Rob Singer didn't beat video poker

[kewlJ]

The topic is "Vegas casino talk."

Lots of topics get talked about inside Las Vegas casinos, including religion, ethics and morality.

The point I was obliquely getting at is that KJ does in fact seem to get joy and satisfaction in flaming his adversaries, despite his fervent protestations to the contrary; he's no "more interested in learning the truth" than is alan or Singer.

All have agendas and post in furtherance of same.

I disagree. Plus, I just talked to God, as I do everyday…..and he says "you are stupid".

[MisterV]

I just talked to God, as I do everyday…..and he says "you are stupid".

So, you're hearing voices, are you?

You'd best get that checked out!

Seems to me it's fine for people to pray, as it helps them crytallize their otherwise mushy thought processes, but when they claim an invisible being converses back I have to draw the line.

Plus KJ's god seems to be a cruel, abusive flamer; when he prayed to his god, his god's only response, and I quote, was "You are stupid."

Really?!

KJ gets flamed and insulted for worshiping and praying to his god?

I'd hate to see what his god does to smite his detractors.

Then again, what can one expect from a god who by report crucified his only son?

[redietz]

The topic is "Vegas casino talk."

Lots of topics get talked about inside Las Vegas casinos, including religion, ethics and morality.

The point I was obliquely getting at is that KJ does in fact seem to get joy and satisfaction in flaming his adversaries, despite his fervent protestations to the contrary; he's no "more interested in learning the truth" than is alan or Singer.

All have agendas and post in furtherance of same.

Mr. V, maybe you can appreciate a Humanist/Skeptic/Skeptical Inquirer angle on this. When I first found this forum, the Singer/Mendelson relationship looked an awful lot like Uri Geller/Stanford Research Institute to me. In fact, it was the closest thing to a classic paranormal claim parallel I have ever seen. That's what we're talking about -- somebody claiming paranormal abilities glomming onto a media celebrity who falls for and commits to the whole storyline while adding credibility to the claimant.

Let's face it, nobody else is going to bat for Argentino anywhere or even providing an Abbott to his Costello. Call Gaming Today -- ask them what they think. The whole scenario here is so classic, it's beyond textbook.

Now I was a big James Randi and Johnny Carson fan a long time before I ever heard of Argentino, so I don't think you can stand idly by forever (I stood by a long time) while the stories get more ludicrous and nobody says, "Hey, does this even make any sense?" Eventually, if you see stupidness, you have to raise your hand and say, "I see stupidness."

[MisterV]

No worries.

Your priorities do not seem skewed: family / loved ones are most important.

[Alan Mendelson]

AxelWolf wrote "If one actually believed deep down that they had a winning system they would be using ALL their funds to bump up levels and make that cash. But not even you believe deep down the system really works. Its just a fancy way to entertain yourself."

It's still gambling and that's why there are loss limits. And that's why there are budgets.

Again the amount of misunderstanding about Rob Singer's "system" is overwhelming. It's not voodoo, it's not like Uri Gellar switching keys, it's not bad math. It's simple and what every "grandma" does on a budget.

I know why you attack him. It's because he's a foul mouthed bigot who insults dead people and his critics and their wives. So he puts a big target on his back and on his chest. You want to prove him wrong.

Remember the 1964 presidential campaign? The slogan for Barry Gokdwater comes to mind about Rob's casino play: in your heart you know he's right.

Let's face it guys: when you have a big win you go celebrate. So does Rob, but his celebration starts with leaving the casino.

And... you've had a bad run at blackjack so you increase your bets to make up for the loss. Guess what? Rob moves up in denominations.

And the bad math? There is no bad math. He knows his special plays are at a disadvantage so when he uses them less than 5% of the time they are available he's just taking a shot trying to get lucky. That's not bad math, that's trying to get lucky.

Every claim you have about Rob's play can be explained if you would willingly listen and didn't twist it.

Now I can't verify any claims about what he said he's won or lost. He never sent me his tax returns. But to me it doesn't matter if he won a million dollars or not. What matters is that what he says makes sense. And in casinos with all of the lights and sounds and distractions, sense gets lost.

As I said before it's a battle of egos. Why you're fighting especially those of you who are anonymous here just amazes me.

Mr Dietz uses his own name so his ego is really on the line. I'm sorry you feel that way Mr Dietz. But if you really felt you were right and Singer was wrong you would just ignore Singer.

I know Singer is wrong when he starts with his insults and ego fighting. I've told him he's his own worst enemy. It's not defensible what he says sometimes.

Everybody grow up. Rob too.

[kewlJ]

Again the amount of misunderstanding about Rob Singer's "system" is overwhelming. It's not voodoo, it's not like Uri Gellar switching keys, it's not bad math. It's simple and what every "grandma" does on a budget.

This is a perfect analogy Alan. ALL those grandmas on a budget are losing players. So thank you for that.

And... you've had a bad run at blackjack so you increase your bets to make up for the loss. Guess what? Rob moves up in denominations.

Another great analogy. Another losing system. Anyone playing a progression at blackjack is a long-term loser. But keep going Alan, you are doing great. No need for any of us to make our points, you are doing so very nicely.


Now what is with the "manual quoting" and all the "so and so said" that you have been doing for the past few weeks? This site has a quoting feature. Did you forget how to use it?

[Deech]

AxelWolf wrote "If one actually believed deep down that they had a winning system they would be using ALL their funds to bump up levels and make that cash. But not even you believe deep down the system really works. Its just a fancy way to entertain yourself."

It's still gambling and that's why there are loss limits. And that's why there are budgets.

Again the amount of misunderstanding about Rob Singer's "system" is overwhelming. It's not voodoo, it's not like Uri Gellar switching keys, it's not bad math. It's simple and what every "grandma" does on a budget.

I know why you attack him. It's because he's a foul mouthed bigot who insults dead people and his critics and their wives. So he puts a big target on his back and on his chest. You want to prove him wrong.

Remember the 1964 presidential campaign? The slogan for Barry Gokdwater comes to mind about Rob's casino play: in your heart you know he's right.

Let's face it guys: when you have a big win you go celebrate. So does Rob, but his celebration starts with leaving the casino.

And... you've had a bad run at blackjack so you increase your bets to make up for the loss. Guess what? Rob moves up in denominations.

And the bad math? There is no bad math. He knows his special plays are at a disadvantage so when he uses them less than 5% of the time they are available he's just taking a shot trying to get lucky. That's not bad math, that's trying to get lucky.

Every claim you have about Rob's play can be explained if you would willingly listen and didn't twist it.

Now I can't verify any claims about what he said he's won or lost. He never sent me his tax returns. But to me it doesn't matter if he won a million dollars or not. What matters is that what he says makes sense. And in casinos with all of the lights and sounds and distractions, sense gets lost.

As I said before it's a battle of egos. Why you're fighting especially those of you who are anonymous here just amazes me.

Mr Dietz uses his own name so his ego is really on the line. I'm sorry you feel that way Mr Dietz. But if you really felt you were right and Singer was wrong you would just ignore Singer.

I know Singer is wrong when he starts with his insults and ego fighting. I've told him he's his own worst enemy. It's not defensible what he says sometimes.

Everybody grow up. Rob too.

OK. I have post on the edge in the last few minutes, but this one is with understanding.

Yes, many individuals with read this post regarding a player's type of play. I applaud you, for the second time, to figure out how to eliminate the venom on that certain player's type of play.

I am not picking sides, but at least you are reaching across the aisle.

Technically, I stand in the middle of the aisle but my background has me lean one way.

Again, I applaud you.

[RS__]

Rob’s system doesn’t even use math. It might pretend to. But I’ve yet to see anything he’s written or anyone for that matter who’s claimed anything mathematical (positive) about it. Let’s start with an easy one:

How likely is he to lose the session BR in one session of play?

[Rob.Singer]

Rob’s system doesn’t even use math. It might pretend to. But I’ve yet to see anything he’s written or anyone for that matter who’s claimed anything mathematical (positive) about it. Let’s start with an easy one:

How likely is he to lose the session BR in one session of play?

You and axel must have dropped out of the same school.

The strategy is not only grounded in optimal play math from the start--any and every deviations from that are 100% based on mathematical analyses and so-explained. The videos are a good place to start to update your education on this.

Not sure what you mean about not seeing anyone who's claimed anything mathematical about it. I continually have brought these points up, and critics/confused personalities refuse to read with comprehension because they haven't the aptitude to think beyond +EV means you win and -EV means you lose. But if you retain anything at all then let this sink in: THE STRATEGY IS BASED ON MATH, IT DOESN'T OUTSMART THE MATH OR ATTEMPT TO REWRITE THE MATH BOOKS, AND IT'S #1 ATTRIBUTE IS THAT IT ENHANCES THE PLAYER'S OPPORTUNITY FOR GOOD LUCK TO APPEAR--WHICH AS WE ALL KNOW, IS THE ABSOLUTE ONLY WAY ANY PLAYER EVER HAS A WINNING SESSION AT THE VP MACHINES.

All the other bs you people spew is irrelevant.

Your question about the likelihood of losing the session bankroll in a session of play shows just how little you understand about the strategy. First, are you aware that there are many soft profit cashouts as the session progresses that are NEVER risked again? If so, then maybe you'd understand that the chances of losing an entire session bankroll is virtually impossible. And if your question really refers to the chance of simply "losing" a session (which I identify as not attaining at least a $2500 profit--or losing part of my session bankroll) then that's 85% to 90%.

[slingshot]

Thank you, Mister V. RS, I didn't mean that Rob's strategy used no math- as it was based on the math- taking into account all his short term applications. It was all summed up in his last article, "What's wrong with a positive progression?" on VP truth. Don't want to leave that impression.

[redietz]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't celebrate "big wins," and I certainly don't increase bets after losing. After "big wins," do I buy something extra? No. Do I eat at a different restaurant? No. Do I decide I'm the cat's meow? No. I go out of my way to avoid changing the decision-making context that led to the "big win." Frankly, after a "big win," I hammer at the casino for more comps, knowing they are under duress to keep me there.

Increasing bets after losing? You establish via your initial bets that you do not know what you're doing, so you then increase your bets accordingly? You've gotta be kidding. Best way to go broke.

These habits and behaviors are straight out of the George Costanza School of Casino Wagering.

Good lord, people, if you're reading this, DO NOT DO these kinds of things.


And finally, regarding Argentino and if I thought he was wrong, I'd ignore him. Since video poker isn't my schtick and I don't consider myself an AP, I pretty much did ignore him (for 2,000 posts) until (1) his attacks on arci became intolerable under Mr. Mendelson's forum guidance and (2) Argentino started venturing into the sports wagering field in his posts, where he was spouting his usual braggadocio but clearly had no blessed idea what he was doing. It would have been horribly wrong to just let him keep typing hate left and right, and giving what I absolutely knew were wrong suggestions regarding how to bet sports. I understand how some hardcore capitalists think everyone should look the other way when people clearly don't know what they're doing and aren't what they claim, because -- after all -- what's the cost /benefit? But I'm not a hardcore capitalist.

[Alan Mendelson]

Redietz wrote: "Frankly, after a "big win," I hammer at the casino for more comps, knowing they are under duress to keep me there."

I thought you only play 25-cent deuces wild. What big wins and comps are you getting?

[Rob.Singer]

Redietz wrote: "Frankly, after a "big win," I hammer at the casino for more comps, knowing they are under duress to keep me there."

I thought you only play 25-cent deuces wild. What big wins and comps are you getting?

It's fun to watch redietz continually step into his own traps, isn't it.

Now wait for another one of his nerve-driven wordy but corny dissertations....

[mickeycrimm]

We've found evidence that Rob plays sucker keno (not to be construed with the advantage keno that I play). And Rob proved with his own stats that he is a losing sports bettor by putting up his picks for two NFL seasons on his website. How much money has he dumped on these endeavors since 1995? Rob is a degenerate gambler that calls everyone else degenerate gamblers.

[Alan Mendelson]

Kewlj wrote "Now what is with the "manual quoting" and all the "so and so said" that you have been doing for the past few weeks? This site has a quoting feature. Did you forget how to use it?"

I'm using my cell phone and I'm having trouble with the quote feature.

[RS__]

Is it that hard to write [quote]quote[/quote] ? Or

quote

[redietz]

Deep Thoughts from Rob Argentino.

It's a shame his mastery of the machines will die with him. And the secrets of how to get the IRS to agree that you're full-time when you do something four hours a week. It's sad that this knowledge will be lost to future generations.

But perhaps there's a secret cabal of trainees somewhere, waiting to keep the gnosis alive. One can only hope and pray.

[Deech]

Deep Thoughts from Rob Argentino.

It's a shame his mastery of the machines will die with him. And the secrets of how to get the IRS to agree that you're full-time when you do something four hours a week. It's sad that this knowledge will be lost to future generations.

But perhaps there's a secret cabal of trainees somewhere, waiting to keep the gnosis alive. One can only hope and pray.

There was a recent post about a presumption that those who are good at math have reading disabilities. I would not go that far but there are countless individuals that are good at math and have poor verbal scores (guilty).

I am getting better. If given a multiple choice, I had "cabal" nailed. There is no doubt that I am in the minority that pronounced "gnosis" correctly. Then again, why would I be in a room by myself trying to articulate words that I do not know?

Please give another play on a machine that I can research? This room is shrinking. I will be reviewing the analysis of the play posted two above me.

[Rob.Singer]

Deep Thoughts from Rob Argentino.

It's a shame his mastery of the machines will die with him. And the secrets of how to get the IRS to agree that you're full-time when you do something four hours a week. It's sad that this knowledge will be lost to future generations.

But perhaps there's a secret cabal of trainees somewhere, waiting to keep the gnosis alive. One can only hope and pray.

There was a recent post about a presumption that those who are good at math have reading disabilities. I would not go that far but there are countless individuals that are good at math and have poor verbal scores (guilty).

I am getting better. If given a multiple choice, I had "cabal" nailed. There is no doubt that I am in the minority that pronounced "gnosis" correctly. Then again, why would I be in a room by myself trying to articulate words that I do not know?

Please give another play on a machine that I can research? This room is shrinking. I will be reviewing the analysis of the play posted two above me.

You're beginning to see the corn that guy writes in order to get things off his chest. Get too cozy though and you'll discover a private message asking if you need handicapper advice....for a small fee.

[redietz]

Brilliant trap, really...if casinos didn't have sports books. I didn't even respond to Mr. Mendelson on this, because it was so blatantly stupid, and I suspect Mr. Mendelson's suffering some cognitive issues. But Argentino stepped to the plate.

Of course he did. More Deep Thoughts and Gotchas from Rob Argentino.