Rob Singer sightings...

[Bill Yung]

https://www.gamblingforums.com/threa...e-2#post-46391

[redietz]

https://www.gamblingforums.com/threa...e-2#post-46391

The problem with Rob's old Gaming Today columns was that, after about a dozen columns, he simply repeated himself. Nothing wrong with that, but after 10,000 posts and a decade's worth of columns, one would suspect he would get around to some mention of his statistics somewhere for some period of time. But no.

The thing about Argentino -- as with most things, you can usually learn more from what isn't written than what is. Argentino just ignores math altogether.

It's all about luck. That pretty much washes the gambler's hands of the results. Which implies the results weren't pretty.

[slingshot]

https://www.gamblingforums.com/threa...e-2#post-46391

The problem with Rob's old Gaming Today columns was that, after about a dozen columns, he simply repeated himself. Nothing wrong with that, but after 10,000 posts and a decade's worth of columns, one would suspect he would get around to some mention of his statistics somewhere for some period of time. But no.

The thing about Argentino -- as with most things, you can usually learn more from what isn't written than what is. Argentino just ignores math altogether.

It's all about luck. That pretty much washes the gambler's hands of the results. Which implies the results weren't pretty.

You're always full of half truths. All the figures he gave on some of his holds and relationship of math to win goals- or did you just ignore them?

[redietz]

https://www.gamblingforums.com/threa...e-2#post-46391

The problem with Rob's old Gaming Today columns was that, after about a dozen columns, he simply repeated himself. Nothing wrong with that, but after 10,000 posts and a decade's worth of columns, one would suspect he would get around to some mention of his statistics somewhere for some period of time. But no.

The thing about Argentino -- as with most things, you can usually learn more from what isn't written than what is. Argentino just ignores math altogether.

It's all about luck. That pretty much washes the gambler's hands of the results. Which implies the results weren't pretty.

You're always full of half truths. All the figures he gave on some of his holds and relationship of math to win goals- or did you just ignore them?

Yeah, okay, sling. Go find one post in the 5000 here where he stated his numbers of hands per royal or number of hands per four-of-a-kind. He claimed to somehow circumnavigate probability, but never actually gave hard numbers. For him to win, he would have had to magically generate more royals or four of a kinds than probability predicts.

Rob always skirted math, which was a smart move on his part.

[MisterV]

Rob always skirted math, which was a smart move on his part.

Without the math to back him up it should not have been too tough for someone who actually knows gambling math to objectively disprove his claims, i.e. call bullshit, brand him a liar, and kick him into the corner.

What, he was never challenged by a Math Boy?

[kewlJ]

Rob always skirted math, which was a smart move on his part.

Without the math to back him up it should not have been too tough for someone who actually knows gambling math to objectively disprove his claims, i.e. call bullshit, brand him a liar, and kick him into the corner.

What, he was never challenged by a Math Boy?

Absolutely he has...over and over and over again. That is really the whole issue. Singer, a lot like Alan, refuses to accept the math. But unlike Alan, who just acts goofy, Singer's response to the math that disproves his claims is that he gets nasty to the person stating the math.

End result: They both end up residing in a fantasy world, where they see and do what is mathematically impossible.

[redietz]

Rob always skirted math, which was a smart move on his part.

Without the math to back him up it should not have been too tough for someone who actually knows gambling math to objectively disprove his claims, i.e. call bullshit, brand him a liar, and kick him into the corner.

What, he was never challenged by a Math Boy?

Arcimede$ was versus Argentino from the beginning. What interested me was how Argentino sidestepped all math discussions with appeals to human will, or what percentage of sessions ended with wins, or win goals creating profit on negative expectation games. He was the Uri Geller of video poker.

He was also an incredibly careful writer. He almost never claimed to actually be able to win going forward. He simply divided his video poker playing life into AP, wherein he said he lost his ass. Then came his productive years using "his systems," wherein he won 900K or something. Then came the present, wherein he was retired and therefore not responsible for still making a profit.

He was the classic paranormal claimant. His personal relationship with the former publisher of Gaming Today gave him a public window and some alleged gravitas. When that window closed, he hitched onto Alan.

