Photos of big wins don't prove you left or are ahead lifetime. That's all that matters. Alan, your $100k royal is proof of that!
Photos of big wins don't prove you left or are ahead lifetime. That's all that matters. Alan, your $100k royal is proof of that!
Again you are all arguing the existence of fairy dust. It's the internet, people lie, gamblers lie more than the average person. Therefore, if you are taking anything you read on a gambling forum on the internet as gospel, you should probably wear a helmet when you leave the house.Originally Posted by redietz
This is what makes you an obvious hack in the vp world. First, when someone begins to explain anything, if it agitates you then you feel you have to soothe yourself by unleashing a tirade of vulgarity. Good luck with that. Then, because you don't understand how if one hand is a loner then one session also is--unless you choose it to be all tied together for your own personal reasons--then you put on a display of ignorance. That, nothing can help.Originally Posted by jbjb
[QUOTE=Alan Mendelson;40485]Here's why you won't crush the casinos: Rob realizes, and I realize, that you will not win a million dollars doing this. Anyone who realistically follows this plan knows that "wins" come in limited amounts. It might be a quad or a straight flush, or after hitting the Small in craps, or after hitting four passes at craps. That's when you take your win and call it a day or call it a session.
It is ridiculous to think or even to ask Rob to crush the casinos.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a particularly interesting point.
Even while winning about $980k over the 10 years I played pro, I wasn't "crushing" any casinos. It's not that much as an avg. yearly income goes, unless you're someone like mickeycrimm, who believes there's some strange love by the vp community for having to hitchhike because you can't afford a car, or dental problems will fix themselves. And when you look at the fact that I had to use a proportionately high bankroll to accomplish it, the money won really wasn't bone-crushing fabulous.
Alan, RS__ is an envious weirdo who makes all kinds of winning claims as an anonymous hack, and who claims "fear" is the reason he never explains anything other than he works for minimum wage at a casino.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
No wonder he can't get past "play +EV and you will win/play -EV and you will lose.....no exceptions".
Last edited by Rob.Singer; 03-30-2016 at 01:40 PM.
Here's what the critics have trouble with--the thinking aspect of playing vp. All the AP's can "think" about is the +EV/-EV part, and how it HAS to be the end-all in vp play. It's not. I saw that and built my strategy around it. Someone like redietz has extreme trouble believing 100.1% means you'll win, but 99.9% can never mean the same. Ever.
What the strategy has is a grounding in the math. There was no other way to start out. You already know there's a climbing and descending in denomination and game volatility as I progress. We also know the mathematically-driven frequency of the potential session-ending hands from the games I play. (I started out using 10/7 DB & 10/6 DDB and 9/6 DDB, but after a few years I had to change to SDBP/TBP+ as my main advanced BP games because of lowering pay tables up thru the $100 machines).
The strategy looked at the growing probability of the special quads, SF's, and royals as more hands were played without hitting them and which is figured over the long-term and not simply from the beginning of every session, and if one or more were hit that did not end the session then that was figured in too. So because I kept creeping up in denomination/game volatility as these weren't hit, the frequencies of hitting them became more and more "inviting". And when you add in the enhancement of the special plays specifically designed to supercharge those potential session-ending winners, good luck isn't really overall that far away. Which should explain to the non-blind here how every session is a session in and of itself only, just as every single hand of vp is
The reason those who can't let go of +EV=winning & -EV=losing, can't see how my consistent winning can ever be proven "on paper" is because they would never allow themselves to accept how valid it is, under these unique set of parameters, to utilize a reasonable & logical factor, which I have done, in order to produce a winner on paper prior to ever playing the strategy inside a casino. And this is where the so-called "math people" would never agree with me. It's like them getting stuck in 4th gear on a 5-speed transmission. They just aren't capable of letting themselves see this point.
Last edited by Rob.Singer; 03-30-2016 at 01:43 PM.
I wonder... if Rob Singer said he only played positive expectation games would anyone doubt his wins?
Alan, since you support this assclown, accept the challenge. Give up your business, have him "train" and let us know when you own Caesars.
Gee, it's an interesting idea... but Rob made a hundred thou a year playing video poker. That's not enough for me to quit my job.Originally Posted by jbjb
I thought you were planning on retiring soon and looking for a condo or something in Las Vegas? Who's to say you only have to make $100K/year? I'm sure you could play more than Rob did. Anyway, $100K/year isn't too shabby, especially for a retiree who enjoys gambling.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I am moving to Vegas strictly for tax purposes. I still will have to commute to LA for most of my TV work. My son is moving his business for the same reason -- taxes.
No one said it was "impossible" to win any given session. What is mathematically proven is his strategy is worthless for improving your expected return over time. No different than those who think they can win by quitting at some magical time.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You have no proof that Rob isn't ahead for his lifetime, or that he didn't win what he said he won.Originally Posted by jbjb
All you and the rest do is say it is impossible that he won what he said he won because he played negative expectation games.
You have no other rationale for what you say. You have nothing else to support your claims.
His wins or loses aren't the issue. Really, is about whether it works or not. Short term positive variance doesn't mean shit. As far as I'm concerned, he's just a high rolling ploppy. I see these people all day long.
Help me out here: doesn't winning or losing tell us if his system works or not? Is there another measure that I don't know about?Originally Posted by jbjb
I'm a lifetime winner at roulette. Does that mean my system works?Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
This is what I just can't embrace. If someone can win one session, why can't they win another?Originally Posted by arcimede$
Playing a negative expectation machine does not mean you will lose. You are saying you must lose. I just can't agree that you must lose.
I am also a lifetime winner. Here's my story:Originally Posted by RS__
About 9 or 10 years ago, I went to Caesars over Memorial Weekend ONLY so that my son and his girlfriend could get a free room. I was there the weekend before with my wife (at the time). When I went for Memorial Weekend I really had no plans to gamble much and I didn't bring much money. In fact, I brought only $1,000. At the time I could not drive long distances by myself -- it was before my transplant and I was having problems with my diabetes control. So I flew.
As luck would have it, the first night (Friday night) I lost almost all of the thousand dollars for gambling. I had $120 of the gambling bankroll left. I called my wife and said "Jason has his room, I can leave. Get me a flight out." She couldn't. Southwest Airlines was sold out. I was stuck in Vegas until MONDAY!!!! So Friday night I stayed in my room and watched movies.
Saturday morning I had breakfast and walked around. As you might expect the casino was packed. The craps tables were full and I only had $120 of my gambling money left. So... I went to roulette and put a $20 bill on black.
It hit. I was paid four red chips and put the $20 bill back in my wallet. I left the red chips on black.
It hit again. I now had $40. Left it all on black... and it hit again. I now had $80.
Being the superstitious guy that I am -- I moved the $80 to red. And it hit.
I now had $160. Only time in my life I ever played roulette.
Then I went to a $10 craps table just as a new shooter was getting the dice. He went on a tear and I won something like a thousand dollars on his roll. It saved my weekend.
But yes, I too am a lifetime winner at roulette. My system worked. LOL
My roulette system is even better. it produces large wins.
I had 2 green chips left from a $2000 (or actually $1950) beating at craps. As I walked by the roulette table I said to myself that I should bet it on some dice combo equaling 7 as that's all I had seen at the craps table. The choices--16, 34, 25. I put the 2 green chips on 34. Lands 34. But wait--now after the spin the dealer says no bet on my $50 because someone else had also put a green chip on 34 and they can't determine whos is whos so the second one--mine--is no bet.
It didn't take long for me to get that paid once I demanded to see a supervisor as they knew from previous occurrences that I would file a complaint with the gaming division.
So instead of leaving -1950 I went back to craps and had one of my all time rolls.
What these guys are so desperately clinging onto is exactly what the Wizard says so foolishly: that "it doesn't matter if you win or lose--it's if you made a good bet" (and by a "good" bet they mean a +EV one). To this ilk, it makes no difference if you win on a -EV bet, since it's virtually "guaranteed you'll lose it all and more as time goes on".Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Which, of course, has never been the case with me. Which in turn makes these guys crazy. You see, not only can they never say "there's also some big wins that come in addition to the many smaller wins"...they for some reason can't get their hands around the fact that if they agree a strategy gives an 80%+ opportunity of winning TODAY'S session, then why are't all sessions of equal capability? Which then leads them into "OK, win a bunch of little wins, then watch the math come and with one huge loss, snatch back all of them PLUS some more" because they can't figure in the big wins, which come more frequently than the big losses! Which, in turn as as you would expect, puts their minds into tilt.
My head tilts too---as I shake my head from side to side watching them continually struggle over this while making up ridiculous hypotheses just to cope!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote