$25k challenge

[The Boz]

Robbo, of all the claims made on here and every other forum over the years, YOU are the only one who has no restrictions on it. Vultures require machines that are actually vultureable , if that is a word. Cash backs have limits. Counting cards has to stay under the radar. In other words everyone who says they make money on here does it under conditions.

Only you, respect, can do it time after time, day after day, in casino upon casino across the country. Tell me I am wrong, but the games you can beat are available in 40+ states in the US today.

So I ask, why not do it 200 days a year, 300 days a year? I get you want to enjoy your life but isn’t it your desire to make your kids as rich as possible. So they, their kids and their grandkids never have to worry about money again?

Sure it’s the opposite of Alan fuck8ng his kids but even if you don’t want to make them soft, why not do it for charity? Or for the GOP, or for spite. Whatever reason, just do it to make yourself today’s version of Biff from Back to the Future.

Prove everyone wrong and become the richest man in America and kill the casinos for good. And as a bonus you would put all the AP’s who ever doubted you out of business. Not many people have the opportunity to change American business. You do, why waste it?

[Dankyone]

Winning 85% of sessions doesn’t make a winning system. DanDruff explained it to you already.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob does admit that his success has a factor of luck to it. Perhaps he figures it's better to quit before the luck runs out?

Here's something the APs can't fight: you might know to drop the 2h when dealt AhKhQhJh2h but it's the luck of the draw of the RNG that will determine whether you get a royal, a flush, a straight, a paying pair or crap with a 3c.

[The Boz]

Winning 85% of sessions doesn’t make a winning system. DanDruff explained it to you already.

And your post has anything to do with anything?

Using Dan as your point of reference. Thanks for making my day!

He only makes Robbo more credible with his actions so far toward him.

My guess is they are working an angle together. Always follow the money and look for the hustle.

[Alan Mendelson]

Winning 85% of sessions doesn’t make a winning system. DanDruff explained it to you already.

And your post has anything to do with anything?

Using Dan as your point of reference. Thanks for making my day!

He only makes Robbo more credible with his actions so far toward him.

My guess is they are working an angle together. Always follow the money and look for the hustle.

This is interesting. Are you alleging that Dan is working a con to get people to put up bet money that will be lost one way or the other?

I find it intriguing how the WOVers come up with a conspiracy under every rock.

[The Boz]

Winning 85% of sessions doesn’t make a winning system. DanDruff explained it to you already.

And your post has anything to do with anything?

Using Dan as your point of reference. Thanks for making my day!

He only makes Robbo more credible with his actions so far toward him.

My guess is they are working an angle together. Always follow the money and look for the hustle.

This is interesting. Are you alleging that Dan is working a con to get people to put up bet money that will be lost one way or the other?

I find it intriguing how the WOVers come up with a conspiracy under every rock.

No conspiracy but Dan who comes from an industry, poker, which is filled with scams and scammers. Need me to name the names? And runs a quality site that looks to expose said individuals, allows Singer back here.

And now it’s another “challenge”, like has been pushed for almost 20 years now. And Dan says he can line others up to bet against Robbo.

Just questioning why someone who looks out for poker players would allow Rob back here when he determined at one point he wasn’t worth the hassle.

I’m open to other reasons you have for Dan’s mixed messages on Singer.

[Alan Mendelson]

I think you should ask Dan and not me, but I also think your hostile comments towards Dan are out of order. Has he done something to offend you? I doubt it.

[The Boz]

I think you should ask Dan and not me, but I also think your hostile comments towards Dan are out of order. Has he done something to offend you? I doubt it.

Only Dan allowing you to continue to post here, further embarrassing yourself when you obviously need help with your addiction. While I understand it is your right to continue to f your son, lose the few dollars you have left and generally make a fool of yourself almost daily. I wonder at what point does someone who may be able to make a difference have an obligation to stop selling you the H?

[jbjb]

Robbo, of all the claims made on here and every other forum over the years, YOU are the only one who has no restrictions on it. Vultures require machines that are actually vultureable , if that is a word. Cash backs have limits. Counting cards has to stay under the radar. In other words everyone who says they make money on here does it under conditions.

Only you, respect, can do it time after time, day after day, in casino upon casino across the country. Tell me I am wrong, but the games you can beat are available in 40+ states in the US today.

