$25k challenge

[Rob.Singer]

In this thread, jbjb and mickeycrimm wrote the following:

Alan, at the start of your video you said that 8/5 Bonus Poker has a 99.17% return. That is only with optimum strategy. You definitely are not playing optimum strategy so in effect you are probably playing a 98% game.

This should be engrained in everybody's head here. Guys like Singer and Alan try to convince people you can profit off these games at will, using sub-optimal strategy and/or some magical betting system. Therefore turning a 99% game into a 97% one. Sad thing is people actually believe this trash. Casino execs love you guys for it!!

You tried as usual to break it down into a simple criticism to get kudos from the rest of the WoV rejects because you really don't know anything about what I do, but to any ap who's commenting on a win rate of at least 85 per cent of sessions played, I can see why to you that's "at will".

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.

Fake news. Safe space for dummies. Pretty familiar right?

[coach belly]

Singer would never pay off if he lost.

The $25K could be held in escrow so that you'd be guaranteed to collect.

So that excuse won't fly.

$25K is chump change for you, dig up a shoebox in the yard
and take him down or back him down.

Right now it looks like he's backing you down.

[mickeycrimm]

Singer would never pay off if he lost.

The $25K could be held in escrow so that you'd be guaranteed to collect.

So that excuse won't fly.

$25K is chump change for you, dig up a shoebox in the yard
and take him down or back him down.

Right now it looks like he's backing you down.

Coach, you are always looking to bet with someone on this site....and willing to fly thousands of miles to do it. Why don't you take the bet?

[coach belly]

As for Singer, I want idiots to believe his bullshit.

Then why do you criticize him and his system?

Sounds like you're the one who's full of shit.

[Dan Druff]

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.

[slingshot]

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.

In other words, YOUR strategy- not Rob's- which is plainly spelled out? You guys are plain pathetic.

[jbjb]

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.

In other words, YOUR strategy- not Rob's- which is plainly spelled out? You guys are plain pathetic.

What's pathetic is that you aren't in your favorite casino making fist fulls of cash at will. Video poker is offered 24/7/365. Go get it!! Quit making lame excuses.

[slingshot]

?
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.

In other words, YOUR strategy- not Rob's- which is plainly spelled out? You guys are plain pathetic.

What's pathetic is that you aren't in your favorite casino making fist fulls of cash at will. Video poker is offered 24/7/365. Go get it!! Quit making lame excuses.

Ha ha!! I take $100 with me nowadays. I'll touch the outside of the building next trip- maybe my $60-$100 wins a trip will magically turn into 3-4 royals and I'll forego my free meals and eat like royalty.

[coach belly]

Rob, booking "winning sessions" means nothing, if the amount of winning is not specified.

Hasn't he specified the minimum amount he needs to win to qualify as a "winning session"?

I play my strategy with a $57,200 bankroll each session, I guarantee I'll win at least 8 out Of 10 sessions (defined as at least $2500 minimum net profit each session) and I'll do it for a bet of $25,000 plus the total amount I either win or lose.

[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.

You should know better by now. A winning session is at least $2500 net profit. And explain why I would go into a challenge not playing only the strategy that's being doubted? Why would you want to change any of it?

And geniuses....the challenge was for $25k PLUS the final amount of my overall win, and it can be capped at at least $100k. Read it again. Making changes to what I said or changing the amount of the bet is ludicrous.

[Alan Mendelson]

Slingshot is correct. You are asking Rob to play your way. Rob's system involves changing games and denominations up and down. Dan proposed a single denomination but that's not how Rob says he plays.

The circle jerk continues.

If you guys really want to challenge him then do this:

1. Have Rob put in writing exactly what he plans to win. Is he winning $1 or $1000 or what?

2. See if Rob puts his money in escrow. If he does then you put your money in escrow.

3. Then have had it.

I don't know specifically what Rob says he will do in any challenge. I haven't read it anywhere nor have I talked to him about it. AND NEITHER HAVE THE REST OF YOU.

[coach belly]

I don't know specifically what Rob says he will do in any challenge. I haven't read it anywhere nor have I talked to him about it. AND NEITHER HAVE THE REST OF YOU.

He spelled it out right here:

I play my strategy with a $57,200 bankroll each session, I guarantee I'll win at least 8 out Of 10 sessions (defined as at least $2500 minimum net profit each session) and I'll do it for a bet of $25,000 plus the total amount I either win or lose.

[slingshot]

I don't know specifically what Rob says he will do in any challenge. I haven't read it anywhere nor have I talked to him about it. AND NEITHER HAVE THE REST OF YOU.

He spelled it out right here:

I play my strategy with a $57,200 bankroll each session, I guarantee I'll win at least 8 out Of 10 sessions (defined as at least $2500 minimum net profit each session) and I'll do it for a bet of $25,000 plus the total amount I either win or lose.

OMG!! Thanks, coach. It's even in his written strategy I've read for at least 8 years. I was beginning to think no one could read.

[Alan Mendelson]

Thanks. And if that's the terms then all parties must agree and the money must be deposited. But Dan is asking for a single denomination. So where does this challenge stand?

It stands in the Twilight Zone. It will never happen.

[coach belly]

Thanks. And if that's the terms then all parties must agree and the money must be deposited. But Dan is asking for a single denomination. So where does this challenge stand?

It stands in the Twilight Zone. It will never happen.

I don't think Dan is asking for single denomination, he just said his terms would be "more fair".

I'm not sure that he explained why his terms would be more fair.

It looks to me like his bet favors the casino, and therefore the challengers,
since "the people betting against you will basically cross-book the casino against you".

You explained what would need to take place for Singer's challenge to take place,
somebody first needs to put their money into escrow.

I disagree that Singer should first put his money into escrow... the challengers should first put their money into escrow, and if Singer does not reciprocate then they would have essentially backed him down.

[Rob.Singer]

Dan, if your mind is shouting to you that I will lose more in one losing session than I will in the 9 others that I win, why are you not JUMPING on this bet?

You or any of the armchair gamblers can answer that. Unless it's too tough.

[Dan Druff]

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.

You should know better by now. A winning session is at least $2500 net profit. And explain why I would go into a challenge not playing only the strategy that's being doubted? Why would you want to change any of it?

And geniuses....the challenge was for $25k PLUS the final amount of my overall win, and it can be capped at at least $100k. Read it again. Making changes to what I said or changing the amount of the bet is ludicrous.

Dan, if your mind is shouting to you that I will lose more in one losing session than I will in the 9 others that I win, why are you not JUMPING on this bet?

You or any of the armchair gamblers can answer that. Unless it's too tough.

Rob, I'll explain again.

Being likely to book a "winning session" is not the main factor in determining if you're a winner.

Here's a simple example:

Say we have a computer select a random number between 1 in 20. Then you pick a number between 1 in 20. If your money doesn't match the computer number, you win $10. If you do match the number, you lose $300.

On average, you will "win" this game 95% of the time.

So if each "session" of this game was 1 time, you would book 95% winning sessions.

However, you would get KILLED in the long run, as your loss of $300 when you do pick the same number (instead of $200, as it should be) would make the game massively -EV for you.

So even though you could win 95% of the time in this game, you'd still be a big loser if you played it for any reasonable length of time.

That's why your proposed "bet" is BS.

By being able to change denominations and playing for an unspecified amount of time, you could keep Martingaling it until you finally luck into a small profit. And while you'd be risking getting REALLY unlucky and losing huge, the $25k reward for "booking a winning session" would counteract that, and you'd be highly likely to win.

You're basically asking people to bet that, on a one-time basis, is a Martingale betting strategy likely to show a small profit? One would be a fool to bet against that.

[Dan Druff]

Oh, and the denominations would have to be capped at a certain amount because we wouldn't want to be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars if you luckboxed into a royal.

So maybe, playing from $0.25 to $10 per credit.

[RS__]

However, you would get KILLED in the long run, as your loss of $300 when you do pick the same number (instead of $200, as it should be) would make the game massively -EV for you.

It should be a loss of $190, not $200 -- if it were a fair game (0% edge), that is.

[Dan Druff]

However, you would get KILLED in the long run, as your loss of $300 when you do pick the same number (instead of $200, as it should be) would make the game massively -EV for you.

It should be a loss of $190, not $200 -- if it were a fair game (0% edge), that is.

Whoops, you're right. Doesn't change my point though.