Originally Posted by
Rob.Singer
It's also why NONE of you supposed geniuses, including Shack, would accept meeting me for a ten session witness in LV for a?$25k prize. It's the typical safe way out for armchair gamblers, who proved even if they pooled their resources, they couldn't hack losing to me--which I highly suspect they knew they would, only the thought of constantly having to hear about it into the future just didn't sit right with all those sensitive little souls. But what you guys did do is buy more time to keep spewing lies and falsehoods about my strategy.
Rob, booking "winning sessions" means nothing, if the amount of winning is not specified.
You could book 999 straight winning sessions for $1, but if you lose $1000 on session #1000, you're a losing player, despite having won 99.9% of your sessions!
The problem with the "sessions bet" you proposed is that you could simply Martingale limits until finally breaking above even, and quit.
A more fair bet would be as follows:
You play 40,000 hands (the number of hands in a typical "royal flush cycle") at one agreed-upon denomination. Then the people betting against you will basically cross-book the casino against you -- where you pay them the amount of money you lose (if you finish down), and they pay you the money you won (if you're up).
I just threw 40,000 hands out as an example. It could be more or fewer, if you want.
But you wouldn't be allowed to change limits, and the exact denomination played would be agreed upon beforehand.
If you are willing to do this, let me know, and I will definitely put together a group to take the other side of this bet.