Win goal question for Rob.

[arcimede$]

Arc wrote many things that I can disagree with. First he wrote: "You've now claimed to have math several times and have yet to provide a single item. All anyone can assume is you are lying."

I wrote about how things don't have to be written down or provable in order to work. You can accept it or not. I find lots of faults with Rob's system based on my knowledge of video poker, while I also find points I can support. But what worked for him just might not work for the rest of us and vice versa. He might not be lying at all, and just unable to put it down on paper (or on the web) to meet your satisfaction, but that doesn't mean it didn't work for him or that it can't work for someone else.

The rest of us have no way of knowing who lied about what between you too. So please argue about that between the two of you and spare the rest of us. We don't care. Who backed out of what meeting, how many times, is something you two will argue. So Rob this applies to you as well: stop it.

And yes, Rob is welcome to publish his work here if it can be published. I still think it can't be, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid. What it does mean, however, is that it can't be proven. Haven't we all said this before?

Alan, Rob has claimed to have math to support his theory. There is no such thing. So, he is lying. There are not options here. This is back and white.

While you can argue that his system has worked for him (and any silly system could work given enough luck), you can't argue away all his lies. That is evidence of his character and should make any reasonable person doubt ALL his claims. You can ignore them if you like. All I am doing is pointing out the facts.

[arcimede$]

Good, but the big difference is in how arci made up that I require others use my card when I train them, then had to take a deep breath and step back from that baloney when jatki called him on it, and right about now he's probably ruing the day he made that false claim on the other forums.

Hilarious. You've now admitted you did it at least once and we have the evidence of your claims of massive freeplay. Strange how I made up something that you admit to doing. Of course, it was never "made up". It was told to me by someone that you trained. Once again, all I have done is relate the facts. Your denial is meaningless given the evidence.

In fact, arci's always claimed that my using other's cards was how I made my money and got all the freeplay I've talked about for many years. As has been said, there's one time only that I was ALLOWED to use my card, which was when the student didn't care to get a card so I used mine. That hurts arci. I LIKE IT!

That's not what the mark, errr student said. Now, who should we trust? The guy whose claimed massive freeplay with 25 hours of total play or a guy with nothing to gain. hmmmmmmm, that's a tough one.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, Rob has claimed to have math to support his theory. There is no such thing. So, he is lying. There are not options here. This is back and white.

While you can argue that his system has worked for him (and any silly system could work given enough luck), you can't argue away all his lies. That is evidence of his character and should make any reasonable person doubt ALL his claims. You can ignore them if you like. All I am doing is pointing out the facts.

Why don't we wait to see what Rob posts?

[Alan Mendelson]

Hilarious. You've now admitted you did it at least once and we have the evidence of your claims of massive freeplay. Strange how I made up something that you admit to doing. Of course, it was never "made up". It was told to me by someone that you trained. Once again, all I have done is relate the facts. Your denial is meaningless given the evidence.

Yes, Rob said that once he put his card into a machine while training someone. I don't think that's a crime. I also don't think it's a crime if he did it more than once. I'm not really impressed with this whole dispute? So what? If both parties agreed, where is the harm... even the casino wasn't harmed because the card only registers actual play. It's not like they didn't play the machine and scored points by tricking the machine with phantom play.

Now, Arc, you've introduced hearsay that you were told by someone Rob trained. Really... do we have to go through this? Is this really so important. I don't care. Why should I care?

Now, you have also introduced another issue: how much free play did Rob get, presumably, in the same year he claimed he only played 25 hours? Again, is this a vital issue that will help me be a better video poker player?

[arcimede$]

Yes, Rob said that once he put his card into a machine while training someone. I don't think that's a crime. I also don't think it's a crime if he did it more than once. I'm not really impressed with this whole dispute? So what? If both parties agreed, where is the harm... even the casino wasn't harmed because the card only registers actual play. It's not like they didn't play the machine and scored points by tricking the machine with phantom play.

