Rob Singer containment thread

[kewlJ]

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?

I love this. Singer proceeds to tell us why his "super duper" progressive betting system is different. Different from all other progressive betting systems. And then proceeds to lay out a very typical betting progression system.

There is nothing new here, Singer. NOTHING! And it has been proven, many, many times, by people much, much smarter than both you and I that this doesn't work, longterm. No betting system can overcome negative expectation. No betting system can overcome a house edge.

And adding a stop limit to the mix, which also as been thoroughly proven to do absolutely nothing, is NOT the magical bullet that suddenly changes anything. Nothing new here Singer....It's all voodoo and has been mathematically proven so time and time again.

About the only thing I am not sure of is who you are lying to here, the gullible players that believe your nonsense or yourself? I mean, I KNOW you didn't make 900k, or 1.5 Million profit or whatever number you are using now. I know it! You know it! I think almost everyone has figured THAT out. But maybe you really think that it is possible in which case you are lying to yourself rather than intentionally lying to everyone else. But even if you truly believe this, it is just not fair to wrap this false believe up in these completely phony claims that have been proven is mathematically impossible.


Nothing freaking new here Singer... Nothing special about what you are claiming. It has all been claimed before and proven mathematically impossible. You are like a caveman saying "yeah but my square wheel is better than the other square wheels that don't work...mine is different". And then you proceed to unveil the exact same square wheel that has been proven not to work.

[mickeycrimm]

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.

How much was each individual ticket you cashed out? Did you receive any W2-G's? Did they do any CTR's? Did they ask for your ss#?

[coach belly]

honestly, I have never hit a signer

How much was the largest individual ticket you cashed out? Did you receive any W2-G's? Did they do any CTR's? Did they ask for your ss#?

[Alan Mendelson]

honestly, I have never hit a signer

How much was the largest individual ticket you cashed out? Did you receive any W2-G's? Did they do any CTR's? Did they ask for your ss#?

Redietz has posted earlier that he bets foreign books to avoid taxes. I'm sure he's never given a social security number to a foreign book. I doubt any foreign book ever gave him a W2G.

I'm surprised redietz made the comment considering that he posts using his real name.

[Alan Mendelson]

Kewlj once again I don't follow or play by Rob's system. I don't even understand when he changes denomination. But I have a problem with these statements that you made:

No betting system can overcome negative expectation. No betting system can overcome a house edge.

And adding a stop limit to the mix, which also as been thoroughly proven to do absolutely nothing, is NOT the magical bullet that suddenly changes anything.

First, Rob never said he's overcoming negative expectation. The games he plays are always -EV. All he's saying is that he stops playing a session when he happens to be in the plus with money. Lots of people get ahead at some point when playing -EV games. I've interviewed other gaming authors who have said similar things including one author who said that at one point 95% of all visitors to Vegas are ahead at some point.

Second, you keep talking about the house edge as it is a certainty. If a player gets lucky he can win money instead of losing it. If you shift the edge by one percent you can overcome a game with a 0.8% edge.

Third, stop losses do accomplish something. They preserve your bankroll when things are not going your way. Had you used a $5,000 stop loss recently you would not have lost $29,000 in one week.

A stop loss will not make you win and there's no dispute there. But a stop loss will keep you from losing more.

Wouldn't you be better off today having lost $24,000 in one week instead of losing $29,000? Please skip your accumulating EV crap.

[MisterV]

I'm surprised redietz made the comment considering that he posts using his real name.

What, you'll rat him out to the IRS?

If so, he'll just pull a Mendelson and claim he just posts lies and bullshit (or whatever it was you said when you admitted / strongly implied that you lie when you post).

[coach belly]

Redietz has posted earlier that he bets foreign books to avoid taxes.

Apparently he's made wagers large enough at US casinos to require ID.

In what circumstance are you saying you must provide formal ID when asked?

When making or cashing reasonably sizeable futures wagers.