[mickeycrimm]

Rob always skirted math, which was a smart move on his part.

Without the math to back him up it should not have been too tough for someone who actually knows gambling math to objectively disprove his claims, i.e. call bullshit, brand him a liar, and kick him into the corner.

What, he was never challenged by a Math Boy?

V, arcimedes doesn't post here any more but he took Singer to task repititiously over the math for years. It started on FREEvpFREE in the early 2000's where arci posted as mroejacks. Then it went to the Las Vegas Adviser Sports Forum and Videopokerforum where arci posted as Shadowman. He did the best job of anyone of showing Singer is a fool.

Here's some of the Singer vs. Shadowman threads at Videopokerforum:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...KHcoQ7P2R7n2dZ

[slingshot]

The problem with Rob's old Gaming Today columns was that, after about a dozen columns, he simply repeated himself. Nothing wrong with that, but after 10,000 posts and a decade's worth of columns, one would suspect he would get around to some mention of his statistics somewhere for some period of time. But no.

The thing about Argentino -- as with most things, you can usually learn more from what isn't written than what is. Argentino just ignores math altogether.

It's all about luck. That pretty much washes the gambler's hands of the results. Which implies the results weren't pretty.

You're always full of half truths. All the figures he gave on some of his holds and relationship of math to win goals- or did you just ignore them?

Yeah, okay, sling. Go find one post in the 5000 here where he stated his numbers of hands per royal or number of hands per four-of-a-kind. He claimed to somehow circumnavigate probability, but never actually gave hard numbers. For him to win, he would have had to magically generate more royals or four of a kinds than probability predicts.

Rob always skirted math, which was a smart move on his part.

Is that what you call math? That just about explains the mentality of this forum. I wish I had never posted here.

[mickeycrimm]

Is that what you call math? That just about explains the mentality of this forum. I wish I had never posted here.

Then get lost. Go post at GF where your hero is.

[mickeycrimm]

The problem with Rob's old Gaming Today columns was that, after about a dozen columns, he simply repeated himself. Nothing wrong with that, but after 10,000 posts and a decade's worth of columns, one would suspect he would get around to some mention of his statistics somewhere for some period of time. But no.

The thing about Argentino -- as with most things, you can usually learn more from what isn't written than what is. Argentino just ignores math altogether.

It's all about luck. That pretty much washes the gambler's hands of the results. Which implies the results weren't pretty.

You're always full of half truths. All the figures he gave on some of his holds and relationship of math to win goals- or did you just ignore them?

Yeah, okay, sling. Go find one post in the 5000 here where he stated his numbers of hands per royal or number of hands per four-of-a-kind. He claimed to somehow circumnavigate probability, but never actually gave hard numbers. For him to win, he would have had to magically generate more royals or four of a kinds than probability predicts.

Rob always skirted math, which was a smart move on his part.

Singer's posts on a half dozen forums number in the six figures. He has never ever put up any math on his plays or anyone's else's. Math doesn't exist to him.

[mickeycrimm]

https://www.gamblingforums.com/threa...e-2#post-46391

The problem with Rob's old Gaming Today columns was that, after about a dozen columns, he simply repeated himself. Nothing wrong with that, but after 10,000 posts and a decade's worth of columns, one would suspect he would get around to some mention of his statistics somewhere for some period of time. But no.

The thing about Argentino -- as with most things, you can usually learn more from what isn't written than what is. Argentino just ignores math altogether.

It's all about luck. That pretty much washes the gambler's hands of the results. Which implies the results weren't pretty.

You're always full of half truths. All the figures he gave on some of his holds and relationship of math to win goals- or did you just ignore them?

Sling, shouldn't you be rich by now using Singer's marty?

[mickeycrimm]

So Singer is posting on GF? LOLOLOL! Well, he's been banned from everywhere else. I imagine he's talking loud and trying to draw a crowd. You can bet he's looking for someone to argue with. He can't stand not being able to troll....and that's what he's up to no doubt, trying to suck people back onto that site so he can smear them. He's a POS.

[slingshot]

I actually joined that forums months ago to view some of Rob's posts and we both quit posting months ago-the usual hecklers chimed in from the start. In your dreams.

