Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 200

Thread: Nothing is impossible

  1. #61
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
    I just can't comprehend,after playing myself, why you must feel there has to be long term losing. Sorry, I just don't get that.
    -EV play = longterm losing play. I know you don't get this, but it is true. You just can't "will" winning from a negative EV game.
    Oh-ok. Easy answer. The strategy is short term. I agree long term is eventually a loser. And I know already you guys think even though I stop, pause, or whatever you want to call it, the long term starts wherever I left off-whether it was a day, a week or a month ago. I gotta tell you, you guys mystify me. However this forum only enforces my beliefs and has only strengthened my resolve. After the double up feature and it's ramifications, I gained more confidence.

  2. #62
    Sling, I am in the camp that the math rules. Not short teem, but long term. The short term results cannot outweigh the long term result

    The long term results probably mimic the sinusoidal wave. They are there, but not above a positive expected experience.

  3. #63
    Originally Posted by Deech View Post
    Sling, I am in the camp that the math rules. Not short teem, but long term. The short term results cannot outweigh the long term result

    The long term results probably mimic the sinusoidal wave. They are there, but not above a positive expected experience.
    The problem is understanding ALL that is involved in the strategy. For instance mini goals and win goals are used to determine special plays. If a full house,say in ddbp reaches a mini goal, that's the math play. But if you're 100 credits behind, why would you NOT hold a special pair for 200 or more credits? And honestly, how many times do two pair turn into a full house? And this is just a part of the strategy. I threw away my vp books and tables. Call it the new math of a delusional mind if you wish-I call it common sense.

  4. #64
    You know, watching kew position himself when trying to talk theory about my strategy is like watching a blind man play chess. He guesses, he postures, and he theorizes....but he never understands historical actuals because he doesn't really want to. These results I've had have zero to do with overcoming the math. That would be impossible. Rather, it is VERY heavy on all aspects of what will provide a minimum 5% profit today---and not 20 years from now. IE, the strategy does two things: it either waits for one of the many high-paying hands to come along using optimal play, or it gives that good luck a helping hand on potentially high-paying hands where optimal play would not be capable of producing one.

    Aside from that, a heavy bankroll plays a significant part. Think of how much a martingale player could win at a bj table if he were able to double his bet size for up to 50 straight hands. Is anybody gonna say a player WILL LOSE 50 straight hands and bust out? Well, there is no martingale in video poker, but I have devised a very winnable method of allowing 6 different denominations to attain that single winning hand (and/or multiple smaller ones) in order to reach a relatively small win percentage during any given session--which has mathematically shown an 85% rate of success.

    But what no one chooses to explain is how their argument holds any water at all....that a session with such a win rate, can somehow suddenly shift as more sessions are played. 85% is 85%, throughout time. I understand clearly that someone who plays optimal play only in several different denominations for 20 years with no structured strategy, minimum win goal, or hefty bankroll (which would make no difference in this situation) can very well end up a big loser, and his chances of being a winner by then are probably about the same as getting 10 straight yo's.

    So I'm open to listening to anyone who wants to take a stab at this. And please, stay away from generalizations. Remember, nothing will change the past. My results are my results with this strategy. It is predicated on seeing good luck in winning sessions....really, just like for ANYBODY who wins playing anything. Go ahead and explain why the math is required to snatch all of my winnings away, and more. And explain how an 85% win rate in today's session can somehow change 2000 sessions from now. When doing this, keep in mind the larger winners are more frequent than and bigger than the larger losers. There is no such thing as "a bad session will wipe away all profits and more"....which critics regularly claim when they have no idea how to follow it.

    It is why the Law of Large Numbers does not apply to the method I devised. That only works when a given procedure is followed every single time. My strategy inherently changes each session to be a one-off every time it's played.

    Let's have it.
    Last edited by Rob.Singer; 11-20-2019 at 09:52 PM.

  5. #65
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
    Originally Posted by Deech View Post
    Sling, I am in the camp that the math rules. Not short teem, but long term. The short term results cannot outweigh the long term result

    The long term results probably mimic the sinusoidal wave. They are there, but not above a positive expected experience.
    The problem is understanding ALL that is involved in the strategy. For instance mini goals and win goals are used to determine special plays. If a full house,say in ddbp reaches a mini goal, that's the math play. But if you're 100 credits behind, why would you NOT hold a special pair for 200 or more credits? And honestly, how many times do two pair turn into a full house? And this is just a part of the strategy. I threw away my vp books and tables. Call it the new math of a delusional mind if you wish-I call it common sense.
    I sort of gave up drinking a while back. Well not really gave up because I have a couple beers watching football on a Sunday afternoon and a couple times a year some Friends come to Vegas, and we go out drinking and I have a few beers, but I don't drink like I used to. Now, when something sets my head spinning, I go for my Dryer's cookies and cream Ice cream. For those east of the Rockies, that would be Eddy's. West of the Rockies it is Dryers.

