To my friend: stop going to casinos.

[Rob.Singer]

Just some logical points:

1) Won/loss statements don't prove or disprove Rob's systems. Somebody, somewhere in this vast universe has won as much or more than Rob with the same or less play. Pulling their won/loss statements doesn't validate or invalidate any strategy they used. That's pretty obvious.

2) The proof lies in the proofs, as Arci would say. Now perhaps Rob has discovered heretofore unknown laws of mathematics. I do not know, as I am not a mathematician, although I do know a handful of people who teach college mathematics. Now, Alan could simply consult professional mathematicians and report their opinions, but he has not done so, for whatever reasons. Maybe he feels silly doing so. I don't know. Logic and math should pre-empt won-loss statements, but some folks have a hard time subordinating their opinions to logic and math.

3) Did those Gaming Today articles by Rob ever make the light of day? I pick up copies whenever I'm in LV, but haven't spied one yet. I do need to drop by the GT offices in July to get the lowdown on that stuff.

I agree with #1. And since IRS policies (can we really believe in or trust anything they say or do anymore?) tell auditors to ignore those silly casino statements for obvious reasons, so shouldn't we all.

There's a continuing assumption that I have somehow circumnavigated the math books with my ability to win, and as a rule, that does not seem ignorable. What the community of geniuses cannot appear to digest, is that there is a certain probable positive outcome awaiting for those who understand that it is entirely possible to manipulate the machines to cough up unintended wins via the special plays, and/or to bump up the damage to the machine by strategically bumping up denomination and volatility. And while expectation counts on staying at that high denomination to "give it all back and more" ("MORE", because geniuses believe "-EV" games HAVE to keep more cash than they give) the casinos get totally blindsided by my going back to play my lowest denomination every single time a win goal (or even a loss goal for that matter) is met. To make it easy red, while the "AP's" of the vp world expect machines to keep on performing up to their "expectations" while it's "all the others" who supposedly keep filling them up for AP-taking....so it is with how I play. My play only hits up the machines for a very tiny portion of their life. So I too "expect" and count on all the other playing slobs to keep the machines in a taking mood until I return. It's a very simple, AP-like process.

GT articles: Best you stop by the offices and ask. I'm certainly nowhere the magazine comes out. Perhaps VL or Spock can get to it before you can? Aren't they as much a part of the LV scene as Nick Cage?

[dannyj]

Good advice. I'm actually leaving the grind in september after 32 years. Will be self employed. My wife and I have saved well and done extremely well on our investments. It's time. Having said that, we still plan to take SS early at 62 if there is any left.

[Alan Mendelson]

1) Won/loss statements don't prove or disprove Rob's systems. Somebody, somewhere in this vast universe has won as much or more than Rob with the same or less play. Pulling their won/loss statements doesn't validate or invalidate any strategy they used. That's pretty obvious.

This is correct. A win/loss statement won't prove or disprove Rob's system. What it will do, however, is tell us if Rob is telling the truth about hitting so many big winners with just a limited amount of play. Rob has indicated to us that he has some special skill or talent or ability to play machines at the right time and to hit winners at the right time. There just hasn't been any proof of this at all that Rob has presented to us. I refer again to Spock's post where it appears Rob hits royals with what can only be described as amazingly short intervals. Rob is there a way you can prove to us these claims, or do we just have to take your word for it?

2) The proof lies in the proofs, as Arci would say. Now perhaps Rob has discovered heretofore unknown laws of mathematics. I do not know, as I am not a mathematician, although I do know a handful of people who teach college mathematics. Now, Alan could simply consult professional mathematicians and report their opinions, but he has not done so, for whatever reasons. Maybe he feels silly doing so. I don't know. Logic and math should pre-empt won-loss statements, but some folks have a hard time subordinating their opinions to logic and math.

Anything can happen in a casino. As I've reported before, my son hit five $1 royals within 24 hours in Vegas (however, he had a net loss on the trip). People hit megabucks. People hit lotteries. I watched a lady at Rincon hit two $5 progressives just four hours apart-- one for about fifty thousand, and the second for about $22,000. I also saw a lady hit two $1 progressives less than an hour apart at Rincon. A couple of weeks ago I watched a lady hit two royals on the same machine about ten minutes apart. Yesterday, I hit a royal on the second play of my $120 of free play on a $1 machine. (I am posting the photo in the big casino wins thread -- it was machine #3116 for the Rincon crowd.) I know that Rob plays high denomination games so I don't doubt his wins. Again -- what needs to be proven (since he has made such a big deal about it) are his claims about hitting such big wins with such a limited amount of play.

3) Did those Gaming Today articles by Rob ever make the light of day? I pick up copies whenever I'm in LV, but haven't spied one yet. I do need to drop by the GT offices in July to get the lowdown on that stuff.

Oh yes... the new Gaming Today articles??

[Vegas_lover]

GT articles: Best you stop by the offices and ask. I'm certainly nowhere the magazine comes out. Perhaps VL or Spock can get to it before you can? Aren't they as much a part of the LV scene as Nick Cage?

And that's 3. Ahhhh, the pain the pain.

[Rob.Singer]

Good advice. I'm actually leaving the grind in september after 32 years. Will be self employed. My wife and I have saved well and done extremely well on our investments. It's time. Having said that, we still plan to take SS early at 62 if there is any left.

Sounds like a good plan. I also quit and worked for myself from 50-60 as a professional gambler. You should still be able to get at least a good chunk of what you should get from SS, but with all these clowns in Washington these days looking out only for themselves, be extra careful.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, all I can conclude is that you continue to be out of touch. Nowhere did I ever say that I have the ability or a special skill to be playing a machine "at the right time". Why do you need to say something like that? What you for some reason missed and keep on missing is that my strategy holds me to a much higher standard because it presents more opportunities for the big hits, which as you've seen, do happen. My "recent" barrage is a most extreme example of that, but the couple of examples from Spock's continuing jealous rantings are simply a small snippet from yearly play results, which obviously can be skewed either way depending on the degree of hurt he feels at the moment.

Alan, please get your mind off of wishing you were playing right now and listen up instead. My strategy will always produce more big winners, sometimes in short periods of time. There's no way to prove that unless you sit with me for probably an unacceptable amount of time and/or at times, in places you don't want to travel to. Just try to understand--I have nothing to gain and nothing riding on creating "stories" just as it's foolish to think I had something to gain with photoshoped pictures of my wins just to somehow make some appear ginormous. Your real beef is with how much I've netted because it seems impossible/improbable to you that I didn't play more than I said, and lost more. It's just the way it is. I do not play like you do, I do not play as often as you do, I do not play as much as you do, and I do not ever give up what I've come in to win....yes, also like you do. Can it be said any clearer?

[Alan Mendelson]

You say a lot, Rob. Some of your nuggets:

Alan, all I can conclude is that you continue to be out of touch. Nowhere did I ever say that I have the ability or a special skill to be playing a machine "at the right time". Why do you need to say something like that?

What the community of geniuses cannot appear to digest, is that there is a certain probable positive outcome awaiting for those who understand that it is entirely possible to manipulate the machines to cough up unintended wins via the special plays, and/or to bump up the damage to the machine by strategically bumping up denomination and volatility.

My strategy will always produce more big winners, sometimes in short periods of time.

Do you have "special plays" that work? Are you able to sit at machines and come up with certain probable positive outcomes? Can you manipulate machines to cough up wins with special plays?

I'm really tired of your dancing with words.

Here's the bottom line: you have no proof to support your claims. You may have hit big jackpots, but we can't tell if you are so addicted to video poker that you've lost all track of time and think that 90 minutes of play in reality could be fifteen hours of non-stop action.

[Rob.Singer]

You say a lot, Rob. Some of your nuggets:

Do you have "special plays" that work? Are you able to sit at machines and come up with certain probable positive outcomes? Can you manipulate machines to cough up wins with special plays?

I'm really tired of your dancing with words.

Here's the bottom line: you have no proof to support your claims. You may have hit big jackpots, but we can't tell if you are so addicted to video poker that you've lost all track of time and think that 90 minutes of play in reality could be fifteen hours of non-stop action.

Crazy post. Of course some of my special plays work--some of the time. That's what "manipulate" & "cough up" unexpected/unintended wins means. IE, given the same hand, you would not have made the same hold and won the big hand, whereas I would have....not very often, but often enough when you play for certain goals.

And OF COURSE I have no proof to support my claim (I assume you're talking about special plays hitting and/or not playing very long and winning a lot). Who has proof of ANYTHING in vp....And why is it even necessary? I thought forums were to discuss ideas and experiences, to share advice that may help interested others, and in some cases, to irritate deserving trolls. There's always people who have seemingly extraordinary experiences that others might not be able to fathom. It's not the end of the world you know. You might be a better driver than me. Jason could be a better chess player than me. Arci might be a better bowler than me. VL might be a better red-light-district shopper than me. Regnis & redietz ARE better sportsbettors than me. So be it. I just happen to be a more astute & savvy video poker player than the others, which is why I chose the game as a profession for ten years, still excel in it, and decided to write books, be interviewed by various media, and share thoughts on forums. Can't you accept that?

[Vegas_lover]

VL might be a better red-light-district shopper than me

And that's four. Boy oh boy, how deep did I get under your skin?? You must be hurting very, very bad. I like it

Remember Rob, don't give me any attention, don't mention me, don't even think about me. That was the deal. You promissed

[Alan Mendelson]

Well Rob, your books were weak. Would you like me to continue? And thanks for admitting you have no proof... that takes the wind out of your sails.

And OF COURSE I have no proof to support my claim (I assume you're talking about special plays hitting and/or not playing very long and winning a lot). Who has proof of ANYTHING in vp....And why is it even necessary?

Those who make exceptional claims should have the proof to back them up.

Please continue with your advice as we all should consider different points of view.

[Count Room]

Please don't infer that I am a big Obama fan when I say this, but wouldn't getting back to the Mitt Romney style question of producing income tax returns settle all matters of proof of wins here?

Whatever happened to that focal point of discussion? How did it get shoved aside?

[Alan Mendelson]

Please don't infer that I am a big Obama fan when I say this, but wouldn't getting back to the Mitt Romney style question of producing income tax returns settle all matters of proof of wins here?

Whatever happened to that focal point of discussion? How did it get shoved aside?

Income tax returns would show if in fact Rob has had big taxable wins. To be honest, I don't doubt that he has had big, taxable wins. I know he plays high limit slots and any 4oak even at 8/5 Bonus (his #1 game) at $10/coin would pay $1,250.

Tax returns would not tell us (and this goes for W2Gs) what his frequency was for hitting big. Rob has made claims about "not playing very long and winning a lot" but a tax return will not tell you if this is true or not.

Frankly, I am more interested now in seeing his tax returns to see if he did what he claimed: offset taxable gains with what the rest of us would view as everyday expenses such as buying groceries, hosting barbecues or whatever. If indeed they passed muster at the IRS for business deductions (I concede some could and should) I think it would make fascinating reading and a good lesson for everyone.

Personally, I am very conservative about the deductions for my business. My "entertainment expenses" for my business are pretty much non-existent except for maybe one or two lunches a year which probably cost less than $50 each. To see a video poker professional player offset a hundred thousand dollars of profits a year (which Rob claimed to have had) with such things as "entertainment expenses" and groceries would be amazing to see.

Remember, Rob has told us he paid ZERO income taxes on what he claims was about a million dollars of video poker profits over a ten year period. That is what I really have to see now!

[Rob.Singer]

Well Rob, your books were weak. Would you like me to continue? And thanks for admitting you have no proof... that takes the wind out of your sails.
Those who make exceptional claims should have the proof to back them up.

Please continue with your advice as we all should consider different points of view.

