Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 40

Thread: The Forum Quandary

  1. #1
    Basically, with Rob providing voiceover work for this forum, readers are faced with a quandary.

    If someone wins the lottery, and then explains his or her strategy for winning the lottery, should you follow that strategy? That's basically what we're talking about here.

    If professional mathematicians say that the strategy has no effect on future results, should you dismiss the professional mathematicians as theorists?

    People can choose to believe whatever they choose to believe. The problem lies in beliefs being presented as facts.

    What I would recommend is that Rob preface his statements with something similar to the anecdotal commercials for various medications. You know, where people say, "Xeralto has worked for me, and I believe it will work for you." No statement of fact regarding efficacy going forward or efficacy for other people, just a statement of personal history followed by personal belief.

    If it were legal to write those commercials otherwise, the great corporations of this country would be doing exactly that.
    Last edited by redietz; 10-27-2015 at 11:25 AM.

  2. #2
    I don't think any medication commercial uses the phrase "and I believe it will work for you."
    I think the proper and conventional statement is something like "ask your doctor."

    There is nothing wrong with Rob telling what worked for him.

    What I have a problem with is people claiming to have won in casinos using secret information. Anyone's secret is not going to help anyone else so why bother posting? Rob's advice and strategy is in the open so everyone has a chance to look at it and decide for themselves if they want to try it.
    I can't possibly try a strategy involving a dealer who accidentally flashes hole cards at an unidentified casino.
    It's all about quitting when ahead.

  3. #3
    There is nothing wrong with Rob telling what worked for him. You are absolutely correct. But you seem to have conveniently not addressed my concern. What is wrong is his telling others it will work for them. That is a whole different animal.

    Rob's recommendations should be tempered with the information that what he is saying is his personal history and personal belief, not a statement of fact.

  4. #4
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    I don't think any medication commercial uses the phrase "and I believe it will work for you."
    I think the proper and conventional statement is something like "ask your doctor."

    There is nothing wrong with Rob telling what worked for him.

    What I have a problem with is people claiming to have won in casinos using secret information. Anyone's secret is not going to help anyone else so why bother posting? Rob's advice and strategy is in the open so everyone has a chance to look at it and decide for themselves if they want to try it.
    I can't possibly try a strategy involving a dealer who accidentally flashes hole cards at an unidentified casino.
    Completely different cases. His strategy has never been proven to work for him or anyone else. As for HC play, that HAS been proven to work for ANYONE, including you, and is NOT a secret. Deal cards at home for yourself and see. The only secrets are the locations where to play them at. Completely different set of circumstances. I agree with Red.

  5. #5
    Hole carding is strictly accidental and unintentional. There is no sway to work it into a strategy unless you knew of an incompetent dealer at a casino with lax security and lax game protection or the dealer is a cooperative thief. Hole carding is not a routine workable strategy. Good luck to you if you can take advantage of this flaw.

    Rob's strategy of win goals is a methodology everyone with common sense can use. Having loss limits and stop losses are also strategies anyone can use.

    There is no way to dispute a profit. Win goals need not be proven as they speak for themselves.
    It's all about quitting when ahead.

  6. #6
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    There is nothing wrong with Rob telling what worked for him. You are absolutely correct. But you seem to have conveniently not addressed my concern. What is wrong is his telling others it will work for them. That is a whole different animal.

    Rob's recommendations should be tempered with the information that what he is saying is his personal history and personal belief, not a statement of fact.
    I'm not sure a disclaimer is needed. I think everyone reading his reports understands that they need to consider the variables in all gambling.
    It's all about quitting when ahead.

  7. #7
    And how much are you ahead lifetime using "goals"? By your own admittance, you're not and you never will be.

  8. #8
    JB
    And how much are you ahead lifetime?....Don't bother, I won't believe you anyway.

  9. #9
    I'm actually way ahead playing video poker. It's craps that killed me. It's amazing the difference a $100,000 royal can make for a regular $5 video poker player.

    If I hadn't been greedy that day I was playing $25 video poker I would have walked with a profit of only about $7,000 which would have been a normal win goal.
    It's all about quitting when ahead.

  10. #10
    Alan, hole card strategies exist. You post in a similar matter-of-fact way as Rob, as if what you say is undeniable truth.

    I'd be interested in hearing how Rob generated his SPS or ARTT strategies. If I remember correctly, he said he used software for it, WinPoker or Video Poker for Winners. If that's the case, then surely Rob has the numbers for his strategy -- how frequency of him reaching his win goal at the lowest denom on the first game type...the frequency of advancing to each following level...how frequently he'll win a session vs lose the entire amount, average win.....etc. I'm not talking about what his records or actual results are. I'm talking the math he did (I assume he did math to come up with his strategy) in order to figure out it's a "winning" system.

  11. #11
    That's news to me. Rob has never said here that he used software to come up with his strategies. He has studiously avoided saying that, in fact.

  12. #12
    Perhaps I'm mistaken or thinking of someone/something else....but I'm almost certain I read that somewhere!

  13. #13
    Of course hole card strategies exist... for when you can see the hole card.

    Rob said something about having mathematicians back him up. He would need to explain.
    It's all about quitting when ahead.

  14. #14
    All these theories. Some would say it's enuf to make heads spin.

