Advantage play / cheating / crime....where is the line?

[tableplay]

BP contributed to 1/4 of my play,

Ok Ron, let's do a little simple math here:
So 1/4th of your time is on BP (61% chance of converting a bankroll of $55,000 to $57,500) and 3/4ths of the time is spent on other negative EV games:

1) 1/4*.61+3/4x=.85 (85% is your overall "session" success rate)

2) x=.93 or 93%

So on the other -EV games you would have to have a 93% chance of converting 55000 to 57500 in order for your overall "session" success rate to be 85% - but there is no such negative EV game that would allow a 93% chance. I don't care what sort of denominational switching you do it's impossible unless some of the 3/4ths component of your play was on positive expectation VP games (which, by your own admission didn't happen - it was all -EV play).

[redietz]

The thing I’m trying to understand is why do people think it would be hard for someone to know about this play in 2009 (when Kane and Nestor were caught), and the exact sequence of the play today. A lot of people at that time and now knew about this play, including the exact sequence to make it work. Here’s a a quick recap.

- IGT and probably all the other slot manufacturers. Once this bug was caught, I’m sure companies making slots knew about this play and checked to make sure their slots didn’t have a similar bug. This is the type of information that is shared between competitors. It’s in everybody’s interest to make sure there are no bugs in slot machines.

- the casinos that were most impacted. I get that a memo came out immediately telling casinos to disable the double up feuture, but I’m sure several casinos also knew the exact play too.

- the 25 year old USC coder who figured it out and probably all his friends and his friend’s friends knew about it. There is no reason to sign any secrecy agreement once they knew how to activate it because casinos were immediately sent a memo to deactivate the double up feature and an upgrade program was sent out. It wasn’t complicated to stop this play.

- Kane and Nestor

- the state of Pennsylvania and possibly a couple bordering states. Lol. We know Nestor had a big mouth and took half the population of Pennsylvania to the casinos with him when he tried to exploit it. So a lot of the people in the Northeast knew about this play and the right sequence to activate it.

- law-enforcement officials, prosecutors, etc. The ones intimate with the case would’ve known exactly how this play went down.

I wasn’t in the gambling world in 2009 but I’m starting to wonder if I didn’t even know about this play back then. Lol

The point being it’s not too hard for me to see how someone in the gaming community, especially in Las Vegas, would have known about this play and also the correct sequence back in 2009, and especially now. Any intelligent person should be able to get this information.

I don’t buy that the wired article got the sequence wrong on purpose. When the wired article came out, this play had long since stopped, and the slot machines had the upgraded program. Someone could easily learn the correct sequence from many different sources. What would be the purpose of the wired article getting the sequence wrong?

This does not prove or disprove if Rob knew about it, or found out about it in 2004.

It is somewhat suspicious that Rob gave the winnings to his kids and didn’t save his tax returns or the WG forms if he wanted to later prove his claims.

It doesn’t really matter to me either way but I do think Kj brings up some good points. Also, since the play is understood through all the Kane and Nester articles, I don’t know what value there is for someone to explain how they exploited it on a radio program. Others have said the same thing.

Just my two cents worth since I know everybody’s waiting to see what I have to say on this critical topic. Lol

Logic is a bitch.

[redietz]

BP contributed to 1/4 of my play,

Ok Ron, let's do a little simple math here:
So 1/4th of your time is on BP (61% chance of converting a bankroll of $55,000 to $57,500) and 3/4ths of the time is spent on other negative EV games:

1) 1/4*.61+3/4x=.85 (85% is your overall "session" success rate)

2) x=.93 or 93%

So on the other -EV games you would have to have a 93% chance of converting 55000 to 57500 in order for your overall "session" success rate to be 85% - but there is no such negative EV game that would allow a 93% chance. I don't care what sort of denominational switching you do it's impossible unless some of the 3/4ths component of your play was on positive expectation VP games (which, by your own admission didn't happen - it was all -EV play).

Math is a bitch.

[unowme]

I don't care what sort of denominational switching you do

It seems like that has to be in the formula somewhere. Let's take an even simpler example. A true martingale example. Let's say I start with a $1.00 bet Red on Roulette. I double my bet every time I lose. And my goal is to win just one dollar. And I have a $1000 Bankroll. What is the probability I win my $1 before I lose my $1000. Let's start with the probability of losing the bankroll. In order to do that, you'd have to lose 11 rolls in a row. What is that probability? That would be 1.9^11....or about 1 in 1200. Now, the real question is "Is this the same probability of losing the $1000 before winning $1.00 if you were flat betting $1.00 a pop". My gut tells me it's different, but I could be wrong on that and I don't know how to prove it.

[unowme]

I don't care what sort of denominational switching you do

It seems like that has to be in the formula somewhere. Let's take an even simpler example. A true martingale example. Let's say I start with a $1.00 bet Red on Roulette. I double my bet every time I lose. And my goal is to win just one dollar. And I have a $1000 Bankroll. What is the probability I win my $1 before I lose my $1000. Let's start with the probability of losing the bankroll. In order to do that, you'd have to lose 11 rolls in a row. What is that probability? That would be 1.9^11....or about 1 in 1200. Now, the real question is "Is this the same probability of losing the $1000 before winning $1.00 if you were flat betting $1.00 a pop". My gut tells me it's different, but I could be wrong on that and I don't know how to prove it.

In review, the actual loss of the bankroll is between the 10th and 11th roll, so I think you'd actually be betting 1024 on the 11th roll and would have already lost about $700. Otherwise the 1 in 1200 number would be a winning proposition...which it isn't. Anyway that wasn't the point. The point was that calculating the risk of losing your "Session" bankroll has to take into consideration the increasing bet size.....doesn't it? Just like the probability of losing your $1000 before you make ten flat betting a dollar is a different number, isn't it? Maybe they're the same, but I don't think so.

[slingshot]

BP contributed to 1/4 of my play,

Ok Ron, let's do a little simple math here:
So 1/4th of your time is on BP (61% chance of converting a bankroll of $55,000 to $57,500) and 3/4ths of the time is spent on other negative EV games:

1) 1/4*.61+3/4x=.85 (85% is your overall "session" success rate)

2) x=.93 or 93%

So on the other -EV games you would have to have a 93% chance of converting 55000 to 57500 in order for your overall "session" success rate to be 85% - but there is no such negative EV game that would allow a 93% chance. I don't care what sort of denominational switching you do it's impossible unless some of the 3/4ths component of your play was on positive expectation VP games (which, by your own admission didn't happen - it was all -EV play).

Math is a bitch.

I admire those who formulate, I just can't understand it all!

[BoSox]

I believe RobS session bankroll was $ 57K just what percentage of his followers can say that?

[tableplay]

I don't care what sort of denominational switching you do

It seems like that has to be in the formula somewhere. Let's take an even simpler example. A true martingale example. Let's say I start with a $1.00 bet Red on Roulette. I double my bet every time I lose. And my goal is to win just one dollar. And I have a $1000 Bankroll. What is the probability I win my $1 before I lose my $1000. Let's start with the probability of losing the bankroll. In order to do that, you'd have to lose 11 rolls in a row. What is that probability? That would be 1.9^11....or about 1 in 1200. Now, the real question is "Is this the same probability of losing the $1000 before winning $1.00 if you were flat betting $1.00 a pop". My gut tells me it's different, but I could be wrong on that and I don't know how to prove it.

In review, the actual loss of the bankroll is between the 10th and 11th roll, so I think you'd actually be betting 1024 on the 11th roll and would have already lost about $700. Otherwise the 1 in 1200 number would be a winning proposition...which it isn't. Anyway that wasn't the point. The point was that calculating the risk of losing your "Session" bankroll has to take into consideration the increasing bet size.....doesn't it? Just like the probability of losing your $1000 before you make ten flat betting a dollar is a different number, isn't it? Maybe they're the same, but I don't think so.

Now, the real question is "Is this the same probability of losing the $1000 before winning $1.00 if you were flat betting $1.00 a pop".

I'll assume you mean American roulette here. We shall use the Gambler's Ruin formula:
Let G be the win goal.
Let H be the starting bank roll.
Let p be the probability of winning an American Roulette bet on black (or red).
Let r=(1-p)/p.
probability of achieving G starting with H before going bust is:
(1-r^H)/(1-r^N)
H is $1000
G is $1001
r=1.11111
r^H is 5.72125E+45
r^G is 6.35694E+45
so the probability is 90% that you would be able to make it to $1001 starting with $1000 flat betting a dollar on red or black (American Roulette). Of course this is different than your martingale probability because you could win your goal on: the 1st bet, the double of the 1st bet, the double of the 2nd bet, the double of the 3rd and so on up to the 11th bet. In exchange for the higher probability to achieve your goal of $1001, you must risk an ever increasing amount of money if you lose the bet - whereas in the flat betting example, you're risking a $1 of your bank roll each time. You must always give up something in exchange for something else. There is no free lunch.

[Rob.Singer]

BP contributed to 1/4 of my play,

Ok Ron, let's do a little simple math here:
So 1/4th of your time is on BP (61% chance of converting a bankroll of $55,000 to $57,500) and 3/4ths of the time is spent on other negative EV games:

1) 1/4*.61+3/4x=.85 (85% is your overall "session" success rate)

2) x=.93 or 93%

So on the other -EV games you would have to have a 93% chance of converting 55000 to 57500 in order for your overall "session" success rate to be 85% - but there is no such negative EV game that would allow a 93% chance. I don't care what sort of denominational switching you do it's impossible unless some of the 3/4ths component of your play was on positive expectation VP games (which, by your own admission didn't happen - it was all -EV play).

Again you're misrepresenting because you have an agenda instead of the facts. All you're doing is taking the easy path that says "+EV means you'll likely win and -EV means you'll likely lose". If you want to do this correctly you'd be asking questions rather than loosely postulating theory.

[tableplay]

BP contributed to 1/4 of my play,

Ok Ron, let's do a little simple math here:
So 1/4th of your time is on BP (61% chance of converting a bankroll of $55,000 to $57,500) and 3/4ths of the time is spent on other negative EV games:

1) 1/4*.61+3/4x=.85 (85% is your overall "session" success rate)

2) x=.93 or 93%

So on the other -EV games you would have to have a 93% chance of converting 55000 to 57500 in order for your overall "session" success rate to be 85% - but there is no such negative EV game that would allow a 93% chance. I don't care what sort of denominational switching you do it's impossible unless some of the 3/4ths component of your play was on positive expectation VP games (which, by your own admission didn't happen - it was all -EV play).

Again you're misrepresenting because you have an agenda instead of the facts. All you're doing is taking the easy path that says "+EV means you'll likely win and -EV means you'll likely lose". If you want to do this correctly you'd be asking questions rather than loosely postulating theory.

So find a -EV VP game(s) that let's you win 93% of your "sessions" Ron - you can do whatever denominational switching you like. As illustrated in the example above (in response to unowme's Martingale post), all you do is incur greater risk (of losing your entire bankroll) when you increase bet size in order to increase the probability of achieving your "session" win goal. Layout a VP (theme and paytable) and denomination template to illustrate how this is achieved. That is the question I am asking - what is the template to do this with -EV games ? Please don't create a moving target by adding in mailers or free play. It's the naked -EV games and their appropriate denominations - the magic template that allows this, that I am requesting.

[Rob.Singer]

The thing I’m trying to understand is why do people think it would be hard for someone to know about this play in 2009 (when Kane and Nestor were caught), and the exact sequence of the play today. A lot of people at that time and now knew about this play, including the exact sequence to make it work. Here’s a a quick recap.

- IGT and probably all the other slot manufacturers. Once this bug was caught, I’m sure companies making slots knew about this play and checked to make sure their slots didn’t have a similar bug. This is the type of information that is shared between competitors. It’s in everybody’s interest to make sure there are no bugs in slot machines.

- the casinos that were most impacted. I get that a memo came out immediately telling casinos to disable the double up feuture, but I’m sure several casinos also knew the exact play too.

