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

[Alan Mendelson]

I missed the "telepathing" comment. Guilty as charged.

[kewlJ]

I missed the "telepathing" comment. Guilty as charged.

Fair enough.

[redietz]

I missed the "telepathing" comment. Guilty as charged.

Fair enough.

Some things I wonder about.

Like a nationally renowned investigative reporter, who chides folks for not watching his Argentino videos, somehow ignores that the guy he interviewed either claimed a super power or is hearing voices or both. Mr. Mendelson must indeed hang out with extraordinary people -- Ant-Man, the White Queen, Professor X -- for Argentino's claims of super powers to not bother him. Or motivate him to ask something about the super power. I guess super powers are so commonplace, what the hell. Telepathy is okay, but goddamn, I'm gonna check what somebody with 20/20 vision can see at a blackjack table.

Meanwhile, the gotcha guy somehow has no issues with telepathy. I guess he knows as much about telepathy as he does about his own tax forms.

What an act. ShShSH.

[Dankyone]

“I play to get lucky, hope I get a winner” —-Rob Singer

Did you miss that one on your video? It’s on YouTube right now. 7:40.

[Kim Lee]

$100 games are as much a required part of my play strategy as the $1 games are.

I will continue this process right up through the $100 machines as required ... until ... I attain or surpass my goal ... or I lose my bankroll. Losing has happened very seldom - less than 7% of the time, and my average loss is around $7000. But ... I only advance to the $100 machines if this week's loss puts me behind my overall average weekly winning goal of $2500/week thus far-for the year. Generally, I only advance to the $25 machines under the same circumstances ... .

You first wrote that your session bankroll for $100 machines is 400*($1+$2+$5+$10+$25+$100) = $57,200. But $10 machines require only $7,200, which matches your average loss.

So you basically claimed to use a $7,200 bankroll to win $2,500 around 93% of the time! But your challenge needs a $57,200 bankroll to win $2,500 around 80% of the time.

[Kim Lee]

I will continue this process right up through the $100 machines as required ... . Losing has happened very seldom - less than 7% of the time, and my average loss is around $7000.

Rob Singer's Professional Session Stats
I've been keeping won/loss data since I began professional play in 1997. ...

Results as of: August 31, 2010

Total Professional Sessions: 427
Total Pro Winning Sessions: 353
Total Pro Losing Sessions: 74

Overall Average Session Results: +$2,308.00
Average Loss Per Losing Session: -$3,523.00

Largest Single Session Win: +$94,890.00
Largest Single Session Loss: -$33,960.00

The largest winning session was basically a royal flush on a $25 machine. The largest losing session was approximately two session bankrolls of 400*($1+$2+$5+$10+$25). He lost 17% of the time, and I don't see evidence of $100 machines.

[redietz]

Kim,

You're missing the point here. The dude just make stuff up. He's sending tax returns, then he's not. He gets his entire story of what he won where confused over and over, then says he wins so much, it's all so hard to remember. His discussion of his tax returns is pure hogwash. He doesn't make more because he's never needed more money, which is called "The Goldilocks Syndrome." He makes just the right amount. Less and he's a lightweight. More and he's an addict without family values. But what he does (or claims to have done) is the perfect balance. He challenged people to physical events (probably just to identify KJ), but when someone real offers to take him on, "Las Vegas is too hot in August; anybody there in August is a loser." He's come up with special plays and denom jumps by himself while tens of thousands of other video poker players have yet to discover one that works. He plays negative expectation games sub optimally on purpose, and claims he can outperform optimal play going forward. He couldn't even keep when and how he paid for his RV(s) straight, or how many RVs there are.

I mean, it's like Blazing Saddles meets Rounders. Holding this guy to anything he's posted or said is like asking the old Dick Tracy villain, Mumbles, to defend himself in court.

[Deech]

Six, two, and even. Over and out.

[RS__]

Anyone remember when he was all proud of owning a Hyundai? Lolol

[Kim Lee]

$57,200/session....with a relatively paltry win goal of $2500? And consistently wins!

Here Rob Singer claims a session bankroll of $57,200 = 400 units times ($1+$2+$5+$10+$25+$100).

I will continue this process right up through the $100 machines as required ... my average loss is around $7000.

Then Rob must only play $10 machines because $7,200 = 400*($1+$2+$5+$10).

Total Professional Sessions: 427
Total Pro Winning Sessions: 353
Total Pro Losing Sessions: 74

Overall Average Session Results: +$2,308.00
Average Loss Per Losing Session: -$3,523.00

Largest Single Session Win: +$94,890.00
Largest Single Session Loss: -$33,960.00

The 74 losing sessions add up to 74*$3,523 = $260,702. Subtracting the largest loss of $33,960 from the total loss leaves $226,742 in 73 losing sessions, or $3,106 per session.
Except for one session, Rob Singer regularly stopped his losses at $5 machines (or lower) because $3,200 = 400*($1+$2+$5).

He wins $2,500 over 80% of the time and limits his losses to under $3,200 (except one time). I would like him to demonstrate that.

[redietz]

Someone just asked me about Argentino's presentation at last year's Global Gaming Expo. Yes, somehow his (just by him) announced and alleged public panel invite turned into an alleged private get together in a hotel room, which of course was not witnessed or broadcast or whatever. No kidding. Interesting. No mention of him in the conference info at all. How could that be? Clerical error? His claim to being on a panel seemed to be an attempted tit-for-tat because I had presented a paper at a National Gambling Conference.

Then we have Argentino's recent alleged sequential royal. Knowing him, hard to believe it went unposted, eh?

Never a number regarding how many royals he hit in how many hands. That ties into Kim Lee's observation regarding how his reported stats and distribution of sessions makes no sense.

Then we have weird personal details presented that have nothing to do with any gambling. Like the house in Arizona, allegedly 4100 square feet...only it is not. Or the Hellcat...presumably garaged in the storage shed along with the video poker machines that are rigged, and the analysis by three "world class" mathematicians that confirms his systems, and his CIA credentials. I kid you not.

I have a great idea...maybe he could present his challenge to all APs at the next G2E, since he's so connected and all. He shouldn't have any trouble getting a 15-minute spot.

The reality is that Argentino is what he is. The interesting stuff is regarding the people who shill or cover for him. Why do they, and what are the thought processes?

[AxelWolf]

Here Rob Singer claims a session bankroll of $57,200 = 400 units times ($1+$2+$5+$10+$25+$100).



Then Rob must only play $10 machines because $7,200 = 400*($1+$2+$5+$10).

Total Professional Sessions: 427
Total Pro Winning Sessions: 353
Total Pro Losing Sessions: 74

Overall Average Session Results: +$2,308.00
Average Loss Per Losing Session: -$3,523.00

Largest Single Session Win: +$94,890.00
Largest Single Session Loss: -$33,960.00

The 74 losing sessions add up to 74*$3,523 = $260,702. Subtracting the largest loss of $33,960 from the total loss leaves $226,742 in 73 losing sessions, or $3,106 per session.
Except for one session, Rob Singer regularly stopped his losses at $5 machines (or lower) because $3,200 = 400*($1+$2+$5).

He wins $2,500 over 80% of the time and limits his losses to under $3,200 (except one time). I would like him to demonstrate that.

NOT EVER GOING TO HAPPEN!!!!

[MisterV]

Like a nationally renowned investigative reporter

Huh?

No one that meets that description on this board.

If you mean alan: he was So Cal only.

Oh, and he is far from "renowned."

[mickeycrimm]

Like a nationally renowned investigative reporter

Huh?

No one that meets that description on this board.

If you mean alan: he was So Cal only.

Oh, and he is far from "renowned."

Alan can better answer this but I believe he was in several major markets and I'm guessing several of his reports made the national news.

[Rob.Singer]

$100 games are as much a required part of my play strategy as the $1 games are.

I will continue this process right up through the $100 machines as required ... until ... I attain or surpass my goal ... or I lose my bankroll. Losing has happened very seldom - less than 7% of the time, and my average loss is around $7000. But ... I only advance to the $100 machines if this week's loss puts me behind my overall average weekly winning goal of $2500/week thus far-for the year. Generally, I only advance to the $25 machines under the same circumstances ... .

You first wrote that your session bankroll for $100 machines is 400*($1+$2+$5+$10+$25+$100) = $57,200. But $10 machines require only $7,200, which matches your average loss.

So you basically claimed to use a $7,200 bankroll to win $2,500 around 93% of the time! But your challenge needs a $57,200 bankroll to win $2,500 around 80% of the time.

This is basically another unknowledgeable critic (and coward by the looks of things) making it up in order to feel better.

Read and learn....and ignore redietz, unless you like being groomed as a fish for his "guaranteed lock" pick service.

I don't know why you need to guess when you can simply ask. SPS requires a $57,200 br/session, which is 400 credits each of all 6 denominations. There is no "$7200" thru the $10 game point. And as I've stated multiple times (although I understand how a simple, uneducated anonymous personality such as yourself cannot get it) there are numerous 40+ credit "soft profit" cashouts occurring along the way.So your simpleton guess is neither rationale or math-savvy. Guessing only embarrasses you.

I've never lost $57,200 in a single session. Those who are envious and stupid like to claim that. Largest was $33k/next largest was $11k. And "evidence" of the $100 machines? How do you think I lost $33k? If you had any clue you'd understand that a session profit of $2500 to $3000 can and has been made, multiple times, while playing within the $100 level.

I can tell you're a phony because while you've chickened out of my challenge, you keep trying to make yourself feel better about it by making believe you know how my strategy is played. The truth is--and will be soon seen again in the published challenge--that you collection of phony AP's have neither the COMBINED bankroll or the balls to match up against me. And you should be eternally proud having a two-bit bum like mickeycrimm and a fraud like resorts, on your side.

[AxelWolf]

Rob, can you explain the telepathing? I suppose you will tell us that was some kind of joke or something?

[Rob.Singer]

Rob, can you explain the telepathing? I suppose you will tell us that was some kind of joke or something?

I don't know what you mean. I rarely use that word, and if I wrote or spoke it I was either mocking someone or talking about their dying mother.

[Rob.Singer]

Here Rob Singer claims a session bankroll of $57,200 = 400 units times ($1+$2+$5+$10+$25+$100).



Then Rob must only play $10 machines because $7,200 = 400*($1+$2+$5+$10).

Total Professional Sessions: 427
Total Pro Winning Sessions: 353
Total Pro Losing Sessions: 74

Overall Average Session Results: +$2,308.00
Average Loss Per Losing Session: -$3,523.00

Largest Single Session Win: +$94,890.00
Largest Single Session Loss: -$33,960.00

The 74 losing sessions add up to 74*$3,523 = $260,702. Subtracting the largest loss of $33,960 from the total loss leaves $226,742 in 73 losing sessions, or $3,106 per session.
Except for one session, Rob Singer regularly stopped his losses at $5 machines (or lower) because $3,200 = 400*($1+$2+$5).

He wins $2,500 over 80% of the time and limits his losses to under $3,200 (except one time). I would like him to demonstrate that.

More total confusion Kim. Or is it Spock. Study the strategy and then tell me why you keep making these kind of dumb posts.

[Rob.Singer]

Here Rob Singer claims a session bankroll of $57,200 = 400 units times ($1+$2+$5+$10+$25+$100).



Then Rob must only play $10 machines because $7,200 = 400*($1+$2+$5+$10).

Total Professional Sessions: 427
Total Pro Winning Sessions: 353
Total Pro Losing Sessions: 74

Overall Average Session Results: +$2,308.00
Average Loss Per Losing Session: -$3,523.00

Largest Single Session Win: +$94,890.00
Largest Single Session Loss: -$33,960.00

The 74 losing sessions add up to 74*$3,523 = $260,702. Subtracting the largest loss of $33,960 from the total loss leaves $226,742 in 73 losing sessions, or $3,106 per session.
Except for one session, Rob Singer regularly stopped his losses at $5 machines (or lower) because $3,200 = 400*($1+$2+$5).

He wins $2,500 over 80% of the time and limits his losses to under $3,200 (except one time). I would like him to demonstrate that.

NOT EVER GOING TO HAPPEN!!!!

That's because Kim's rendition of his belief about my strategy is a million miles away from the truth.

[Rob.Singer]

Anyone remember when he was all proud of owning a Hyundai? Lolol

That was a great car. We traded it in on a new Lexus. I may have put pics of both of them up just to irritate the gamblers here.

The Hellcat's in our garage in SD. Have I put up a pic of that one or is a Dodge worthy of lol too?