VP Strategy

[Rob.Singer]

I have to snicker at arci and his continued lying. While he's basically living in a hospice, we're roaming around in an RV that is bigger than his meedical bills

[arcimede$]

I have to snicker at arci and his continued lying. While he's basically living in a hospice, we're roaming around in an RV that is bigger than his meedical bills

Poor widdle wobbie doesn't like the fact he got caught lying through his teeth .... again. Let's hearing some more whining, trailer boy.

[Alan Mendelson]

I think we should give Rob a break here. I don't doubt that he hit the big jackpot hand at the Wynn. I think he just forgot. It might be because he's simply "losing it." A lot of what he posts here shows that he's either "losing it" or has in fact "lost it." Give the poor guy a break. His glory days are over. When the memory goes it's a very bad indication of things to come.

Rob: stay married. You'll have a hard time finding someone else to care for you as things continue to go downhill. And I would consider trading in that RV before it loses too much resale value because I doubt many assisted living facilities have RV parking.

[arcimede$]

I think we should give Rob a break here. I don't doubt that he hit the big jackpot hand at the Wynn. I think he just forgot. It might be because he's simply "losing it." A lot of what he posts here shows that he's either "losing it" or has in fact "lost it." Give the poor guy a break. His glory days are over. When the memory goes it's a very bad indication of things to come.

Rob: stay married. You'll have a hard time finding someone else to care for you as things continue to go downhill. And I would consider trading in that RV before it loses too much resale value because I doubt many assisted living facilities have RV parking.

LOL. If it wasn't dealt I can see the possibility of forgetting the exact number of cards held. However, when it is dealt there is no way a person would forget their biggest jackpot ever.

[Rob.Singer]

I think we should give Rob a break here. I don't doubt that he hit the big jackpot hand at the Wynn. I think he just forgot. It might be because he's simply "losing it." A lot of what he posts here shows that he's either "losing it" or has in fact "lost it." Give the poor guy a break. His glory days are over. When the memory goes it's a very bad indication of things to come.

Rob: stay married. You'll have a hard time finding someone else to care for you as things continue to go downhill. And I would consider trading in that RV before it loses too much resale value because I doubt many assisted living facilities have RV parking.

Oh Alan, I admit I'm 65, I'm not nearly the handsome stud I was even at 55, and the only hold on "youth" I possibly still have is in my health--which I know can turn at any moment. And who knows how my memory is. That win @ Wynn? It's not my "biggest ever" as arci of course lies about, but it did come amongst a string of huge winners of all kinds. When I brought it up here I was making a point of how often I've hit quad Aces over the years by making special plays. Was it dealt? I think so now, but only the jealous care to jump on it when I mention it in loose terms. But you know, when they show that it bothers them, I win again.

We're actually thinking about just doing the RV thing part time after our travels next summer, and building a house somewhere. I'll have a better idea when we finally have that dinner. I'll be 66 then so I hope I can remember

When it comes to "losing it" or having "lost it", imagine how proud I am at not having either of those terms being applied to my ONE marriage! On the flip side, I wonder how arci can explain what HE'S done.....

[Alan Mendelson]

That win @ Wynn? It's not my "biggest ever" as arci of course lies about,

I recall you telling me that your biggest win was a $100,000 royal, so this "win @ Wynn" would only tie that. Did you hit a $400,000 royal? If so, why haven't you spoken about it before?

[arcimede$]

I recall you telling me that your biggest win was a $100,000 royal, so this "win @ Wynn" would only tie that. Did you hit a $400,000 royal? If so, why haven't you spoken about it before?

He'll probably remember it one of these days and have a nice photograph to boot. You'll probably have to wait another 5 years to see his million dollar win.

[Rob.Singer]

I recall you telling me that your biggest win was a $100,000 royal, so this "win @ Wynn" would only tie that. Did you hit a $400,000 royal? If so, why haven't you spoken about it before?

Yes you remembered. It's a tie and not my "biggest win ever". But the best part of all this is bringing arci out from hiding and watching him trying unsuccessfully to dig me out from under his skin--and all the time while he's suffering from his own doing so very much. It just doesn't get any better than this

[Alan Mendelson]

Actually, Rob, nothing gets better than you failing to remember how the big win at Wynn came about.

I was dealt a royal twice -- the first more than 10 years ago and I never forgot that moment, nor that I immediately became sick and threw up in the brass trash barrel at the end of the row at Mandalay Bay. Nor have I forgotten all the details about how long it took to be paid because it was on a 50-play machine and the casino manager couldn't believe a five-cent machine (I was playing nickels) would pay $10,000 so she called in three techs to take the machine apart. And the second dealt royal was on a $5 progressive at Rincon three years ago paying $36,000+ and I remember standing up at 4 in the morning and yelling for my son who was in another section and the high limit bac players in the next section looking at me like I was crazy (and I was when it came)!

And you can't remember this big win from only a few months ago? Something is wrong, very wrong.

[dannyj]

Alan,
I was dealt a royal once on a two cent 50 play machine at viejas in san diego. Were you feeling ill before the hit or was it just the excitement?

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan,
I was dealt a royal once on a two cent 50 play machine at viejas in san diego. Were you feeling ill before the hit or was it just the excitement?

It was the shock and the excitement without a doubt. Sparing all the gruesome details, after I was paid I went upstairs, cleaned up and came back down and played some more. It was my first royal ever -- and what a way to hit a royal flush.

[Rob.Singer]

Actually, Rob, nothing gets better than you failing to remember how the big win at Wynn came about.

I was dealt a royal twice -- the first more than 10 years ago and I never forgot that moment, nor that I immediately became sick and threw up in the brass trash barrel at the end of the row at Mandalay Bay. Nor have I forgotten all the details about how long it took to be paid because it was on a 50-play machine and the casino manager couldn't believe a five-cent machine (I was playing nickels) would pay $10,000 so she called in three techs to take the machine apart. And the second dealt royal was on a $5 progressive at Rincon three years ago paying $36,000+ and I remember standing up at 4 in the morning and yelling for my son who was in another section and the high limit bac players in the next section looking at me like I was crazy (and I was when it came)!

And you can't remember this big win from only a few months ago? Something is wrong, very wrong.

I understand why you and the few others are doing everything possible to convince yourselves this particular win was a brilliant fake of some sort, because losers absolutely HATE hearing about and/or having to see other people's winners. I can just imagine how sunken in you felt as you confirmed the $25 off center sign on the machine I hit at Wynn. But fear not--you losers will keep peeling down the onion until you feel you've talked yourselves into it never having been. So funny....what you guys must go thru inside.

But here's some more of the doubting Thomas's downfall. What a GREAT talent I must be to have concocted at least 3 (see--I don't even remember how many, or how, I got in my killer streak) $50,000 other gut-wrenching wins, a $20,000 royal or two, and too many others to care about now (except for the obsessive losers, that is). To you and esp. to Dan & arci and REALLY ESPECIALLY for that jealous fool spock, $100,000 is a life-changing, unforgettable win. Not to me. This rig I drive costs a dollar a mile in fuel alone. We've put over 25000 miles on it. So no, none of these wins meant a whole lot to us. If anything, they've been a tax hassle since I don't file as a pro any more.

But keep it in your heads everybody. It's what the little people do.

[Dan Druff]

If $100,000 isn't big money to you, then why do you even bother to play VP at anything but $100 per credit?

I recall you talking about playing $1 machines (and even lower). Why do you bother trying to shoot for a $4,000 royal if a staggering $100,000 win isn't meaningful enough to remember a few months later?

I guess Rob is going to the "super rich guy who doesn't care about anything" angle as the only viable explanation for what appear to be blatant lies.

[Rob.Singer]

If $100,000 isn't big money to you, then why do you even bother to play VP at anything but $100 per credit?

I recall you talking about playing $1 machines (and even lower). Why do you bother trying to shoot for a $4,000 royal if a staggering $100,000 win isn't meaningful enough to remember a few months later?

I guess Rob is going to the "super rich guy who doesn't care about anything" angle as the only viable explanation for what appear to be blatant lies.

You give the perception you are so dumb and inexperienced in more than gaming Dan, and maybe you are. I played for a living for 10+ years with the only strategy I know of that had a good chance of beating the machines consistently--and I won almost one mil net. I was earning much more than that working, but I didn't want to live overseas and/or travel the world any longer, even though I took Cindy with me at times. Going to Nv. for 1-3 days each week afforded me much more time at home than my job. And here's what a gambling fools like you needs to pay special attention to: I PREPARED for my retirement before making the change. So as far as me being a "super rich" guy, I'm not, but we have a 7-figure retirement account and plenty of income to keep us comfy well past 100. A hundred thou win? Peanuts in the overall scheme of things. But the lesson is that you don't just play $100 machines over the years and expect to do anything but lose 7 figures. Wise up rookie.

[Dan Druff]

You give the perception you are so dumb and inexperienced in more than gaming Dan, and maybe you are. I played for a living for 10+ years with the only strategy I know of that had a good chance of beating the machines consistently--and I won almost one mil net. I was earning much more than that working, but I didn't want to live overseas and/or travel the world any longer, even though I took Cindy with me at times. Going to Nv. for 1-3 days each week afforded me much more time at home than my job. And here's what a gambling fools like you needs to pay special attention to: I PREPARED for my retirement before making the change. So as far as me being a "super rich" guy, I'm not, but we have a 7-figure retirement account and plenty of income to keep us comfy well past 100. A hundred thou win? Peanuts in the overall scheme of things. But the lesson is that you don't just play $100 machines over the years and expect to do anything but lose 7 figures. Wise up rookie.

Another classic Rob attack strategy is to call people "dumb" when they take apart his false claims with relentless logic.

Rob, let's look at your own claims above.

You say you played over 10 years and won about a million. I don't believe that for a second, but even if we take you at your word, you won $100,000 per year.

So you're telling me that winning that same 100k on a single VP hand wouldn't be memorable to you, when it was the equivalent to ONE YEAR of normal profits for you?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

How about just admitting you were caught in a lie?

Not a single person on this forum, including your friend Alan, believes that you forgot the details of this "100k win" of yours.

So there are really one of two options:

1) It wasn't yours (most likely)
-or-
2) You didn't win thanks to any special plays, later used it as an example of special plays "working", and now are stuck trying to explain how you "forgot" the details.

Either way it's proof of dishonesty out here, which has long been everyone's problem with you.

[Alan Mendelson]

I understand why you and the few others are doing everything possible to convince yourselves this particular win was a brilliant fake of some sort,

Rob, I don't think you faked it. I said you're either losing it or you have lost it. It's a shame you can't remember.

[Alan Mendelson]

But the lesson is that you don't just play $100 machines over the years and expect to do anything but lose 7 figures. Wise up rookie.

I don't understand: at $100/coin machines you expect to lose 7-figures, but with $1 and $2 and $5 and $10 and $25 machines you expect to win? Is your strategy only appropriate for certain denominations?

Not a single person on this forum, including your friend Alan, believes that you forgot the details of this "100k win" of yours.

On the contrary, I think Rob honestly forgot. Too bad. He used to have such a sharp mind.

[redietz]

Since no other geniuses have brought this up (my apologies to Rob, Alan, and Arci) and since Rob is actually very canny and precise in his word usage, it behooves me to point out that, in the current acceptable and legal nomenclature, it is possible to win a million dollars and yet not win a million dollars. Let me explain.

Harrah's, now CET, and the WSOP, and ESPN have -- for years -- done a fine job of manipulating the public and promoting their events without giving any real feel for what a money pit the WSOP is for virtually all players. One way they do this is to use little bio "fact" lines under the names of people playing WSOP events on television. For example, with someone like Phil Hellmuth, you might see "Phil Hellmuth. WSOP Winnings: $13,495,000."

These taglines are, in a sense, true and legally verifiable. However, in a broader sense, they are a joke and bald manipulation of the people watching the broadcast. Why? Because these are not net figures. Phil Hellmuth has undoubtedly won a lot and is in the black in the WSOP, but the figure does not deduct his entry fees to give a net figure. I'd sloppily estimate 95% of the players would be net losers if the actual NET figures would be posted with their names. It would be easy enough to calculate, but CET and ESPN prefer to not do so. Having virtually all of the players in the red would not be a way to get people interested in entering their events.

Similarly, and to prevent any morons from offering to bet Rob about his winnings, Rob can quite legally claim to have won a million dollars over 10 years, even if his net is significantly less. Now I'm not saying this is what he's done. I'm saying he could legally claim to have done so, and he would have precedents to back him up, regardless of the actual net figures. It's the difference, here, between what "winning" means legally and what "winning" means in the common usage of the word.

Dan can back me up on most of this. I feel it was necessary to point out the finer points of this kind of verbiage since nobody else has mentioned it. I accept all thank yous, and anyone who might have considered betting Rob about his winnings should buy me coffee and a pastry at Caesars'. I'll take the raspberry danish in the coffee place near the sports book.

[Dan Druff]

Since no other geniuses have brought this up (my apologies to Rob, Alan, and Arci) and since Rob is actually very canny and precise in his word usage, it behooves me to point out that, in the current acceptable and legal nomenclature, it is possible to win a million dollars and yet not win a million dollars. Let me explain.

Harrah's, now CET, and the WSOP, and ESPN have -- for years -- done a fine job of manipulating the public and promoting their events without giving any real feel for what a money pit the WSOP is for virtually all players. One way they do this is to use little bio "fact" lines under the names of people playing WSOP events on television. For example, with someone like Phil Hellmuth, you might see "Phil Hellmuth. WSOP Winnings: $13,495,000."

These taglines are, in a sense, true and legally verifiable. However, in a broader sense, they are a joke and bald manipulation of the people watching the broadcast. Why? Because these are not net figures. Phil Hellmuth has undoubtedly won a lot and is in the black in the WSOP, but the figure does not deduct his entry fees to give a net figure. I'd sloppily estimate 95% of the players would be net losers if the actual NET figures would be posted with their names. It would be easy enough to calculate, but CET and ESPN prefer to not do so. Having virtually all of the players in the red would not be a way to get people interested in entering their events.

Similarly, and to prevent any morons from offering to bet Rob about his winnings, Rob can quite legally claim to have won a million dollars over 10 years, even if his net is significantly less. Now I'm not saying this is what he's done. I'm saying he could legally claim to have done so, and he would have precedents to back him up, regardless of the actual net figures. It's the difference, here, between what "winning" means legally and what "winning" means in the common usage of the word.

Dan can back me up on most of this. I feel it was necessary to point out the finer points of this kind of verbiage since nobody else has mentioned it. I accept all thank yous, and anyone who might have considered betting Rob about his winnings should buy me coffee and a pastry at Caesars'. I'll take the raspberry danish in the coffee place near the sports book.

Yeah, that always bothered me, how people listed with "winnings" of $3 million are sometimes actually losing in tournament poker, but the average person believes they are up $3 million.

This was especially irritating to me in 2005, when I had invested a mere $4500 in the WSOP, and won over $463,000 by finishing 1st and 3rd in the first two tournaments I played.

Anyway, I still don't believe that $100k hit was Rob's. I never believed it. The whiting out of the information on the slot card screen was strange, because it doesn't give away any personal info aside from your name, and Rob's name is known here.

I imagine that this hit while Rob was in the video poker room, and he strolled over, asking the person if he could take a picture because he had never seen a jackpot that high before, and the person said yes. Then Rob had an ear-to-ear grin and realized how much mileage his "special plays" nonsense would get out of that picture.

[Count Room]

I accept all thank yous, and anyone who might have considered betting Rob about his winnings should buy me coffee and a pastry at Caesars'. I'll take the raspberry danish in the coffee place near the sports book.

My grandma absolutely made mankind's finest raspberry pie served up with a buttery, flaky crust, a scoop of creamy real vanilla ice cream, and a couple of mint leaves as a decorative garnish.

So, yes, thank you Red for this million-dollar winning memory!