Opinions vary on my books Alan. Too bad you're no book author so such an empty comment could be construed as having some of that "wind" in those sails.....But maybe you could change that perception and write a vp book on how much you've lost over the years, and why, and how you've dragged Jason into the same type of rut? I wouldn't consider that a "weak" offering at all.

As for your fascination with "proof"---you said it yourself, and seemingly with great authority. These people you "know" to be big vp winners. Seems pretty exceptional to me! You have any proof of that statement you can show us, as any investigative journalists would have prior to making such an assertion? In fact, have you ever seen ANYONE provide proof of their results, either way?

[Rob.Singer]

Income tax returns would show if in fact Rob has had big taxable wins. To be honest, I don't doubt that he has had big, taxable wins. I know he plays high limit slots and any 4oak even at 8/5 Bonus (his #1 game) at $10/coin would pay $1,250.

Tax returns would not tell us (and this goes for W2Gs) what his frequency was for hitting big. Rob has made claims about "not playing very long and winning a lot" but a tax return will not tell you if this is true or not.

Frankly, I am more interested now in seeing his tax returns to see if he did what he claimed: offset taxable gains with what the rest of us would view as everyday expenses such as buying groceries, hosting barbecues or whatever. If indeed they passed muster at the IRS for business deductions (I concede some could and should) I think it would make fascinating reading and a good lesson for everyone.

Personally, I am very conservative about the deductions for my business. My "entertainment expenses" for my business are pretty much non-existent except for maybe one or two lunches a year which probably cost less than $50 each. To see a video poker professional player offset a hundred thousand dollars of profits a year (which Rob claimed to have had) with such things as "entertainment expenses" and groceries would be amazing to see.

Remember, Rob has told us he paid ZERO income taxes on what he claims was about a million dollars of video poker profits over a ten year period. That is what I really have to see now!

Alan, I had to learn for myself to be able to legally mitigate my vp profits as a pro player, consultant, and author. Sure I had help but that's part of the process. For your own particular set of circumstances, if you were truly interested in every legal "loophole" (as GE has been in not paying any taxes on billions in revenue, for instance) you could get there or close to there too--or at the very least, save thousands each year. It's just as with my RV. I could keep paying $6000-$7000/year in Az. or Nv. registration fees, which to me is a big waste....or I could have put in the time & effort that ended up with me buying a very cheap parcel of land in S. Dakota just so I could register our rig there for a mere $450/yr.

Make your mind up to do something and you can get it done. Tax writeoffs are no different. Most people, especially gamblers, care more about getting to casinos all the time than they do about figuring out how to maximize business expenses. Being motivated is the key.

[slingshot]

My best luck with special plays has been Sweeps. Just saying.

[Spock]

I won't line item veto it, because there's too much that he showed only the parts he wanted to and predictably, as with any weakly spun argument, left out the parts that gutted him. I suggest if you really want to know FACTS, you read what I said.

I see your and that jealous soul Spock's issue lies totally in my winning.

Sure I poke fun at clowns like Spock who spend so much time looking up and providing partial statements, incomplete analyses, and his resulting lies even though he does what they all do when faced with the real facts, and denies it all.

Remember, I'm the celebrity here, and anonymous cowards like Spock and anyone else who throws out unsupportable assertions and claims, only do so out of what they see as failure in a part of their life that is not so in mine.

My "recent" barrage is a most extreme example of that, but the couple of examples from Spock's continuing jealous rantings are simply a small snippet from yearly play results, which obviously can be skewed either way depending on the degree of hurt he feels at the moment.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! For the guy who's always claiming everyone else has you "deep in their brain" you can't HELP but constantly mention me, (while spewing the same drivel), over and over again as evidenced above. I'm so deep in your head I can poke your Medulla Oblongata. But now we know why you frequently say that: because that's what YOU do! You can't stop obsessing over people! I kind of feel sorry for you; it must have been hell with Arci always occupying that tiny brain of yours year after year after year.

Perhaps "Hanoi Rob" would be a better name for you since you seem to have the idea that if you repeat something over and over again everyone will believe it. But, as always, where you turn to platitudes and fabricated fantasies about jealousy in your zest for retaliation, I'm able to actually do something you have NEVER done; document what I post. There are no places where I "left out the parts that gutted him", nor are there "partial statements" and "incomplete analyses". The "unsupportable assertions" are fully supported and any "small snippets" are there because that's all YOU posted. Unlike you I let my posts speak for themselves instead of your practice of constantly trying to convince people that you are relevant.

So now you have the envious task of admitting that you didn't include all your play because you can't stand to admit you are losing, or to stand by your own words. Your choice.

Most of this has been posted before, but since you seem to be so intent on making sure a new crop of readers is aware of it I'm more than happy to post it again. And horror of horrors! I'll actually supply the source so people can verify its accuracy and then decide for themselves how relevant it is! You should try that sometime.

2008
The 2008 figure came from a Gamblers Bookstore interview that aired on November 13th of that year.

At the 17:28 mark Rob states:

I had a very unusually lucky year. I hit 4 royals, I played 25 hours total, and I won directly from the machines 192,000 dollars

In that interview, at the 38:28 mark he also stated:

I could play up to 1400 hands per hour when I was like that, and I used to time myself. I don't think I was accurate because nobody could be accurate like that. But now I might play 500 hands an hour.

2009
I only have a few references for 2009, including what he wrote on VPTruth on 8/19:

Speaking of playing, mine has been on the puny side thus far this year. I believe I've played only 20 sessions and have won just under $11,000 while going 15-5. Of course, the majority of that came on a lucky hit on the $5 machine at M.

The other ones consist of 2 times where he states free play wins, (+$335 and +$650), and a third where he did the same, all of which were posted on VPTruth and all came after his earlier statement with the final one posted in late November:

The Hard Rock's $150 turned into $1670; Sam's Town $140 was cashed out at $540; and Tuscany's puny $30 ended up $4090 because of a dollar royal by holding a lone Ace. "

He ended the year on December 26th writing:

I won just under $11,000 at video poker early on, but I quit playing for profit after that.

2010
He was still writing on VPTRuth in 2010 and in article 516 posted on 4/20 he wrote:

I enter May 2010 ahead $24,500 for the year. I say lucky because I've been blessed with three $2 royals this year and I've not played more than 8 total hours

And this is where Rob's truly awesome powers came into play; on 8/6 in article 523 he posted what appears to be his ability to turn back time:

I've played a whole 5 hours in 2010 and most of it via the free-play route, but thanks to a very unusual four Royal Flushes (one on quarters and THREE on $2 machines) I've profited over $20,000

There were no additional posts that year that stated anything about wins.

2011
While Rob joined the forum in late 2010 I don't believe he started posting in earnest until the spring of the following year. (The index here doesn't go back further than 2013 on his posts). It was on 8/29/11 that he posted this, his first "win":

I stopped at the Edgewater the other day and within 30 minutes I hit a $2 royal playing 25c-$2 ARTT.

On 9/11 he reported this:

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. You know I don't ever tip handpays, and this one not only took 1-1/2 hours (because they had to send out to the owner for the cash) but they couldn't figure how to write up the W2G properly and I had to help.

It appears that with this event Rob told a somewhat different story a year later about it on VPFree:

Last Sept. I hit a dollar royal at a bar in Pahrump while waiting for a take-out pizza. They told me I'd have to come back in 2-3 hours because they didn't have the cash, which I did, but they paid me in 20's.

On October 10th Rob wrote:

I don't play very often any more but I do have 2 royals ($1 & 50c) in Sept. in maybe 1000 hands

That doesn't quite mesh with the above, but the $1 royal matches the story he told a year later on the bar hit and BAGiant posted at The Las Vegas Advisor a week later about a .50 heart royal at that was accompanied by a message stating "Another Royal at the Silverton", which I found interesting because it was never mentioned here even though he was frequently posting yet it was the same suit and denomination as the one he reported the week before at a different location. Hmmm. Good luck to anyone trying to figure out exactly what went on there.

On 10/20 Rob reported this from Terribles:

On $2 ACES BP I was dealt unsuited AJQ with a 2 and 3. All the AP's would religiously hold the JQ, but I never do. The Ace happened to be with the letter "E" in the 4th position and I held it, but it really didn't matter where it was placed because I always hold only the Ace in that situation. Moments later I was looking at 7AAAA and in order for $8000.

Six days later he made this post about another win:

I know Alan is having trouble hitting a royal this year. Kind of odd that I haven't seen a SF in TWO years, but RF's are no stranger to me. I hit another one today on quarters, again on a 6/5 BP machine at the local bar playing $40 while waiting for a pizza and a pulled pork sandwich to take up to the RV.

There were no more wins reported that year, but in early November he wrote:

On the flip side, even though I'm now around Nevada casinos throughout the winter months, I still play, but it's maybe once every 10 days and for 90 minutes tops. In other words, recreationally and without goals or any real meaning--and nothing over $2. The days of sweating it out at the $10, $25 & $100 machines are over for me.

Maybe it was 3 royals, maybe it was 4. Who knows. If he can't keep his stories straight I'm sure as hell not going to be able to do so. But it was still 2 months, and using his statement of 90 minutes every 10 days at 500 hands per hour that comes to only 4500 hands with 3 or 4 royals and one A-C-E-S.

In all the time I've been reading about Rob's escapades there have been very few instances where he mentioned any loss, and since he claims an 85% win rate there wouldn't be many to see. He also claims to use a system of "soft profits" where he removes any win over 40 credits when he plays ARTT which he states greatly reduces the amount of any loss, something that has been conspicuously and inexplicably absent in his most recent win postings. There may be losses out there I'm not aware of, but based on his stated history, the "soft profits", and his purported "win rate" those losses are unlikely to amount to much. Perhaps another reader remembers scores and scores of losses being reported by him. Anyone? Bueller? That is of course unless Rob wants to fess up and admit there were huge losses he didn't mention before.

Kind of a situation eh Rob?

This post, and the one directly below it, is the post I mentioned earlier where Rob "leaves after meeting his win goal" by continuing to play. Readers can make their own judgements.

All of this is immaterial anyway. Rob's original statement was

Other than the past 18 months or so, I've always had average luck.

I maintain that with or without additional evidence, what the above represents is vastly different from "average luck". This has nothing to do with how much he did or didn't win, and everything to do with how for many, many years Rob has been reporting win ratio's on high value hands that defy common sense. There are no "special plays" that will get you a royal every 2-3 thousand hands, and even The Wizard's calculations on how many hands it would take to "maximize the number of royals at all costs" came to 23,081 hands and an expected return on JOB of 51.98%. I just don't find Rob's claims remotely credible, especially when considering the various other issues that seem to constantly surround him.

I think the problem with Rob is that he posts so much he can't remember what he wrote, which shouldn't be an issue with factual posts. It reminds me of when he posted here about his banishment at WOV. He wrote:

I ended up getting banned after verbally abusing MathExtremist for suddenly altering the parameters by requiring me to pay everyone's travel, food & hotel costs.

What he fails to remember is that he was banned at the start of that thread, not the end. It was JL2, whom I'm sure everyone will be shocked to find out sounded exactly like Rob and who was widely believed to BE Rob, who was berating Math Extremist. Nothing like a tacit admission to clear up loose issues.

Thine have met thy enemy, and thou art it.

[Rob.Singer]

Waste of only your time Spock. As soon as I saw you incorporated 2 "quotes" of "mine" that were made up by you along with other incomplete snippets (big surprise, "eh"?) I didn't bother reading on. No wonder you left out exact source tracing. Go ahead, let's see you reference your snippets in every case. Don't want to do you....Afraid people will get to read the WHOLE story? I'll bet you were one of the weekly complainers to GT every time a new Undeniable Truth column came out. Fond memories.....

BTW, spend all night researching just for me? That's what my residing inside your head, does. That.....And my winning, apparently, for a VERY long time. I didn't realize all the hurt that's involved, but I LIKE it!

See how little time/how few words it takes to mock??

[redietz]

That's a pretty thorough chunk of investigative research by Spock. It gives a flavor to the ongoing odd ratio of royals that accompanies Rob wherever he travels. He's like a vagabond X-Files character.

The only thing one could possibly say in Rob's defense is that most forum posting is conversational in nature, and if one directly quoted a person's verbal conversations at will, a fair number of variations and incarnations of the same event(s) would be evident for most people. There may be a generational aspect to this, as older folks may treat online "conversations" as indeed conversational and not for potential inclusion in an index or reference table that can be reviewed in perpetuity.

I've always suggested that Rob's hit ratio makes him the equivalent of Marvel's The Scarlet Witch -- able to bend the laws of probability near him.

The most important element to Spock's review is the emphasis on the word "ratio." Rob has never used or addressed this term, to my knowledge. And this cuts to the chase of Rob's acclaimed history -- how does he manage to have the ratio of royals or big premium hands that he does? Ratios can be mathematically determined for various strategies, yet Rob's ratios seem to be otherworldly.

[Vegas_lover]

Ratios can be mathematically determined for various strategies, yet Rob's ratios seem to be otherworldly.

Translated into a statement every reader can understand:
"The lunatic is full of shit"

[Spock]

See how little time/how few words it takes to mock??

That was mocking? Seems more like the tired ranting of an irrelevant old man who is desperately trying to retain what little dignity he still has, and failing miserably at it.

Waste of only your time Spock. As soon as I saw you incorporated 2 "quotes" of "mine" that were made up by you along with other incomplete snippets (big surprise, "eh"?)

Made up quotes? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Since you seem to have turnips for brains let me educate you on how the "internet" works. See that little blue box with the double arrow following each "Originally Posted by Rob.Singer"? That is what is known as a "link". What a "link" does is direct a reader to the original quotation that was posted. If you click on the "link" you will be taken to the direct post where that quotation came from, each of which in this case are the moronic repetitions of a self delusional megalomaniac, namely you.

There are few things as humorous as rants about "made up quotes" where the evidence of their authenticity is absolute and clearly available. Its amazing how a self-proclaimed "expert mathematician" can't figure out something so very simple.

The fact that everyone reading this can see for themselves what tactics you use to try to intimidate critics and how inept you are at both that, and understanding the information presented, is just a huge bonus.

I didn't bother reading on.

And I would care about that because? I've mentioned many times that I write primarily so other people can judge if your statements have merit and since you seem to continually forget that you may want to head to the doctor ASAP to make sure dementia isn't setting in. However, your continual need to publicly state you don't read them makes you look like a petulant child. Besides, its already been shown that you do.

BTW, spend all night researching just for me? That's what my residing inside your head, does. That.....And my winning, apparently, for a VERY long time. I didn't realize all the hurt that's involved, but I LIKE it!

Ahhh. The classic troll routine: no matter what happens it must be attacked. If data isn't presented you must state everything was fabricated, when it is you try to mock the process and the poster. And I'm sorry Rob. I know you try very hard. But you absolutely SUCK as a troll. You've been doing the same thing over and over again for years. You need some new material because your boring as hell. You're still writing the exact same things about Arci you were a decade ago and the sheer number of those statements probably exceeds 4 figures by now. And for God's sake figure out how to use "the Google" and the thesaurus because people are getting tired of reading words like "assertions" over and over again. (Here. I'll help you this one time: acknowledgments, admissions, affirmations, approvals, assurances, attestations, avowals, certifications, confirmations, declarations, endorsements, oaths, pledges, proclamations, promises, pronouncements, sanctions, statements, submissions, testimonies, validations, verifications, warranties. )

As usual, you forget that everyone isn't as incompetent as you are when it comes to computers. While I'd guess it would have taken you a week of 16 hour days to come up with that for someone who has the information at hand, as I do, it doesn't take long at all. But even if it did every minute is well worth it. Watching you squirm as you try to divert attention elsewhere is putting a smile on scores of readers faces and every one of them is learning that the video poker "master" has no clothes.

Toodles!