The WoV Thread

[Keystone]

Now Monet is saying you need access to 40 / 100 cards to pull off this free play. The more the merrier.

I’ve come to the conclusion that you’re all no doubt a bunch of hustling scumbags that would stick it in anyone’s ass that came along for some free-play. I’m guessing all of you work off of the same WON book, if not wrote it for him.

Fuck all of ya’s with your desperate hustling life styles. What a pathetic way to live a life.

Mickey, no matter what angle anyone could look at you from, they’ll always end up with the same conclusion. You’re a complete pathetic fucking moron ass. And stop with the pictures you fucking idiot, you’re making a fool of yourself. Imagine being around that many different casinos your whole pathetic life. Jackass

Fuck off and die, bitch. It's the only way they'll finally clean Argentino's shit off your nose.

LMAO

[monet]

I believe the main issue here is you're concerned & envious that wizard gave me his time >>> singer

Hmmmmm......I dont think many people on this site "envy" an audience with shackelford.

Shackleford has portrayed himslef as a petty socially backward, lying, misogynistic coward. Interacting with him is nowhere near "an honor" or something to brag about.

unless that is... if you too are a petty socially backward, lying, misogynistic coward. Then birds of a feather........

I would take it as good fortune if shackleford refused to grace me with his presence.

he is merely a dude that is very good at math and who doubts your methods hold any value. The meeting you had was not an endorsement. He let you down nicely. Anyone reading what MC posted would not be running out and hiring you for lessons. It wasnt an endorsement.

What I gather from this is everyone is a liar except LarryS who will only lie in certain situations to make someone feel better like if his wife asks about her hair and he lies telling her it looks nice when it doesn't. Perhaps LarryS is the most honest person on these boards who doesn't lie but tells what some people consider white lies. It is hard to keep up on this board... you have APs who say you have black and white and about 100 shades of grey. You have LarryS who says it is wrong to lie unless your making someone feel better... at that time it is ok to lie. I do agree with LarryS though. I feel the same way when I steal. I say it is wrong to steal but when I need to steal because no other choice I say it is ok to steal. The same goes for many other things I do wrong in life. They are wrong and bad but at some point I say it is ok because my back is against the wall or I have crossed some sort of line that makes the wrong be right.

It is kinda like having dogs. I love the dogs. I wouldn't harm them but if war time came and I had no choice I would have to kill and gut those dogs and put them on the fire and have dinner.

I know this one AP who is a scoundrel. He has burnt out every team and partner in town or in the AP world. He has a few kids and has to pay child support to his ex wife. He also has a girlfriend who was a long time stripper. I see him sometimes playing some VP advantage but his big thing is Keno and hustling the pretty young bartenders in local bars around town. He was talking to me about Obamacare once and his girlfriend was in earshot. They jumped all over me telling me how you have to pay Obamacare or bad things will happen. That was years ago when it first started. I still don't pay into that system and am waiting for the trouble to ensue. The funny thing is this guy is far worse than me hustling his way around but him and his girlfriend are all high and mighty paying taxes and Obamacare... Vegas is a funny town.

[Rob.Singer]

And here, at the 2:40 mark you tell Alan Mendelson that on the 5th card flip it's 18% of the time:

And this one you sent your time wisely on. It is what I told him it is.

So you claim it's 18% like you told Alan Mendelson? Then why did you tell Michael Shackleford, a year before that, that out of 4,685 attempts you caught a card of the same rank 2,211 times. That's 47%. Why did you lie to Shackleford if you told Mendelson the truth?

Blackhole got it right--you lead a moronic existence. A third grader would get this.

I tested a number if machines. I gave Shack the info at that time on certain machines, then when I recorded data on other machines it was different when I talked to Alan.

Real tough Mickey.....

[Rob.Singer]

I believe the main issue here is you're concerned & envious that wizard gave me his time >>> singer

Hmmmmm......I dont think many people on this site "envy" an audience with shackelford.

Shackleford has portrayed himslef as a petty socially backward, lying, misogynistic coward. Interacting with him is nowhere near "an honor" or something to brag about.

unless that is... if you too are a petty socially backward, lying, misogynistic coward. Then birds of a feather........

I would take it as good fortune if shackleford refused to grace me with his presence.

he is merely a dude that is very good at math and who doubts your methods hold any value. The meeting you had was not an endorsement. He let you down nicely. Anyone reading what MC posted would not be running out and hiring you for lessons. It wasnt an endorsement.

I rate your take--and I really do believe you try to do it right--as an EPIC FAIL. Wizard had lots of credibility back then. I had just finished 8 years of "endorsement" by Gaming Today & Gamblers Bookshop, so he sought me out. I was on TV, ESPN, many radio stations, and had two books published. So you can see how your post makes people like mickey all giddy, but that's about all it's good for.

[LarryS]

And [prey tell how does a person who had the '2 books" and the "endorsements" end up posting daiily on other peoples sites TODAY. I would think you wuld have your own website filled with your legions of followers with plenty of testimonials.
There are more casinos throughout the country since then. Plenty of new potential customers. Indian casinos, race tracks, new vegas casinos. And they all put in a nice section of VP machines.
Yet the endorsement s and testimonials(if there ever was) dried up. Even with the internet where a real "system or method" that worked would catch on like wild fire.

Yet as with the john patrick systems......they just imploded under thier own weight. The house of card does fall down.

So you can brag that you used to be a contender.....but those days are gone....and nw you are relegated to mocking a mans alcohol consumption and his obesity froma safe distance.

endorsements are only good.....until reality rears its ugly head.....and the light of truth is shined

how much is an autographed copy of your book worth.

I did come accross a one star review....a sane person who read a book and commented cogently. And gives us the reason why why why.....the house of cards fell and the accolades diminished as you ended up here.

My Random Thoughts and Musings on Video Poker would be a more accurate title.

Despite assertions about his scientific knowledge and how "interesting" he finds the statistics, he doesn't seem to understand statistical concepts like short term vs. long term. Claims to be a professional Video Poker player, although says he doesn't track his wins and losses: "And I most definitely do not keep a running total of how I’m doing over the long haul so I can come up with an average per-hour earnings report of some sort.”

Spends a lot of energy attacking computer analysis, strategy and well-known VP authorities. (I've heard that ‘Rob Singer’ is a pseudonym playing against the name of well-known VP authority Bob Dancer.) Book purports to explain Singer’s strategy, but lacks information clarifying what that strategy involves.

Phase 1:
- Choose casino (often with cash-back).
- Choose machine you're comfortable at.

Phase 2: More unclear.
- Go alone without wife.
- Something about progressing from $1 to higher denominations including the $100 machine.
- Something about cycles with machines.
- Have some bankroll available.

The most humorous bits: advice boiling down to ~To be a winner, be lucky and quit while you're ahead.~

At the $25 machines, “The trick here is to quit when you have reached your goal,–when luck has come your way. There is absolutely no mathematical skill required to be successful.”


“Before I go on each weekly trip I set a goal for winnings, and when I reach that goal, regardless of whether I hit a jackpot to get me to that point during the first hour of play, and regardless of how many more nights I am booked to stay, I make a decision right then and there to either go home, or switch over to slowly playing quarters. Usually I’ll go home, but not always.”


“It’s all and only a matter of when she quits, and it is always and only that way for every living player.”

[mickeycrimm]

And this one you sent your time wisely on. It is what I told him it is.

So you claim it's 18% like you told Alan Mendelson? Then why did you tell Michael Shackleford, a year before that, that out of 4,685 attempts you caught a card of the same rank 2,211 times. That's 47%. Why did you lie to Shackleford if you told Mendelson the truth?

Blackhole got it right--you lead a moronic existence. A third grader would get this.

I tested a number if machines. I gave Shack the info at that time on certain machines, then when I recorded data on other machines it was different when I talked to Alan. Real tough Mickey.....