So I ask, why not do it 200 days a year, 300 days a year? I get you want to enjoy your life but isn’t it your desire to make your kids as rich as possible. So they, their kids and their grandkids never have to worry about money again?

Sure it’s the opposite of Alan fuck8ng his kids but even if you don’t want to make them soft, why not do it for charity? Or for the GOP, or for spite. Whatever reason, just do it to make yourself today’s version of Biff from Back to the Future.

Prove everyone wrong and become the richest man in America and kill the casinos for good. And as a bonus you would put all the AP’s who ever doubted you out of business. Not many people have the opportunity to change American business. You do, why waste it?

I have said the same thing many times. They ALWAYS come up with lame excuses. If I had a way to make money at will in a casino with VERY LITTLE HEAT, that's all I'd be doing. I WISH the opportunities we do were available 24/7!!!

[monet]

And Dan says he can line others up to bet against Robbo.

This is something that the General Public and Many Members on these Forums do not understand.

Players like Dan Druff and most Gamblers in General have Sponsors (Not Corporate) or Backers.

Some of them do it for Variance Reasons but most of them do it because they have to or they have no choice.
Many "Honest" (LOL) Poker Players are constantly asking people to back them or get a piece of their action.
Poker Players will always preach and claim how upright they are and how they hate the players that use treachery.
I find that Poker Players in general are the real enigmas. Many of them think they can beat the game straight up.
I have a hard time associating with them because many of the ones that preach honesty and honest play are loose cannons.
When the math goes sour on them they tend to tilt. Many of them will blow up at the table.
It isn't as bad these days because after 2004 or so they cleaned it up compared to prior years but it still can be pretty vulgar.
I have watched and known many of them try to buck the system for over 3 decades now.
Many of them have nothing to their name and live in what you might call rat holes.
About 18 years ago they started to change the rake and the way they collected for the house on live games and tournaments.
These players continued to pony up even after they raised fees and lowered stack size and time limits.
They even ponied up for extra chips to start in a scam to tip the dealers.
I say scam because after you place in the money the employees are asking you to tip the dealers again out of the winnings lol.
I know because I ran some of these Tournaments as a Director or a Dealer or a Floor Person or also as a Player.
As most Directors, I always loved a good old fashioned Re-Buy Tournament!

The most interesting poker players to me are the ones playing multi-windowed games on their tablet while playing at a live table in the Casino.
Action Jackson!

You may and others may not respect me as a player or person but since I started I have always used my own funds and backing allowing me to reap 100% of the profits.
However, I have gone partners with someone on a Jackpot or a Play to cut down Variance but to be honest it was more about comradery/camaraderie.
At times in my life I wanted to go halves because my Bankroll was light.

What amazes me is the amount of members actually interested or involved in this thread. I find it -EV as you guys like to say.
Funny, I never used words like EV or AP until I started on these forums a couple of years ago.

[mickeycrimm]

Dan, the problem with this thread is Singer's challenge, made in post #12 in the Interview with an AP thread is not included here. It shoud be post #1 in this thread.

[mickeycrimm]

Once again Rob has put a stipulation in a proposition that guarantee's no one will take the bet. In essence, 25K "plus whatever he wins or loses on the play." No one can know their true liability on such a bet. So only a fool would take the bet. All calculated by Rob.

For starters, how much money is to be placed in escrow?

The challenge needs to be for a flat amount so everyone knows what their liability is. Repeat, the challenge needs to be for a flat amount.

Of course, there's not going to be a bet anyway. In 15 years no one has been able to pin Rob down on a bet. He's all allligator mouth....with a hummingbird ass.

[Mission146]

Here are the most relevant aspects of the challenge as I understand them:

-The base bet amount from each side is $25,000.

-If RobSinger is successful in winning eight (or more) of ten sessions, with winning being defined as, "A session win total equal to, or greater than, $2,500," then he wins the bet and the $25,000. Furthermore, in the event of a net win and eight (or more) of ten sessions won, whoever bets against would be on the hook for the win.

-If RobSinger fails, then he would have to pay out the $25,000. In the event of a net loss, as I understand it, Singer would also have to pay out the amount lost in addition to the $25,000.

-Whoever bets against may set a cap of $100,000 as to the amount of winnings he/she/they would need to cover, so if I'm correct, $125,000 in escrow would cover the maximum potential liability.

-The highest denomination Video Poker would be $100.

