I assume it's an accidental glitch. There have been four or five previous occasions, the majority when Alan was hosting, when a thread was accidentally closed somehow.
Personally, I think Rob won that particular jackpot, which I've said before. The issue isn't whether he won the jackpot(s) per se, but whether his rate-of-jackpots is credible
I am sure this was in error. I was online when the thread was closed and I immediately messaged Dan.
When I was running the forum, I frequently closed threads by accident because I was posting using my cell phone. I asked Dan if perhaps he had posted his last response using his cell phone? For some reason that I can't explain, when I used my cell phone to make posts, threads were accidentally closed. Most of the time I caught it before anyone else noticed. And redietz is correct -- there were at least a half dozen that I closed by accident that I did not immediately catch.
Of course the only one who can close a thread is an administrator and right now there is only one -- Dan. Only Dan can reopen it.
Rob's a smart dude and a savvy writer. He never actually mentions number of hands played or rate-of-jackpots. He sticks with anecdotal reports with all concrete numbers left to the readers' imagination. You can't post 5000 times and "accidentally" not keep tabs or report on things like that.
It's a classic style used by many paranormal claimants. Psychics often publicize their spectacular hits, while failing to mention their enormous number of misses. Rob's reporting style is very, very similar, down to the blessed-by-God/family-comes-first/I-don't use-my-abilities-to-get-rich presentation
Rob did mention one year when he won $100,000 net when he played very little. There was a post about it, but I am not going to spend the time to look it up.
Ive figured it out.. Rob has a blood contract with Satan.. Its the only explanation for his minimal play and huge winnings.
I think it's more likely a split personality. There exists "loser Rob," who was in control for 10 years and was a failed AP. Some kind of traumatic event, like maybe a death or bankruptcy or trist with a really nasty hooker, caused "winner Rob" to assume control. If Rob sits down at a vp machine and wins, "winner Rob" remembers the big hit. If he starts to lose, "loser Rob" takes over until the session is done or Rob is out of money. Then "loser Rob" leaves and "winner Rob" has no memory or record of the events.
"Loser Rob," for all we know, eats at buffets and tips.
Or you can take the Occam's Razor approach and come to the conclusion Rob has a pact with Satan.
Rob was right. Even when he's not here posting he still generates the most traffic.
That just makes it harder to cross the street.
The $25 machine $50k & $100k jackpots I hit after May 2009 were all hit in less play time than the 2 to 2-1/2 hours it took me to hit those 3 royals & four Aces w/kicker on the same $2 machine this June at South Point. As I said, it's all luck, and the ARTT strategy simply allows more opportunity for a higher denominational win to appear within a session. At SP it was 25c/50c/$1/$2; at Wynn it was $1/$2/$5/$10/$25, and I used two machines because they don't have all five denoms on any one machine. And it happened probably within 45 mins. if I remember correctly. The $50k jackpots were fairly similar in play time to that. My bankroll taken when I played the $25 machines was $30k, and my win goal was "only" either $500 or $1000 per trip. But you go in "expecting" to win more as the the goal is attained. At SP I brought less than the required $2400, and my win goal was $100 or $200. I left about $25k ahead.
In my professional playing days (1999-2009) my gambling bankroll was always 3X what was required to take for playing one session ($57,200)--or $171,600. Win goal was always $2500. If you tried this yourself using my strategy with special plays etc. and if you had my discipline level, anyone could duplicate the winning I experienced. And fortunately, I find using some of the same principles utilized when playing for a living have surprisingly allowed me to be similarly successful since retiring.
Alan, I did need to play some very long hour sessions to win over my 10 yr. career. And there were many long hour sessions along with many short and very short hour sessions. The win goal as an overall % of my gambling bankroll was very small, aka, not greedy. That has much to do with consistent winning and the many short playing hours wins.
As a final note: I know arci doesn't like this....any if it. But he also doesn't like the fact that we remain very happily married, my wife still walks the earth w/o a cane, crutches, or in need of adult diapers, and that my doggie is smarter than him.
My next casino trip is in less than 2 weeks in Lake Tahoe, but I won't be playing in any of the casinos. My family from back east is still here and I'm taking them for a tour up there with a stopover at Santa Fe Station (they despise casino gambling--albeit for seemingly bad reasoning), then over to Reno where they will fly home from. Later in the month we're staying at Harrahs S.Calif. for a night because we're going back to visit SD's Little Italy again. I don't play at Indian casinos. But we are going to GVR after that, where I will play and most likely, win.
BTW---I returned from Red Rock +$2600 in maybe 7 total hours of play during the two overnights. I'd say I'm slipping
Enjoy the responses as much as I do!
