Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Negative Expected Value (-EV) Video Poker Explained

  1. #1
    This will be my final post on -EV videopoker and why Rob Singer's claim of making a million dollars playing -EV video poker is such bullshit. See, I play -EV video poker, so I know how it works. Most of the other machine guys, who are much smarter than me, seek out 100%+ return VP (+EV). I don't play +EV, or 100%+ return games. I play -EV (less than 100% return) video poker.

    So when you play -EV (less than 100% return) video poker as I do and Singer does, you must have something to change those longterm results to +EV. No betting system, including progressive betting systems that Singer is using can do that. That is a mathematical fact, proven for hundreds of years, by top mathematicians and confirmed in this more recent era of computers by 100's of millions and billions of rounds of computer simulations. Progressive betting systems (like Rob Singer uses) can not change a -EV game to a +EV game. PERIOD.

    So as I said, you need something that does turn a -EV game to +EV to experience longterm profits as my late partner and I have had for 6-7 years now. Playing on strong point multiplier days helps, but only so much. Not enough to turn that corner to +EV. What does do the trick is free play mailer offers. That is you play XXX amount of coin in at an expected loss of say $500 and you received disproportionate free play mailer offers of $1000-$2000 over the next couple months. Alan, coach belly, slingshot, and now I guess regnis….do you see how that makes the whole entirety of play +EV?

    Singer has shared nothing that makes his -EV play into a longterm +EV play, which is what is needed to substantiate the kind of claims he makes. Without something that turns the play +EV, you will just lose year after year after year. Alan, you should understand this point.


    Now in my own case, I am sort of phasing out my VP play. The reason: Casinos here in Vegas have cut back and pretty dramatically the free play mailer offers from where they were just a couple years ago. It is getting harder and harder to get over that hump into +EV territory, and with my partner's passing earlier this year, just not worth my investment in time. So I am in the process of cutting out this part of my AP, which has always been supplemental to my primary AP of blackjack play. I am returning exclusively to my blackjack roots. I will probably hang on to just 2-3 properties, including the stations chain, which will still provide me and my current blackjack partner with free lunches and maybe just a bit of supplemental coin in our pocket, but it won't be the supplemental AP income amounts that I have benefited from for the last 6-7 years.

    So that's it. To turn -EV play into +EV play or a longterm winner, you must have something other than a magical wand. The thing that did so for me....disproportional free play mailer offers...is drying up. Singer has never provided anything that actually made his play +EV, other than wishful thinking. And it is about time you guys supporting him accept this reality.

  2. #2
    I have never once said that his system changes a game from negative to positive. I only asked that the terms of the wager be clearly and simply set forth. I would never risk 57.000 to make 2500 either. But I will not say he hasn't done what he says. I believe he may have done so. Again----I attribute it to good luck.

  3. #3
    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    But I will not say he hasn't done what he says. I believe he may have done so. Again----I attribute it to good luck.
    Good, you said this really stupid thing again. I saw you posted this same thought earlier today, while I was out playing and meant to respond when I got home but forgot....so thanks for reminding me.

    "Good luck"??? "Good luck", which is better described as positive variance, can occur in the short term. It can not occur long-term or year after year. If Singer somehow has Rabbits feet where his human feet should be and 4 leaf clovers growing out of his chest, instead of hair, he should be playing the F***ing lottery.

    But for god sakes don't try to tell me someone won 100k a year, for 10 consecutive years, playing a losing game because he has "good luck". This is simply 18 y.o.'s in a row kind of nonsense. That is to say....IMPOSSIBLE!

  4. #4
    Far from impossible. His play is nowhere near long term. Variance--good luck--exactly. Can he do it for 10 more sessions--maybe. Can he do it for 10 million sessions--I doubt it.

    P.S.--I certainly don't think it is stupid to attribute it to good luck. It would be stupid to attribute it to changing a negative game to a positive in some manner.

  5. #5
    10 years of winning 100k per year.....because of "good luck"? Give me a break!

    Is that your story too regnis? Is that how you were a "professional craps player"? You had "good luck"?

    Friend, you might want to stick to your claim of lawyering.

  6. #6
    If not good luck how do you explain his winning 1,000,000?

  7. #7
    I "lawyer" about 10 hours per week now. I play horses about 60 hours per week. I have the luxury of only handling select accounts. No assholes.

  8. #8
    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    If not good luck how do you explain his winning 1,000,000?
    You can't explain it because it didn't happen. It is fantasy land stuff.

  9. #9
    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    If not good luck how do you explain his winning 1,000,000?
    How do you know he won $1,000,000?
    "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

  10. #10
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    If not good luck how do you explain his winning 1,000,000?
    How do you know he won $1,000,000?

  11. #11
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    If not good luck how do you explain his winning 1,000,000?
    How do you know he won $1,000,000?

    I think that his proclaimed tax origin story is far less likely to be true than his one million dollar story. If you go back and read his tax myth origin tale, he said he was suddenly able to switch from his losing years as an AP, wherein he wrote off all W2G wins with losses, to being able to file as a "professional." He was somehow able to do this without convincing the IRS he had a profitability model or plan, and without creating a gambling entity, and without entering into a partnership with anyone who had a historically demonstrable profit model.

    Then after pulling the switcheroo from amateur to professional without a model or plan or gambling entity or partner-with-demonstrable-clearance, he then wrote off 100K a year in profits by deducting lodging and food and travel expenses -- for 10 years. He did this because where he played in Nevada was not where he lived. There are a few problems with this. First, he claims to have been away from home only a day or two a week while in his professional mode. This really limits one's opportunity to deduct travel expenses. One does have to explain to the IRS that one has a home, after all. Second, the allowed per diem deductions at the time were very modest. I know, because I USED THEM.

    Basically, Argentino would have had to be triplets traveling every day to rack up 100K in those kinds of deductions. He isn't triplets, unless one counts Jerry Logan and AcesHi. His mythology also claims he traveled to play video poker just a day or two a week. So the entire 100K in deduction story for 10 years, all without establishing a profitability model or even a profitability direction, is all garbage if you believe he actually won the money.

    But it gets better. Argentino says he made it through audits with flying colors.

    So what prompted Argentino to make up the 100K-in-deductions-for-10-years-while-maintaining-professional-status stories? The most likely explanation is that he was involved in the whole arci tax comparison argument, and it seemed likely he was gonna have to explain his tax returns at some point. He was going to have to explain his zeroed out gambling income some way.

    Sometimes you have to read between the lines. Argentino goes out of his way to NOT say he filed as a "professional gambler." Instead, he simply says he filed as a "professional." Well, as a professional what? A professional in general? A professional video poker player, which could just be someone who "gives lessons" and "writes books?" I suppose he could have filed as a "professional" while making nothing net from playing video poker. Therefore, he was not a "professional gambler" in any sense. That would explain the zero net income, and getting through audits. It would explain the IRS never calling him on it. It would also make the 100K a year in video poker winnings for 10 years not very likely, according to his own tax returns.

  12. #12
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post

    How do you know he won $1,000,000?

    I think that his proclaimed tax origin story is far less likely to be true than his one million dollar story. If you go back and read his tax myth origin tale, he said he was suddenly able to switch from his losing years as an AP, wherein he wrote off all W2G wins with losses, to being able to file as a "professional." He was somehow able to do this without convincing the IRS he had a profitability model or plan, and without creating a gambling entity, and without entering into a partnership with anyone who had a historically demonstrable profit model.

    Then after pulling the switcheroo from amateur to professional without a model or plan or gambling entity or partner-with-demonstrable-clearance, he then wrote off 100K a year in profits by deducting lodging and food and travel expenses -- for 10 years. He did this because where he played in Nevada was not where he lived. There are a few problems with this. First, he claims to have been away from home only a day or two a week while in his professional mode. This really limits one's opportunity to deduct travel expenses. One does have to explain to the IRS that one has a home, after all. Second, the allowed per diem deductions at the time were very modest. I know, because I USED THEM.

    Basically, Argentino would have had to be triplets traveling every day to rack up 100K in those kinds of deductions. He isn't triplets, unless one counts Jerry Logan and AcesHi. His mythology also claims he traveled to play video poker just a day or two a week. So the entire 100K in deduction story for 10 years, all without establishing a profitability model or even a profitability direction, is all garbage if you believe he actually won the money.

    But it gets better. Argentino says he made it through audits with flying colors.

    So what prompted Argentino to make up the 100K-in-deductions-for-10-years-while-maintaining-professional-status stories? The most likely explanation is that he was involved in the whole arci tax comparison argument, and it seemed likely he was gonna have to explain his tax returns at some point. He was going to have to explain his zeroed out gambling income some way.

    Sometimes you have to read between the lines. Argentino goes out of his way to NOT say he filed as a "professional gambler." Instead, he simply says he filed as a "professional." Well, as a professional what? A professional in general? A professional video poker player, which could just be someone who "gives lessons" and "writes books?" I suppose he could have filed as a "professional" while making nothing net from playing video poker. Therefore, he was not a "professional gambler" in any sense. That would explain the zero net income, and getting through audits. It would explain the IRS never calling him on it. It would also make the 100K a year in video poker winnings for 10 years not very likely, according to his own tax returns.
    Let's face facts....His whole "professional gambler", "I made $1,000,000 with my strategies", "blah blah blah", etc., are nothing but complete fabrications!!

    WISE UP!!

  13. #13
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    This will be my final post on -EV videopoker and why Rob Singer's claim of making a million dollars playing -EV video poker is such bullshit:
    Let's hope so. KJ. FWIW, you've clearly allowed the karaoke guy to get in your head. You're better than that. No?

  14. #14
    Rob would not have had much of a lodging expense. For running that kind of action the rooms would have been free. He would have had plenty of mailers with free rooms if he mixed up his play with several casinos. Especially in Laughlin where I know from experience that it only took a few thousand dollar wager a day to get a room comped.
    "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 redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post

    How do you know he won $1,000,000?

    I think that his proclaimed tax origin story is far less likely to be true than his one million dollar story. If you go back and read his tax myth origin tale, he said he was suddenly able to switch from his losing years as an AP, wherein he wrote off all W2G wins with losses, to being able to file as a "professional." He was somehow able to do this without convincing the IRS he had a profitability model or plan, and without creating a gambling entity, and without entering into a partnership with anyone who had a historically demonstrable profit model.

    Then after pulling the switcheroo from amateur to professional without a model or plan or gambling entity or partner-with-demonstrable-clearance, he then wrote off 100K a year in profits by deducting lodging and food and travel expenses -- for 10 years. He did this because where he played in Nevada was not where he lived. There are a few problems with this. First, he claims to have been away from home only a day or two a week while in his professional mode. This really limits one's opportunity to deduct travel expenses. One does have to explain to the IRS that one has a home, after all. Second, the allowed per diem deductions at the time were very modest. I know, because I USED THEM.

    Basically, Argentino would have had to be triplets traveling every day to rack up 100K in those kinds of deductions. He isn't triplets, unless one counts Jerry Logan and AcesHi. His mythology also claims he traveled to play video poker just a day or two a week. So the entire 100K in deduction story for 10 years, all without establishing a profitability model or even a profitability direction, is all garbage if you believe he actually won the money.

    But it gets better. Argentino says he made it through audits with flying colors.

    So what prompted Argentino to make up the 100K-in-deductions-for-10-years-while-maintaining-professional-status stories? The most likely explanation is that he was involved in the whole arci tax comparison argument, and it seemed likely he was gonna have to explain his tax returns at some point. He was going to have to explain his zeroed out gambling income some way.

    Sometimes you have to read between the lines. Argentino goes out of his way to NOT say he filed as a "professional gambler." Instead, he simply says he filed as a "professional." Well, as a professional what? A professional in general? A professional video poker player, which could just be someone who "gives lessons" and "writes books?" I suppose he could have filed as a "professional" while making nothing net from playing video poker. Therefore, he was not a "professional gambler" in any sense. That would explain the zero net income, and getting through audits. It would explain the IRS never calling him on it. It would also make the 100K a year in video poker winnings for 10 years not very likely, according to his own tax returns.
    It is surprising how easily people can cheat on their taxes. That is why when a client says Joe next door deducted such and such, why can't I, I tell him he can deduct anything he wants, as long as he doesn't get caught. in Singer's case, I would assume that he combined his writing, web site, and actual VP play under one umbrella, thereby allowing for some deductions that aren't specific to actual play. I have no direct knowledge of what he did, but that would be my assumption. Redietz is absolutely correct that the per diems were low--that alone couldn't produce deductions of such large amounts.

    Similarly, horse players have combined horse ownership and its attendant costs and expenses with their actual horse wagers as a means to blend all of those deductions into that "profession".

    Clearly, as others have stated, this is why producing tax returns as evidence of his winning $1,000,000 would be ineffective.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Expected Value Discussion
    By a2a3dseddie in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 279
    Last Post: 07-07-2018, 08:04 AM
  2. Negative expectaiton? Really?
    By MisterV in forum Whatever's On Your Mind
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-30-2017, 08:15 AM
  3. Fascination With "LGBT" Examined & Explained
    By Rob.Singer in forum Whatever's On Your Mind
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 11-19-2015, 10:00 AM
  4. Wti crude oil negative, market awaits us data releases
    By kittycriston in forum Money, Shopping, Real Estate, Investing
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-28-2013, 04:19 AM
  5. Video poker machines in a casino poker room.
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-10-2011, 05:55 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
  •