Just goes to show the type of person you are dealing with. He's teaching them a system with no merit and collecting cash and comps to do it. It wouldn't be wrong if he admitted the system was neutral and would not generate any more winnings than any other method of play using optimal strategy. But, that is not what he does. He claims they will win more money with his system. This will lead those players to investing money on a lie. You think that is acceptable? Sorry, I live by a little higher standards than you do.

Now, Arc, you've introduced hearsay that you were told by someone Rob trained. Really... do we have to go through this? Is this really so important. I don't care. Why should I care?

Now, you have also introduced another issue: how much free play did Rob get, presumably, in the same year he claimed he only played 25 hours? Again, is this a vital issue that will help me be a better video poker player?

It simply goes to prove my point. I know you want to ignore it because you want to believe there is a way to overcome the math. You are like a lot of people looking for some kind of magic to help them win. That's why there will always be a never ending number of marks for Singer to cash in on. I give you (and them) the facts and you can always choose to ignore them. That's your option, but know that you have been given all the facts. When you start losing you will know you should have listened.

[Vegas Vic]

I have everything written down Alan, everything. Even though a good portion of it was not used and was replaced by what those whom I paid to review it inputted, it's there. The only reason I can figure these math geniuses like Frank and the Wizard always made accusations followed by claims it does not have mathematical support....followed by a sudden walking away from the opportunity to look at it, is because these type people cannot afford to have their worlds rocked. They're so far into themselves and their purported/self-proclaimed superior intellect that if something full of never-before-thought-of-ingenuity is to be presented to the community, then it had better be presented by them.

I do like and agree with your budget analogy though. That may be an excellent portrayal of the meaning behind the final and subsequent tweaking the strategy went thru.

Pot meet kettle.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc wrote: Just goes to show the type of person you are dealing with. He's teaching them a system with no merit and collecting cash and comps to do it. It wouldn't be wrong if he admitted the system was neutral and would not generate any more winnings than any other method of play using optimal strategy. But, that is not what he does. He claims they will win more money with his system. This will lead those players to investing money on a lie. You think that is acceptable? Sorry, I live by a little higher standards than you do.

Really, you're making a judgment call that you shouldn't be making. If they took the course willingly what is the harm? I took courses in dice control. Does it work? No. Do I regret buying the books and going to the lectures? Not at all. Frankly, it's part of the entertainment of gambling. I really doubt Rob (despite all his many gun permits) held anyone at gunpoint at a VP machine and was pointing a 44-magnum at their belly when he told them he was putting his own player's card into the slot.

This is a silly argument.

You also wrote: you want to believe there is a way to overcome the math. Why, why, why must you always return to this? Why do you think that someone can't win without following the math? The math only tells you what should happen over time when you play video poker. It does not tell you what will happen.

Singer does not do anything in an attempt to alter, lie, or twist the math. The math is the math. But he plays his way (whatever that is) and says straight forward "to get lucky." Arc, there would be nothing to argue if you would just say this: "Rob Singer won only because he got lucky." And if you said that, we'd have nothing to talk about, would we?

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, why even discuss this card scam thing with arci? Jatki already forced him to back down on his claim that I always did it to accepting that it only happened once--and not under the conditions arci constantly lied about. What you're seeing now is arci reacting nervously over being exposed on the issue, and as he always does, he deflects it over to another issue....this time how my training doesn't help anyone.

I hope you can see the entertainment value he provides though. Every time he gets caught in his own traps, just picturing the pained look on his face makes all this nonsense seen worth while!

[arcimede$]

Arc wrote: Just goes to show the type of person you are dealing with. He's teaching them a system with no merit and collecting cash and comps to do it. It wouldn't be wrong if he admitted the system was neutral and would not generate any more winnings than any other method of play using optimal strategy. But, that is not what he does. He claims they will win more money with his system. This will lead those players to investing money on a lie. You think that is acceptable? Sorry, I live by a little higher standards than you do.

Really, you're making a judgment call that you shouldn't be making. If they took the course willingly what is the harm? I took courses in dice control. Does it work? No. Do I regret buying the books and going to the lectures? Not at all. Frankly, it's part of the entertainment of gambling. I really doubt Rob (despite all his many gun permits) held anyone at gunpoint at a VP machine and was pointing a 44-magnum at their belly when he told them he was putting his own player's card into the slot.

This is a silly argument.

You also wrote: you want to believe there is a way to overcome the math. Why, why, why must you always return to this? Why do you think that someone can't win without following the math? The math only tells you what should happen over time when you play video poker. It does not tell you what will happen.

Singer does not do anything in an attempt to alter, lie, or twist the math. The math is the math. But he plays his way (whatever that is) and says straight forward "to get lucky." Arc, there would be nothing to argue if you would just say this: "Rob Singer won only because he got lucky." And if you said that, we'd have nothing to talk about, would we?

Nothing but more pathetic justifications of allowing Singer to advertise his worthless system. You should be ashamed of yourself. I suppose you'd have no problem letting Bernie Madoff advertise on your site. It's the same logic.

[arcimede$]

Alan, why even discuss this card scam thing with arci? Jatki already forced him to back down on his claim that I always did it to accepting that it only happened once--and not under the conditions arci constantly lied about. What you're seeing now is arci reacting nervously over being exposed on the issue, and as he always does, he deflects it over to another issue....this time how my training doesn't help anyone.

Nope, I haven't changed my claims one bit. We've already seen jatki lying over and over again so his support is completely worthless. All I can say is I was told you insisted on using your card one time and you admit you've done it. You also were the one who claimed all that freeplay. The evidence is what the evidence is. I suspect a jury would find you guilty as charged.

[Rob.Singer]

Same false claim, same misrepresentation. Show me where I insisted someone use my card, and then show me where I admitted to it! Not by some alias you falsely claim is me or by one you made up just to talk to yourself. Show the truth

[arcimede$]

Same false claim, same misrepresentation. Show me where I insisted someone use my card, and then show me where I admitted to it! Not by some alias you falsely claim is me or by one you made up just to talk to yourself. Show the truth

You'll have to talk to Joe about that. I'm just repeating what he said.

[Vegas Vic]

Nothing but more pathetic justifications of allowing Singer to advertise his worthless system. You should be ashamed of yourself. I suppose you'd have no problem letting Bernie Madoff advertise on your site. It's the same logic.

IMHO, as a reader, I reserve the right to accept or reject his bluster just as I have the right to reserve or reject yours. Caveat emptor.

[Rob.Singer]

You'll have to talk to Joe about that. I'm just repeating what he said.

Joe who, Joe where? Is that a joke? Produce the facts please, Mr. facts!

[arcimede$]

Joe who, Joe where? Is that a joke? Produce the facts please, Mr. facts!

Your student, not mine.

I guess you must have used your card so often you can't even remember the names of the people.

[Rob.Singer]

Arci, if you have the info and facts of what I supposedly did or said re: this guy "Joe" please provide it. As the resident self-proclaimed Mr. Facts, that should be easy. Besides, what else do you have to do these days?

[OceanCityMD]

Does the math mean anything if the machines are not random ? Chicken or egg ?

[arcimede$]

Does the math mean anything if the machines are not random ? Chicken or egg ?

Nope, if the machines are not random then the math is worthless.

[quahaug]

My name is Joe but I don't know Rob. Must be another guy.

[Rob.Singer]

Nope, if the machines are not random then the math is worthless.

Not true, if you're talking about machines in Nv. or similar jurisdictions. The math doesn't change value to the gambler because the parts that are not random are too slight to be seen without testing (as I've done) and it could not be determined if the non-randomness helps or hurts the player--and this was after several billion hands. So by and large the math does not change and is not affected, even though there is something going on that cannot be measured after the fact. Arci will have a fit over this because it tears apart his sacred beliefs, but hey, it's tiny compared to his other issues.