    So mini goals, and win goal stop limits and special plays and all this great voodoo malarkey! Hold on a sec while I go for my Dryers's cookies and cream.

  6. #66
    I do have a question for Rob, or Slingshot or anyone who wants to take a stab.

    Rob has been making this Singer progression system claim for like 15-20 years now (although the number of years and amounts of the claim have been all over the place). Rob has published books. Done interviews with Alan. Been on a number of different forums. Rob claims he has taught many different people or "students" to play this system successfully.

    So where are those students? How come we don't hear from them? This is one of the few forums Rob is still on, you would thinks some of these students, who this system would have surely changed there life, would be here to endorse Rob and his system? But no real person has done that. There have been a few sockpuppet accounts that have attempted to do that, but each and every time, whatever forum administrator, including Dan Druff here, identifies those accounts as sock puppets of Rob.

    Doesn't that bother you a bit slingshot? where are any of these success stories that Rob's system has changed their lives?

  7. #67
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    You know, watching kew position himself when trying to talk theory about my strategy is like watching a blind man play chess. He guesses, he postures, and he theorizes....but he never understands historical actuals because he doesn't really want to. These results I've had have zero to do with overcoming the math. That would be impossible. Rather, it is VERY heavy on all aspects of what will provide a minimum 5% profit today---and not 20 years from now. IE, the strategy does two things: it either waits for one of the many high-paying hands to come along using optimal play, or it gives that good luck a helping hand on potentially high-paying hands where optimal play would not be capable of producing one.

    Aside from that, a heavy bankroll plays a significant part. Think of how much a martingale player could win at a bj table if he were able to double his bet size for up to 50 straight hands. Is anybody gonna say a player WILL LOSE 50 straight hands and bust out? Well, there is no martingale in video poker, but I have devised a very winnable method of allowing 6 different denominations to attain that single winning hand (and/or multiple smaller ones) in order to reach a relatively small win percentage during any given session--which has mathematically shown an 85% rate of success.

    But what no one chooses to explain is how their argument holds any water at all....that a session with such a win rate, can somehow suddenly shift as more sessions are played. 85% is 85%, throughout time. I understand clearly that someone who plays optimal play only in several different denominations for 20 years with no structured strategy, minimum win goal, or hefty bankroll (which would make no difference in this situation) can very well end up a big loser, and his chances of being a winner by then are probably about the same as getting 10 straight yo's.

    So I'm open to listening to anyone who wants to take a stab at this. And please, stay away from generalizations. Remember, nothing will change the past. My results are my results with this strategy. It is predicated on seeing good luck in winning sessions....really, just like for ANYBODY who wins playing anything. Go ahead and explain why the math is required to snatch all of my winnings away, and more. And explain how an 85% win rate in today's session can somehow change 2000 sessions from now. When doing this, keep in mind the larger winners are more frequent than and bigger than the larger losers. There is no such thing as "a bad session will wipe away all profits and more"....which critics regularly claim when they have no idea how to follow it.

    It is why the Law of Large Numbers does not apply to the method I devised. That only works when a given procedure is followed every single time. My strategy inherently changes each session to be a one-off every time it's played.

    Let's have it.
    If the rules of the system call for a $2500 win or a $57,200 loss and only works 85% of the time how is it possible that the largest loss ever was only $30k?

  8. #68
    Kew, the reason few of those I taught my strategy to ever chat on forums is because of ignorant people like you, who just can't take it so they turn to lies and more lies and even more lies about everything about me and anyone who supports anything about me. Look at how you disparaged mickey for him believing and explaining why, regarding my DU play. It is the sign of a very disturbed, unhappy, and conflict-loving person. You should be very proud to have such a life. Or internet life, that is.