I do have one question, and please forgive me if this has been addressed:

---If Singer wins eight or nine sessions, but loses money overall, would he still win the bet? If so, how would that be adjudicated? Would the amount lost overall just come off of the $25,000 owed him?

I'm going to say that Singer has anywhere from a slight to substantial advantage on this bet for a number of reasons:

1.) With a bankroll of 114 units ($500 bets) just on 9/6 JoB a player has a probability of either winning six (or more) units and stopping OR going bust in between 84.5%-85% to win the six units v. 15%-15.5% to go bust. Given the low end probability of 84.5%, by binomial distribution, the player would have a probability of 80.71% of winning eight (or more) out of ten such sessions. The player would also have a probability of 18-19% of winning all ten sessions.

Naturally, the player can accomplish that (winning eight or nine sessions) while losing money overall.

2.) Without a clearly defined and agreed upon minimum session stop loss, Singer could limit his exposure on what he may have to pay the, "No," bettor in excess of the 25k.

3.) Even if Singer's method reduces his probability of success in an individual session as opposed to just playing 9/6 Jacks at the $100 denomination, 74.142527672% is roughly the point that Singer would be 50/50 to win eight (or more) out of ten sessions. As far as that aspect of the bet is concerned, that would then be roughly the session win probability that would make it a break even proposition.

4.) At 84.5% session win probability, even if Singer lost the first session, he would still be about 58.224% to win either eight or nine of the remaining nine sessions. So, even a worst-case scenario would have him still looking decent to win the bet overall in terms of 8+ sessions.

Anyway, it's pretty clear that the, "No," is going to have a disadvantage on the bet, but that disadvantage doesn't have anything to do with the viability of the system. I think we can all agree, outside of some external factor, that 9/6 Jacks is not an advantageous game. But, there you go, nearly 85% to win a given session with a bankroll of 114 bets and a win goal of six bets.

In fact, a bankroll of just 42 units and a profit goal of six units gets you right in that 74% range of success probability per session. My guess is -50 units (-$25,000) is about where Singer would want to abandon ship on a session for the purposes of this bet, especially if it was only the first losing session. I'm guessing the abandon session amount would kind of be a floating thing, too, depending how everything else looks.

Anyway, the game could just be 9/6 JoB at the $100 denom, straight up, and the person taking the, "No," would have the worst of this bet.

[mickeycrimm]

Here are the most relevant aspects of the challenge as I understand them:

-The base bet amount from each side is $25,000.

-If RobSinger is successful in winning eight (or more) of ten sessions, with winning being defined as, "A session win total equal to, or greater than, $2,500," then he wins the bet and the $25,000. Furthermore, in the event of a net win and eight (or more) of ten sessions won, whoever bets against would be on the hook for the win.

-If RobSinger fails, then he would have to pay out the $25,000. In the event of a net loss, as I understand it, Singer would also have to pay out the amount lost in addition to the $25,000.

-Whoever bets against may set a cap of $100,000 as to the amount of winnings he/she/they would need to cover, so if I'm correct, $125,000 in escrow would cover the maximum potential liability.

-The highest denomination Video Poker would be $100.

I do have one question, and please forgive me if this has been addressed:

---If Singer wins eight or nine sessions, but loses money overall, would he still win the bet? If so, how would that be adjudicated? Would the amount lost overall just come off of the $25,000 owed him?

I'm going to say that Singer has anywhere from a slight to substantial advantage on this bet for a number of reasons:

1.) With a bankroll of 114 units ($500 bets) just on 9/6 JoB a player has a probability of either winning six (or more) units and stopping OR going bust in between 84.5%-85% to win the six units v. 15%-15.5% to go bust. Given the low end probability of 84.5%, by binomial distribution, the player would have a probability of 80.71% of winning eight (or more) out of ten such sessions. The player would also have a probability of 18-19% of winning all ten sessions.

Naturally, the player can accomplish that (winning eight or nine sessions) while losing money overall.

2.) Without a clearly defined and agreed upon minimum session stop loss, Singer could limit his exposure on what he may have to pay the, "No," bettor in excess of the 25k.

3.) Even if Singer's method reduces his probability of success in an individual session as opposed to just playing 9/6 Jacks at the $100 denomination, 74.142527672% is roughly the point that Singer would be 50/50 to win eight (or more) out of ten sessions. As far as that aspect of the bet is concerned, that would then be roughly the session win probability that would make it a break even proposition.

4.) At 84.5% session win probability, even if Singer lost the first session, he would still be about 58.224% to win either eight or nine of the remaining nine sessions. So, even a worst-case scenario would have him still looking decent to win the bet overall in terms of 8+ sessions.

Anyway, it's pretty clear that the, "No," is going to have a disadvantage on the bet, but that disadvantage doesn't have anything to do with the viability of the system. I think we can all agree, outside of some external factor, that 9/6 Jacks is not an advantageous game. But, there you go, nearly 85% to win a given session with a bankroll of 114 bets and a win goal of six bets.

In fact, a bankroll of just 42 units and a profit goal of six units gets you right in that 74% range of success probability per session. My guess is -50 units (-$25,000) is about where Singer would want to abandon ship on a session for the purposes of this bet, especially if it was only the first losing session. I'm guessing the abandon session amount would kind of be a floating thing, too, depending how everything else looks.

Anyway, the game could just be 9/6 JoB at the $100 denom, straight up, and the person taking the, "No," would have the worst of this bet.

Rob will be using his denom progression like this, $1, $2, $5, $10, $25, $100 with the goal of reaching a win of $2500 or more, at which time he will quit for that session. His starting bankroll for each level will be 400 credits. And he says he can reach the win goal of $2500 at least 8 times out of 10 sessions.

[Mission146]

Rob will be using his denom progression like this, $1, $2, $5, $10, $25, $100 with the goal of reaching a win of $2500 or more, at which time he will quit for that session. His starting bankroll for each level will be 400 credits. And he says he can reach the win goal of $2500 at least 8 times out of 10 sessions.

Is there any minimum to how much he has to lose at each level before he can move on to the next level? I'm assuming not, because he said he can go up and down from one level to another as he likes.

That's the reason why I figured showing a six unit ($3,000 profit) at the $100 bet level, that would give him as much as $500 to play around with at the lower bet levels before switching to the $100 and trying to break out the $2,500 overall profit for that session. It seems like this is some sort of conditional progression rather than a strictly negative or strictly positive progression, and I believe Singer has said as much, but the real question is how much is he down in $$$ (or bets) before he switches to that $100 denomination? When you're looking at 9/6 Jacks at the $100 denomination, he could switch off to that down $2,500 total and is still over 75% to make up that and come out at least $2,500 ahead, which would be up ten units ($5,000) just on the 9/6 Jacks or Better at the $100 denomination assuming an eighty-unit bankroll ($40,000) for that game.

That's basically what it comes down to, how much is he down when he switches the bet levels? My guess is he has a pretty substantial probability of winning the session (especially for the purposes of this bet) by the time he gets to the $100 bet level.

[Mission146]

Here is the TL;DR version of my long post:

Someone taking the, "No," on eight (or more) of ten sessions won just against someone playing $100 denomination VP with a win goal of at least $2,500 would have the worst of this bet by a lot notwithstanding any other potential gimmicks this system might have built in to increase session win probability.

[Alan Mendelson]

So... you guys are saying cashing out after reaching a win goal does work?

[Mission146]

Alan,

Rather than bore and possibly confuse you with precise technicalities, let me instead ask you a question:

If you had 85 red balls and 15 white balls and put them all in a drum with this stipulation:

-If a red ball is pulled, you win $1; if a white ball is pulled, you lose $6.

A.) What would your probability of winning be?

B.) Would you have a good bet or a bad bet?

This is essentially a more complicated version of the same concept.

[quahaug]

Here is the TL;DR version of my long post:

Someone taking the, "No," on eight (or more) of ten sessions won just against someone playing $100 denomination VP with a win goal of at least $2,500 would have the worst of this bet by a lot notwithstanding any other potential gimmicks this system might have built in to increase session win probability.

You really need to understand his system better in order to speak intelligently about "the bet" otherwise known as "the bet that will never happen". There is no JoB, deuces or gimmick games involved. The base game is BP. A loss is the whole 57 Gs offset by "soft profits", chance of needing to progress to $100- denom is slim.

[coach belly]

If you had 85 red balls and 15 white balls and put them all in a drum with this stipulation:

-If a red ball is pulled, you win $1; if a white ball is pulled, you lose $6.

Are you suggesting that Singer's strategy will produce session losses that are 6x greater than his session win goal?