Rob Singer containment thread

[redietz]

This quote from 'Romes' perfectly sums up Rob, Alan and crew here:

"In our world, there are 2 people who try to make money from gambling... an AP (advantage player whom has a proven statistical advantage over the house on numerous games and promotions - this is me), and*b) someone who has a non-math based theory of how to win. Most problem gamblers would fall in to the latter bucket in my opinion. Anyone whom takes the money seriously doesn’t actually gamble and takes the time to mathematically prove their edge. The 2nd group will gamble feverishly on hunches and non-math based theories and not for entertainment, thus why I think it would be a “problem” group."

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/info.../2/#post683884

Ha. I don't see anyone from any of the gambling boards who is really making a go of it. Only bitter and phoney claims from low-IQ people who either have never had anything or have lost it all to gambling. Clearly, not even MrV, who claims to have it all, is happy with any of this gambling stuff.

Ha. KJ and the other AP's typing themselves to death. The guy has serious mental problems. Crimm lives out of a filthy hotel in some filthy town in Montana. Nice.

Bill,

You have been invited to meet me, ask questions, get filmed (not in a "shit-hole"), read print material dating back 40 years, meet my compadres, and all you have to do is show up. I'll PM you the details. If you don't have the courage to test your speculations, then why waste forum readers' time?

And that IQ stuff is poor. Whoever brings up IQ in an argument has already lost the argument. Tsk tsk.

LOL. I just realized -- the low IQ quote. Bill must be a Trumpster.

[redietz]

Kewlj Rob's claims are not mathematically impossible. Why do you persist in even arguing or debating? By now EVERYONE knows that Rob posts what he posts to provoke and aggravate. Whether he really won what he says he won NO ONE will ever know.

Frankly Rob is a smart guy. Some of the things he says about his play make perfect sense but you'll never accept those things. You don't have to. You also don't have to do battle with him on a daily basis. Neither does anyone else.

Some see value in Rob's statements and others do not.

Don't we all have better things to do than argue the same things over and over again?

Yes Alan, Rob's claims ARE mathematically impossible. Everyone with half a brain and just a little mathematical knowledge knows that. I wouldn't expect someone, making the similarly impossible claim of seeing 18 y.o's in a row to understand what is and isn't mathematically impossible.

Rob's statements have NO value. Anyone who finds value in Rob's statements is someone looking for a reason to believe and support something that deep down, they themselves know is complete bullshit. Kind of an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic. So some of you guys that don't like AP's, the AP culture ect, embrace Singers nonsense and hate solely because it is directed at someone or a group of someone's that you already don't care for.

I think kewlJ has excellent points regarding why people on this forum leap to Argentino's defense.

On the other hand, I think -- if you ignore the "Singer system" nonsense -- he actually has much to offer. I've said it more than a dozen times, but his rants on limiting seat time, emphasis on behavioral discipline, hosts as evil, slot club excuse-to-play addiction, and his style of play possibly generating more offers (it looks impulsive and looney-tunes) are all helpful, if not what people want to hear. But his need to be "the world's greatest video poker player" gets in the way of any value. And his systems are riddled with obvious logical contradictions -- like one person playing Singer systems is never "long term," but if 100 play them, then in aggregate they are not "long term?"

Maybe the 100 draw straws to see which one gets to evade the long term. And it's always Rob.

[Alan Mendelson]

Kewlj stop it. It's possible to win and have a profit playing -EV video poker. It may not be likely but it's not impossible.

[jbjb]

Kewlj stop it. It's possible to win and have a profit playing -EV video poker. It may not be likely but it's not impossible.

You definition of "profit" isn't the same as ours. Making a living at it is "profitable." "Profiting" here and there but still losing isn't. You should know this by now. You're the expert at casino losing!

[MisterV]

Ten years running, every year a winner, playing non-standard strategy on a -EV game?

Really?

That seems to be about as likely as seeing 18 yo's in a row.

When you throw out the math all you have left is superstition, hope, and a tattered dream.