I asked whether he has ever cashed tickets sizable enough to generate a CTR.

I'm assuming that US casinos are required to issue CTRs for both wagers and payouts $10K or greater, but I'm not sure so that's why I am asking.

[mickeycrimm]

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.

Ever heard of a lease, Alan? I can very easily prove I've been in my current residence for quite a while. Yung is a shit talking lying ass slimeball.

[kewlJ]

Kewlj once again I don't follow or play by Rob's system. I don't even understand when he changes denomination. But I have a problem with these statements that you made:

No betting system can overcome negative expectation. No betting system can overcome a house edge.

And adding a stop limit to the mix, which also as been thoroughly proven to do absolutely nothing, is NOT the magical bullet that suddenly changes anything.

First, Rob never said he's overcoming negative expectation. The games he plays are always -EV. All he's saying is that he stops playing a session when he happens to be in the plus with money. Lots of people get ahead at some point when playing -EV games. I've interviewed other gaming authors who have said similar things including one author who said that at one point 95% of all visitors to Vegas are ahead at some point.

Second, you keep talking about the house edge as it is a certainty. If a player gets lucky he can win money instead of losing it. If you shift the edge by one percent you can overcome a game with a 0.8% edge.

Alan, come on, you aren't really this ignorant are you?

A player can win over a day, week even a month playing a -EV game. A player cannot win for years playing a -EV game. If a player has won over year(s) or some other long-term period, playing a -EV game, he has by definition overcome that negative expected value. So Rob doesn't have to say that. If he had in fact won over 10 years (which he did not), he would have had to some how have overcome that negative expectation (-EV).

But don't take my word for it. Maybe you will listen to Dan Druff....a guy who has no dog in this fight....just understands the math (which you obviously don't).

Rob, you realize that what you're claiming is virtually impossible, right?
If you play a certain number of -EV video poker hands, it is just about mathematically impossible, barring an absolute miracle of luck, to come out ahead.

Getting back to Rob and video poker.
While numbers like "99% return" and "101% return" sound insignificant, they're actually not.
After a relatively small number of hands, the luck will flatten out. You can't play an extended period of time at 99% return and win

[Bill Yung]

I'm surprised redietz made the comment considering that he posts using his real name.

What, you'll rat him out to the IRS?

If so, he'll just pull a Mendelson and claim he just posts lies and bullshit (or whatever it was you said when you admitted / strongly implied that you lie when you post).

Probably best not to admit to even having posted it.

[Alan Mendelson]

Mickey anyone can walk into a legal forms store, buy a "lease form" and fill it out and sign it with bogus names.

[Bill Yung]

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.

However, there is one equation in those books of his: E = m X c^2. But, this is really only a symbolic "equation", hence, as such, it doesn't really constitute any math.

At first, Hawking's masterpiece A Brief History of Time included lots of theories. But, the publisher wanted to remove the theories because of the fact that the common people wouldn't understand the book. So, Hawking removed them all except one formula which is none other than Einstein’s Groundbreaking E=MC2, a consequence of the Special Theory of Relativity. https://www.quora.com/Which-is-the-o...istory-of-time

[Bill Yung]

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.

Yung is a shit talking lying ass slimeball.

I just seem to recall that you mentioned that you lived in one of the corner rooms in a hotel there in Montana.

Didn't you give out your address for someone on the WoV to bring you a pizza, one day or night?

[Bill Yung]

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?

I guess that I have courage and convictions but not at the same time.

I prefer to "peel back the layers of an onion" one by one. Cutting into it makes me cry, too.

[Alan Mendelson]

Kewlj everything you wrote here is a contradiction:

A player can win over a day, week even a month playing a -EV game. A player cannot win for years playing a -EV game. If a player has won over year(s) or some other long-term period, playing a -EV game, he has by definition overcome that negative expected value.

If a player can win one time at an -EV game why can't he win a second time? And a third? And a fourth? By the way Rob has NEVER claimed to win every time he plays.