- the 25 year old USC coder who figured it out and probably all his friends and his friend’s friends knew about it. There is no reason to sign any secrecy agreement once they knew how to activate it because casinos were immediately sent a memo to deactivate the double up feature and an upgrade program was sent out. It wasn’t complicated to stop this play.

- Kane and Nestor

- the state of Pennsylvania and possibly a couple bordering states. Lol. We know Nestor had a big mouth and took half the population of Pennsylvania to the casinos with him when he tried to exploit it. So a lot of the people in the Northeast knew about this play and the right sequence to activate it.

- law-enforcement officials, prosecutors, etc. The ones intimate with the case would’ve known exactly how this play went down.

I wasn’t in the gambling world in 2009 but I’m starting to wonder if I didn’t even know about this play back then. Lol

The point being it’s not too hard for me to see how someone in the gaming community, especially in Las Vegas, would have known about this play and also the correct sequence back in 2009, and especially now. Any intelligent person should be able to get this information.

I don’t buy that the wired article got the sequence wrong on purpose. When the wired article came out, this play had long since stopped, and the slot machines had the upgraded program. Someone could easily learn the correct sequence from many different sources. What would be the purpose of the wired article getting the sequence wrong?

This does not prove or disprove if Rob knew about it, or found out about it in 2004.

It is somewhat suspicious that Rob gave the winnings to his kids and didn’t save his tax returns or the WG forms if he wanted to later prove his claims.

It doesn’t really matter to me either way but I do think Kj brings up some good points. Also, since the play is understood through all the Kane and Nester articles, I don’t know what value there is for someone to explain how they exploited it on a radio program. Others have said the same thing.

Just my two cents worth since I know everybody’s waiting to see what I have to say on this critical topic. Lol

More misrepresentations. Where did I say that I "gave my winnings to my kids"?

And other than what some people are asserting as fact about "he should have kept his tax returns and W2G's from back then since he knew he was gonna be asked for proof"....First off, I would NEVER show anybody my wife's and my tax returns because they contain far more information about income streams besides via gambling. And who in their right mind would, in the midst of a windfall vp play, be even the slightest bit concerned about proving anything to anybody 10-15 years into the future.

People who understand the circumstances surrounding the when, why and how about my releasing this info are the people who can make common sense deductions about such an event. People who want none of this to be true because as we continue to see, it hurts too much, will conjure up any related excuse in order that it not be real in their mind while hoping they've forced their will in others.

I've said it doesn't matter either way because my intent was simply to get the info out publicly, and not to convince anyone of anything. The smart people will use surrounding facts to figure this out for themselves. Some will never like me so they wouldn't believe anything positive about me even if their mother spoon-fed it to them.

[Rob.Singer]

Ok Ron, let's do a little simple math here:
So 1/4th of your time is on BP (61% chance of converting a bankroll of $55,000 to $57,500) and 3/4ths of the time is spent on other negative EV games:

1) 1/4*.61+3/4x=.85 (85% is your overall "session" success rate)

2) x=.93 or 93%

So on the other -EV games you would have to have a 93% chance of converting 55000 to 57500 in order for your overall "session" success rate to be 85% - but there is no such negative EV game that would allow a 93% chance. I don't care what sort of denominational switching you do it's impossible unless some of the 3/4ths component of your play was on positive expectation VP games (which, by your own admission didn't happen - it was all -EV play).

Again you're misrepresenting because you have an agenda instead of the facts. All you're doing is taking the easy path that says "+EV means you'll likely win and -EV means you'll likely lose". If you want to do this correctly you'd be asking questions rather than loosely postulating theory.

So find a -EV VP game(s) that let's you win 93% of your "sessions" Ron - you can do whatever denominational switching you like. As illustrated in the example above (in response to unowme's Martingale post), all you do is incur greater risk (of losing your entire bankroll) when you increase bet size in order to increase the probability of achieving your "session" win goal. Layout a VP (theme and paytable) and denomination template to illustrate how this is achieved. That is the question I am asking - what is the template to do this with -EV games ? Please don't create a moving target by adding in mailers or free play. It's the naked -EV games and their appropriate denominations - the magic template that allows this, that I am requesting.

Good that you're finally asking. In order for you to create any simulations or formulate any meaningful theory that relate to my strategy, you must first completely understand the strategy. Game volatility increases for a reason. Denominations increase and decrease for a reason. Special plays that deviate from optimal play are utilized for a reason. A session's win goal is minimum $2500 for a reason. The $100 games are sometimes excluded for a reason. The gambling bankroll is $171,600 and not $57,200 for a reason. And the WoV math people refused to bet that I could win at least 8 out of 10 sessions with an overall net profit after 10 sessions of at least $25k for a reason.

If you want to comprehend everything about the strategy it would need to be done over the phone while you take notes. Otherwise, you'll never get any farther that +=win/-=lose. And the strategy does not lose.

[tableplay]

Good that you're finally asking. In order for you to create any simulations or formulate any meaningful theory that relate to my strategy, you must first completely understand the strategy. Game volatility increases for a reason. Denominations increase and decrease for a reason. Special plays that deviate from optimal play are utilized for a reason. A session's win goal is minimum $2500 for a reason. The $100 games are sometimes excluded for a reason. The gambling bankroll is $171,600 and not $57,200 for a reason. And the WoV math people refused to bet that I could win at least 8 out of 10 sessions with an overall net profit after 10 sessions of at least $25k for a reason.

If you want to comprehend everything about the strategy it would need to be done over the phone while you take notes. Otherwise, you'll never get any farther that +=win/-=lose. And the strategy does not lose.

All you are doing is increasing the probability of a winning "session" at the expense of losing more when you do lose. Thus the aggregate loss is the same.There would be no point in pursuing this any further because of this. The only way to come out a winner is to win initially and then to never play again (on a -EV game). The wager to make with you is the aggregate $ amount won over a 1000 "sessions" (with say a million hands played) - not the percentage of "sessions" won or lost.

[Rob.Singer]

Good that you're finally asking. In order for you to create any simulations or formulate any meaningful theory that relate to my strategy, you must first completely understand the strategy. Game volatility increases for a reason. Denominations increase and decrease for a reason. Special plays that deviate from optimal play are utilized for a reason. A session's win goal is minimum $2500 for a reason. The $100 games are sometimes excluded for a reason. The gambling bankroll is $171,600 and not $57,200 for a reason. And the WoV math people refused to bet that I could win at least 8 out of 10 sessions with an overall net profit after 10 sessions of at least $25k for a reason.

If you want to comprehend everything about the strategy it would need to be done over the phone while you take notes. Otherwise, you'll never get any farther that +=win/-=lose. And the strategy does not lose.

All you are doing is increasing the probability of a winning "session" at the expense of losing more when you do lose. Thus the aggregate loss is the same.There would be no point in pursuing this any further because of this. The only way to come out a winner is to win initially and then to never play again (on a -EV game). The wager to make with you is the aggregate $ amount won over a 1000 "sessions" (with say a million hands played) - not the percentage of "sessions" won or lost.

That's wrong. You're ignoring "winning more when you do win". The large winners are not linear--they are larger and much larger than the large losers. The overriding goal is to win as much as you can, not to win as many sessions as you can.

The fact that you continue to wordsmith the "+EV = win and -EV = lose" faulty belief, this time with "win initially then quit forever and that will insure a winner", equates to nothing only not understand what I do---you don't WANT to understand it.

Over 1000 sessions--which I would have never played even if I didn't find the glitch--would have seen me win around $3,000,000, but my bet would be that the win would be at least $2,500,000.

[redietz]

Yeah, that's the ticket! LOL.

Math's a bitch.

[unowme]

It seems like that has to be in the formula somewhere. Let's take an even simpler example. A true martingale example. Let's say I start with a $1.00 bet Red on Roulette. I double my bet every time I lose. And my goal is to win just one dollar. And I have a $1000 Bankroll. What is the probability I win my $1 before I lose my $1000. Let's start with the probability of losing the bankroll. In order to do that, you'd have to lose 11 rolls in a row. What is that probability? That would be 1.9^11....or about 1 in 1200. Now, the real question is "Is this the same probability of losing the $1000 before winning $1.00 if you were flat betting $1.00 a pop". My gut tells me it's different, but I could be wrong on that and I don't know how to prove it.

In review, the actual loss of the bankroll is between the 10th and 11th roll, so I think you'd actually be betting 1024 on the 11th roll and would have already lost about $700. Otherwise the 1 in 1200 number would be a winning proposition...which it isn't. Anyway that wasn't the point. The point was that calculating the risk of losing your "Session" bankroll has to take into consideration the increasing bet size.....doesn't it? Just like the probability of losing your $1000 before you make ten flat betting a dollar is a different number, isn't it? Maybe they're the same, but I don't think so.

Now, the real question is "Is this the same probability of losing the $1000 before winning $1.00 if you were flat betting $1.00 a pop".

I'll assume you mean American roulette here. We shall use the Gambler's Ruin formula:
Let G be the win goal.
Let H be the starting bank roll.
Let p be the probability of winning an American Roulette bet on black (or red).
Let r=(1-p)/p.
probability of achieving G starting with H before going bust is:
(1-r^H)/(1-r^N)
H is $1000
G is $1001
r=1.11111
r^H is 5.72125E+45
r^G is 6.35694E+45
so the probability is 90% that you would be able to make it to $1001 starting with $1000 flat betting a dollar on red or black (American Roulette). Of course this is different than your martingale probability because you could win your goal on: the 1st bet, the double of the 1st bet, the double of the 2nd bet, the double of the 3rd and so on up to the 11th bet. In exchange for the higher probability to achieve your goal of $1001, you must risk an ever increasing amount of money if you lose the bet - whereas in the flat betting example, you're risking a $1 of your bank roll each time. You must always give up something in exchange for something else. There is no free lunch.

Thank You for that. I understand and agree with your analysis. I agree that either strategy will leave you broke in the long run. I'm just hung up on where that 5% number came from earlier in this thread. That was allegedly the percent of the time that you'd lose the bankroll before meeting your 'Session Goal'. The progressive betting on losses clearly influences that number although it doesn't change your long run prospects of ending up in the poor house.

I think it influences the number significantly....to the point where it's possible...maybe even likely that if 100 players were using that strategy, a player or two could win 400K. While maybe 80 could have 10K - 20K wins but 20 lose their bankroll. I'm just pulling these numbers out of a hat, but you get the idea. Maybe Rod could have won 400K. Maybe even 80% of the players that use his strategy could be winners..but then the remaining 20% lose more than all of the winners combined. So, in total it's a losing proposition to the tune of the negative EV, but the distribution of winners and losers is highly skewed.

[kewlJ]

All you are doing is increasing the probability of a winning "session" at the expense of losing more when you do lose. Thus the aggregate loss is the same.There would be no point in pursuing this any further because of this. The only way to come out a winner is to win initially and then to never play again (on a -EV game). The wager to make with you is the aggregate $ amount won over a 1000 "sessions" (with say a million hands played) - not the percentage of "sessions" won or lost.

Outstanding post tableplay! Well written and explained. These are the facts of a progression betting system...ANY progression betting system and this includes Rob's. Doesn't matter how you dress it up….it's still the same pig (progression betting system). And no progression betting system can overcome negative expectation. PERIOD!

Well make that no progressive betting system can overcome expectation in the long-run. If your goal is to some small ample size and hope to hell you are on the far side of the bell curve, the extreme positive side of variance, sure it could look like a winner (short-term). But you can do that with ANYTHING! Hell you can flat bet a -EV game and hope you come out on the plus side of variance or the bell curve. And if you do, that still doesn't make it a winning system. That makes it extreme positive variance. Extremely lucky.

[Rob.Singer]

Let's apply some data to your theory. Are you asserting 150 sessions, where the player plays between 1 minute and 15 hours/session, is long term or short term?

Next, what is the mathematical reason why the math geniuses, complete with Mensa diplomas et al, were unwilling to bet that I could both win at least 8 out of 10 sessions, as well as net at least a $25k profit? I say "mathematical reason" because atheists know no other way.

Finally, who here would be willing to bet me $10,000 that I could play and win at least $2500 in one session of my play strategy. How about the 2nd session? How about the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th etc.etc.etc.?

And, who wants to bet that any and all losing sessions will be easily mitigated and overcome by double the number of LARGER winning sessions?

[unowme]

Let's apply some data to your theory. Are you asserting 150 sessions, where the player plays between 1 minute and 15 hours/session, is long term or short term?

Next, what is the mathematical reason why the math geniuses, complete with Mensa diplomas et al, were unwilling to bet that I could both win at least 8 out of 10 sessions, as well as net at least a $25k profit? I say "mathematical reason" because atheists know no other way.

Finally, who here would be willing to bet me $10,000 that I could play and win at least $2500 in one session of my play strategy. How about the 2nd session? How about the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th etc.etc.etc.?

And, who wants to bet that any and all losing sessions will be easily mitigated and overcome by double the number of LARGER winning sessions?

I'll bet a dollar you can't do it. For as many sessions as you can handle. Heck, by the time I lose 50 bucks, you'll have won at least a quarter million, right?

[kewlJ]

Bob 21, I like your post #520, specifically parts of it, so I am going to condense to a couple parts I specifically agree with.

It doesn’t really matter to me either way but I do think Kj brings up some good points.

Obviously!

The point being it’s not too hard for me to see how someone in the gaming community, especially in Las Vegas, would have known about this play and also the correct sequence back in 2009, and especially now. Any intelligent person should be able to get this information.

Anybody? really? I don't know about that. But it is certainly possible, even probable that other players figured this out. And Maybe the guy that posts as Rob (Ron) Singer was one of them.

This does not prove or disprove if Rob knew about it, or found out about it in 2004.

EXACTLY. Rob has this fantasy, that this is bothering me and others that may not like him because of his behavior over the years, which he now claims was a charade. This just isn't true....at least not in my case. It is true that I still don't care for him because of things he said about me, my partner, my family, my mother and brother. And I really haven't even heard an apology towards me. And I don't expect I will.

But am able to separate that I don't care for Rob and his behavior. I really am. If his claim is true it doesn't effect me. I mean unless we are having a VCT get-together and Rob and his new claimed riches are springing for the bar tab....it doesn't effect me, either way.

And Bob21 is right, I have seen no definite proof that these claims are true, nor that they are not. And in the absence of that, again, I have to look at the person's history. And this history is one of making many unsubstantiated and even proven false claims. I am not being unreasonable in holding that against Rob. I mean has everyone forgotten that just two months ago there was a phony 200k jackpot posted? THIS stuff is what credibility is!

It is somewhat suspicious that Rob gave the winnings to his kids and didn’t save his tax returns or the WG forms if he wanted to later prove his claims.

Well he didn't say "he gave the money to his kids", although he has at times said he purchased homes for them. Basically what he is saying is that he hid his assets because he was fearful that he may have commintted a crime. All the posturing and wording doesn't change the fact that this action speaks louder than any words. Also this is likely admitting to a crime. Yeah, statute of limitations are expired, or he better hope. But despite Rob's claim that taxes were paid in full, the fact is that if you take a large windfall of money there are more taxes owed by a single tax filer that if you spread it among numerous tax filers. Higher tax bracket and all. But whatever.

And other than what some people are asserting as fact about "he should have kept his tax returns and W2G's from back then since he knew he was gonna be asked for proof"....First off, I would NEVER show anybody my wife's and my tax returns because they contain far more information about income streams besides via gambling.

I agree with this completely Rob. It is just so ironic that for 3 years since I have been on this site, you, Alan, coach belly and a few others have made up what I call the "proofers", demanding this exact kind of proof from others. And when others such as myself provided the sound argument that anyone would be out of their mind to do so....you weren't exactly accepting of that. So while I agree with this, it is just funny, TOO funny, that this is your position.

I've said it doesn't matter either way because my intent was simply to get the info out publicly, and not to convince anyone of anything.

Can I ask why? If you don't care, then why did you bring this up at all? That really doesn't mesh.