[mickeycrimm]

[QUOTE=mickeycrimm;77450]

Mickeycrimm I'm sure the casino gave Rob the appropriate tax forms. Why wouldn't the casino do that?

A more interesting question surrounds what redietz posted about using off shore books to avoid US taxes.

Rob should answer the question. He made a post after I asked him the question so I know he read it. I suspect he is researching the tax laws before posting about it to get his story straight.

[mickeycrimm]

Mickeycrimm I'm sure the casino gave Rob the appropriate tax forms. Why wouldn't the casino do that?

A more interesting question surrounds what redietz posted about using off shore books to avoid US taxes.

Rob should answer the question. He made a post after I asked him the question so I know he read it. I suspect he is researching the tax laws before posting about it to get his answer straight.

The casino will follow the tax law. What else do you need to know Mickey?

Whether Rob says he got a W2-G or not on a 40K sportsbetting cashout.

[regnis]

Ten years running, every year a winner, playing non-standard strategy on a -EV game?

Really?

That seems to be about as likely as seeing 18 yo's in a row.

When you throw out the math all you have left is superstition, hope, and a tattered dream.

Speaking of the 18 yo's, how does that compare with the Chicago kicker hitting the upright 4 times in one game. The radio sports guys are calling that "impossible" and saying "you'll never see that again".

I always have a problem with impossible vs. improbable or highly unlikely.

At one time it was impossible to put a man on the moon.

[kewlJ]

Ten years running, every year a winner, playing non-standard strategy on a -EV game?

Really?

That seems to be about as likely as seeing 18 yo's in a row.

Dan Druff posted (and I quoted) pretty much the exact same thing.

When you throw out the math all you have left is superstition, hope, and a tattered dream.

Superstition, hope? I prefer the term voodoo. What ever the terminology you choose, Rob's claims mostly involve progressive wagering and stop limits as a way to overcome a -EV game. And that have been proven without a doubt to be impossible...or just complete voodoo.

Kewlj stop it. It's possible to win and have a profit playing -EV video poker. It may not be likely but it's not impossible.

Alan, I am not going to continue to argue this with you, as you mischaracterize and change Rob's claims to suit yourself.

IF Rob's claim was that he hit one or two jackpots (in this case Royals), while playing VERY high limits, that more than offset all his negative EV play, resulting in a net win of 900k or whatever his ever-changing figure is now, that would be possible. It would be very unlikely and I wouldn't believe it bases on the totality of his claims, but it would indeed at least be possible.

But that is NOT what Rob's claims is and I won't allow you to change it to meet your own needs. Rob's claims is that he accumulated (I know this is a word you don't understand) this ever-changing mythical amount, winning year after year for over 10 years.

To accomplish this, you need to be playing a +EV game or you need something (promotions, cash back....something) that changes a slightly negative EV game to a longterm (another word you have no understanding of) +EV play. 1 or 2 extraordinary big wins offsetting many more loses can not accomplish this. You need something to turn the game +EV. Rob claims progressive betting and stop limits is that magical something that turns the game +EV, but those concepts are mathematically impossible...IE...voodoo.

And when challenged that his claims are mathematically impossible, Rob offers no math, because there IS NO MATH. Instead he always responds with unrelated personal attacks, as he attempts to deflect. And members like you have repeatedly, for years now, allowed him to get away with this shit. So YOU Alan....stop encouraging and enabling this fraud hell bent on misleading people and players with nonsense.

[Bill Yung]

When you throw out the math all you have left is superstition, hope, and a tattered dream.

That's the dumbest thing I've read, in a very long time.

The math doesn't really change anything for any of the gamblers. Thinking that it does is where they go wrong.

Even Hawking left it out of his "Brief History of Time" books, where is does make a difference. Math is just one small area of study of life that, too, is best left to its experts. Same for law.

Next, gamblers who claim to be making millions (or $500 a day) will be saying that they have the rule of law on their side. Oops, I just realized that they already are.

[Bill Yung]

Dan Druff posted (and I quoted) pretty much the exact same thing.



Superstition, hope? I prefer the term voodoo. What ever the terminology you choose, Rob's claims mostly involve progressive wagering and stop limits as a way to overcome a -EV game. And that have been proven without a doubt to be impossible...or just complete voodoo.

Kewlj stop it. It's possible to win and have a profit playing -EV video poker. It may not be likely but it's not impossible.

Alan, I am not going to continue to argue this with you, as you mischaracterize and change Rob's claims to suit yourself.

IF Rob's claim was that he hit one or two jackpots (in this case Royals), while playing VERY high limits, that more than offset all his negative EV play, resulting in a net win of 900k or whatever his ever-changing figure is now, that would be possible. It would be very unlikely and I wouldn't believe it bases on the totality of his claims, but it would indeed at least be possible.

But that is NOT what Rob's claims is and I won't allow you to change it to meet your own needs. Rob's claims is that he accumulated (I know this is a word you don't understand) this ever-changing mythical amount, winning year after year for over 10 years.

To accomplish this, you need to be playing a +EV game or you need something (promotions, cash back....something) that changes a slightly negative EV game to a longterm (another word you have no understanding of) +EV play. 1 or 2 extraordinary big wins offsetting many more loses can not accomplish this. You need something to turn the game +EV. Rob claims progressive betting and stop limits is that magical something that turns the game +EV, but those concepts are mathematically impossible...IE...voodoo.

And when challenged that his claims are mathematically impossible, Rob offers no math, because there IS NO MATH. Instead he always responds with unrelated personal attacks, as he attempts to deflect. And members like you have repeatedly, for years now, allowed him to get away with this shit. So YOU Alan....stop encouraging and enabling this fraud hell bent on misleading people and players with nonsense.

KJ and typing. What's up with that dude?

[Keystone]

Dan Druff posted (and I quoted) pretty much the exact same thing.



Superstition, hope? I prefer the term voodoo. What ever the terminology you choose, Rob's claims mostly involve progressive wagering and stop limits as a way to overcome a -EV game. And that have been proven without a doubt to be impossible...or just complete voodoo.

Kewlj stop it. It's possible to win and have a profit playing -EV video poker. It may not be likely but it's not impossible.

Alan, I am not going to continue to argue this with you, as you mischaracterize and change Rob's claims to suit yourself.

IF Rob's claim was that he hit one or two jackpots (in this case Royals), while playing VERY high limits, that more than offset all his negative EV play, resulting in a net win of 900k or whatever his ever-changing figure is now, that would be possible. It would be very unlikely and I wouldn't believe it bases on the totality of his claims, but it would indeed at least be possible.

But that is NOT what Rob's claims is and I won't allow you to change it to meet your own needs. Rob's claims is that he accumulated (I know this is a word you don't understand) this ever-changing mythical amount, winning year after year for over 10 years.

To accomplish this, you need to be playing a +EV game or you need something (promotions, cash back....something) that changes a slightly negative EV game to a longterm (another word you have no understanding of) +EV play. 1 or 2 extraordinary big wins offsetting many more loses can not accomplish this. You need something to turn the game +EV. Rob claims progressive betting and stop limits is that magical something that turns the game +EV, but those concepts are mathematically impossible...IE...voodoo.

And when challenged that his claims are mathematically impossible, Rob offers no math, because there IS NO MATH. Instead he always responds with unrelated personal attacks, as he attempts to deflect. And members like you have repeatedly, for years now, allowed him to get away with this shit. So YOU Alan....stop encouraging and enabling this fraud hell bent on misleading people and players with nonsense.

KJ and typing. What's up with that dude?

Says the jackoff with 5 pages of talking to himself with no replies at another forum....lolololol

[Bill Yung]

This quote from 'Romes' perfectly sums up Rob, Alan and crew here:

"In our world, there are 2 people who try to make money from gambling... an AP (advantage player whom has a proven statistical advantage over the house on numerous games and promotions - this is me), and*b) someone who has a non-math based theory of how to win. Most problem gamblers would fall in to the latter bucket in my opinion. Anyone whom takes the money seriously doesn’t actually gamble and takes the time to mathematically prove their edge. The 2nd group will gamble feverishly on hunches and non-math based theories and not for entertainment, thus why I think it would be a “problem” group."