My little observations:
1) As in his previous 5000 posts, Rob makes no actual mention of number of hands played or hands-per-jackpot. He makes some opaque comments regarding hours played, but nothing tangible. We are left to draw our own conclusions.
2) It is certainly curious, given Rob's enormous success, that no members of his immediate, or non-immediate family, have adopted his playing strategies. Very curious, indeed. In this regard he is like two other people. Bob Dancer's family members do not play. And Jesus' family members refrained from turning water into wine.
3) Rob is exceedingly careful in how he says things. Alan, as a journalist, surely you appreciate Rob's rather torturous but precise use of words: "...and if you had my discipline level, anyone could duplicate the winning I experienced." That doesn't state that anyone would be a net winner, or that anyone playing x limits and y strategy would win z. Rob makes a simple statement that really means nothing, because anyone playing a certain number of hands will indeed win a certain number of hands with certain payoffs. That's what pay tables state, and Rob isn't making any big claim here, although a naive reader could interpret Rob's statement as suggesting someone following his strategies and with his discipline would have a "net winning" record with vp. Rob's statement, in reality, just says that people will have Rob's results. Now that is a true enough statement if Rob's results are rather normal. The trick to all of this verbal obfuscation is that "winning" has no precise or legal definition. "Winning" in Rob's sentences is not the same as "net winning" or "lifetime winning." "Winning" just refers to those hands, whether in number or quality, in which you won credits. So any person should indeed be able to duplicate Rob's "winning."
Last edited by redietz; 12-30-2016 at 08:57 AM.
Using Singer logic (yes, I know this is an oxymoron) it is clear Robbie is responsible for the early death of his father. If Rob had not been such a loser then his father would have been happier and probably lived much longer. LOL
Hey, how is life in your trailer park these days or are you still mooching off your new in-laws?
Red, not a good effort. I said in simple terms that if anyone else actually played my strategy within the same ground rules as I use, they'd experience the same type of success. (Hint: use the bankroll & denoms I did, win about what I did; play starting at pennies thru dollars, win about 100X less than I did.) You took a lot of filler-words to apply your own odd interpretation.
But while it must have been painful for you to concoct such a scenario, it's still a million miles away from the heartache and pain arci feels when he visits the dead veggie's grave over the holidaysOh how easy it is to get under his skin and get him going again.....you people should be PRAISING me for drawing him out of his introversion once again!
Oops.....crocodile tears time!
Last edited by Rob.Singer; 12-30-2016 at 11:27 PM.
Rob, all you did in your latest post is repeat the same thing. No mention of "you will be a net winner if you do what I say" or "you will win lifetime doing what I say." Just "if you do what I do, you'll have the same success." You've substituted the word "success" for "winning" without discussing money, lifetime winning, or net winning.
It's obvious and easy to point these things out. No effort at all.
Now, if you want to make some declarative statement about "if you do what I, Rob Argentino, say, you'll be a net winner lifetime at vp," be my guest. Nobody is stopping you. After 5000 posts, one would think you would simply and clearly state such a thing if it were true.
To have a $57,000 bankroll to have a win goal of $2500 makes no sense. That's a 4% return. With luck you can play one $5 hand at Jacks or Better, hit two pair for $10 and have a 200% return.
With that said... I was playing the only $5 VP machine in the Palace Court high limit slots area at Caesars yesterday. I lost my $1500 budgeted amount despite getting some lower paying quads. Next to me was a very beautiful woman playing $100 single line Bonus. Hand pay for every three of a kind. She got quad kings twice but walked out after losing whatever amount she lost. She said to the attendant the wins just weren't enough.
This post is what I call an oxymoron. The first example leaves a winner and is considered nonsensical, after watching a lady continuing to play and lose. Also, there is a strategy allowing 400 credits, not one hand at JOB. I don't have the knowledge and playing experience as you guys, but some concepts are easy to see.
Quite the chuckle. First off my wife wasn't buried. There's no grave to visit. So, chalk up another failure for little Robbie. And of course, having a loser of a son is far more likely to cause a father grief then gambling is to cause kidney failure. So there we have it. Real logic once again destroys the little man. LOL
Now let's examine the usual projection ... "it must have been painful for you to concoct such a scenario" .... Here our favorite loser actually admits he is making it all up (OK, we already knew that). And then he admits it is "painful". The little guy is brought to "tears". Doesn't get much more hilarious than this.
Poor Robbie hates it when I make a complete fool out of him. Even mama belly has no chance of rescuing this total loser.
And finally, notice how he completely forgot to tell us all about his miserable life in the trailer park. LOL
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)