So you threw out empirical evidence that didn't suit you? You didn't combine the data from all the machines you tested? What makes the "2nd set of machines" different from the "1st set of machines?" Aren't they all just one big set of machines?

Dictionary: Quackery

noun: dishonest practices and claims to have some special knowledge and skill in some field

"quack quack quack quack quack"
Rob Singer

[monet]

So you claim it's 18% like you told Alan Mendelson? Then why did you tell Michael Shackleford, a year before that, that out of 4,685 attempts you caught a card of the same rank 2,211 times. That's 47%. Why did you lie to Shackleford if you told Mendelson the truth?

Blackhole got it right--you lead a moronic existence. A third grader would get this.

I tested a number if machines. I gave Shack the info at that time on certain machines, then when I recorded data on other machines it was different when I talked to Alan. Real tough Mickey.....

So you threw out empirical evidence that didn't suit you? You didn't combine the data from all the machines you tested? What makes the "2nd set of machines" different from the "1st set of machines?" Aren't they all just one big set of machines?

Dictionary: Quackery

noun: dishonest practices and claims to have some special knowledge and skill in some field

"quack quack quack quack quack"
Rob Singer

That is why I said he is selling snake oil liniment... SOL. He is SOL for sure. Where are the thousands of people reading his book and using the information inside of the Casinos. If what he teaches or says is true... by now you would of had other success stories using his method. Why don't we have these other players showing us how they use his system and win millions. The reason we don't hear of them is because it doesn't exist just like the guys who try to teach how to beat the hot and cold cycles of the Reel Machines and the 30 million spin cycle. It doesn't exist so nobody can write an experience of how they are using the information and winning. They are all just Snake Oil Liniment salesmen.

Now with the math and strategies that APs use on video poker or with vision machines or stand alone progressives we have many, many accounts of winners. You even have thousands of those players getting thrown out of Casinos or barred. You even have con men selling players cards and people falling for that abuse because it is proven to be real world winners and money earners.

[Deech]

And this one you sent your time wisely on. It is what I told him it is.

So you claim it's 18% like you told Alan Mendelson? Then why did you tell Michael Shackleford, a year before that, that out of 4,685 attempts you caught a card of the same rank 2,211 times. That's 47%. Why did you lie to Shackleford if you told Mendelson the truth?

Blackhole got it right--you lead a moronic existence. A third grader would get this.

I tested a number if machines. I gave Shack the info at that time on certain machines, then when I recorded data on other machines it was different when I talked to Alan.

Real tough Mickey.....

Sorry, I am a first time poster.

As an engineer, I have a problem when a fellow engineer gives two distinct answers to the same question, Fine, if the data points, machines, timelines, have changed, so be it. But that was not presented in any dialog that I have been following. No one has supported that 18 and 47 percent, separately, have some synergy to video poker.

I did not go to Northeastern (kudos to winning the Beanpot this year) but a simple answer to the question would be appreciated. I understand that others will not answer certain questions in this forum but engineers have a duty to explain their status.

I have a close fraternity bother that worked at Grumman and the worked at Sirkorsky, ultimately in China. Similar to another poster. Why mention this? Somehow others did. We are all the same, no one is smarter than any other. I ultimately went to Cleveland and he went to the Orient (insert joke here).

At this time I think of the Dire Straits song, "Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong.". 18% and 47% was answered to the same question, one of them must be wrong.

"Engineers seek the truth, but must also answer when questioned about the truth." Deech


As a newbie, I need to be neutral and applaud the other half of the Dynamic Duo.

Alan was very professional the interview and asked the important questions. I believe that if he did not have the interview he would be more aggressive in the posts but he is honest with what he states. Then again, I have love for WCBS New York and still long for the days of Jim Jensen, Michele March, and Rolland Smith. Nanuet was not too far from my shadows of West Point.

I have learned a lot in the last two years, more honestly, more in the last three months.

Some day I hope to run into you guys at Gold Coast (my favorite place, four times a year) or elsewhere.

PS I almost had my first post when girlfriday had her 6th and 7th post. You guys were slow to attack (I say that in a nice way). Dan will verify that I am not a sockpuppet (I love that term). I frantically tried to register that day. Yeah, you guys sucked me in.

[redietz]

A quick welcome, Deech. I was just at the Gold Coast for a spell. I actually prefer the Orleans, but I couldn't snag a comped room at the Orleans last week, so I stayed at the Gold Coast. The Orleans, believe it or not, was hosting some kind of curling championship. Both places are a good value.

[Deech]

Between the wife and/or myself we get lucky in advance. While an east coast guy, Cornerstones (former Cortez Room) is my favorite prime rib place, period (I am Irish, not picky). Orleans is our second choice, especially if they still have Alaskan Amber on tap.

[mickeycrimm]

Deech, Michael Shackleford, the Wizard of Odds, contacted Rob Singer after reading this article by John Brokopp:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...9v8fm3ZeoZJi76

Shackleford was concerned about machines being non-random that under Nevada law are supposed to be random. Singer supposedly had evidence that when holding two pair, a four flush or an open ended straight, the 5th card, when thrown away, would come back the same rank as the card thrown away an indordinate amount of times. In a random game the card will come back the same rank just 6.38% of the time. By the stats Singer showed it was coming back the same rank 47% of the time. Shackleford, a degree'd mathematician knew that was 115 standard deviations from the norm and quite impossible unless machines were non-random. And if it were true it would have been exposed long before Rob Singer. It would have been to noticeable for everyone to ignore. There would have been a huge clamor to Nevada Gaming about it.

I don't know how much you know about Singer but he is always coming up with these kinds of outlandish claims. Both Shackleford and the Administrator of Video Poker Forums did tests with Singer present and the results came in where they were supposed to.

Most likely, Singer's encounter with a mathematician of Shackleford's pedigree gave him a clue that 47% was just to outlandish of a claim so he lowered it to 18% with Mendelson.

Anyways, no one but Singer has ever made such claims.

[Deech]

Deech, Michael Shackleford, the Wizard of Odds, contacted Rob Singer after reading this article by John Brokopp:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...9v8fm3ZeoZJi76

Shackleford was concerned about machines being non-random that under Nevada law are supposed to be random. Singer supposedly had evidence that when holding two pair, a four flush or an open ended straight, the 5th card, when thrown away, would come back the same rank as the card thrown away an indordinate amount of times. In a random game the card will come back the same rank just 6.38% of the time. By the stats Singer showed it was coming back the same rank 47% of the time. Shackleford, a degree'd mathematician knew that was 115 standard deviations from the norm and quite impossible unless machines were non-random. And if it were true it would have been exposed long before Rob Singer. It would have been to noticeable for everyone to ignore. There would have been a huge clamor to Nevada Gaming about it.

I don't know how much you know about Singer but he is always coming up with these kinds of outlandish claims. Both Shackleford and the Administrator of Video Poker Forums did tests with Singer present and the results came in where they were supposed to.

Most likely, Singer's encounter with a mathematician of Shackleford's pedigree gave him a clue that 47% was just to outlandish of a claim so he lowered it to 18% with Mendelson.

Anyways, no one but Singer has ever made such claims.

While my mother has said she is proud that I am an engineer (or something), my NYPD/FBI family roots have to take over. Some time you need to address what you have stated and correct any confusion. No one is perfect. Shackelford is a hell of a lot smarter than me on numbers. Everyone poster (on this forum) seems to have an open wound that othesr love to attack (OK as a native New Yorker, I understand). I just go for the simple inconsistency. Both numbers are wrong but I could live with 18% since I see the repeating card frequently. I need to know why the 47% number was tossed out there with no acknowledgment that it is n the arena, and confirmed.

[mickeycrimm]

Deech, Michael Shackleford, the Wizard of Odds, contacted Rob Singer after reading this article by John Brokopp:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...9v8fm3ZeoZJi76

Shackleford was concerned about machines being non-random that under Nevada law are supposed to be random. Singer supposedly had evidence that when holding two pair, a four flush or an open ended straight, the 5th card, when thrown away, would come back the same rank as the card thrown away an indordinate amount of times. In a random game the card will come back the same rank just 6.38% of the time. By the stats Singer showed it was coming back the same rank 47% of the time. Shackleford, a degree'd mathematician knew that was 115 standard deviations from the norm and quite impossible unless machines were non-random. And if it were true it would have been exposed long before Rob Singer. It would have been to noticeable for everyone to ignore. There would have been a huge clamor to Nevada Gaming about it.

I don't know how much you know about Singer but he is always coming up with these kinds of outlandish claims. Both Shackleford and the Administrator of Video Poker Forums did tests with Singer present and the results came in where they were supposed to.

Most likely, Singer's encounter with a mathematician of Shackleford's pedigree gave him a clue that 47% was just to outlandish of a claim so he lowered it to 18% with Mendelson.

Anyways, no one but Singer has ever made such claims.

While my mother has said she is proud that I am an engineer (or something), my NYPD/FBI family roots have to take over. Some time you need to address what you have stated and correct any confusion. No one is perfect. Shackelford is a hell of a lot smarter than me on numbers. Everyone poster (on this forum) seems to have an open wound that othesr love to attack (OK as a native New Yorker, I understand). I just go for the simple inconsistency. Both numbers are wrong but I could live with 18% since I see the repeating card frequently. I need to know why the 47% number was tossed out there with no acknowledgment that it is n the arena, and confirmed.

I don't know what you mean by "Some time you need to address what you have stated and correct any confusion." I'm not confused. And I don't know what you mean by this statement "I need to know why the 47% number was tossed out there with no acknowledgement that it is n the arena, and confirmed."

[Deech]

Deech, Michael Shackleford, the Wizard of Odds, contacted Rob Singer after reading this article by John Brokopp:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...9v8fm3ZeoZJi76

Shackleford was concerned about machines being non-random that under Nevada law are supposed to be random. Singer supposedly had evidence that when holding two pair, a four flush or an open ended straight, the 5th card, when thrown away, would come back the same rank as the card thrown away an indordinate amount of times. In a random game the card will come back the same rank just 6.38% of the time. By the stats Singer showed it was coming back the same rank 47% of the time. Shackleford, a degree'd mathematician knew that was 115 standard deviations from the norm and quite impossible unless machines were non-random. And if it were true it would have been exposed long before Rob Singer. It would have been to noticeable for everyone to ignore. There would have been a huge clamor to Nevada Gaming about it.

I don't know how much you know about Singer but he is always coming up with these kinds of outlandish claims. Both Shackleford and the Administrator of Video Poker Forums did tests with Singer present and the results came in where they were supposed to.

Most likely, Singer's encounter with a mathematician of Shackleford's pedigree gave him a clue that 47% was just to outlandish of a claim so he lowered it to 18% with Mendelson.

Anyways, no one but Singer has ever made such claims.

While my mother has said she is proud that I am an engineer (or something), my NYPD/FBI family roots have to take over. Some time you need to address what you have stated and correct any confusion. No one is perfect. Shackelford is a hell of a lot smarter than me on numbers. Everyone poster (on this forum) seems to have an open wound that othesr love to attack (OK as a native New Yorker, I understand). I just go for the simple inconsistency. Both numbers are wrong but I could live with 18% since I see the repeating card frequently. I need to know why the 47% number was tossed out there with no acknowledgment that it is n the arena, and confirmed.

I don't know what you mean by "Some time you need to address what you have stated and correct any confusion." I'm not confused. And I don't know what you mean by this statement "I need to know why the 47% number was tossed out there with no acknowledgement that it is n the arena, and confirmed."

On the first comment , I am being polite. I am new to the forum. The readers have no confusion, you, nor I. It is like law enforcement before the arrest. You have to verify the incident. We both know what was stated. Math comments are simple. No argument between me and you.

The second comment was that the 47% number was mentioned, and not confirmed by Mr. Singer in his rebuttal (in earlier posts) about the 18% issue. I guess I should have stated that the 47% number was not confirmed. My bad at 3 AM. But, I care.

[Rob.Singer]

Looks like mickey and monet are in love.....

[redietz]

So were you lying when you told Shack 47% or were you lying when you told Mendelson 18%....or were you lying to both of them?

I have no clue what you're referring to. Take another gulp....wait! Isn't Jack Daniels 94 proof?

You have no clue what I'm talking about? Here, let me jog your memory:

I think whenever Argentino tries to make a case for his video poker expertise, this simple report from Shackleford should be posted. Readers can take a look and figure things out for themselves. I want to thank mickey crimm for making this easily available for everyone.

I have two additional comments tying this factual report to what Argentino posts today:

1) Argentino could give himself some breathing room logically by simply saying that he was completely wrong about something, in this case the fifth card flipover rate. I don't recall him ever retreating from a position or narrative that he's claimed. I don't recall him admitting that he was lying or dead wrong. That boxes him into many corners.

2) It's never made clear in the Shackleford report who brought an end to the sessions wherein the fifth card flipover tests were not expressing an anomalous rate. Argentino says the sessions were too short to establish anything, but he doesn't mention who brought the session with Shackleford to an end or why it was brought to an end. Did Shackleford, after agreeing to the meet, really not have an extra hour? I bring this up because, when paranormal claimants are being tested and are having a bad run, they are the ones usually lobbying to bring the trials to an end.

[tableplay]

Of course you are.

ignorantia legis neminem excusat

Ignorance of law excuses no one

The US government (and lawyers) must be salivating over the fact that there are now so many laws on the books that everyone breaks one or more laws at some point, and that, if they don't like you, they can trawl your history and find one or more that you broke.

[Prozema]

Hey Red... RE:

"1) Argentino could give himself some breathing room logically by simply saying that he was completely wrong about something, in this case the fifth card flipover rate. I don't recall him ever retreating from a position or narrative that he's claimed. I don't recall him admitting that he was lying or dead wrong. That boxes him into many corners."

You've been here a lot longer than me but in my short time I've figured out Rob is NEVER wrong. I've spent the last couple of days trying to contact the Avengers... I'm sure Earth's mightiest heroes would see more value in Rob's infallibility than we do on this board.

I doubt Rob would take the gig with the Avengers thought... We will need a new Pope in a few years. If I was Rob, I'd hold out for the pope gig.

;-)

Seriously though... If you want a real video poker play, a Midwest casino is giving away $15 grocery store gift cards on Thursdays for 1000 points ($2000 coin in). You will also get $2 in free play and $2 in comps.... Total value add of $19. If you play their 9/6 job machine, you are at a half percent advantage... You can probably find a better machine too... Most video poker players can run up the required play in a hour playing $0.50 denomination.

Before everyone jumps all over me about $9 an hour (admittedly weak)... My point is I would put this play against anything I've heard Rob Singer say.

Final thought as it relates to WOV... I bet shackelford would grant a name change to RS because he shares initials with Singer. #unfortuneate.

[mickeycrimm]

Looks like mickey and monet are in love.....

At the end of the article Shackleford said he told Rob that he was willing to test any machine in Las Vegas or Laughlin that Rob could point to that gave abnormal results. It's been nine years and apparently Shackleford has not heard back from Rob.

[Alan Mendelson]

Looks like mickey and monet are in love.....

At the end of the article Shackleford said he told Rob that he was willing to test any machine in Las Vegas or Laughlin that Rob could point to that gave abnormal results. It's been nine years and apparently Shackleford has not heard back from Rob.

Just curious: how could Shackelford test a machine in use at a casino?