Originally Posted by
Rob.Singer
I'm cracking a smile right now but I'll wipe it off so some of you don't get too agitated. And to Dan, I'll follow your rules above. Also, aside from a post I made at the other forum that I'm copying and pasting below, I'm not gonna be responding to any of redietz' whacky foolishness. Several posters here have already done a nice job exposing his silly intentions, his non-stop self-advertisement and his weasel-wording people into getting in touch with him so he can try and sell them his picks like he does me EVERY SINGLE WEEK, his refusals to post anything he claims about himself, and they've taken him to extreme task for becoming the troll that he now is known for being. Nuff said.
I'll start off by correcting the latest uneducated assertions posted by mickey. He really should have heeded the words of Alan about which games I play. The strategy plays up to 300 credits on 8/5 BP (if available where I choose to play; if not, then 7/5 BP), then up to 100 credits on either (and in this order of choice) SDBP, TBP+, SABP, TDBP, DDBP, or DBP. I did not play TDBP much because of its non-availability early on, but these days when I can find it I will play it. Some of you remember my hits on it at $25 at Wynn and in Mississippi. And that is it. FPDW is not capable of winning according to my requirements. JoB is, as I have always said, a loser's point-accumulation game with ANY pay table--even the 10/6 the Strato had in the early 2000's.
This part has to do with the ongoing claims that there is "no way" I could be consistently winning--and be so far ahead--by only playing -EV vp games. Well, it has happened everybody, and it is still going on. It's just amazing to me that people who say they believe in math, believe in statistics, and say they understand how video poker works, to wholeheartedly agree that my play strategy can win "a session", you folks understand and agree that I actually do have a highly probable chance of winning that session (it's just under 85% in case you never read it before here)....yet for some odd reason that's never explained rationally, you make up that when I go back to play it again and again and again as individual sessions starting at my lowest denomination, now it has to lose! Why in the world do you want to keep thinking after one winning session the statistics suddenly have to stop working?
Here's a flash, and it's got to do with mathematics (even though likely few or none of you has any formal education in math or statistics): the Law of Large Numbers states that yes, if I continually play -EV games my results can expect to end up negative over a large amount of play. However, it also states that if a sample EVENT is built with and thru varying parameters within, even though that event is to be repeated many, many times, that single event remains a single event throughout all of its occurrences. What this says is what I've been trying to make people understand for years. My play strategy does not try to rewrite the math books. It does not ignore the math. It does not BEAT the math. What it DOES do is take one play session, apply strict regulation & purpose (bankroll, discipline, etc.), and when the opportunity is there it utilizes properly analyzed special plays that deviate from optimal strategy to increase the probability of good luck that may or may not be enough to end a session with the minimum or better win goal.
So when this is accomplished--and I believe most or all of you, as I said earlier, believe my strategy has a high probability of winning a single session--it is entirely capable of happening over and over and over again. Sure the big and other losing session appear....I just had one a few weeks ago at Boulder Station. But the many smaller winners and the sometimes large and very large winners far more than make up for the losses. It's a simple as that. When Kew keeps claiming how "impossible" it is for me to have won so much so consistently, and when Dan says how strange it is, people like this really don't understand the play and/or just can't get into the true reality of how statistics work. No it is not easy to understand and yes it is a method that is far more complex than simple optimal play. But as far as I know, it is the only way to consistently make money off of the vp machines.
Redietz keeps bringing up this so-called "fail point" as it relates to my game's pay tables. First, for him to ask this silly question shows how he has no idea what is involved in my strategy, he clearly has no interest in finding out, he wouldn't understand it anyway, and he doesn't want to so he can keep criticizing. For AP's, the fail point is 100%. They fail if they don't make money. For my strategy, it's an irrelevant statistic. It was predicated on certain games with certain win goals, and pay tables on games down to 98% are winners for me. It could be lower and most probably is, but it doesn't matter.
There's one funny point I'd like to bring up for my first time here--Kew's wonderful proclamation that his best day of the year was the day he lost $8800 because of how much "EV" he "accumulated" or something silly like that. So please tell us, exactly what can (or did) all those phantom bucks buy you? And if you're a real AP--which I have never believed you are esp. when your claim of being able to count 2 tables emerged and then changed to "count them but not accurately" as the tough questions appeared--what you said is the same thing as saying you were "due", which in AP lingo is the sign of a phony.
Here's a copy of a post I made "over there" that addresses the nonsense being asserted about me over here before Dan reinstated me. I know some of you just won't like it and will keep on making up dumb things and scenarios (he lives in his daughter's driveway stealing electricity/he's on welfare/etc.) and the lies will forever appear. But guess how much that means to me as we continue on....
Aside from Red's nonsense here, he seems to be placing a high degree of trust & credibility in these two single old men he shacks up with in Calif. Why? Because one's a CFO somewhere and one's a retired VP of Boeing. The funny part is, I'm a retired VP of Northrop Grumman. If past titles is all it takes to impress hypocrite redietz, I win that one hands down.
Now onto the guy you just KNOW sits at his computer picking his toes the better part of his 24 hr. days--LarryS. He compares me to some guy named Patrick, who he says "still lives with his mommy" in his declining years. IE, no life success, meaning Patrick's "systems" don't work. Larry further goes on to assert that if my VP play strategy made me so much money, why am I not "swimming in cash" along with all the "testimonials" on forums from others?
Already went thru some of this Larry 2 years ago. Most who play my strategy or something close to it, do so for fun and recreation at far lower levels than I do. There are a few who play as I do and they still report their results to me. But few if any would bother showing up at forums because they've seen the harassment others have gone thru for years. Or they're instantly accused of being me using an alias, which I never have without first identifying myself and why. In fact, 2 years ago you yourself did nothing but insult slingshot right here, after he kept trying to explain his success, his understanding, and why he chooses not to play at high limits.
To the "money" part. As "Rob Singer" I'm up as I said close to $1.4million over 18 years. But that's really peanuts compared to how much Rob Argentino earned in his last 18 years of work. As I said, I didn't start gambling until I saved the bankroll for my strategy, and until our retirement was fully funded.
Why am I not as you say "lying on the beach"? Because our "life of Riley" consists of travelling in either of two RV's between any of the 4 homes we bought with cash--3 for our children and one for us. We get about $100k in SS and pensions, and we withdraw between $3k & $7k/mo. from our retirement accounts. We do live well but we are not "wealthy". And tell redietz my Hennessey Hellcat Charger is at my home in S. Dakota.
So you see, your fantasy belief about successful gambling equating to a successful life really doesn't apply to me. It's the success THROUGHOUT life--along with leading a respectable life--that defines people. I happen to have two children and four grandchildren....and a wonderful wife of 39 years.
I did it right, and I did video poker right. Which, of course, because it's so distant from the socially inept lives of the vast majority of casino gamblers, causes tons of angst and endless envy whenever it comes to just about anything I say on forums.
And I love every minute of it
Reply With Quote