  9. #69
    Originally Posted by MaxPen View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    You know, watching kew position himself when trying to talk theory about my strategy is like watching a blind man play chess. He guesses, he postures, and he theorizes....but he never understands historical actuals because he doesn't really want to. These results I've had have zero to do with overcoming the math. That would be impossible. Rather, it is VERY heavy on all aspects of what will provide a minimum 5% profit today---and not 20 years from now. IE, the strategy does two things: it either waits for one of the many high-paying hands to come along using optimal play, or it gives that good luck a helping hand on potentially high-paying hands where optimal play would not be capable of producing one.

    Aside from that, a heavy bankroll plays a significant part. Think of how much a martingale player could win at a bj table if he were able to double his bet size for up to 50 straight hands. Is anybody gonna say a player WILL LOSE 50 straight hands and bust out? Well, there is no martingale in video poker, but I have devised a very winnable method of allowing 6 different denominations to attain that single winning hand (and/or multiple smaller ones) in order to reach a relatively small win percentage during any given session--which has mathematically shown an 85% rate of success.

    But what no one chooses to explain is how their argument holds any water at all....that a session with such a win rate, can somehow suddenly shift as more sessions are played. 85% is 85%, throughout time. I understand clearly that someone who plays optimal play only in several different denominations for 20 years with no structured strategy, minimum win goal, or hefty bankroll (which would make no difference in this situation) can very well end up a big loser, and his chances of being a winner by then are probably about the same as getting 10 straight yo's.

    So I'm open to listening to anyone who wants to take a stab at this. And please, stay away from generalizations. Remember, nothing will change the past. My results are my results with this strategy. It is predicated on seeing good luck in winning sessions....really, just like for ANYBODY who wins playing anything. Go ahead and explain why the math is required to snatch all of my winnings away, and more. And explain how an 85% win rate in today's session can somehow change 2000 sessions from now. When doing this, keep in mind the larger winners are more frequent than and bigger than the larger losers. There is no such thing as "a bad session will wipe away all profits and more"....which critics regularly claim when they have no idea how to follow it.

    It is why the Law of Large Numbers does not apply to the method I devised. That only works when a given procedure is followed every single time. My strategy inherently changes each session to be a one-off every time it's played.

    Let's have it.
    If the rules of the system call for a $2500 win or a $57,200 loss and only works 85% of the time how is it possible that the largest loss ever was only $30k?
    No not close. My largest loss is $33k, next largest lost is $11k.. My largest win is $96k. $2500 is the MINIMUM win goal. I've never won just $2500, but I quit as soon as it least that amount of profit is realized. The strategy is not played until the complete session bankroll is lost. There's much more to it than that.

  10. #70
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Kew, the reason few of those I taught my strategy to ever chat on forums is because of ignorant people like you, who just can't take it so they turn to lies and more lies and even more lies about everything about me and anyone who supports anything about me. Look at how you disparaged mickey for him believing and explaining why, regarding my DU play. It is the sign of a very disturbed, unhappy, and conflict-loving person. You should be very proud to have such a life. Or internet life, that is.
    Disparage: regard or represent as being of little worth

    I most certainly did not disparage mickey for believing the DU bug claim. I am sorry if Mickey feels that way. Nothing concerning you or any claims could make me think Mickey has little worth or even make me think less of him in terms of AP ability. Mickey is an AP god to me. I wish I had a fraction of the ability he has in regards to machine play and knowledge. Do we disagree about believing your DU claim? Yes we do. And yes we have argued about it. But it doesn't change the way I think or feel about Mickey. If it changes the way he feels about me, well that is his call.

    Now here is the thing about the DU bug. It is completely different than this Progression system claim, in that the math works (for a change). That is why Nestor and Kane and probably others were able to play it and make money. The math works! I just don't believe you played it, and/or if you did you may found a machine or two long after the fact, long after you read the story and played, but not for the money or time you claim.

    See here is the things about your claims. You make these claims that the Math doesn't work. That is the first hurdle....the math has to work. After that you look at the persons credibility. So you have made all these claims that the math just doesn't work. Never has....Never will. You haven't gotten over the first hurdle. So then along comes this new claim and for a change the math works! The math works because it is somebody else's claim....Nestor/Kane.

    So the math works (for a change), so then you have to go to credibility. And you have none. At that point you really got to show something...some kind of documentation that that can support that claim. I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but I think in the thread at WoV where Mike agreed to look into the claim, Axelwolf said you should be able to provide some sort of supporting something.

    I mean after a while the boy who constantly cries wolf is gonna not be taken seriously unless he can prove the wolf is there.

    So that is where Mickey and I disagree...credibility.

  11. #71
    Originally Posted by MaxPen View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    You know, watching kew position himself when trying to talk theory about my strategy is like watching a blind man play chess. He guesses, he postures, and he theorizes....but he never understands historical actuals because he doesn't really want to. These results I've had have zero to do with overcoming the math. That would be impossible. Rather, it is VERY heavy on all aspects of what will provide a minimum 5% profit today---and not 20 years from now. IE, the strategy does two things: it either waits for one of the many high-paying hands to come along using optimal play, or it gives that good luck a helping hand on potentially high-paying hands where optimal play would not be capable of producing one.

    Aside from that, a heavy bankroll plays a significant part. Think of how much a martingale player could win at a bj table if he were able to double his bet size for up to 50 straight hands. Is anybody gonna say a player WILL LOSE 50 straight hands and bust out? Well, there is no martingale in video poker, but I have devised a very winnable method of allowing 6 different denominations to attain that single winning hand (and/or multiple smaller ones) in order to reach a relatively small win percentage during any given session--which has mathematically shown an 85% rate of success.

    But what no one chooses to explain is how their argument holds any water at all....that a session with such a win rate, can somehow suddenly shift as more sessions are played. 85% is 85%, throughout time. I understand clearly that someone who plays optimal play only in several different denominations for 20 years with no structured strategy, minimum win goal, or hefty bankroll (which would make no difference in this situation) can very well end up a big loser, and his chances of being a winner by then are probably about the same as getting 10 straight yo's.

    So I'm open to listening to anyone who wants to take a stab at this. And please, stay away from generalizations. Remember, nothing will change the past. My results are my results with this strategy. It is predicated on seeing good luck in winning sessions....really, just like for ANYBODY who wins playing anything. Go ahead and explain why the math is required to snatch all of my winnings away, and more. And explain how an 85% win rate in today's session can somehow change 2000 sessions from now. When doing this, keep in mind the larger winners are more frequent than and bigger than the larger losers. There is no such thing as "a bad session will wipe away all profits and more"....which critics regularly claim when they have no idea how to follow it.

    It is why the Law of Large Numbers does not apply to the method I devised. That only works when a given procedure is followed every single time. My strategy inherently changes each session to be a one-off every time it's played.

    Let's have it.
    If the rules of the system call for a $2500 win or a $57,200 loss and only works 85% of the time how is it possible that the largest loss ever was only $30k?
    Originally Posted by RobSinger
    No not close. My largest loss is $33k, next largest lost is $11k.. My largest win is $96k. $2500 is the MINIMUM win goal. I've never won just $2500, but I quit as soon as it least that amount of profit is realized. The strategy is not played until the complete session bankroll is lost. There's much more to it than that.
    Originally Posted by Rob Singer
    The bankroll I used for playing starting in 2000 was $171,600. Simple enuf, right? My per-session bankroll was $57,200. 3 times that amount is $171,600 which as explained many times, was what I wanted to have just in case the strategy--which relied heavily upon getting high paying hands in higher denominations--experienced a devastating loss or two, which it never did other than one $33,000 loss.
    If you're risking $57.2k on a "session" to win a minimum of $2500 and you claim to have never lost more than $33k makes no sense. Why did you stop the session short only being down $33k? What are the other rules to know when it is time to pack it in or execute the stop loss?
    Last edited by MaxPen; 11-20-2019 at 11:04 PM.

  12. #72
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Kew, the reason few of those I taught my strategy to ever chat on forums is because of ignorant people like you, who just can't take it so they turn to lies and more lies and even more lies about everything about me and anyone who supports anything about me. Look at how you disparaged mickey for him believing and explaining why, regarding my DU play. It is the sign of a very disturbed, unhappy, and conflict-loving person. You should be very proud to have such a life. Or internet life, that is.
    Oh I chased away your supporter that were going to come here giving testimonials? When did that EVER happen?

    But on the contrary you did chase a way a number of AP, including a few that came here because I am participating here. After, it was mentioned at a blackjack site (I believe by Midwestplayer) that I was posting here, several known long-term AP's came here, 21forme, Kim Lee, I am pretty sure there were a couple more, and you drove them away. So fuck off with that shit.

    As for my life: I am pretty proud of it....thanks for asking. We are nearing the end of my 16th year playing blackjack for a living. I am not rich. I am not set for life yet. I am progressing towards that. But I make a comfortable living. Have a nice home. I work for no one and answer to no one. And best of all, I still love what I do. I love the game that I play for a living. To be honest, when I started out back when I was 20, underfunded, and not knowing anywhere near what I needed to know, I thought I might be able to make 30K-ish. And that was 12k more than the job I left to pursue blackjack. After a few lean years, I have averaged 3 times that amount for the last 10 years.

    So fuck yeah, I am really happy with my life. And I'll tell you something else. I am pretty damn good at what I do. There aren't many pure blackjack card counters left. Most are chasing bigger advantages like hole-carding ect (even machine play). Those few that do focus on card counting just can't seem to achieve any kind of longevity. They burn themselves out traveling all over the country, sometimes even making videos and documentaries. But they are almost always done after a couple years, barely even to get a game.

    I burned myself out at my first location, Atlantic City, picked myself up, learned from that experience and built a plan to be able to play for a long time and achieve some longevity. And It has worked to perfection. Far greater than my wildest dreams. And I do it playing mostly in one city, minimal travel and sleeping comfortably in my own bed in my own home most nights. I am able to play some of the sweatiest places and be welcome back because I play within each casinos tolerance level. I honestly don't see anyone else, on message boards or in person doing what I am doing. So yeah, I am also pretty proud of that. Again thanks for asking.

  13. #73
    Originally Posted by MaxPen View Post
    If you're risking $57.2k on a "session" to win a minimum of $2500 and you claim to have never lost more than $33k makes no sense. Why did you stop the session short only being down $33k? What are the other rules to know when it is time to pack it in or execute the stop loss?
    As I am sure you know MaxPen, in the blackjack community we have computer simulation software. Oddly one of my least favorite members of the blackjack community, Norm Wattenberger makes fantastic software that most serious players have benefited from.

    So is there something like that with Video poker, where you program in why system and style of play and the simulator will show you projected results after millions or rounds played? I mean that would answer these questions about Rob's claim.

    In the absence of such a simulator, or if a simulator would not be able to handle Rob's specific system of play, what about Rob explaining exactly how to play and have someone play on the free games on one of these video poker sites? My guess is it wouldn't take that long,maybe a couple days and we would have a pretty good answer.

  14. #74
    Rob's never going to get into the nitty gritty of his "system" simply because he knows the system is complete dogshit and won't yield positive results. If he were to post his system in whole -- cover to cover and top to bottom, it would obviously be analyzed and proven to fail. Rob's secret is that since he doesn't give out the exact recipe, in his mind it can't be refuted because "how are they going to refute something they don't know everything about?".
    #FreeTyde

  15. #75
    Originally Posted by AndrewG View Post
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    Originally Posted by AndrewG View Post
    Mr Kewlj please help me out here. Do you agree that it is possible to win money at a negative expectation game, or is it your position that you cannot win money at a negative expectation game?

    I'm trying to understand your definition of mathematically impossible.
    Obviously, it's theoretically possible to get lucky and win for years playing a -EV game, thats never been in dispute(obviously we don't believe people making such claims).

    Its theoretically possible for someone to get a dealt royal flush on VP 100 times in a row, however, it's impossible for someone to get a royal flush on VP if they never play a hand of video poker in their life.

    Obviously, in my following example I'm not talking about glitches, gaffs, promotions or programming errors, so for argument's sake let's assume nothing like that's going on.

    If you take a video poker pay table and do the calculations and it comes back at a 95% Payback then it's a 95% Payback with optimal play period. If someone comes along and tells you there's a strategy or way of playing that will magically turn a 95% paypack into a 110% payback, that's impossible(1+1 can't =5). However, it's possible people can get lucky due to variance and win. You're either an idiot or a troll if you don't understand this concept.
    I don't know of anyone who said they turn a 95% game into a 105% game but there might be people who got a 105% return on a game that is supposed to return 95%. Now, do you understand that concept?
    He was claiming using a super duper count on blackjack would gain a 5% advantage on average. Yet, not even a computer with perfect deck composition can achieve that.

  16. #76
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    You know, watching kew position himself when trying to talk theory about my strategy is like watching a blind man play chess. He guesses, he postures, and he theorizes....but he never understands historical actuals because he doesn't really want to. These results I've had have zero to do with overcoming the math. That would be impossible. Rather, it is VERY heavy on all aspects of what will provide a minimum 5% profit today---and not 20 years from now. IE, the strategy does two things: it either waits for one of the many high-paying hands to come along using optimal play, or it gives that good luck a helping hand on potentially high-paying hands where optimal play would not be capable of producing one.

    Aside from that, a heavy bankroll plays a significant part. Think of how much a martingale player could win at a bj table if he were able to double his bet size for up to 50 straight hands. Is anybody gonna say a player WILL LOSE 50 straight hands and bust out? Well, there is no martingale in video poker, but I have devised a very winnable method of allowing 6 different denominations to attain that single winning hand (and/or multiple smaller ones) in order to reach a relatively small win percentage during any given session--which has mathematically shown an 85% rate of success.

    But what no one chooses to explain is how their argument holds any water at all....that a session with such a win rate, can somehow suddenly shift as more sessions are played. 85% is 85%, throughout time. I understand clearly that someone who plays optimal play only in several different denominations for 20 years with no structured strategy, minimum win goal, or hefty bankroll (which would make no difference in this situation) can very well end up a big loser, and his chances of being a winner by then are probably about the same as getting 10 straight yo's.

    So I'm open to listening to anyone who wants to take a stab at this. And please, stay away from generalizations. Remember, nothing will change the past. My results are my results with this strategy. It is predicated on seeing good luck in winning sessions....really, just like for ANYBODY who wins playing anything. Go ahead and explain why the math is required to snatch all of my winnings away, and more. And explain how an 85% win rate in today's session can somehow change 2000 sessions from now. When doing this, keep in mind the larger winners are more frequent than and bigger than the larger losers. There is no such thing as "a bad session will wipe away all profits and more"....which critics regularly claim when they have no idea how to follow it.

    It is why the Law of Large Numbers does not apply to the method I devised. That only works when a given procedure is followed every single time. My strategy inherently changes each session to be a one-off every time it's played.

    Let's have it.
    Ron, what was the incentive for exploiting the DU bug when you already had your super-successful betting system in place ?

  17. #77
    OK, Rob responded as I once knew him before all the trash talk began here-so I don't care to keep on this subject. NO ONE, except my wife and a few friends when I worked at Walmart, in my circle of friends and family, know that I even go near a casino. And since we serve in the church quite frequently, I asked my wife to keep silent-which she has for years-even to the point of giving up her penny machines. It's hard not to have an outlet- hence my posts. Yes, I'm a hypocrite in a sense,but my family played Canasta, 42,Bolivia, and I played Moon at the golf course and enjoyed the fellowship. Yet it's hard for me to see the dark side of hate, filth, and just plain craziness that can be out there in my love of gaming. Yesterday was a prime example. My wife apologized because she knew I usually went early on Wednesdays, played my free play, picked up a freebie and came home so we could do whatever before she had to serve in the church nursery. I said no problem as it was just a hooded light jacket anyway. Well after we got her friends back home, she decided she wanted the jacket so off we run for a quick trip, since I usually get enough for gas from freeplay. Well, first shocker was NO freeplay for this promotion. Next, we walked into the promo room to find someone had switched the cards and a vest was the prize and the jacket was next week. We got to witness a full blown outrage as one black lady was yelling at the top of her voice about the deception. I was myself upset, mainly because probably I started not to come. Anyway, I thanked them for the vest. The $7 win in freeplay from a quick trip to the other casino paid exactly for the gas, and my wife picked a $10 food bonus. Still, not the fun and fellowship when I was young. Wish all good luck.

  18. #78
    Wow! Sorry for the rambling. As if this week has been weird enough, I checked my banking online and was charged for PayPal on eBay- where I don't even have an account! The bank has treated it as if a stolen card, disputed the charges. So my debit card is inactive. Ordered from Amazon last week and they assured me ONLY the purchase amount was included. Sorta glad as I'll start off fresh once the replacement card arrives.

  19. #79
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
    OK, Rob responded as I once knew him before all the trash talk began here-so I don't care to keep on this subject.
    Wait, you once knew Rob? Like personally? Did he work at Walmart too? (nothing wrong with that).

  20. #80
    There is an odd thing that has occurred several times now in this discussion. Fairly new member, Andrew has staked out a position, arguing the "impossibility" of several claims, Rob's and the "super duper count blackjack guy". So as I, and other try to explain just how unlikely these claims are, as Axel did a couple posts back with the 5% blackjack claim, Andrew will then respond with something to the effect that he is not really familiar with either Rob's claim or the blackjack 5% claim.

    So the question begs, why is he staking a position and arguing then.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •