Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 200

Thread: Nothing is impossible

  1. #81
    Originally Posted by MaxPen View Post

    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?
    Max, it seems you have very little understanding of how my strategy operates. No big deal though, because few do.

    You work your way thru the 6 denominations constantly cashing out "soft profits" (40-credit or higher hits) THAT WILL NEVER BE RISKED AGAIN. And when you cash out these wins, you go back down in denomination at least one but many times more than one denomination. There could be thousands of even tens of thousands in soft profit cashouts (which are mitigated somewhat by losses unless and until a hard profit of $2500 is obtained) throughout the session, always aiming for the minimum $2500 profit level. This continues on until the final 5 credits are played at the highest denomination. The session ends here. $57,200 in credits is lost, but the net loss in losing sessions, because of soft profit cashouts, is anywhere between $5 and $57,195. Most losing sessions are far below $10k.

  2. #82
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    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.
    Is there anything more conspicuous than kew--someone who has created a false identity and life and has been banned from forums regularly across the internet--coming up with even more conspiracy theories just to bring needed attention to himself in order to feel relevant when he knows he isn't?

    Admit it--THIS STUFF IS YOUR LIFE ��

  3. #83
    Originally Posted by tableplay 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.
    Ron, what was the incentive for exploiting the DU bug when you already had your super-successful betting system in place ?
    Do the math. $90k/year vs. $520k/year? A $171,600 gambling bankroll vs. a $5000 one? Several days of being away from home vs. maybe one? Lots of effort with a 15% risk of losing something vs. very little effort with a GUARANTEED $10k profit?

    It wasn't even close.

  4. #84
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    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).
    Ha! You say there's nothing wrong with working at Walmart because those people have purpose in life and make more than you!

  5. #85
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    Originally Posted by AndrewG View Post
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    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.
    Maybe he was counting two tables at once after lowering expenses because his mommy drives him around and baby bro coughed up some of his welfare.

  6. #86
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Maybe he was counting two tables at once after lowering expenses because his mommy drives him around and baby bro coughed up some of his welfare.
    You are getting cranky, old man. Must be time for someone to change your diaper.

    See I can do that too Rob. I can say nasty obnoxious things. But for what? it doesn't change anything. The facts are you math doesn't work. And when you can't answer for that, you throw out some nasty personal attack.

    Are you THAT insecure that it makes you feel better to put others down with lies like you do? Are you that bitter about life?

  7. #87
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Originally Posted by MaxPen View Post



    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?
    Max, it seems you have very little understanding of how my strategy operates. No big deal though, because few do.

    You work your way thru the 6 denominations constantly cashing out "soft profits" (40-credit or higher hits) THAT WILL NEVER BE RISKED AGAIN. And when you cash out these wins, you go back down in denomination at least one but many times more than one denomination. There could be thousands of even tens of thousands in soft profit cashouts (which are mitigated somewhat by losses unless and until a hard profit of $2500 is obtained) throughout the session, always aiming for the minimum $2500 profit level. This continues on until the final 5 credits are played at the highest denomination. The session ends here. $57,200 in credits is lost, but the net loss in losing sessions, because of soft profit cashouts, is anywhere between $5 and $57,195. Most losing sessions are far below $10k.
    You see people all the time cash out then add more money. Naturally, all of these same people run out of cash then hit the cash out machines and start over. Inevitably, they're all broke and going home.

  8. #88
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post

    Maybe he was counting two tables at once after lowering expenses because his mommy drives him around and baby bro coughed up some of his welfare.
    For the record: Baby brother is doing great. He actually isn't having the best of years, likely to finish somewhat below expectation, but still he plays with an advantage and wins money to support himself, where you do neither. He owns half of a really nice high-rise condo. His love life isn't so great, but maybe if he wasn't so obsessed with video games and tried a little harder he could solve that. Anyway....whatever makes him happy.

    Mom never drove me around. My late partner served as my driver, because I never cared for driving. I never realized what a big and unique advantage it was having a "driver" until he was gone. Walking out the door of a casino and jumping in the car off to the next location. Time is money.

    When my partner passed, My Mom offered to fill that roll and I guess maybe we tried it out for a few days. But it wasn't going to be her thing. She isn't a big casino person. But it was an amazing act that she wanted to help. I am quite capable of driving myself and do almost everyday. I still hate driving. Way too many loonies out on the road. I even see some nuts that drive around in their house.

    More welfare comments from the welfare queen himself, Rob Singer. I don't know anyone that seems to know as much about the welfare system and talk about Welfare as much as this Rob Singer person. Does it really make sense that a guy who has had the kind of success in life he claims, in private business as well as casino gambling knows all the ins-and-outs of the Welfare system like this guys does?

    This is what it always comes down to with this guy. Does anything he says and does make sense in relationship to the circumstances that he is claiming? And the answer is always NO.

  9. #89
    If it takes you THAT long to release the stress of having been made a fool of, don't blame me when you sicken yourself from looking at a mirror.

  10. #90
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    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).
    Please! As I have posted several times, I emailed him a lot and he was always a man of his word to answer. There was never anything but professional conversation. Of course, back then there were not many hate mongers. I enjoyed my position at Wal-Mart and was asked several times NOT to leave.

  11. #91
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Do the math. $90k/year vs. $520k/year? A $171,600 gambling bankroll vs. a $5000 one? Several days of being away from home vs. maybe one? Lots of effort with a 15% risk of losing something vs. very little effort with a GUARANTEED $10k profit?
    It wasn't even close.
    You forgot a comparison Ron:
    One method requiring the statute of limitations (in terms of avoiding the not insignificant potential for confiscation of winnings, numerous court appearances, and large legal expenses) and one not.

  12. #92
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Do the math. $90k/year vs. $520k/year? A $171,600 gambling bankroll vs. a $5000 one? Several days of being away from home vs. maybe one? Lots of effort with a 15% risk of losing something vs. very little effort with a GUARANTEED $10k profit?
    It wasn't even close.
    You forgot a comparison Ron:
    One method requiring the statute of limitations (in terms of avoiding the not insignificant potential for confiscation of winnings, numerous court appearances, and large legal expenses) and one not.
    Not correct. That never came into play until Kane was arrested. Maybe "method A was nothing to worry about legally, and method B wasn't clearly defined.

  13. #93
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Do the math. $90k/year vs. $520k/year? A $171,600 gambling bankroll vs. a $5000 one? Several days of being away from home vs. maybe one? Lots of effort with a 15% risk of losing something vs. very little effort with a GUARANTEED $10k profit?
    It wasn't even close.
    You forgot a comparison Ron:
    One method requiring the statute of limitations (in terms of avoiding the not insignificant potential for confiscation of winnings, numerous court appearances, and large legal expenses) and one not.
    Not correct. That never came into play until Kane was arrested. Maybe "method A was nothing to worry about legally, and method B wasn't clearly defined.
    Then it's pretty scary that you didn't consider the casino might observe you performing the DU bug and then present a position of illegality to the courts (even though I think it is perfectly legal) regardless of whether the Kane/Nestor debacle had occurred. I would have definitely weighted it against having a perfectly legal, rock solid, income-producing betting system for VP.

  14. #94
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Maybe he was counting two tables at once after lowering expenses because his mommy drives him around and baby bro coughed up some of his welfare.
    You are getting cranky, old man. Must be time for someone to change your diaper.

    See I can do that too Rob. I can say nasty obnoxious things. But for what? it doesn't change anything. The facts are you math doesn't work. And when you can't answer for that, you throw out some nasty personal attack.

    Are you THAT insecure that it makes you feel better to put others down with lies like you do? Are you that bitter about life?
    You think THAT'S "nasty"?
    You have so much to learn....

  15. #95
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    You forgot a comparison Ron:
    One method requiring the statute of limitations (in terms of avoiding the not insignificant potential for confiscation of winnings, numerous court appearances, and large legal expenses) and one not.
    Not correct. That never came into play until Kane was arrested. Maybe "method A was nothing to worry about legally, and method B wasn't clearly defined.
    Then it's pretty scary that you didn't consider the casino might observe you performing the DU bug and then present a position of illegality to the courts (even though I think it is perfectly legal) regardless of whether the Kane/Nestor debacle had occurred. I would have definitely weighted it against having a perfectly legal, rock solid, income-producing betting system for VP.
    That is why I only used it once in each casino visit. I had concerns, which is why I was hyper careful and vigilant. But this aspect wasn't nearly enuf to make me ignore the play. Plus there was a certain "thrill" to the challenge of it all. Most gamblers will understand this.

  16. #96
    Rob has posted 5 times in a row on this page alone. There is no way he can give KewlJ shit about this forum being his life. I am not going to defend Kewlj because I don't know all the history but at least the guy contributes. Rob.Singer is basically a monkey in a tutu. Pathetic. No one looks for attention more than Rob Singer. Fact.

  17. #97
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post

    Not correct. That never came into play until Kane was arrested. Maybe "method A was nothing to worry about legally, and method B wasn't clearly defined.
    Then it's pretty scary that you didn't consider the casino might observe you performing the DU bug and then present a position of illegality to the courts (even though I think it is perfectly legal) regardless of whether the Kane/Nestor debacle had occurred. I would have definitely weighted it against having a perfectly legal, rock solid, income-producing betting system for VP.
    That is why I only used it once in each casino visit. I had concerns, which is why I was hyper careful and vigilant. But this aspect wasn't nearly enuf to make me ignore the play. Plus there was a certain "thrill" to the challenge of it all. Most gamblers will understand this.
    Rob, obviously I asked this before but I have since forgotten. Why did you take handpays and not just milk multiple machines over and over and over while moving around without ever having a hand pay while using the double up glitch?

  18. #98
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post

    Then it's pretty scary that you didn't consider the casino might observe you performing the DU bug and then present a position of illegality to the courts (even though I think it is perfectly legal) regardless of whether the Kane/Nestor debacle had occurred. I would have definitely weighted it against having a perfectly legal, rock solid, income-producing betting system for VP.
    That is why I only used it once in each casino visit. I had concerns, which is why I was hyper careful and vigilant. But this aspect wasn't nearly enuf to make me ignore the play. Plus there was a certain "thrill" to the challenge of it all. Most gamblers will understand this.
    Rob, obviously I asked this before but I have since forgotten. Why did you take handpays and not just milk multiple machines over and over and over while moving around without ever having a hand pay while using the double up glitch?
    LOL. The answer's obvious, Axelwolf. He loves to tip.

    Even when he makes stuff up.

    Sorry, man, I didn't mean to distract from the gotcha moment. But the gotcha doesn't count for unbelievers, so forgive me.

  19. #99
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post

    That is why I only used it once in each casino visit. I had concerns, which is why I was hyper careful and vigilant. But this aspect wasn't nearly enuf to make me ignore the play. Plus there was a certain "thrill" to the challenge of it all. Most gamblers will understand this.
    Rob, obviously I asked this before but I have since forgotten. Why did you take handpays and not just milk multiple machines over and over and over while moving around without ever having a hand pay while using the double up glitch?
    LOL. The answer's obvious, Axelwolf. He loves to tip.

    Even when he makes stuff up.

    Sorry, man, I didn't mean to distract from the gotcha moment. But the gotcha doesn't count for unbelievers, so forgive me.
    when I very first learned about this originally I assumed the only way the glitch could work is if it involved a handpay. Because, even if someone wasn't all that that Advantage play savvy you would have to think getting hand pays was one of the worst possible ways you would go about playing in this situation. I never imagined it could be done without taking handpays. You could easily get three or four thousand dollars out of 1 casino without much of a problem in a short amount of time. I don't see why one couldn't easily make $200,000 a month.

    There's one small caveat to that, you might want some proof of where all your money was coming from. However, if you just kept a log and paid your taxes I don't think there would be an issue. Or if you really wanted to you could take some of the winnings and go play higher denomination machines legitimately and generate tax forms that way.
    Last edited by AxelWolf; 11-23-2019 at 06:58 AM.

  20. #100
    But think of all of the opportunities people would miss if they don't get hand pays. You don't stand there in the limelight with security cameras trained on you. You don't get to tip. You don't get asked about having your photo taken with the more substantial jackpots (I believe it's technically within their rights to photograph you).

    You would miss out on all of these perks if you don't get hand pays. What professional gambler in his right mind, functioning under the radar, would pass on all of these?

    I still think it comes down to a love of tipping, though.


    P.S. You know, Axel, you didn't do the forum here any favors. Now we'll be back to full-scale alphabet Rube Goldberg "systems" as the thing to crow about. Maybe AndrewG can provide some more crime-busting investigative, craps-oriented, let's-not-consult-a-math-professional commentary to fill in. Hmmmmm, wait, I think there's a good deal of that on file in old posts. I can't seem to remember the source, though. Axel, any ideas? I'm getting old; I just don't remember source material like I once did.
    Last edited by redietz; 11-23-2019 at 07:24 AM.

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
  •