Rob Singer's ban has been lifted.

[odinoka]

Rob's ban has been lifted -- with one giant condition: no offensive, personal attacks. He has been mentioned in many posts and many discussions and it's only fair to give him a chance to respond to the comments.

But absolutely no personal attacks will be tolerated.

WONDERFUL-IMHO. Mr. Singer will bring a fresh "blood' to this forum.

[spojoey]

I agree ...Mr. Singer at least is interesting.

[dannyj]

Rob,
Belated welcome back!

[Rob.Singer]

Hey thanks! As you can see, my first order of business has been exposing all that intellectual property over on the wizard's forum for what it really has shown to be lately when it tries unsuccessfully to impose it's spin-induced will on others who just may be a tad bit smarter than they expected.

Of course they know me and they know how I got the better of them and their revered leader in the past. So the more insults and name calling they toss my way, the more I know they have not yet been able to forget!

[OceanCityMD]

Welcome back Rob.
Do you think, with the new algorithms reported to exist today with V P machines, you could pull off what you did again ?

[Count Room]

Rob: Yes, that's an interesting question Ocean City just asked: Could you still win the million dollars all over again with the new RNG's?

Rob....Rob?....Rob?!?!.....*glances around*.....hmmm....

[redietz]

You know, I'm wondering if Rob has seen the commercial where Charles Barkley, Samuel Jackson, and Spike Lee check into a hotel. Barkley checks in as "Barles Charkley."

Anyway, if Rob takes his cue from that commercial, we may soon have "SOB Ringer" as a new poster. And somehow that sounds right.

[jbjb]

He could always use Jerry Logan

[Alan Mendelson]

Welcome back Rob.
Do you think, with the new algorithms reported to exist today with V P machines, you could pull off what you did again ?

Rob's latest term here on the forum has ended. He was banned again after another round of abusive behavior. He sent me an email following his being banned again and told me that he actually WANTED to be banned, he said.

Ya gotta wonder what the heck is going thru his mind, doncha??

Well, whatever is going through his mind I am not going to be his pawn, and I am not going to let him ruin this forum. I was very happy to see our new visitors from WOV join in the conversation. Then Rob ruined it. And I'm not even going to mention the return of his personal insults towards me... well, okay, I just mentioned it.

Rob is like my older-little-brother who needs to be sent to his room but there is no daddy around to do it.

[arcimede$]

He sent me an email following his being banned again and told me that he actually WANTED to be banned, he said.

Right, and if you believe that I've got a nice bridge in Brooklyn I can let you have real cheap. When are you going to realize that nothing Rob says can be trusted. All he does is lie. That's all he has ever done. Go back and read his responses on the 1-11 thread. Watch his story change. Cmon Alan, it's as clear as it can get.

[Alan Mendelson]

Right, and if you believe that I've got a nice bridge in Brooklyn I can let you have real cheap. When are you going to realize that nothing Rob says can be trusted. All he does is lie. That's all he has ever done. Go back and read his responses on the 1-11 thread. Watch his story change. Cmon Alan, it's as clear as it can get.

There is no question -- his stories do change.

[Vegas Vic]

[dannyj]

Rob,
Belated Good Bye. See ya next time.

[Count Room]

There is no question -- his stories do change.

Alan: In light of what Arci was saying about Rob's stories changing, my biggest regret here is not seeing you press the case more forcefully about Rob's IRS returns. Arci was apparently willing to show his without question.

I'm one of the last holdouts thinking Rob *might* have won that million playing VP, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Rob had absolutely nothing to lose by proving his case on paper.

I hate the idea of wasting a bunch of hours reading what someone has to say if it all turned out to be a big, giant lie! I would have loved to known for sure, though...

[redietz]

Alan can check previous posts and correct me on this, but I think Rob's mantra is that he has won about 400K. I believe that includes winning a bundle after having dropped well into six digits as an AP. Rob won't trot out those tax returns unless there's a wager to be won, and (while I think Rob's systems are Rube Goldberg devices) I don't blame him. There's no percentage to showing those returns publicly. I mean, if he did what he says he did, why should he care if you believe him? I know there was some wager with Fezzik and those guys on LVA regarding tax returns, and Rob was able to produce the goods. Whatever one thinks of Rob's systems, and I am not a fan, I just do not think tax returns would demonstrate much of anything. For example, Rob's married. If his wife's casino accounts lost a bundle, and his won a bundle, and they filed separately, what exactly would Rob's tax returns demonstrate, much less prove? Nothing.

[jbjb]

Tax returns do not prove that his "system" works, and that is the heart of the matter when it comes to him.

[redietz]

The crux of the matter, as the stat guys would agree, is that Rob uses his personal experience/results as evidence that his systems work. But anecdotal evidence is always just that; it doesn't statistically "prove" anything. One's personal experience is rarely proof of anything. If, for example, Rob really, truly lost 200K playing like an AP, and then won 500K playing his way, that isn't necessarily an indictment of AP play or a proof that SPS is the answer. We don't know of any "Rob Singer clones" or disciples who have played Rob's way. There may be many. For all we know, they've all had results completely reversed from Rob's results. We don't know even one other SPS disciple who has experienced anything like Rob's outcomes.

You know, in science journals, you often get a high profile experiment with significant results. It stands there and appears to mean something. But the readers don't know how many articles were rejected for journal inclusion, because the results were not significant, regarding the same experiment. So that single positive result stands there and misleads people and creates a lot of unnecessary theorizing and speculation.

[Alan Mendelson]

If I recall, Rob said his net wins over ten years averaged at about $100,000 per year, and that's how he got his $1-million total of net winnings. That does not include his "AP" days and his bankruptcy. The winnings over the ten years only reflect playing his Singer systems.

I also agree that tax returns and even profits do not prove that any "system" works. People can get lucky in casinos.

Also Rob played high denomination machines so a few lucky wins regardless of a system can create big taxable gains.

I resist the need to present tax returns as proof of any gambling strategy. Because even if you play "perfect strategy" there is still the element of risk and some players get lucky while those who might play perfect strategy might not get lucky.

This is why I like to take these theoretical discussions to an "academic level." Showing me a tax return doesn't prove anything.

[Count Room]

Alan can check previous posts and correct me on this, but I think Rob's mantra is that he has won about 400K. I believe that includes winning a bundle after having dropped well into six digits as an AP. Rob won't trot out those tax returns unless there's a wager to be won, and (while I think Rob's systems are Rube Goldberg devices) I don't blame him. There's no percentage to showing those returns publicly. I mean, if he did what he says he did, why should he care if you believe him? I know there was some wager with Fezzik and those guys on LVA regarding tax returns, and Rob was able to produce the goods. Whatever one thinks of Rob's systems, and I am not a fan, I just do not think tax returns would demonstrate much of anything. For example, Rob's married. If his wife's casino accounts lost a bundle, and his won a bundle, and they filed separately, what exactly would Rob's tax returns demonstrate, much less prove? Nothing.

I think Rob has stated repeatedly that his wife is basically a non-gambler (remember how he chastised various people by saying they drag their wives into gambling addictions?).

By having Rob show those returns (with crucial personal info redacted, of course), it can help a lot with settling down the years and years of arguing over whether he's a liar or not. I think line 21 on a 1040 and schedule A for the itemized losses would be all that's needed...W2G's wouldn't hurt. I only know this as a recreational gambler. If he's filing as a professional, I still think he could show a lot of valuable evidence without any superfluous material. This is why I wish Alan would have pressed harder on Rob about it.

Wouldn't you hate wasting time on someone that's just blowing a lot of hot air? Never being entirely sure of the truth just prolongs the process.

Let's say for a moment Rob DID win the million and PROVED it to us. What would happen next? All the arguments would die down, and Rob could teach everything without any constant sidetracking with arguments over whether he is a liar.

You asked why Rob should care that his results are proven. If Rob truly wants to teach us in the best way possible, why not dispense with all the BS arguing back and forth over whether he did what he said he did? It would not only render him "King of the Hill", but he would have lots more time to tend to each gambler seeking his help on a client-centered basis (with their own customized play strategies).

Makes life more efficient...
It would be a start!

[redietz]

I'm going to say something that seems ludicrous on the surface, but it directly parallels the debates about Rob's systems. There are multi-million dollar lottery winners. Some have written books. Should we interpret their tax returns as providing credibility for their ways of playing the lottery?