I'm new and want to know all the best deals :)

[Alan Mendelson]

What Rob didn't tell us is what his regular income was when he lost $250,000 gambling as an "AP." If he was making less than $100,000 a year (which he probably was given when this happened and the corporate job he had) then he was really betting over his head. If on the other hand he was making $200,000 a year then losing $250,000 over a period of time gambling (we don't know what that period was, do we?) then it might not be unusual.

Look, I know business people who lose $100,000 per weekend and don't even wince because they earn so much money. I'm not one of them, however.

[Rob.Singer]

So many times.....I lost about $250k from 1990-1996 strictly playing as an AP. My salary probably averaged $175k/year for those 7 years, the last 5 as a VP. And don't forget--I've had something unique among gamblers: it's called a WIFE in a successful marriage, and she averaged around $70k/year back then. So losing around $45k/year wasn't a big deal, but I would have likely lost a lot more had I not been out of the country 75% of the time.

Imagine that....a gambler with one long successful marriage (and the jealous will claim it was because I was gone so often, but sorry Charlie, she regularly took trips to visit me around the globe), and a gambler who had a respectable job and who knew enough to secure his family's retirement AND prepare to be a professional gambler.

Wow! Whooda thunk!?

And james, try as you may, but you never tell the story right or even the same way twice. That's why you're so goofy. 1996=our BK year. While I was an AP at the time, gambling losses had little to do with the problem. I know you just can't connect the "being an AP" dots to 1996--and that my professional gambling years were from 2000-2009--but at least try not to look the fool.

And please....wise up!

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, you are so lucky she stuck with you. So lucky.

I have some single female friends... but I'd never recommend you.

I love you, brother... but there's a limit to brotherly love.

[jbjb]

So many times.....I lost about $250k from 1990-1996 strictly playing as an AP. My salary probably averaged $175k/year for those 7 years, the last 5 as a VP. And don't forget--I've had something unique among gamblers: it's called a WIFE in a successful marriage, and she averaged around $70k/year back then. So losing around $45k/year wasn't a big deal, but I would have likely lost a lot more had I not been out of the country 75% of the time.

Imagine that....a gambler with one long successful marriage (and the jealous will claim it was because I was gone so often, but sorry Charlie, she regularly took trips to visit me around the globe), and a gambler who had a respectable job and who knew enough to secure his family's retirement AND prepare to be a professional gambler.

Wow! Whooda thunk!?

And james, try as you may, but you never tell the story right or even the same way twice. That's why you're so goofy. 1996=our BK year. While I was an AP at the time, gambling losses had little to do with the problem. I know you just can't connect the "being an AP" dots to 1996--and that my professional gambling years were from 2000-2009--but at least try not to look the fool.

And please....wise up!

You'd need waders a mile high to walk through all this bullshit! Of course, geniuses like Blackhole never dispute the shit Singer types out.

Professional Gambler my ass! Lucky Ploppy if anything. And even that's is debatable.

Str8upbrah, don't listen to a thing from this idiot Singer.

[redietz]

I have never been given a straight answer for how many tier points or RC's I earn when sports betting. I think the last answer I got was something vague like "not much, but every little bit helps". It didn't bother me because I realize I generally only bet about a hundred bucks a day on sports wagers when in Nevada. I now know that I definitely am not going to swipe my card on the morning I leave anymore.

I actually did a survey quite a few years ago of some CET properties regarding this and got wildly different replies. It was ridiculous. I'll repeat my tale of "no hamburger for you" tomorrow or the next day. Comps were just as erratic.

[james40]

Rob, you are so lucky she stuck with you. So lucky.

I have some single female friends... but I'd never recommend you.

I love you, brother... but there's a limit to brotherly love.

It's usually the family that suffers the most. To the gambler it's "no big deal". He "only" lost $45K a year, plus a property deal that went sideways on him, plus credit card debt. No big deal. He was lucky his wife hung in there. She must have had an exit plan though.

[james40]

So many times.....I lost about $250k from 1990-1996 strictly playing as an AP. My salary probably averaged $175k/year for those 7 years, the last 5 as a VP. And don't forget--I've had something unique among gamblers: it's called a WIFE in a successful marriage, and she averaged around $70k/year back then. So losing around $45k/year wasn't a big deal, but I would have likely lost a lot more had I not been out of the country 75% of the time.

Imagine that....a gambler with one long successful marriage (and the jealous will claim it was because I was gone so often, but sorry Charlie, she regularly took trips to visit me around the globe), and a gambler who had a respectable job and who knew enough to secure his family's retirement AND prepare to be a professional gambler.

Wow! Whooda thunk!?

And james, try as you may, but you never tell the story right or even the same way twice. That's why you're so goofy. 1996=our BK year. While I was an AP at the time, gambling losses had little to do with the problem. I know you just can't connect the "being an AP" dots to 1996--and that my professional gambling years were from 2000-2009--but at least try not to look the fool.

And please....wise up!

I do commend your wife for hanging in there. You were gone 75 percent of the time and the 25 percent you were home you were busy burning through $45K a year gambling. Plus your savvy real estate deals and the credit card debt. Must have been hell on her watching the implosion.

The dots are fairly easy to connect, gambling leading to bankruptcy. It's an old story and usually not a particularly happy one.

I get the wise up, I will never treat my family that badly.

[RS__]

So many times.....I lost about $250k from 1990-1996 strictly playing as an AP. My salary probably averaged $175k/year for those 7 years, the last 5 as a VP. And don't forget--I've had something unique among gamblers: it's called a WIFE in a successful marriage, and she averaged around $70k/year back then. So losing around $45k/year wasn't a big deal, but I would have likely lost a lot more had I not been out of the country 75% of the time.

Imagine that....a gambler with one long successful marriage (and the jealous will claim it was because I was gone so often, but sorry Charlie, she regularly took trips to visit me around the globe), and a gambler who had a respectable job and who knew enough to secure his family's retirement AND prepare to be a professional gambler.

Wow! Whooda thunk!?

And james, try as you may, but you never tell the story right or even the same way twice. That's why you're so goofy. 1996=our BK year. While I was an AP at the time, gambling losses had little to do with the problem. I know you just can't connect the "being an AP" dots to 1996--and that my professional gambling years were from 2000-2009--but at least try not to look the fool.

And please....wise up!

Wow.....you shouldn't offer anyone advice. Ever.

[james40]

What Rob didn't tell us is what his regular income was when he lost $250,000 gambling as an "AP." If he was making less than $100,000 a year (which he probably was given when this happened and the corporate job he had) then he was really betting over his head. If on the other hand he was making $200,000 a year then losing $250,000 over a period of time gambling (we don't know what that period was, do we?) then it might not be unusual.

Look, I know business people who lose $100,000 per weekend and don't even wince because they earn so much money. I'm not one of them, however.

Alan, you understand the saying it's not how much you make, it's how much you keep. There were more debits than credits against him and he filed BK to get out from underneath debt. I doubt if the creditors cared how much he was making yearly.

I think there is a lesson to be gained from this in how gambling can get out of control and it's consequences.

[Alan Mendelson]

I don't think you have to actually be negative to file for Chapter 11 or Chapter 13.

Plus someone who files for bankruptcy protection could have a fortune locked away in retirement funds which cannot be touched with a bankruptcy -- and that's 100% legal. And there are bankruptcy laws which shelter all kinds of other assets including your house.

OJ Simpson, for example, was able to keep his $25,000 a month pension despite the lawsuits against him in the Ron Goldman civil case.

I am sure Rob would rather not have lost money playing VP. But remember, his position is that he lost that money because he played a conventional AP strategy -- not because he played with his "Singer system."

Now, if he filed BK while using his Singer System then I think everyone can pound on him. But the guy filed BK and lost at VP playing conventional strategy. And that doesn't say much about conventional strategy, does it? Nor does it say much for all of those schemes to double dip casino offers and comps, does it?

Now Rob is saying don't play conventional strategy, ignore the AP comp hunt, and you'll be fine. And what do you know? He hasn't filed for bankruptcy again... has he?

[RS__]

I don't think you have to actually be negative to file for Chapter 11 or Chapter 13.

Plus someone who files for bankruptcy protection could have a fortune locked away in retirement funds which cannot be touched with a bankruptcy -- and that's 100% legal. And there are bankruptcy laws which shelter all kinds of other assets including your house.

OJ Simpson, for example, was able to keep his $25,000 a month pension despite the lawsuits against him in the Ron Goldman civil case.

I am sure Rob would rather not have lost money playing VP. But remember, his position is that he lost that money because he played a conventional AP strategy -- not because he played with his "Singer system."

Now, if he filed BK while using his Singer System then I think everyone can pound on him. But the guy filed BK and lost at VP playing conventional strategy. And that doesn't say much about conventional strategy, does it? Nor does it say much for all of those schemes to double dip casino offers and comps, does it?

Now Rob is saying don't play conventional strategy, ignore the AP comp hunt, and you'll be fine. And what do you know? He hasn't filed for bankruptcy again... has he?

Oh yeah, we'll just totally take his word for it. Even though none of it makes sense, we'll just blindly listen to and believe what he says. Although math, logic, and just pure common sense says otherwise.......LOL

[james40]

I don't think you have to actually be negative to file for Chapter 11 or Chapter 13.

Plus someone who files for bankruptcy protection could have a fortune locked away in retirement funds which cannot be touched with a bankruptcy -- and that's 100% legal. And there are bankruptcy laws which shelter all kinds of other assets including your house.

OJ Simpson, for example, was able to keep his $25,000 a month pension despite the lawsuits against him in the Ron Goldman civil case.

I am sure Rob would rather not have lost money playing VP. But remember, his position is that he lost that money because he played a conventional AP strategy -- not because he played with his "Singer system."

Now, if he filed BK while using his Singer System then I think everyone can pound on him. But the guy filed BK and lost at VP playing conventional strategy. And that doesn't say much about conventional strategy, does it? Nor does it say much for all of those schemes to double dip casino offers and comps, does it?

Now Rob is saying don't play conventional strategy, ignore the AP comp hunt, and you'll be fine. And what do you know? He hasn't filed for bankruptcy again... has he?

AP, conventional strategy, comps, offers? This was addictive behavior, nothing more, nothing less. He was caught in the trap of the next hit was going to start his comeback, except the next hit never came. The only reason his losses were limited to $250K, was because he was out of the country 75 percent of the time. It also gives you a feel for what kind of husband and father he was, when he was home he was dedicated to VP, essentially blowing his wife's yearly take home pay on gambling.

Please don't try to pretty this up, it is a great cautionary tale for someone new to gambling that doesn't realize the potential harm that can come from it and the thinking that a "strategy" can lead to a positive outcome. The only strategy that works 100 percent of the time is to stay out of the casinos.

[RS__]

But the guy filed BK and lost at VP playing conventional strategy. And that doesn't say much about conventional strategy, does it? Nor does it say much for all of those schemes to double dip casino offers and comps, does it?

You claim to use conventional strategy, yet you hold 3 to a royal over a high pair in 8/5 BP. Do you see the problem with your (above) logic?

[Rob.Singer]

Yes, you should watch the pennies. Just as you should watch the dollars.

Not to watch the pennies is like throwing money away. I think only Rob Singer has boasted about throwing dollar bills on the ground. Too bad I wasn't walking behind him to pick them up.

It's a nice diversion for those hopelessly overly addicted to slot club rope-'em-in tactics, but the truth remains....IF YOU ARE A PERENNIAL CASINO LOSER, THEN YOU WILL MOPE & WHINE & GROAN ABOUT ALL THE "INJUSTICES OF SOCIETY" WHENEVER YOU COME UP ON THE SHORT END OF THE DEAL--WHETHER IT BE BY A PENNY, A DOLLAR, OR MORE--EVERY SINGLE TIME; IF YOU ARE A PERENNIAL WINNER AT CASINO GAMBLING, NONE OF THAT STUFF EVER, EVER MATTERS, SINCE WHEN ONE OF THESE "INJUSTICES" OCCURS YOU SIMPLY SAY TO YOURSELF "I'VE WON MONEY AND I COULD HAVE LOST, SO I WILL NEVER, EVER LET THESE ANNOYANCES BOTHER ME AGAIN".

THAT is the difference, Alan & friends. You like constantly going thru life's hassles? Just keep operating in the same way. Stay slaves to slot clubs and card status instead of becoming serious students of gambling. Let casino hosts keep controlling you by artificially keep making you believe they're your "best friends" at your "home away from home". Keep running to those casino ATM's when you run out of money gambling---yes...that next big hit is "just around the corner!". Keep giving your money away to those floor people after hitting signers--heck, you can just keep struggling with trying to save every penny from every OTHER situation in life instead! And by ALL means, do sign up for casino credit. It makes a real nice pairing and really solidifies your "relationship" with that oh-so-special casino host.

[Alan Mendelson]

You claim to use conventional strategy, yet you hold 3 to a royal over a high pair in 8/5 BP. Do you see the problem with your (above) logic?

Yes, I hold three to the royal over a high pair in 8/5 Bonus. And I will do it every single time except when the high pair is AA.

[Alan Mendelson]

that next big hit is "just around the corner!"

Ummm.... yes it is. Or else, why bother playing?

[Rob.Singer]

Yes, I hold three to the royal over a high pair in 8/5 Bonus. And I will do it every single time except when the high pair is AA.

And there-in lies the main reason why casinos win out over players--recreational, professional, or "AP's"--most or all of the time. They understand that players will play exactly as they expect them to play....without goals or the ability to just get up and leave at the time of their choice.

When I held 3-to-the-royal over trip Q's in 8/5 BP, I did so with the knowledge that if quad Q's were hit, it WOULD NOT have allowed me to go down in denomination or to hit any mini-win goal. So the only obvious hold was the three royal cards--and it paid off big time, to the chagrin of SO MANY so-called "experts" when they saw it and read about it. But had I been playing ANY advanced BP game where the payout was at least 250 for 4 Q's, I would have easily held the trip Q's since quad Q's would have easily attained a goal.

It is not that hard to understand. Naturally, most players and esp. the AP crowd would simply have held QQQ since they like the idea of possibly hitting a quad along with the ability to play a little longer. It fits right in with the addictive qualities of casino play. And for the vast majority of poker machine addicts, hitting four Q's is the same as adding more points onto their sacred slot club cards, which in every case for these sad people spells L-O-S-E-R....and it spells it big time.

[Rob.Singer]

Ummm.... yes it is. Or else, why bother playing?

Because only problem gamblers rush to cash a check and/or to the ATM's when they run out of money. It is EXACTLY the kind of behavior casinos count on, and anyone who does such a thing is not only a weak player--they lack the intelligence about what it truly takes to consistently profit at casinos. These people will, of course, shout out denial after denial on this subject, since it paints them with stooge paint.

[jbjb]

And there-in lies the main reason why casinos win out over players--recreational, professional, or "AP's"--most or all of the time. They understand that players will play exactly as they expect them to play....without goals or the ability to just get up and leave at the time of their choice.

When I held 3-to-the-royal over trip Q's in 8/5 BP, I did so with the knowledge that if quad Q's were hit, it WOULD NOT have allowed me to go down in denomination or to hit any mini-win goal. So the only obvious hold was the three royal cards--and it paid off big time, to the chagrin of SO MANY so-called "experts" when they saw it and read about it. But had I been playing ANY advanced BP game where the payout was at least 250 for 4 Q's, I would have easily held the trip Q's since quad Q's would have easily attained a goal.

It is not that hard to understand. Naturally, most players and esp. the AP crowd would simply have held QQQ since they like the idea of possibly hitting a quad along with the ability to play a little longer. It fits right in with the addictive qualities of casino play. And for the vast majority of poker machine addicts, hitting four Q's is the same as adding more points onto their sacred slot club cards, which in every case for these sad people spells L-O-S-E-R....and it spells it big time.

Yep, you did EXACTLY WHAT THE CASINO WANTS. Make a sub optimal play. Well, SUPPOSEDLY you did. I think it's just another bullshit story.

[Alan Mendelson]

I questioned Rob about not holding the QQQ and drawing to the royal. I thought that was crazy. I would never sacrifice three of a kind for a royal draw.

Now two points:

1. Rob told me that was a one of a kind event in his life. He said the draw was presented to him once and it never happened again. I personally have never had trips with three to a royal.

2. Rob was in such a deep, deep, deep friggin hole that I am guessing he either had to hit that royal or he was going to take a dive off the top of the Stratosphere.

Only ONCE in my life did I use a Rob Singer special play and I wrote about this before. I was in a deep, deep hole (well, it wasn't that deep, but it was a hole of about 2K), when I was dealt a full house with trip aces playing 8/5 Bonus. Conventional strategy is to hold the full house, but I held the three aces and got the fourth ace for $2,000. NOW THAT WAS NOT AN OFFICIAL ROB SINGER SPECIAL PLAY. Rob says to hold the full house with 8/5 Bonus, but to hold the three aces with 7/5 Bonus. And Bob Dancer says to hold the three aces in 6/5 Bonus. So I guess that was a MENDELSON SPECIAL PLAY. LOL