    Red, what I've told the many who've asked is that if they were to play EXACTLY the way my strategy is structured with the proper/required bankroll, and if they have the DISCIPLINE & DETERMINATION to always do what they said they were going to do before going into the casinos, then they would win at the same rate that I do and have. I have never blindly told anyone that they could win with a hit & run style without structure. The big problem with these "professional mathematicians" as you call them as they diss what I do is two-fold: first, let's use the Wizard as an example. You'd call him a professional mathematician, right? Well, similar to other "professionals" in his field, such a personality would first ACT professional by wanting to UNDERSTAND the strategy instead of simply theorizing about generalities about it. This is something none of them have ever done. And secondly, what constitutes a "professional mathematician"? I know this is from long ago, but as an EE with an MBA, I have probably more actuary & math background than all or most of my critics. The fact that I don't sit here and analyze everything that comes down the pike like arci and others of his ilk might do is simply a product of my being in upper management most of my career, and I learned how to think & reason problems out while leaving the numbers crunching to my teams. So when you assert that these "professionals" should not be dismissed as mere theorists, I'd be inclined to agree with you had any of them ever took the time to 100% understand what I've developed. As I've said, they feel much more at ease quoting book theory and criticizing than putting in the effort trying to understand how a human mind had the ability to develop such a strategy.

    I'll explain about the 3 mathematicians again Alan because it's been a while. I developed the strategy, I gave it to 3 friends who were employed in the mathematics field to review & comment, and I finalized my strategy based on what my mind told me were the best points of all our input. You've seen the EV trade-offs I use in my special plays. These guys helped in the risk analyses of those and others that did not make the cut. They assisted in supporting my calculations about what big hits were worth in expectation the more hands I played into the strategy. Other aspects of it like this. This is just SPS. My other strategies (RTT, ARTT, Five-Play, & Multi-Strike) were developed by myself only, and are the only ones I now use.

    The bottom line here is one would need to understand something completely if they wanted to intelligently comment on it. Simply saying it's "Martingale" or "a loser because only -EV games are played" is careless and amateurish at best. And even what you're saying Red, that mathematicians don't believe in it is misguided, because none of them fully understand all of it. There's been opportunities for sure. I had hoped the Wizard and his crew of geniuses would face me in LV on it, but when it got real and close they ran. I had a lot of faith that Frank Kneeland would get involved just as he said he would, but he suddenly disappeared.

    And to Alan's point about these anonymous posters who claim crazy things yet don't even say where, when, how or why, because they're the "pro's pros" or something similarly lame. None of what they say is real, obviously. It's so easy to see how the questions Alan's asked them are easily answerable, yet they didn't write their stories that far in advance. They're only here because I've irritated them with the truth elsewhere and they're trying to glean info from me for themselves in their own private ways. I've seen it many times before. They know that success in gambling requires a solid education first.
    Last edited by Rob.Singer; 10-27-2015 at 06:20 PM.

  15. #15
    I sure as hell don't want any of your info or strategies. I'd lose all my money.

  16. #16
    The one thing we know for sure is that Singer constantly lies. Hence, absolutely nothing he says can be trusted.

    Win goals/loss limits are fine for those playing negative games if it makes them feel better. They provide no help in improving long term results. People who claim otherwise are spewing mathematically illiterate nonsense.

  17. #17
    I think Rob just wanted to come up with a "winning" strategy to show AP doesn't work. After all, he was humiliated before when he tried and failed at AP.

    I've only heard it, but am not sure -- is it true you (Rob) filed bankruptcy due to your attempted AP failure?

  18. #18
    I filed bankruptcy in 1996, not because of failed AP play that cost me on avg. about $45k/year. It wasn't a lot compared to my income, but something else much bigger got in the way and gambling losses didn't help. Upon discharge and due to the very liberal rules that used to be in place, we came out of it financially better than we went in. So it turned out to be a tool of wealth-building, as neither of our substantial 401k's were allowed to be touched back then. All this was explained in detail on my site for over 10 years.

    As for arci and his constant lies, well, I'd say he's paid dearly for them if you believe in karma. In fact, every time I read one of his posts, I think about his hurt and I LMAO! It has truly turned out to be one of the most deserving fates for a forum bully that's ever been seen. God bless America!
    Last edited by Rob.Singer; 10-27-2015 at 10:30 PM.

  19. #19
    Originally Posted by jbjb View Post
    I sure as hell don't want any of your info or strategies. I'd lose all my money.
    The info you provide (particularly, team type play) doesn't point to you having very much money, so the strategy would be out of your reach anyway. That's why you make up all this stuff about "fantastic edges" and "super secret plays" that you're only allowed to "tease" about. It's story-telling right out of the Wizard's forum at it's finest.

    BTW, one thing I found out about "team" players like Frank Kneeland, Tom Robertson, etc., is that on top of them not having any retirement to look forward to, all they have in real time is money problems with other gamblers. Quite the slug-life.

  20. #20
    When you think about it, quitting when ahead is a true positive expectation strategy. You can never lose money if you always quit a session when showing a profit.

    Once again ask yourself: in what percentage of the DAYS that I gambled was I ahead by at least one bet? (Of course if you are making only a single bet or a small number of bets such as in sports or poker tournament this will not apply.) I think that almost every video poker or craps player or blackjack player can say that at some point they were ahead a large percentage of gambling days. I know I have.
    It's all about quitting when ahead.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •