Who Gets Banned from Casinos?

[Alan Mendelson]

I thought for a while that arci was gone for good when he was dealing with his self-caused problems. But like a true neurotic who always needs to have the last word, he returned when he was emboldened with a life insurance policy payout that also meant "it's back to the machines, FINALLY WITHOUT INTERRUPTION!"

Rob my friend: shut up.

[slingshot]

No.

Now, what is your point? I don't understand what you are getting at.

Just confirming your thought. If a person can't just ignore the negatives and get on with their life, they're still controlled by the negatives.

[Rob.Singer]

Just confirming your thought. If a person can't just ignore the negatives and get on with their life, they're still controlled by the negatives.

I'm seeing this. It must be why arci has been stalking me on whatever forum I've gone to all these years. He for some weird reason sees me as some sort of negative in his life, and because he just can't ignore me I'm actually controlling him.

I like it!....(But I already knew it )

[arcimede$]

Notice the massive projection now flowing out of Robbie?

[Rob.Singer]

OK arci I will let you have the last word. You've always shown me that whenever you use those 2 terms I've been too much under your skin, and Heaven knows all I do is pour gallons of salt in your wounds. Besides, I hear it's snowing up there anyway and that means you could be grounded from that Indian casino for a bit. So come on, get in your last word so you'll be able to cope with life better, and I'll root for you from the sidelines.

[RS__]

It's not fun. It's not terribly creative. It's repetitive. It's monotonous. It's old.

Indeed. Just stop responding to Rob. He has nothing better to do than sit at home and throw out attacks both personally on individuals and APs in general. There is literally ZERO benefit to responding to Rob or talking to him whatsoever.

Next time you want to respond, make your response as normal, but instead of hitting "Post Quick Reply", just go back a page to view the other new posts on the forum, or to some other website/page. You get the satisfaction of responding, without actually responding, and without causing any harm to yourself // getting warped into Rob's nonsense.

Have a good day.

[Rob.Singer]

Indeed. Just stop responding to Rob. He has nothing better to do than sit at home and throw out attacks both personally on individuals and APs in general. There is literally ZERO benefit to responding to Rob or talking to him whatsoever.

Next time you want to respond, make your response as normal, but instead of hitting "Post Quick Reply", just go back a page to view the other new posts on the forum, or to some other website/page. You get the satisfaction of responding, without actually responding, and without causing any harm to yourself // getting warped into Rob's nonsense.

Have a good day.

Spoken like a true "capable of not responding" "AP".

[redietz]

Rob, could you do me a favor? You are a smart dude, and we need an alternative word or phrase to "AP." I think your main beef is with AP video poker players and their claims, but spell out if you have a problem with AP as it refers to blackjack players or sports bettors or poker players. Maybe "VAP" for Video Advantage Players?

The reason I mention this is that it's one thing to claim that your video poker strategy is better than "AP" video poker strategies. It's another to think that everybody who can win in a casino (21, poker, sports, and horses) really cannot and are all lying, failing "APs." Thinking you're the only one who has solved video poker as opposed to other video poker players is over the top self-promotion, in my opinion, but thinking a particular way of playing video poker is the only way to beat casinos as opposed to 21, poker, sports, and horses is way, way out in megalomania-land.

So since "AP" in general refers to ALL casino ventures, let's come up with a more narrow term to lambaste video poker "advantage players."

Readers on this forum play all casino games, and they might be confused at the criticism of people who do things other than play video poker.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob,... I think your main beef is with AP video poker players and their claims, but spell out if you have a problem with AP as it refers to blackjack players or sports bettors or poker players. Maybe "VAP" for Video Advantage Players?

I think this is a valid point. I think the criticisms of "advantage players" should be specific. For example, are the criticisms about "video poker advantage players"?

I think Rob might have a hard time criticizing other advantage players such as "dating advantage players" since he has been happily married since the Gettysburg Address and has no idea about clubbing, online dating, the latest hot spots, single living, etc.

[Rob.Singer]

VP AP's. Those are the "ap's" that are full of bs, and those are the only ones I mean to refer to. I have little to no knowledge of other types of ap's, and I wouldn't know whether to congratulate them or throw them some queer to play footsie with. I was one of these "vp ap's" for about 6-7 years so I know what it means to claim that. And it is smothered in self-serving/self-confidence-building justification and nonsense from the get-go, while being the ultimate gateway to gambling addiction.

Alan, as I've said many, many times: one need not be a dating ap to know the close correlation between divorce & having a penchant for consistent gambling action....and denial. In fact, I've advised & trained sooo many regular & ap vp players who've told me the marriage problems their gambling has created for them that I very well could be considered an expert on this issue.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, as I've said many, many times: one need not be a dating ap to know the close correlation between divorce & having a penchant for consistent gambling action....and denial. In fact, I've advised & trained sooo many regular & ap vp players who've told me the marriage problems their gambling has created for them that I very well could be considered an expert on this issue.

Of course you're an expert on this issue. Would I be stupid enough to think Rob Singer wasn't an expert? Only a moron would challenge Rob Singer. Only a complete jerk would disagree with his vast knowledge and experience, and all-knowing, in-depth research and first-hand knowledge.

[Rob.Singer]

OK then let's look at it in a generic kind of way....from a common sense standpoint why don't we.

Say I was a married, happy-go-lucky kind of career professional who just happened upon video poker and other gaming on a fun trip to LV with some friends/couples. Then say I got bitten by the vp bug.

Now I gotta keep going back. Not much can stop me. Only problem is, the wife doesn't understand or agree with this newfound habit with the poker machines. She also can't stand losing family money, even if it can be afforded. One more thing: after a few years of only going to gambling destinations for breaks & entertainment, she really wants to spend time with her spouse on a vacation where there is no gambling so he can spend time with and pay attention to her--you know, like it used to be.

At home, discussions are held on the subject many times over but they never get anywhere, and only because the vice of gambling is one of the strongest forces in the universe.

So since the gambler cannot fathom and wants no part of compromise & understanding, it's merrily off to the divorce court that will free both parties up for good: one now able to go back to a normal, feeling-respected life; the other finally free to run back to the casinos, uncontested, for that craved-for action fix. YESS! A big breath of fresh air.

Rinse and repeat.

And I've heard this same story many times.

[Alan Mendelson]

At home, discussions are held on the subject many times over but they never get anywhere, and only because the vice of gambling is one of the strongest forces in the universe.

So since the gambler cannot fathom and wants no part of compromise & understanding, it's merrily off to the divorce court

Obviously you are describing a problem situation. What makes you think everyone has this problem?

[Rob.Singer]

Not everyone does. It's a generalization that makes sense, and it comes from what people (gamblers) have told me.

One great example of this is the Dancer story. Wife wants hubby to stop--or else. He took "or else". To me anyone who accepts the "or else" is a raging addict that would be way better off seeking out professional help. Again, common sense.

[Alan Mendelson]

Not everyone does. It's a generalization that makes sense, and it comes from what people (gamblers) have told me.

Well of course it can happen. But that doesn't mean it will happen, nor does it mean that people who gamble will have that problem in the future. You make too many snap judgments and then you make accusations and cause yourself grief. I'm looking forward to lunch or dinner and I told Linda all about you (the nice stuff). You'll find her very pleasant and interested to learn about your strategy.

[Rob.Singer]

Not snap judgements about anybody--just testimonies from others that make sense.

I'm looking forward to meeting her and seeing you again. I'm also looking forward to seeing you both 10 years from now.

[slobdinger]

Well of course it can happen. But that doesn't mean it will happen, nor does it mean that people who gamble will have that problem in the future. You make too many snap judgments and then you make accusations and cause yourself grief. I'm looking forward to lunch or dinner and I told Linda all about you (the nice stuff). You'll find her very pleasant and interested to learn about your strategy.

Rob learned it all at Gambler's Anonymous between his gambling binges.

[Alan Mendelson]

I'm also looking forward to seeing you both 10 years from now.

I think that depends on how many enemies you have.

[redietz]

I can understand how people think Rob is projecting. I never actually said anything about this before, mainly because it's all pop psych speculation, but geez -- Rob's "generalizations" read like something out of a sitcom.

Rob may be correct in his description of various events with gambling couples or spouses, but anecdotal evidence doesn't count for much in this big world, and it sure doesn't count in court. Rob holds forth on what he believes is proper, or healthy, or correct, and it's all just opinion. Narrow, 20th-century, right wing American, Judaeo-Christian opinion. Rob's opinion and two bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. My opinion and two bucks will do the same.

Now the stunning thing is that I tend to agree with Rob, but I put the "blame" for these scenarios squarely on the casinos and the game makers. If environments are designed specifically to generate certain behaviors from most people, then people are going to have a tough time doing something else. Rob seems to think people should be able to overcome environments designed to make them act a certain way. Rob, however, talks like a Fox News investor, which is just the way Fox News wants him to act. So, Rob, beware of casting stones.

[slingshot]

It happens all the time. Three of my friends at work lost their ass, one went thru a divorce, the other was smart enough to stop playing for a while-but went back and is now happy if he wins $50. The third didn't really lose enough to hurt, but realized his family was more important. I have never told any of my sons or brothers or sisters that I play as I want them to stay away. In fact, most of my friends would be shocked I sat foot in a casino. I understand what Rob's saying -I was headed in that direction.