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/info.../2/#post683884

Ha. I don't see anyone from any of the gambling boards who is really making a go of it. Only bitter and phoney claims from low-IQ people who either have never had anything or have lost it all to gambling. Clearly, not even MrV, who claims to have it all, is happy with any of this gambling stuff.

Ha. KJ and the other AP's typing themselves to death. The guy has serious mental problems. Crimm lives out of a filthy hotel in some filthy town in Montana. Nice.

Bill,

You have been invited to meet me, ask questions, get filmed (not in a "shit-hole"), read print material dating back 40 years, meet my compadres, and all you have to do is show up. I'll PM you the details. If you don't have the courage to test your speculations, then why waste forum readers' time?

And that IQ stuff is poor. Whoever brings up IQ in an argument has already lost the argument. Tsk tsk.

LOL. I just realized -- the low IQ quote. Bill must be a Trumpster.

Let me get this straight. You are inviting people to come to Las Vegas to look at papers from forty years that prove something about you. The guy who wants to try to get thrown out of a casino by looking like a slots AP.

Do you have any idea how crazy that sounds. I guess that you think like Shackleford that anyone who comes is already dumb enough to believe anything you try to sell to them.

If casinos paved the way to mass gambling, then the internet put the lid back on it. Gambling lost all of its folklore and lure. Just a bunch of idiots who can't stop being idiots.

[Bill Yung]

Says the jackoff with 5 pages of talking to himself with no replies at another forum....lolololol

Yep. But the type of "jackoff" that has some fun in life.

[mickeycrimm]

When you throw out the math all you have left is superstition, hope, and a tattered dream.

That's the dumbest thing I've read, in a very long time.

The math doesn't really change anything for any of the gamblers. Thinking that it does is where they go wrong.

Even Hawking left it out of his "Brief History of Time" books, where is does make a difference. Math is just one small area of study of life that, too, is best left to its experts. Same for law.

Next, gamblers who claim to be making millions (or $500 a day) will be saying that they have the rule of law on their side. Oops, I just realized that they already are.

You dumb fucker. Hawking said in the forward of the book that he was advised by other astrophysicists that if he put one equation in the book it would cut sales in half. Wise up, dumass.

And would you like to make a 10K bet on whether I live in a hotel in Montana or not? Bring the money, bitch, and I'll show you where I live.

[Rob.Singer]

Kewlj stop it. It's possible to win and have a profit playing -EV video poker. It may not be likely but it's not impossible.

The story is always the same Alan. And it's the tough questions that always gets them.

How many times does it take for them to duck the next question and realize that what I've very successfully been able to do in vp actually makes perfect sense? Here's it is again:

I'm out to win a minimum $2500 with a $57.2k bankroll each session. Not so automatic on a single denomination, but within a complicated structured strategy (which none of the Einstein's here or at WoV could ever figure out) that increases and decreases in denomination and game volatility during each session, the goal becomes very simple indeed. But the one constant we have is how everyone agrees there is a very high probability of winning a single session. At least, until they begin to realize what that might mean, which is where they put on the emergency brakes before crashing.

This then transforms into the question that no one has ever attempted to answer, which I suspect is due to fear, embarrassment, or just plain not wanting the answer to be what it so obviously is: If one session has such an easy chance of attaining the win goal--whether it be $2507, $4982, $11,385, $28,443, $59,000, $97,211 or greater....then why would you suddenly NOT expect the probability of winning the NEXT session to continue to overwhelmingly be on my side? Or the next one. Or the next one. Or the next one, on and on?

This is the question I asked myself before starting out, and because I wasn't in "hate" or "envy" mode like the morons always are here, the mathematical and logical answer was "The same opportunity remains, session after session". And to those who want it to be that "big losing sessions will wipe out all the little winners...and more" are in total denial of how often the much larger big winners appear, rendering the very few larger losses mostly irrelevant. Still don't want to believe me? Look up the math on the games I play, adjust the calculations by inclusion of the special plays designed to hit these huge winners, adjust that by the give in EV, then compare that to how often devastating losses are expected to occur using my very precise strategy.

What's that--you people are too stupid and uneducated to figure any of this out? You would rather remain ignorant so you can keep on with your denials because you think that's what the dopey ap's want to keep reading?

Wise up.

[Alan Mendelson]

I got a laugh out of this from Mickey:

And would you like to make a 10K bet on whether I live in a hotel in Montana or not? Bring the money, bitch, and I'll show you where I live.

I suspect that Mickey could live "anywhere" if he knew he had $10,000 coming. What estate owner wouldn't help Mickey out for a cut of that $10k?

Nice play, Mickey. But no cigar.

[Rob.Singer]

I got a laugh out of this from Mickey:

And would you like to make a 10K bet on whether I live in a hotel in Montana or not? Bring the money, bitch, and I'll show you where I live.

I suspect that Mickey could live "anywhere" if he knew he had $10,000 coming. What estate owner wouldn't help Mickey out for a cut of that $10k?

Nice play, Mickey. But no cigar.

Funny stuff watching anonymous people proposing bets and using agitated vulgarity in the process.

The guy who's proud to have never had a job, who lives in an old car with 110,000 miles on it, and who's government handouts do not amount to enuf to require him to file tax returns, is suddenly able to come up with enuf cash for a $10k bet.

Oh wait--its an ANONYMOUS bet....one he knows will never happen.

What an idiot.

[Rob.Singer]

Rob should answer the question. He made a post after I asked him the question so I know he read it. I suspect he is researching the tax laws before posting about it to get his answer straight.

The casino will follow the tax law. What else do you need to know Mickey?

Whether Rob says he got a W2-G or not on a 40K sportsbetting cashout.

And here we have it again---mickey so desperately not wanting another of my wins in sports betting to be true!

Well mickey, use your search skills (and no doubt you have oodles of time) to go back and read all about it. Go ahead--get your nightmares in high gear. It's all posted right in this forum.

The first thing you'll see is how the win was a bit more than $40,000. The next thing you might notice is how I placed the same parlay bet in multiple casinos for obvious reasons. Now even you can figure out the answer.

Better luck next time, because you sure don't appear to have any skill beyond telling whoppers.

[redietz]

Ha. I don't see anyone from any of the gambling boards who is really making a go of it. Only bitter and phoney claims from low-IQ people who either have never had anything or have lost it all to gambling. Clearly, not even MrV, who claims to have it all, is happy with any of this gambling stuff.

Ha. KJ and the other AP's typing themselves to death. The guy has serious mental problems. Crimm lives out of a filthy hotel in some filthy town in Montana. Nice.

Bill,

You have been invited to meet me, ask questions, get filmed (not in a "shit-hole"), read print material dating back 40 years, meet my compadres, and all you have to do is show up. I'll PM you the details. If you don't have the courage to test your speculations, then why waste forum readers' time?

And that IQ stuff is poor. Whoever brings up IQ in an argument has already lost the argument. Tsk tsk.

LOL. I just realized -- the low IQ quote. Bill must be a Trumpster.

Let me get this straight. You are inviting people to come to Las Vegas to look at papers from forty years that prove something about you. The guy who wants to try to get thrown out of a casino by looking like a slots AP.

Do you have any idea how crazy that sounds. I guess that you think like Shackleford that anyone who comes is already dumb enough to believe anything you try to sell to them.

If casinos paved the way to mass gambling, then the internet put the lid back on it. Gambling lost all of its folklore and lure. Just a bunch of idiots who can't stop being idiots.

Bill,

I understand reading may be problematic. No reading required. Just bring your questions and come on down! We'll get your cogent Q&A on film. If you're going to expose frauds, you should at least have the courtesy to publicly quiz them. Now tell me -- do you have the courage of your convictions or not?