[jbjb]

There's no reason to bring this morons name up. He's nothing but a useless system seller. Slingshot should be a multi-billionaire by now following this fool around.

[redietz]

I'll give partial defense of some in that, back in the 90's when the Gaming Today Singer column ran, people just were not very hip to the math of video poker and probability in general. So when front page column after front page column ran, a lot of people assumed it had to have some credibility.

I'm sure sling is well on his way to a Winnebago, a Hellcat, and being well hung. Not sure about the video poker winnings, however.

[Alan Mendelson]

This was enough to bring me out of forum retirement. Some of you have taken some cheap shots at Rob knowing he can't respond.

I'm not going to defend everything about Rob's claims and I can't because I'm his biggest critic over his tax manipulations.

But I have to make this clear: Rob follows the math of video poker, and makes adjustments to conventional strategy in an attempt to get lucky.

Redietz: Rob would tell you the same thing Dancer or Grochowski would tell you about the chances of getting a royal or quads. Rob even spelled it all out in my videos with him on www.alanbestbuys.com with the math. But Rob will sometimes drop a full house to draw for quads hoping to get lucky. And sometimes he will drop trips hoping to get lucky and hit a royal.

Rob never claimed to beat a negative expectation gsme, but he did say that with some luck you can have some big winning hands that will let you walk out as a winner.

You can twist and turn his comments all you want to but that's the truth about the Rob Singer system. It's that simple.

[redietz]

This was enough to bring me out of forum retirement. Some of you have taken some cheap shots at Rob knowing he can't respond.

I'm not going to defend everything about Rob's claims and I can't because I'm his biggest critic over his tax manipulations.

But I have to make this clear: Rob follows the math of video poker, and makes adjustments to conventional strategy in an attempt to get lucky.

Redietz: Rob would tell you the same thing Dancer or Grochowski would tell you about the chances of getting a royal or quads. Rob even spelled it all out in my videos with him on www.alanbestbuys.com with the math. But Rob will sometimes drop a full house to draw for quads hoping to get lucky. And sometimes he will drop trips hoping to get lucky and hit a royal.

Rob never claimed to beat a negative expectation gsme, but he did say that with some luck you can have some big winning hands that will let you walk out as a winner.

You can twist and turn his comments all you want to but that's the truth about the Rob Singer system. It's that simple.

I'm going to make a brief comment, then step aside for more math proficient to comment.

Let's get tenses right here. Rob claims his system wins, as opposed to "has won," which would refer exclusively to his personal history and not the mathematical verifiability of the systems themselves.

"The system" or "systems," however, lose on negative expectation games. That is mathematically verifiable. Argentino, of course, would submit that some Rube Goldberg machinations that nobody knows but him are the magical difference. Since nobody knows his manipulations completely, any analysis of his procedures is incomplete and flawed. Unfortunately for Rob, unless he's rewritten probability, what he recommends is not a winner going forward no matter what he does.

The following assumes Rob tells primarily the truth about his personal history. That is certainly open to debate, but let's give him complete benefit of the doubt. What Argentino has managed to do is conflate what he has done (has won) with what will happen in the future (will win), and sell the latter as truth based on the former.

[mickeycrimm]

This was enough to bring me out of forum retirement. Some of you have taken some cheap shots at Rob knowing he can't respond. I'm not going to defend everything about Rob's claims and I can't because I'm his biggest critic over his tax manipulations.

Alan, go over to Gambling Forums and look at the time stamps on Rob's posts then look at the time stamps in this thread. You will see that he started flaming us first. He's actually baiting us trying to get us to go back over there and post. But YOU know what the result of that will be. We will just get smeared all to hell and back by YOUR BOSOM BUDDY. He's going to continue to smear us anyway whether we show up there or not. So why don't you go over there and tell Rob to knock it off like you are trying to tell us to do.

And how do you know Rob manipulated his taxes? You never saw his returns. I suspect the reason why he wouldn't show you his returns is because they don't show a gambling win that he could write anything off against.

And wise up. Rob plays you for a fool.

[kewlJ]

(mickey to Alan ->)And wise up. Rob plays you for a fool.

Boy, I could say something here. But I will bite my tongue.