Following Your Rules

[Rob.Singer]

Frustrated just as predicted ....complete with the lies about me and why he left LV (I have proof I'd like to show him someday if he can ever get out of the snow) and the rage of someone who feels he needs to convert everyone else to his failed beliefs.

Is it any wonder why this bothers him so? Think about it: why else would someone who really has nothing left to live for, care anything about any of this, when all it has to do is bring up more and more pain for his sins of the past? He leaves after he gets beatdowns, but as soon as the boredom sets in he just can't help himself and has to start telling the same lies over again.

BTW arci, when I took that Delaware couple I trained to dinner the other night, my WIFE also joined us

[redietz]

You know, I almost bought a place in Pahrump. The pictures said, "Next to the golf course." I couldn't see any grass in the photo, so I called. Yep, no grass on that golf course -- I learn something new every day. Then real estate in Pahrump doubled in price, and I was too poor for the golf course.

I know a little about "Dancer," and he dabbles financially in things he knows very little about. The problem with having an edge is that it's gotta be real, and not something you think you have. It would not surprise me if he made the figures being tossed about playing video poker, and it would not surprise me if he lost large chunks of that on other endeavors. His gambling track record outside of video poker is murky at best, and some of the murkiness predates his vp wizardry, if that it is.

[Vegas Vic]

I am not a high roller or even a medium roller and will never have Rob's $$$ to play. That doesn't stop me from enjoying playing at the quarter level and taking my modest wins along with the requisite modest losses. When I go to a local casino for a session, my bankroll is usually $300. Having recently recovered from a long battle with a severe cold (lot of that crap going around here in Michigan), I finally went to a casino yesterday for the first time in about 6 weeks.

After playing DDB for 1 hr and 45 minutes, I was up $200, so I left. Went back to the same casino today, and actually played the very same machine ($300 bankroll again), and after playing DDB 1 hr and 30 minutes, I was up $240 and I left.

Point being: I don't play Rob's system...strictly follow what I learned from the Dancer software when I started playing in 2004. I didn't have a "win goal" in advance but I also know that if the gaming Gods are not in my favor, that losing the $300 budget will not hurt me. So, Rob, your continued assertion that a player like me (who learned from Mr. Dancer) is not capable of money management and that I cannot stop and will not stop is still more of your delusional and dismissive attitude toward others. So, go ahead and group me with all the other "losers" who are not one of your disciples and feel free to belittle me like you do to Arci, Alan, and all the little people. All I know is that I got a pretty good % return on my bankroll playing the way I play.

[Rob.Singer]

You know, I almost bought a place in Pahrump. The pictures said, "Next to the golf course." I couldn't see any grass in the photo, so I called. Yep, no grass on that golf course -- I learn something new every day. Then real estate in Pahrump doubled in price, and I was too poor for the golf course.

I know a little about "Dancer," and he dabbles financially in things he knows very little about. The problem with having an edge is that it's gotta be real, and not something you think you have. It would not surprise me if he made the figures being tossed about playing video poker, and it would not surprise me if he lost large chunks of that on other endeavors. His gambling track record outside of video poker is murky at best, and some of the murkiness predates his vp wizardry, if that it is.

When you talk about Pahrump, you at least have some facts. Arci wants it to be that I live here and bought a place here, but I think he really knows we bought a big new bus-like RV and are full-timers here for the winters. And unlike him and his poor wife when they moved to LV for the most foolish reason in the world--so they could be closer to the machines in order to sit at them hours every day--we're here for tax shelter reasons. Outside of the several very nice RV parks, the town is actually full of unemployed slugs and life's leftovers from LV. I've never seen such a collection of junk cars in my life.

Dancer's just making his living the best way he can throw one together after becoming a gambling junkie. I just wish he wasn't so full of it when tooting his horn.

[Rob.Singer]

I am not a high roller or even a medium roller and will never have Rob's $$$ to play. That doesn't stop me from enjoying playing at the quarter level and taking my modest wins along with the requisite modest losses. When I go to a local casino for a session, my bankroll is usually $300. Having recently recovered from a long battle with a severe cold (lot of that crap going around here in Michigan), I finally went to a casino yesterday for the first time in about 6 weeks.

After playing DDB for 1 hr and 45 minutes, I was up $200, so I left. Went back to the same casino today, and actually played the very same machine ($300 bankroll again), and after playing DDB 1 hr and 30 minutes, I was up $240 and I left.

Point being: I don't play Rob's system...strictly follow what I learned from the Dancer software when I started playing in 2004. I didn't have a "win goal" in advance but I also know that if the gaming Gods are not in my favor, that losing the $300 budget will not hurt me. So, Rob, your continued assertion that a player like me (who learned from Mr. Dancer) is not capable of money management and that I cannot stop and will not stop is still more of your delusional and dismissive attitude toward others. So, go ahead and group me with all the other "losers" who are not one of your disciples and feel free to belittle me like you do to Arci, Alan, and all the little people. All I know is that I got a pretty good % return on my bankroll playing the way I play.

Well I believe if you told Dancer how you played he'd sluff you off as a losing player just like he does anyone else. He couldn't care less about how you did in 2 visits because to him that's irrelevant. And if you're not playing with a theoretical edge every time you play you're just filling the casinos' pockets. In other words, if the paytable isn't >100%, you may THINK you have won something because you have more $$ in your wallet, but you were actually LOSING money at a per hour clip! That's how stupid his thinking is. You don't play with any true money management system either. It looks like you get scared of losing after winning, so at some undetermined point you scadaddle.

[slingshot]

Vegas Vic, I know what you mean. But I really enjoy playing 5/10/25 cent artt. I know it's only 3 levels, but it's fun to sit there and keep tabs and I'm thinking that if I learn it at these lower levels that once I actually have $1200 free and clear I can at least have an idea of what I'm up against. Of course, I could get by at $6oo with 5/10/25/50.

[Alan Mendelson]

Quit defending the indefensible. It just makes you look bad.

Arc, I don't think I have to defend Rob's position, because I think Rob does a good job of it. And while I don't follow all of Rob's position (in fact a lot of it about non-random machines, rigged machines, hot and cold cycles I reject) a lot of what Rob advocates makes a lot of sense.

If anything I just want to make clear Rob's position as I understand it. I leave the judgments to the readers/viewers. Yes, I can defend some of his special plays and yes I can defend his concept of win goals and leaving to enjoy another day. I think I can also criticize you for calling him a "con man" and for saying that "Singer fails at everything he claims."

That is what looks bad, Arc.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, arci is unable to cope with anyone who doesn't believe as he believes, so he goes the personal attack route out of irritation. The fact that he can't stop punishing himself by reading other facts and points of view should go a long way in identifying how he enjoys torturing himself. AP's by nature have little tolerance for those who have been successful, and many of them are anal about it by calling others liars. What I've found they're really doing is having a referendum on themselves as they endlessly work thru their inner conflict.

I know you don't agree with everything I talk about, and it's hardly a big deal. But to someone with such a corrupted soul as our friend, you aren't allowed to agree with ANYTHING if not sanctioned by him. Now can you just imagine what it would have been spending your life with someone like that? Phew!

[arcimede$]

Arc, I don't think I have to defend Rob's position, because I think Rob does a good job of it. And while I don't follow all of Rob's position (in fact a lot of it about non-random machines, rigged machines, hot and cold cycles I reject) a lot of what Rob advocates makes a lot of sense.

If anything I just want to make clear Rob's position as I understand it. I leave the judgments to the readers/viewers. Yes, I can defend some of his special plays and yes I can defend his concept of win goals and leaving to enjoy another day. I think I can also criticize you for calling him a "con man" and for saying that "Singer fails at everything he claims."

That is what looks bad, Arc.

So, you're claiming that if 10% of his special plays might lead to a big winner that is enough to support his claims. Are you nuts? You ignore that 90% of his special plays will lead to FEWER big wins and then claim that his approach "makes sense"?

Of course, I realize that you are simply trying to cover up the fact that you fell for his lies in the first place. Now that you are starting to understand what I've been saying all along, you are afraid to admit the truth. Yes, that makes you look bad. Sorry.

Finally, the silliest comment of all is that you think you defend him from my claim that he is a con man. Well, I've shown you many, many lies already. How many lies does it take to make a person a "con man"? Just want to know so I can supply the quantity you require. As you see in every one of his posts, he lies over and over again. Have you seen him defend any of the special plays that I took apart last fall? Nope, not a one. Why? Simple, he has no defense. When a con man gets cornered they lash out with personal attacks and more lies. Singer is providing you with a perfect example. Get a clue.

[arcimede$]

When you talk about Pahrump, you at least have some facts. Arci wants it to be that I live here and bought a place here, but I think he really knows we bought a big new bus-like RV and are full-timers here for the winters. And unlike him and his poor wife when they moved to LV for the most foolish reason in the world--so they could be closer to the machines in order to sit at them hours every day--we're here for tax shelter reasons.

Actually, I've mentioned several times that you are living in a trailer. So, chalk up another lie, Alan.

Interestingly, one reason we were spending our winters in LV was for tax purposes which I stated several times in my previous debates with Rob. So, it's nice to see that old Robbie has learned something. Of course, avoiding the cold MN winters was also high on the list. So was being able to play golf year round. And, being able to make a little money gambling was also on the list. Nice to have a hobby that generates income.

OTOH, you have Singer who has stated many times that anyone who lives in a gambling area is nothing but a worthless addict and then he "retires" to a gambling area. Absolutely hilarious.

Now, if we go back in time to last summer. Robbie was claiming he was going to tour the country in his new RV. Oops. Add that lie to your list, Alan.

[redietz]

This is no defense of Rob -- I'm just putting things in context. Many, many people achieve things, then sell whatever path they took to achieve those things as "the way" to do it. Robbins, Lou Holtz, all the self-help gurus think they are doing you a favor by selling their personal attributes or path to glory to you. In almost all instances, that path can't be duplicated and anyone trying will get cut to ribbons. Are they "con men?"

Taking it one step further, "Dancer" stepped up in class mysteriously to make his vp fortune, and his big-step-up was odds against. Mathematically, he should not have gotten there. Is he a "con man?"

I do not disagree with Arci's math at all. He's spot on. But the "here's what I've done -- here's how I did it" pitch is ubiquitous in this non-scientific culture.

[Alan Mendelson]

So, you're claiming that if 10% of his special plays might lead to a big winner that is enough to support his claims. Are you nuts? You ignore that 90% of his special plays will lead to FEWER big wins and then claim that his approach "makes sense"?

Of course, I realize that you are simply trying to cover up the fact that you fell for his lies in the first place. Now that you are starting to understand what I've been saying all along, you are afraid to admit the truth. Yes, that makes you look bad. Sorry.

Finally, the silliest comment of all is that you think you defend him from my claim that he is a con man. Well, I've shown you many, many lies already. How many lies does it take to make a person a "con man"? Just want to know so I can supply the quantity you require. As you see in every one of his posts, he lies over and over again. Have you seen him defend any of the special plays that I took apart last fall? Nope, not a one. Why? Simple, he has no defense. When a con man gets cornered they lash out with personal attacks and more lies. Singer is providing you with a perfect example. Get a clue.

Arc, I never said anything of the kind. And all you do is make up "facts." First of all I've never claimed ANYTHING about results using Rob's system. All I did was report on something that I had heard about -- and Rob agreed to let me interview him about his special plays and his theory about machines not being random.

After that I said I dont believe that machines are not random, and I said I believe that some of his special plays make sense. I also said his win goal system makes a lot of sense because too often players (including me) play for too long and give back all their money.

I've said nothing more than that.

If you are alleging that he is a con man, sign your name so Rob knows where to sue you for libel.

Don't attack me.

[Rob.Singer]

Well said, and no doubt it will further irritate arci. You can tell what gets to him and what doesn't. Notice his mention of "trailer" and the curious exclusion of coming to the defense of his poor wife! Since he's paid close attention to what our travel plans will be once spring arrives each year, he'd never have missed what trailer I said we have--a Holiday Rambler Navigator, which is worth 3 times his cozy little cabin up in where everyone goes to spend their winter months for (chuckle chuckle) "health reasons". Goes hand-in-hand with his denials about why he moved to LV and what the beatdown they took from the machines made him do next.

Now all he has left is video poker, forum posting, and tarnished memories. This is a very good lesson for other readers to learn from.

[Alan Mendelson]

Actually, I've mentioned several times that you are living in a trailer. So, chalk up another lie, Alan.

Interestingly, one reason we were spending our winters in LV was for tax purposes which I stated several times in my previous debates with Rob. So, it's nice to see that old Robbie has learned something. Of course, avoiding the cold MN winters was also high on the list. So was being able to play golf year round. And, being able to make a little money gambling was also on the list. Nice to have a hobby that generates income.

OTOH, you have Singer who has stated many times that anyone who lives in a gambling area is nothing but a worthless addict and then he "retires" to a gambling area. Absolutely hilarious.

Now, if we go back in time to last summer. Robbie was claiming he was going to tour the country in his new RV. Oops. Add that lie to your list, Alan.

This is really getting to be quite childish. Why don't you two guys put aside your petty differences and stick to the discussion about video poker.

Arc, I appreciate your comments about math and practice of the game and the art of playing. Rob, I appreciate your comments about the way you play and your beliefs even though we disagree on some of them. Arc, remember that I play VP like you, for the most part.

But the mudslinging and playground name calling does not advance the subject of how to win more and keep more of it, if that is at all possible.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, suing arci is a waste of time if you knew or have seen what he's capable of paying. That's why he lies so much on forums. The funniest part is not how many lies he tells about me--it's how many he tells about himself!

Why don't you ask him to clearly state every one of his supposed claims that make the special plays incapable of producing winners or whatever he pretends to say. He's the classic case of a resentful gambler that one of Frank's many assessment posts somewhere talked about. He can't stand that someone's been successful with a game he tried so hard to do the same with and couldn't, so he immersed himself in a pool of lies and denials. It's very similar to what his envy of Dancer got him on vpFREE. Arci thinks he knows more than anyone about the math in vp, but when Dancer challenged him on a few misrepresentations he went into his personal attack/lying mode--leading to the unenviable label of being the only permanently banned member ever of that forum. It took a long, long time for that humiliation to subside, but you can see the constant anger over all things video poker that's resulted.

So when you see him saying dumb things like "con man" or "you're stupid for believing him" or "Singer's special plays don't work and make you lose more" just have fun with them and understand he no longer has any other method of release.

[Alan Mendelson]

Part of the problem with ALL internet forums is that for the most part people post using false or fictitious names or handles. If people signed their true names then I think discussions would be more civil and more honest-- and more rewarding. Look at the dribble that some people post about on LVA for example.

[arcimede$]

Alan, I got a good laugh out of your libel comment. Let's see, I can show where Singer's special plays fail to do what he claims, I can show that his claims that the pay tables are not important is pure nonsense, I can show that his system is worthless, I can show that he claims to teach people to play a mathematically inferior method of play even after he has been told it provides no advantage many, many times. Finally, I can show that he has lied continually in order to get people to try his system. Then, I can get dozens of math savvy folks to support what I am saying.

What can he do? I'd love to see him in a court trying to claim his method is common sense or some other nut-job claim. He would look like the dufus he really is. He would look like a complete fool, not that he doesn't do that on a regular basis.

Alan, you are an accessory. Why you would choose to be an accessory to an obvious con man is beyond me?

[Rob.Singer]

OK then here it goes again for me, just as my site said since inception in 2000: My real name is Rob Argentino. Rob Singer is my pen name because I am an author. I am a father and a grandfather and have been happily married for over 33 years to another engineer--Cindy. One of our secrets to our success & stability is mutual respect, such as her not expecting me to cook and me not dragging her to and from casinos when she doesn't care anything about gambling.

Arci is Richard Mustain. Now ask him how he reacted when told his wife needed to stay out of casinos for the good of her health.

[Rob.Singer]

There's arci dodging questions on vp again, instead opting for more of his non-existent and nebulous claims that are obviously a product of his frustration from having to read the truths about what he's done right there in b& w.

Try again: ask him to actually type in some challenge to specific holds, why he claims they're not workable in a single event scenario like we all face when playing for real (as compared to his old standy question-ducking of how it won't be "positive" over some obscure amount of time). See if he's capable of backing up what he says and I'll rip it apart before his very eyes. Will he do it? Of course not, and he'll make up every excuse in the book about why he wont/can't. Then we can all have our usual good belly laugh over him and maybe he can keep trying to get back into vpFREE!

[arcimede$]

This is no defense of Rob -- I'm just putting things in context. Many, many people achieve things, then sell whatever path they took to achieve those things as "the way" to do it. Robbins, Lou Holtz, all the self-help gurus think they are doing you a favor by selling their personal attributes or path to glory to you. In almost all instances, that path can't be duplicated and anyone trying will get cut to ribbons. Are they "con men?"

Taking it one step further, "Dancer" stepped up in class mysteriously to make his vp fortune, and his big-step-up was odds against. Mathematically, he should not have gotten there. Is he a "con man?"

I do not disagree with Arci's math at all. He's spot on. But the "here's what I've done -- here's how I did it" pitch is ubiquitous in this non-scientific culture.

If Singer sold his system as one that worked for him and didn't make all his other silly claims then no one would care. But, he doesn't do that. He claims his system is superior to mathematically proved play. He has been told that is nonsense yet he continues to repeat it.

Dancer's early play was not very smart. Even Bob admits that. He doesn't go around telling everyone to play like he did.

See the difference?