According to Rob's philosophy, people who go to their 9-5 jobs every day are addicts too.
According to Rob's philosophy, people who go to their 9-5 jobs every day are addicts too.
Boy, you left the door open there.Originally Posted by redietz
I think you're missing my point.Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
You said your win goal per session is 5%. You don't have to hit quads to have a 5% win. If you get enough full houses or flushes on a full pay game you can easily reach your 5% win goal.
So why are you discounting the importance of playing full pay games?
An addict is an addict. But that's not what we're discussing here.Originally Posted by redietz
My point is simply that you keep raising a question of addiction in response to Rob's posts about his strategy.
I don't think his strategy is that of an addict. An addict will justify continuous play. Rob has a strategy for winning a certain amount and leaving. I think it is anti-addict.
I am certainly addicted to my profession and to my paycheck and to my income. Frankly, I am surprised that over the past 44 years people have actually paid me to be on TV. I would have done it for free. (And sometimes I have.)Originally Posted by jbjb
A gambling addict chases losses by betting more and more money at higher denominations no matter what casino game. His betting (not playing) strategy is EXACTLY what gambling addicts do!
And there's nothing wrong with that. Being "addicted" to something isn't always a bad thing.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I am going to disagree with you, in part.Originally Posted by jbjb
I think what you described is one way that addiction shows itself.
There are also those who have to buy a lottery ticket once a week -- they are also addicted.
There are also those who have to play till they lose -- and they are addicted.
Chasing losses can be a sign of addiction but it doesn't necessarily mean you are addicted.
But now getting back to my original comment directed at redietz about his criticism of Rob.
I don't think that Rob's strategy is based on addiction -- not when it is a strategy that is designed to limit play. That Rob moves up in denomination is not a bad strategy since it is also tied to a plan to leave if the win comes, or to stop if the loss limit is reached.
Again: I think throwing "addict" at Rob is totally wrong here.
Criticize Rob's strategy for not being mathematically sound, or criticize Rob's strategy for not making sense. But don't label it as being how an addict plays.
If you truly believe this, you're sadly mistaken. ANY strategy where you chase losses by making bigger bets is completely stupid and something that only another addict will agree with. You can't make a "win come" nor is it guaranteed. How you guys get deluded into believing his voodoo nonsense, I have no idea...Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I hadn't really thought of Rob's strategy in terms of being an example of how an addict would play. I always thought getting out of the seat was a good thing, and that kind of discipline was a good thing.
But when you stop to think about it, jbjb has a point. Since Rob gets to define when sessions begin and end, all of the discipline he displays in terms of micro-managing decisions and seat time may just provide the look of someone who's not addicted, while the fact he gets to leap up in denomination for short-term thrills actually is the addictive boost. And he can do it again and again, whenever he wants, as there is no set or defined time gap between sessions. The quitting when reaching session goals has the appearance of disciplined behavior, but there is no rationale for when the next "session" begins, so he could be right back at it in minutes or hours, playing another "session."
Wow. I had never take this perspective on the way Rob plays. It's scary, in a way. I could see if someone were an addict, playing like Rob, that there's an almost secret desire to lose so one can move up for increasing thrills. Playing negative games, losing is what is likely to happen, so the thrills are almost assured each session.
This is a really interesting way to look at Rob's strategies. I had never considered that they might be adaptations to hype thrills while playing. That's really scary. I learned something today, which is something considering how long and often we have debated Rob's strategies here.
Not only that, redeitz, but his strategy damn near assures he will be losing, by chasing the big wins (AAAA) instead of playing properly.
If it worked, we'd all be using it and promoting it. That fact that we aren't clearly shows that it does not now, not will it ever work. I'd rather just gamble on the Megabucks slots.
I don't play Rob's way. I just don't think it is linked to or has anything to do with addiction. That's all from me.
And therein lies the reason you came on here full of it and have not learned a thing about proper play since.Originally Posted by jbjb
Anyone who wanted to put in the huge amount of work it takes to learn my strategy would do it successfully. The rest are nothing more than lazy critics who are happy getting their intermittent gambling satisfaction moments from various casino games without a lot of effort. Most of you people are stupid enough to criticize something with no knowledge of it and without ever wanting to try or understand it.
The strategy requires an expert knowledge of optimal plays along with a much more complex comprehension of multiple elements. I know of one other person who still uses it successfully up to the $25 limit. All the others I've trained on it either really weren't capable, they didn't have the aptitude to follow the procedures (the vast majority of them) or they were way too addicted to play while having to keep track of where they were in their goal-attainment. And by far, most of my "students" have been "AP's", and the vast majority of them use something more successful to them that they've developed on their own that they were led to by what I taught them.
Red, if I were really just "chasing losses" instead of playing for a win goal, there'd be absolutely no pocketing of soft profits and leaving with them after losing. I've gone thru all 2400 credits a few times with making numerous soft profit cashouts. That's why I've never had a total single session bankroll wipeout loss of $57,200 (around $33k is the largest). A true addict would NEVER be able to stop playing after losing, with $24,000 in cash still in his pocket. So if you and the resident genius now that arci died, jbjb, really understood the traits of an addict, you'd be able to tell the difference.
Alan, yes, a small % of my session wins have come without hitting quads or higher. I'm not discounting the importance of playing full pay games. Again, if I'm playing the best pay table for the game I choose to play in the casino I choose to play at, I'm not losing a thing. Had I gone next door to play 8/5 instead of 7/5, who's to say my session wouldn't have ended with a smaller win? It's all relative to whatever theory one chooses to throw out there.
Last edited by Rob.Singer; 09-09-2016 at 02:30 PM.
Arci was on the site a few days ago but did not post.
My comment was meant in the context of him not gracing the forum with his presence as of late. Perhaps he is overly enthralled with the veracity and impunity of Hillary and all her lies, and he's studying up in order to best emulate her.
Or maybe he simply has a life.
And I hope he now does james, because everyone deserves one after going thru what he has. It can't be easy, even though he's tried to keep it a non-issue on the forums. And what I said above was in jest, because I know he would never vote for someone like Hillary.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote