Page 1 of 10 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 202

Thread: I'll Be Making An Official PUBLIC Challenge To The AP "Community

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    It seems none of the so-called AP's have any credibility, balls, or even knowledge when it comes to making online challenges. I've decided to begin working on eliminating their shyness, their anonymity, and their blatant stupidity when going up against me on a forum. And it isn't that hard.

    It seems the latest big mouth "ap challenger" didn't really know how to "lay down the gauntlet" when it comes to making 6-figure bets. As such, I will educated the lot of you once again. When I made the public Fezzik challenge I did it right: I clearly explained all bet parameters, and I put up a verifiable escrow. He had the chance to either accept with the same escrow (in this case) or not. He publicly declined. He had had a big mouth about my results and play strategy up until then--and probably still does. But his actions spoke very clearly.

    That's what I'll be doing in the near future. I will lay out a very clear, precise challenge to any ap who thinks my strategy is "full of it", I'll be doing it in a LV paper, and I will PUT UP THE ESCROW FIRST, AGAIN, IN THE FULL AMOUNT OF POTENTIAL LIABILITY. I'll be identifying some of the most vocal critics from the forums in all their anonymous glory, in case the bet amount can't be stomached by one vile hater. However, anyone who accepts will be required to enter into the bet with their real names. Equal footing all-around.

    Gaming Today was just sold to a close friend of Chuck DiRocco when he was still alive and wanted me to write for him. I'm told he thinks like Chuck and not like Eileen, who was uneasy with my war on AP's.

    I'll keep everyone informed.

  2. #2
    So will you be offering any even money wagers where you're not a 6/5 favorite?

    I mean, taking even money bets when the math demonstrates that you're a significant favorite sounds so...dare I say it...so much like an advantage player.

    Funny stuff.

    Here's some additional irony -- I was thinking of doing the same thing, more or less. I was going to offer even money bets that I could win 45% of my plays this football season. I wonder how many takers I'll get.
    Last edited by redietz; 08-26-2018 at 11:14 AM.

  3. #3
    If the APs are saying Rob is a 6/5 favorite aren't they conceding that his system works? Isn't 6/5 better than any of the edges the APs have identified in playing video poker in casinos?

  4. #4
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    If the APs are saying Rob is a 6/5 favorite aren't they conceding that his system works? Isn't 6/5 better than any of the edges the APs have identified in playing video poker in casinos?
    Hey deadbeat dad, I’m willing to beat you won’t admit how much you lost in casinos this week and how much you paid your son toward your debt with him.

    And if anyone thinks this is not on the subject, it is because it’s the same two assholes on the same subject.

    Face it Alan, you’re a dead beat who will die leaving not enough money to put you in the ground, once again fucking your family. Just like your entire life, same story.

  5. #5
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    If the APs are saying Rob is a 6/5 favorite aren't they conceding that his system works? Isn't 6/5 better than any of the edges the APs have identified in playing video poker in casinos?
    It's just another of redietz' preparations for softening the blow when I win Alan. The bet will be me playing my sessions in front of whoever accepts, and that I'll be at least an avg. of $2500/session ahead after playing ALL sessions--win them or lose them. Since these guys (along with red's collection of anonymous "university math professors") all claim I can't possibly win "overall" we'll put that assertion to the test. This last time you saw them rush to the front protest row when I said I'd win at least 8 of 10 while being ahead at least $25k net. Suddenly...."it's very likely that you will!". Then of course they had to make themselves feel better by adding in "but you'll still lose in the long run".

    So let's see if anyone with balls can come up with an acceptable # of sessions needed for me to be "losing overall". Which, naturally, will cost everyone more escrow.
    Last edited by Rob.Singer; 08-26-2018 at 04:22 PM.

  6. #6
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    If the APs are saying Rob is a 6/5 favorite aren't they conceding that his system works? Isn't 6/5 better than any of the edges the APs have identified in playing video poker in casinos?
    Let's imagine for a second a Roulette wheel:

    Imagine that we both go up to a Roulette wheel and you say, "Okay, let's each put $25,000 on the line where my $25,000 says I can leave this Roulette Table with a profit and your $25,000 says that I won't." Obviously, even on a 00 wheel, you could cover 34 numbers and, even though you have a hugely negative expectation, your probability of winning one trial is pretty high. I would obviously have a horrible bet going up against you.

    With that said, if you sit at a Roulette Table and bet 34 numbers for a long enough period of time, you will go bankrupt.

    My advice for you is not to post in a way that supports Rob Singer's positions. Not because I don't want you to, but because you do not even understand the fundamental and most basic mechanics of gambling and, as sad as it is to say, Singer does a much better job defending his system without your, "Help."

  7. #7
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    If the APs are saying Rob is a 6/5 favorite aren't they conceding that his system works? Isn't 6/5 better than any of the edges the APs have identified in playing video poker in casinos?
    Let's imagine for a second a Roulette wheel:

    Imagine that we both go up to a Roulette wheel and you say, "Okay, let's each put $25,000 on the line where my $25,000 says I can leave this Roulette Table with a profit and your $25,000 says that I won't." Obviously, even on a 00 wheel, you could cover 34 numbers and, even though you have a hugely negative expectation, your probability of winning one trial is pretty high. I would obviously have a horrible bet going up against you.

    With that said, if you sit at a Roulette Table and bet 34 numbers for a long enough period of time, you will go bankrupt.

    My advice for you is not to post in a way that supports Rob Singer's positions. Not because I don't want you to, but because you do not even understand the fundamental and most basic mechanics of gambling and, as sad as it is to say, Singer does a much better job defending his system without your, "Help."
    I'm sorry but you lost me as soon as I read roulette. Roulette is not video poker and Rob doesn't pick cards randomly.

    Now if he's a 6/5 favorite over ten sessions why isn't he also a 6/5 favorite over 100 sessions or 1,000 sessions?

    Please no coin flips or roulette spins.

  8. #8
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post

    I'm sorry but you lost me as soon as I read roulette. Roulette is not video poker and Rob doesn't pick cards randomly.

    Now if he's a 6/5 favorite over ten sessions why isn't he also a 6/5 favorite over 100 sessions or 1,000 sessions?

    Please no coin flips or roulette spins.
    I try to use other games to make the concept easier to understand for you, because you have difficulty grasping gambling concepts as it is.

    Okay, Singer's claim is that his system works. If you really wanted to test his system, here is what you would do:

    There are no, "Sessions," except as Singer sees fit, but no set amount of, "Sessions."

    What you would do is set a target amount, preferably more than one Royal at the $100 level. I would suggest $1,000,000, which I certainly do not have. How it would work is that Singer would have to play his system (or could play however he wanted, really) until he either won $1,000,000 or lost $1,000,000. If he were to meet/exceed $1,000,000, then the person betting against him would pay an additional $1,000,000. If Singer were to lose $1,000,000, then he would need to pay another $1,000,000 to the person betting against him.

    The reason why Singer's, "System," has such a high probability of winning a given trial is because the win target is so small compared to the loss target. If his win goal were to go from $2,500/session to $500/session, the probability of a, "Session Win," would be even higher. If he made the win target $5/session, then it would be even higher still.

    Anyway, if you set the stop win and stop loss to the same amount, and you make it a relatively high amount relative to the highest individual bet Singer is allowed to make, then the probability of winning would be well against him unless he were playing a +EV game in the first place.

  9. #9
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post

    I'm sorry but you lost me as soon as I read roulette. Roulette is not video poker and Rob doesn't pick cards randomly.

    Now if he's a 6/5 favorite over ten sessions why isn't he also a 6/5 favorite over 100 sessions or 1,000 sessions?

    Please no coin flips or roulette spins.
    I try to use other games to make the concept easier to understand for you, because you have difficulty grasping gambling concepts as it is.

    Okay, Singer's claim is that his system works. If you really wanted to test his system, here is what you would do:

    There are no, "Sessions," except as Singer sees fit, but no set amount of, "Sessions."

    What you would do is set a target amount, preferably more than one Royal at the $100 level. I would suggest $1,000,000, which I certainly do not have. How it would work is that Singer would have to play his system (or could play however he wanted, really) until he either won $1,000,000 or lost $1,000,000. If he were to meet/exceed $1,000,000, then the person betting against him would pay an additional $1,000,000. If Singer were to lose $1,000,000, then he would need to pay another $1,000,000 to the person betting against him.

    The reason why Singer's, "System," has such a high probability of winning a given trial is because the win target is so small compared to the loss target. If his win goal were to go from $2,500/session to $500/session, the probability of a, "Session Win," would be even higher. If he made the win target $5/session, then it would be even higher still.

    Anyway, if you set the stop win and stop loss to the same amount, and you make it a relatively high amount relative to the highest individual bet Singer is allowed to make, then the probability of winning would be well against him unless he were playing a +EV game in the first place.

    Come on Alan, just do it. Die and leave the 10k and $75 in FP to your kids. Honestly how many of us are this little alive or dead? Probably should be a posting requirement. Good or bad, I’m willing to bet there is not a poster worth less than Alan dead or alive.

    66 yearsof fucking people over and this piece of shit is worth more dead than alive. Sad or ironic . You pick.

  10. #10
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    I'm sorry but you lost me as soon as I read roulette. Roulette is not video poker and Rob doesn't pick cards randomly.
    Look up the word "analogy" in the dictionary. You might learn something. Giving these kinds of responses means you are an ostrich with your head in the ground.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  11. #11
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post

    Look up the word "analogy" in the dictionary. You might learn something. Giving these kinds of responses means you are an ostrich with your head in the ground.
    An ostrich may well be no worse at Bonus Poker.

  12. #12
    Say what you want Boz but my family matters are none of your business. If Slapinfunk wants to discuss them he can but I won't.

    I never had an annual profit playing in a casino.

  13. #13
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Say what you want Boz but my family matters are none of your business. If Slapinfunk wants to discuss them he can but I won't.

    I never had an annual profit playing in a casino.
    Absolutely Alan, we would have only guessed based on common sense and your postings that you were a bad parent. But when your son put it out there, sorry jackass, it’s free game. And add in the fact that you are such a liar, scammer in your business fucking hard working people, and general scumbag, it’s easy and fun.

  14. #14
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    It seems none of the so-called AP's have any credibility, balls, or even knowledge when it comes to making online challenges. I've decided to begin working on eliminating their shyness, their anonymity, and their blatant stupidity when going up against me on a forum. And it isn't that hard.

    It seems the latest big mouth "ap challenger" didn't really know how to "lay down the gauntlet" when it comes to making 6-figure bets. As such, I will educated the lot of you once again. When I made the public Fezzik challenge I did it right: I clearly explained all bet parameters, and I put up a verifiable escrow. He had the chance to either accept with the same escrow (in this case) or not. He publicly declined. He had had a big mouth about my results and play strategy up until then--and probably still does. But his actions spoke very clearly.

    That's what I'll be doing in the near future. I will lay out a very clear, precise challenge to any ap who thinks my strategy is "full of it", I'll be doing it in a LV paper, and I will PUT UP THE ESCROW FIRST, AGAIN, IN THE FULL AMOUNT OF POTENTIAL LIABILITY. I'll be identifying some of the most vocal critics from the forums in all their anonymous glory, in case the bet amount can't be stomached by one vile hater. However, anyone who accepts will be required to enter into the bet with their real names. Equal footing all-around.

    Gaming Today was just sold to a close friend of Chuck DiRocco when he was still alive and wanted me to write for him. I'm told he thinks like Chuck and not like Eileen, who was uneasy with my war on AP's.

    I'll keep everyone informed.
    You forgot to add one little detail. Fezzik made a counter offer. You declined. And once again you have put in a stipulation on a bet that guarantee's you won't get any action. They have to divulge their identies. Chickenshit.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  15. #15
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    It seems none of the so-called AP's have any credibility, balls, or even knowledge when it comes to making online challenges. I've decided to begin working on eliminating their shyness, their anonymity, and their blatant stupidity when going up against me on a forum. And it isn't that hard.

    It seems the latest big mouth "ap challenger" didn't really know how to "lay down the gauntlet" when it comes to making 6-figure bets. As such, I will educated the lot of you once again. When I made the public Fezzik challenge I did it right: I clearly explained all bet parameters, and I put up a verifiable escrow. He had the chance to either accept with the same escrow (in this case) or not. He publicly declined. He had had a big mouth about my results and play strategy up until then--and probably still does. But his actions spoke very clearly.

    That's what I'll be doing in the near future. I will lay out a very clear, precise challenge to any ap who thinks my strategy is "full of it", I'll be doing it in a LV paper, and I will PUT UP THE ESCROW FIRST, AGAIN, IN THE FULL AMOUNT OF POTENTIAL LIABILITY. I'll be identifying some of the most vocal critics from the forums in all their anonymous glory, in case the bet amount can't be stomached by one vile hater. However, anyone who accepts will be required to enter into the bet with their real names. Equal footing all-around.

    Gaming Today was just sold to a close friend of Chuck DiRocco when he was still alive and wanted me to write for him. I'm told he thinks like Chuck and not like Eileen, who was uneasy with my war on AP's.

    I'll keep everyone informed.
    You forgot to add one little detail. Fezzik made a counter offer. You declined. And once again you have put in a stipulation on a bet that guarantee's you won't get any action. They have to divulge their identies. Chickenshit.
    I think the point is that only Rob needs to see the proof of escrow with real names used. The real names need not be released publicly but Rob needs to know who the bet is with.

  16. #16
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    I think the point is that only Rob needs to see the proof of escrow with real names used. The real names need not be released publicly but Rob needs to know who the bet is with.
    No.

    So long as there is proof that the money is in escrow there is no need to give up anonymity.

    The escrow holder is the only one who really needs to know actual identity, not the bettors.

    Why would you think real names need to used?

    So long as the money is escrowed and the instructions are air-tight it would not be necessary.
    What, Me Worry?

  17. #17
    Originally Posted by MisterV View Post
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    I think the point is that only Rob needs to see the proof of escrow with real names used. The real names need not be released publicly but Rob needs to know who the bet is with.
    No.

    So long as there is proof that the money is in escrow there is no need to give up anonymity.

    The escrow holder is the only one who really needs to know actual identity, not the bettors.

    Why would you think real names need to used?

    So long as the money is escrowed and the instructions are air-tight it would not be necessary.
    On second thought what V wrote is reasonable if everything is air tight. I guess that means the escrow agent must be trusted.

    But do the anonymous bettors show up at the actual event or do they send a proxy? Does the escrow agent attend to be the judge?

  18. #18
    Mr.V's point is irrelevant. I'm proposing the bet with what I consider reasonable T's & C's. They know me--I want to know them. Simple as that. If any of these ap's don't like the terms they can decline just as Fezzik did a dozen years ago. Leave it up to them to decide how they'll be perceived after that. They can always make up stuff like mickey does now about some irrelevant counter-challenge even though he never knew about any if it at the time.

    Keep trying mickey. It else you just won't get to sleep in your car tonight!
    Last edited by Rob.Singer; 08-26-2018 at 04:21 PM.

  19. #19
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    It seems none of the so-called AP's have any credibility, balls, or even knowledge when it comes to making online challenges. I've decided to begin working on eliminating their shyness, their anonymity, and their blatant stupidity when going up against me on a forum. And it isn't that hard.

    It seems the latest big mouth "ap challenger" didn't really know how to "lay down the gauntlet" when it comes to making 6-figure bets. As such, I will educated the lot of you once again. When I made the public Fezzik challenge I did it right: I clearly explained all bet parameters, and I put up a verifiable escrow. He had the chance to either accept with the same escrow (in this case) or not. He publicly declined. He had had a big mouth about my results and play strategy up until then--and probably still does. But his actions spoke very clearly.

    That's what I'll be doing in the near future. I will lay out a very clear, precise challenge to any ap who thinks my strategy is "full of it", I'll be doing it in a LV paper, and I will PUT UP THE ESCROW FIRST, AGAIN, IN THE FULL AMOUNT OF POTENTIAL LIABILITY. I'll be identifying some of the most vocal critics from the forums in all their anonymous glory, in case the bet amount can't be stomached by one vile hater. However, anyone who accepts will be required to enter into the bet with their real names. Equal footing all-around.

    Gaming Today was just sold to a close friend of Chuck DiRocco when he was still alive and wanted me to write for him. I'm told he thinks like Chuck and not like Eileen, who was uneasy with my war on AP's.

    I'll keep everyone informed.
    You forgot to add one little detail. Fezzik made a counter offer. You declined. And once again you have put in a stipulation on a bet that guarantee's you won't get any action. They have to divulge their identies. Chickenshit.
    I think the point is that only Rob needs to see the proof of escrow with real names used. The real names need not be released publicly but Rob needs to know who the bet is with.
    The only public response Fezzik made was "I Decline". Anything else you make up about some mysterious "counteroffer" is only due go how hurt you guys are--and especially YOU mickey--that it ended up so humiliating for Fezzik and his HP crowd.

  20. #20
    Sorry Boz but I'm not going to play.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-22-2018, 08:24 AM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-04-2015, 08:58 PM
  3. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-11-2015, 04:03 PM
  4. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-05-2013, 06:42 PM
  5. Compare THIS Challenge To The Fedomalley Challenge
    By Rob.Singer in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-29-2011, 11:35 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •