The Reinstate Argentino Thread

[redietz]

Rob had more kind words for me over at GF. I told him I would canvass everyone here once more to try to get him reinstated.

On GF, he took issue with my only betting 30K to 35K on the SB three years ago. I explained that I was sorry I was too tight for his tastes, him being a high roller and all, but that I really had tried to step up my game.

I told him I should be able to get printouts of 25K in wagers from one site by itself for that SB. But I don't see the point in trying to post them unless he's here. Another forum member was in LV while I was betting that SB, but I honestly only bet 6K or 7K at the WestGate that day. I am so ashamed. I let Rob down.

Anyway, he's such a fine life coach, I think he should be unbanned so he can help me loosen up. Or was that wise up? I'm not sure, but you get the drift.

[slingshot]

I would hope he would not come back-an exercise in futility. No matter how precise and clear he presents the math, strategy, or reasoning it is always twisted by his critics. I only was here in the hopes he would present his thoughts in a final form as he hinted of a third book. If I had any criticism of him it was that he lowered himself to the level of some of his critics with his comments.

[mickeycrimm]

I would hope he would not come back-an exercise in futility. No matter how precise and clear he presents the math, strategy, or reasoning it is always twisted by his critics. I only was here in the hopes he would present his thoughts in a final form as he hinted of a third book. If I had any criticism of him it was that he lowered himself to the level of some of his critics with his comments.

Singer was hurling vicious insults at those who disagree with the viability of his system going back to the very early 2000's. He was the original hurler of the stones, not us. He has been banned off of every gambling forum he has ever participated on because of his rude, arrogant, and insufferable behavior. Gambling Forums will be good for him as they are uncensored and do not ban people. The problem for us in the moderated forums is that Singer will not pay attention to the rules while the rest of us try to abide by them.

Sling, would you do us all a favor and find a Singer post that has an equation in it and put it up here. I've yet to ever see one out of the hundreds of thousand of posts he's made in the past 15 years but maybe I somehow missed it. I don't think so. For those of you pushing this "Singer plays by the math 95%" BS, he has trashed every gambling mathematician we know of. For gambling math expertise he is the equivalent of a flat earther.

If Singer is allowed back we are all going to get the exact same bullshit he was doing before he was banned. He can't help himself. He has narcissistic personality disorder. He has to trash people. It's his lifeblood.

One of the big sticking points for me is his always demanding proof on any claim we make but never, never, never proving his claims. He came on like Attila taking Rome with Arci about proof of their claims visa vie the income tax returns. He pushed that bet with Arci in front of everyone. He thought he had Arci by the balls because he knew for sure Arci would never put up his tax returns. But Arci called his bluff. So what happened? Singer welshed the bet. I'll say again. SINGER WELSHED THE BET.

There has always been a code of honor in gambling. You lose you pay off. You don't welsh bets. Of all of Singer's sins this was the worst of all. He brought total dishonor upon himself. It's what he SHOULD have been banned for.

I don't think any of us have a real vote in this. It's really up to Dan. But I'll say this. If Singer delivers his tax returns to Alan...fulfills his end of the bet with Arci...then I will support Singer's return to this site.

[Alan Mendelson]

I don't recall Rob ever posting an equation about video poker. But are equations necessary, mickeycrimm?

Rob did a good job showing the math of his special plays on my website. I'd bet a Nehi and a Coney that mickeycrimm never looked at those pages.

And what's so difficult to believe that Rob follows conventional strategy 95%+ of the time, mickeycrimm? And why wouldn't he?

Sling unfortunately Rob is his own worst enemy. He could present a very clear report on his strategy but his critics wouldn't read it. And why wouldn't they read it? Because Rob wrote it.

This illustrates two problems:
1. Rob has alienated too many people.
2. And his critics have their minds made up.

Frankly I don't know which -- 1 or 2 -- is worse.

[redietz]

I don't recall Rob ever posting an equation about video poker. But are equations necessary, mickeycrimm?

Rob did a good job showing the math of his special plays on my website. I'd bet a Nehi and a Coney that mickeycrimm never looked at those pages.

And what's so difficult to believe that Rob follows conventional strategy 95%+ of the time, mickeycrimm? And why wouldn't he?

Sling unfortunately Rob is his own worst enemy. He could present a very clear report on his strategy but his critics wouldn't read it. And why wouldn't they read it? Because Rob wrote it.

This illustrates two problems:
1. Rob has alienated too many people.
2. And his critics have their minds made up.

Frankly I don't know which -- 1 or 2 -- is worse.

Mr. Mendelson told a funny. How can someone who says his system(s) has no fail point(s) be taken seriously? Think about that. When asked at what percentage return his systems fail, Argentino has no answers. That's blunderbuss funny.

Every other video poker writer says either at 100% or at X% plus some comp/cashback addition. Argentino, however, has no answers.

Perhaps Argentino whispered in Mr. Mendelson's ear regarding fail points. In 5000 posts at this site, however, Argentino doesn't go there.

You know why? That would be math.

So, Mr. Mendelson, maybe you know. Do Argentino's systems fail to win at 97% return machines? Or 96.8%? Or 89%? Or 61.5%? I mean, c'mon, this is just farcical. It's idiotic. If he has a system, Argentino has to know.

Let's see Mr. Mendelson's answer to this one. And I'm going easy on this topic because I'm arguing for Argentino's reinstatement, mainly because he's such a sexy dude (he implied I was gay or something on GF), and he'll be a constant albatross around Mr. Mendelson's neck. I love albatrosses.

I have a tough time keeping a straight face with a system that doesn't fail. And the intrepid reporter, who has interviewed presidents, has no issue with that. Of course the intrepid reporter has never had a winning year gambling, all the while championing someone whose system doesn't fail. Now there is an absurdity for the ages. Figure that one out.

I guess either the intrepid reporter doesn't really believe in the system without fail points, which would make the intrepid reporter a hypocrite. Distinctly possible. Or the intrepid reporter is too arrogant to follow someone else's systems. Possible. Or the intrepid reporter just likes to lose. Also possible.

I have a tough time wrapping my head around someone who loses continually, is friends with someone whose systems don't fail, but refuses to employ those systems. Very tough to get one's head around that.


Note: I would not read Argentino's systems because I am not qualified to evaluate them. I would hand them off to people who either have doctorates in math or who teach university probability courses. Then I would listen to what they have to say.

[blackhole]

WOW redietz, you're really just a full blown asshole.

[slingshot]

I don't recall Rob ever posting an equation about video poker. But are equations necessary, mickeycrimm?

Rob did a good job showing the math of his special plays on my website. I'd bet a Nehi and a Coney that mickeycrimm never looked at those pages.

And what's so difficult to believe that Rob follows conventional strategy 95%+ of the time, mickeycrimm? And why wouldn't he?

Sling unfortunately Rob is his own worst enemy. He could present a very clear report on his strategy but his critics wouldn't read it. And why wouldn't they read it? Because Rob wrote it.

This illustrates two problems:
1. Rob has alienated too many people.
2. And his critics have their minds made up.

Frankly I don't know which -- 1 or 2 -- is worse.

Mr. Mendelson told a funny. How can someone who says his system(s) has no fail point(s) be taken seriously? Think about that. When asked at what percentage return his systems fail, Argentino has no answers. That's blunderbuss funny.

Every other video poker writer says either at 100% or at X% plus some comp/cashback addition. Argentino, however, has no answers.

Perhaps Argentino whispered in Mr. Mendelson's ear regarding fail points. In 5000 posts at this site, however, Argentino doesn't go there.

You know why? That would be math.

So, Mr. Mendelson, maybe you know. Do Argentino's systems fail to win at 97% return machines? Or 96.8%? Or 89%? Or 61.5%? I mean, c'mon, this is just farcical. It's idiotic. If he has a system, Argentino has to know.

Let's see Mr. Mendelson's answer to this one. And I'm going easy on this topic because I'm arguing for Argentino's reinstatement, mainly because he's such a sexy dude (he implied I was gay or something on GF), and he'll be a constant albatross around Mr. Mendelson's neck. I love albatrosses.

I have a tough time keeping a straight face with a system that doesn't fail. And the intrepid reporter, who has interviewed presidents, has no issue with that. Of course the intrepid reporter has never had a winning year gambling, all the while championing someone whose system doesn't fail. Now there is an absurdity for the ages. Figure that one out.

I guess either the intrepid reporter doesn't really believe in the system without fail points, which would make the intrepid reporter a hypocrite. Distinctly possible. Or the intrepid reporter is too arrogant to follow someone else's systems. Possible. Or the intrepid reporter just likes to lose. Also possible.

I have a tough time wrapping my head around someone who loses continually, is friends with someone whose systems don't fail, but refuses to employ those systems. Very tough to get one's head around that.


Note: I would not read Argentino's systems because I am not qualified to evaluate them. I would hand them off to people who either have doctorates in math or who teach university probability courses. Then I would listen to what they have to say.

A repeat from a sorting of his strategies:
(1) You have 1200 credits- 3 of 400 each. That would be your daily limit-and would not have to be played at one machine, casino, etc.
(2) He predicts a win rate of 85%.
(3) That could end in one session with discipline to leave with a reasonable win goal
(4) The single play strategy has 6 sessions-2400 credits- and does NOT have to start at $1's. Higher win rate though tiring to play.

[coach belly]

If Singer is allowed back we are all going to get the exact same bullshit he was doing before he was banned.

So what? Block him if he offends you.

[coach belly]

WOW redietz, you're really just a full blown asshole.

Tell him something that he doesn't know.

[Alan Mendelson]

Redietz you're now the biggest troll on the Internet. Congratulations.

[Keystone]

Pretty amazing how the above 3 clowns only grew balls once their God started posting again...oh well, everyone needs a hero, especially gelded sheep

[The Boz]

Pretty amazing how the above 3 clowns only grew balls once their God started posting again...oh well, everyone needs a hero, especially gelded sheep

We need a “like” button on this forum.

[The Boz]

Redietz you're now the biggest troll on the Internet. Congratulations.

What part was he wrong about regarding Singers playing style? Taking all the personal stuff out if it, he makes the points and questions that have been asked for years, yet have never been answered.

Simpler to call him a troll.

[Alan Mendelson]

I'm sorry but redietz keeps asking the same questions even though they've been answered. Namely, he keeps asking about a fail point.

Look Rob plays primarily 8/5 Bonus Poker. Why does redietz keep asking about fail points at lower paying levels when Rob isn't playing vp at 95% or 94% or 61%. It's a ridiculous line of questioning except if you're a troll.

[coach belly]

I'm sorry but redietz keeps asking the same questions even though they've been answered. Namely, he keeps asking about a fail point.

Look Rob plays primarily 8/5 Bonus Poker. Why does redietz keep asking about fail points at lower paying levels when Rob isn't playing vp at 95% or 94% or 61%. It's a ridiculous line of questioning except if you're a troll.

That's correct. The ditz asks a rhetorical question, one that does not require an answer.

The games listed in Singer's strategies with return percentages that would cause the strategy to fail either do not exist, or are never played.

That's already been established.

[mickeycrimm]

WOW redietz, you're really just a full blown asshole.

After the disgusting shit you write you have the nerve to call someone else a full blown asshole? Look in the mirror, dude.

[Alan Mendelson]

Let me follow up with what coach wrote. Singer has specified the games he plays with 8/5 Bonus being the primary game.

But look at what redietz keeps asking over and over again:

"So, Mr. Mendelson, maybe you know. Do Argentino's systems fail to win at 97% return machines? Or 96.8%? Or 89%? Or 61.5%? I mean, c'mon, this is just farcical. It's idiotic. If he has a system, Argentino has to know."

Yes, Rob knows. He plays primarily 8/5 Bonus and other full pay games.

By the way redietz did you ever play a video poker game that returns 61.5-percent? That would be illegal in Nevada.

[redietz]

I asked point blank many times what the return percentage was at which his systems would fail. He said there was none. Now, perhaps he meant they work at all percentages legal in Nevada. Or perhaps he meant they work at any percentage available in this country. Or perhaps he meant they work at any percent above 80. But that is not what he said. He said there was none.

There has to be a fail point. What is the fail point? If he has done the math for his systems, it exists.

[mickeycrimm]

If Singer is allowed back we are all going to get the exact same bullshit he was doing before he was banned.

So what? Block him if he offends you.

Fuck off.

[blackhole]

Pretty amazing how the above 3 clowns only grew balls once their God started posting again...oh well, everyone needs a hero, especially gelded sheep

If your thinking that I need Alan here to post my thoughts, your confusing this site with WOV. Shouldn't you be over there massaging the meatball and mods. rectums? It must feel good to be able to come here and post like a man about what's on your mind, even if it's your mind that's involved.