks, as did the question, a reference to time frame, number of hands, or whether the statement is meant to be predictive. It's a question meant to evoke a gotcha response, just as the dice cup problem was written so as to evoke an incorrect answer.

Jbjb recognized the gotcha trap, and his response was very useful, as he put the topic into practical, making-a-living terms. That's probably why there was no immediate response.

Now what I would suggest is that the original author of that question be asked something like, "What percentage of people playing 2,000 hours of negative EV video poker do you think win?" Or "Are you saying that somebody wins long term at negative EV games?"

Then the onus is on the original author to be clear and make at least a semi-mathematical statement that can be evaluated.

[Deech]

Or, as my Dad would say from Brookllyn, “ You are not gonna win games that you cannot win”. And he never went west of Jersey.

[Alan Mendelson]

Kewlj are you really going to tell us no one wins playing -EV games?

Nobody, yes NOBODY, can make a living playing -EV games.

To answer your question, you have to define "winning." Anyone can "win" on any given hand, slot pull, roll of the dice, etc. But the longer you do it, the less likely you'll be ahead.

Yeah... the "less likely." But you're not going to say impossible are you?

And the reason you can't say impossible is because there's no assurance that anyone is going to come put ahead on +EV games and that's because of variance, right?

Now I can't tell you if Rob really has a profit or not because he won't show his records or tax returns. But I know this -- and you can fight me for the next fifty years if you want to -- people who play high denomination machines can hit big winners and if they're lucky enough or smart enough not to give it back they can score big profits.

Look... when I hit those $100k royals I had a profit playing video poker, but I lost money playing craps. It doesn't take a $100k royal to give you a profit either. If a 25-cent VP player one day decides to play $1 video poker and hits a royal that player can easily show a profit for the year as well.

And while you reject Rob's quit when ahead strategy the truth is quitting after hitting a big winner does keep the money in your pocket longer. You still might lose it later, but while you're not gambling it's all in your pocket. And that's a nice feeling.

I don't gamble at high limits anymore but when I hit the ALL at craps for $1065 ($155 + $155 + $755) it sure is a great feeling to go home with whatever that net profit was.

[redietz]

Kewlj are you really going to tell us no one wins playing -EV games?

Nobody, yes NOBODY, can make a living playing -EV games.

To answer your question, you have to define "winning." Anyone can "win" on any given hand, slot pull, roll of the dice, etc. But the longer you do it, the less likely you'll be ahead.

Yeah... the "less likely." But you're not going to say impossible are you?

And the reason you can't say impossible is because there's no assurance that anyone is going to come put ahead on +EV games and that's because of variance, right?

Now I can't tell you if Rob really has a profit or not because he won't show his records or tax returns. But I know this -- and you can fight me for the next fifty years if you want to -- people who play high denomination machines can hit big winners and if they're lucky enough or smart enough not to give it back they can score big profits.

Look... when I hit those $100k royals I had a profit playing video poker, but I lost money playing craps. It doesn't take a $100k royal to give you a profit either. If a 25-cent VP player one day decides to play $1 video poker and hits a royal that player can easily show a profit for the year as well.

And while you reject Rob's quit when ahead strategy the truth is quitting after hitting a big winner does keep the money in your pocket longer. You still might lose it later, but while you're not gambling it's all in your pocket. And that's a nice feeling.

I don't gamble at high limits anymore but when I hit the ALL at craps for $1065 ($155 + $155 + $755) it sure is a great feeling to go home with whatever that net profit was.

"I also know this -- and you can fight me for the next fifty years if you want to -- people who play Mega-Millions can hit big winners and if they're lucky enough or smart enough not to give it back they can score big profits."

"The truth is quitting after hitting a big lottery winner does keep the money in your pocket longer."

"I also know this -- and you can fight me for the next fifty years if you want to -- people who play 10-team parlay cards can hit big winners and if they're lucky enough or smart enough to not give it back they can score big profits."

"The truth is quitting after hitting a big parlay card does keep the money in your pocket longer."

"I don't gamble at high limits anymore but when I hit the 10-team parlay card for 10K, it sure is a great feeling to go home with whatever that net profit was."


When you simply insert "Mega-Millions" or "10-team parlay card" for the phrase "video poker royal," the banality and absurdity of the advice becomes obvious. Yet somehow this is supposed to be something worth saying when it comes to video poker.

The problems in the writing here are that, again, there is a kind of reference to a present tense, which is something kewlJ mentioned in previous posts. There are references to "keeping the money in your pocket" longer, a present tense phrase. Nothing references time frame or number of hands or anything semi-mathematical. It's all about feelings in the present tense. Thus, the "gambling advice" being given in posts like this is all about generating feelings in the moment. It's an appeal to the idea that an emotional state is the desired goal. By making the nature of video poker and craps play emotional, the author sidesteps the math. The math doesn't help one achieve emotional states.

I haven't read much personality theory material in the last 20 years, but in the old days, this would have been considered textbook "impulsivity." Behaviors are constantly put in service of achieving immediate emotional states. The long-term is ignored or at least rarely considered.

It's "impulsivity" in all of its textbook glory.

[Deech]

Math is like whisky, it is an acquired taste. Some have an aversion to it and some will only use it for medicinal purposes.

Holy crap, I just had a Bill Yung moment. More, Larry, the cheese.

[Bill Yung]

Anybody notice the manic-depressive cycle to this forum, with a flurry of posting, and, then, the noticeable lulls in action?

Perhaps, bipolar disorder has something to do with "shilling" for the casinos. That thing that jbjb always talks about here. You know, how good it is to see everyone losing more money so that he (and the casinos) can make more. I bet these guys think that all the time they play at the casinos. It would be sort of a crazy thought, now that I think about it. It's illegal to hire shills, anymore, so the casinos have to wait from someone to "graduate" from the strawberry patch of the "smartest of the dumb" to take up the "honor".

[Bill Yung]

Math is like whisky, it is an acquired taste. Some have an aversion to it and some will only use it for medicinal purposes.

Holy crap, I just had a Bill Yung moment. More, Larry, the cheese.

It seems that they will argue only with Alan because he's the only one who know less math here. Alan still cleans house. "Evil" Alan.

[Rob.Singer]

Kewlj are you really going to tell us no one wins playing -EV games?

Nobody, yes NOBODY, can make a living playing -EV games.

To answer your question, you have to define "winning." Anyone can "win" on any given hand, slot pull, roll of the dice, etc. But the longer you do it, the less likely you'll be ahead.

jbjb, you remain confused, only this time it's because you're taking the position of one of the little people.

Yes I won CONSISTENTLY playing mostly -EV vp games for ten years, and I still win playing them. But I did not truly "make a living" in doing so. $90k to $100k a year might seem like a lot to you, but all it was to me is spending money.

[Bill Yung]

Beating a "-EV" is the only way to truly beat a casino. Otherwise you are not only pissing in he wind, but crapping in a hurricane.