When you win it does NOT mean that you have overcome or changed the negative expectation of the game. It ONLY means that when you played you did win. You have trouble understanding this, I know.

I'm sorry kewlj. I don't recognize Dan as some gaming authority.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, come on, you aren't really this ignorant are you?

A player can win over a day, week even a month playing a -EV game. A player cannot win for years playing a -EV game. If a player has won over year(s) or some other long-term period, playing a -EV game, he has by definition overcome that negative expected value. So Rob doesn't have to say that. If he had in fact won over 10 years (which he did not), he would have had to some how have overcome that negative expectation (-EV).

But don't take my word for it. Maybe you will listen to Dan Druff....a guy who has no dog in this fight....just understands the math (which you obviously don't).

Getting back to Rob and video poker.
While numbers like "99% return" and "101% return" sound insignificant, they're actually not.
After a relatively small number of hands, the luck will flatten out. You can't play an extended period of time at 99% return and win

Alan, the guy is a simpleton blinded by "+EV means you win/-EV means you lose". And he makes believe everyone is in the theoretical "long term" because he thinks he is and now he thinks Dan thinks he is.

It all goes back to why he needs to remain anonymous. His whole "bj pro" story is all lies and he knows I know it. So he goes on the attack against the one person he knows he's never going to be able to be effective against. It's all in his hope to keep the attention coming his way. But he dug his hole long ago. Too bad sugar daddy keeled over and the kew clan was forced to leave. Now all he has is this silly gig.

[Rob.Singer]

Kewlj everything you wrote here is a contradiction:

A player can win over a day, week even a month playing a -EV game. A player cannot win for years playing a -EV game. If a player has won over year(s) or some other long-term period, playing a -EV game, he has by definition overcome that negative expected value.

If a player can win one time at an -EV game why can't he win a second time? And a third? And a fourth? By the way Rob has NEVER claimed to win every time he plays.

When you win it does NOT mean that you have overcome or changed the negative expectation of the game. It ONLY means that when you played you did win. You have trouble understanding this, I know.

I'm sorry kewlj. I don't recognize Dan as some gaming authority.

And everything Alan wrote here is true.

This idiot kew will forever go on saying my strategy can win for X amount of time, but he won't admit that I have never entered his theoretical "long term" because he wants to keep arguing that I have to lose. He's also world-class ignorant to the fact that one does not need to "overcome the negative expectation of a game" in order to win. No matter how many times he wins.

However, kew's stuck between a rock and a hard place on this assertion. Just go back and look at how he says I can win over a certain amount of time, but for some undefined reason (perhaps the same exact reason he "knows he's due after taking a beating at the tables) I cannot continue to mostly win.

He makes no sense.

[Dankyone]

Un effing believeable. The world’s biggest ploppy doesn’t recognize a professional poker player as a gaming authority.

[kewlJ]

If a player can win one time at an -EV game why can't he win a second time? And a third? And a fourth? By the way Rob has NEVER claimed to win every time he plays.

Alan if you truly believe this, then you should never again set foot in a casino again. I mean, I guess you have proved this already numerous times, but this goes beyond everything. Do yourself a favor and move away from Las Vegas, and never, never go within 10 miles of a casino.

I'm sorry kewlj. I don't recognize Dan as some gaming authority.

I didn't say Dan was some sort of gaming authority. On the surface he seems pretty knowledgeable about at least some aspects of (winning) gambling. But it is obvious he at least understands the mathematics involved which is a lot more than I can say for you.


But just out of curiosity, who do you, Alan Mendelson recognize as a gaming authority? Oh nevermind, by your comments and endless support and enabling, Rob Singer which goes back to my first point....never ever set foot in a casino again. You will never get better advice than that.

[Alan Mendelson]

Un effing believeable. The world’s biggest ploppy doesn’t recognize a professional poker player as a gaming authority.

No. Sorry.

Nor do I recognize every professional Uber driver as a motoring authority.