Gee arci I can see how hurt you've been. That chipping away process must now be complete!
Your Internet searching isn't up to date. Even here I mentioned months ago that my daughter & family moved to Chicago for new jobs, they sold the house and used that to buy a new one there, but just recently moved back to Phoenix for his IRS promotion.
Robert Harry
So many lies. So, what was the address of your old house? Since neither you nor your daughter lives their now that should be no problem for you to provide?
Of course, he won't. There was no "old house". That was a lie. Robert Harry only lived in apartments since he moved from a small house in Scottsdale.
Arc, don't you know when you've been beaten down enough? You make up so much bs and it can only be because he's hurt you so much over time. Anyone can see you're in the boil over mode. I think it's funny but all that'll do to you is fluster you some more.
I just saw your motivtion for this, you're still sordidly upset at team Singer? for exposing your con man lie, and you're not even getting your lie about that right now that it's been over 24 hours.
Yeah alright, Singer asked someone if he could not only film their house as his, but he went around putting all those pictures of him, his children, his wedding picture, his fancy cars, and his grandchildren up and they even let him let his dog run around the house as he filmed. How many more fake stories will you tell?
You'll never admit to blowing it on the Baksider issue, but you look stupid when you keep lying about it. Now you say he had Frank mail a book to someone other than where Singer lived, then I saw Backsider thank him for it on the forum, and Frank agreed to all this just so Singer could make up a false identity? If you only knew how crazy that theory was. Or how dumb you looked in Dancer's eyes after you said it to him.
Last edited by jatki; 08-26-2012 at 10:13 AM.
Arc, I have a few questions for you:
1. Suppose Rob does not show you any "math" that justifies his strategy. Does that mean he didn't win nearly a million dollars playing his way?
2. Suppose Rob didn't live in a big house. Does that mean he didn't win nearly a million dollars playing his way?
3. Suppose Rob cannot accurately explain his system. Does that mean he didn't win nearly a million dollars playing his way?
4. Suppose Rob stopped making personal attacks against you. Would you stop making personal attacks against him?
Now, a few observations from me:
1. I don't think Rob has any "math" that will persuade you. We know what the math of video poker is. And I don't think Rob's method of play needs to match the math. Because it doesn't follow the math is what allows him to beat the game.
2. I don't care if he lived in a big house or not. It has no bearing on his video poker wins, his knowledge, or anything else. It also has no bearing on his knowledge that he now runs around in a super duper RV. The only bearing that concerns me is that he didn't buy the super duper RV from my advertiser Giant RV which is the largest RV dealer in Southern California, with the best prices, best service and best selection of the newest and finest RVs including the newest Winnebago models, and.... (oops, got carried away.)
3. I doubt Rob can adequately explain his system to your satisfaction or to anyone else's satisfaction. That doesn't mean that his system is false and it certainly doesn't mean that he didn't win his million bucks. I said it from the beginning: there are too many variables just with the special plays that no one could test his system to prove or disprove it.
4. I don't know what it is between you two kids, I mean guys, but really do you have to discuss it here? The rest of us (I hope) don't care. Arc: I want you to talk about math and your skills in playing video poker. I appreciate that. You're a smart guy and why you jump into the gutter perplexes me. Rob: You are also a smart guy and you have a bona fide record for beating the casinos. I appreciate that. Why you enjoy playing in the gutter perplexes me as well. Aren't the two of you above this kind of childish rivalry?
It means he lied.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
It means he lied.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
It means he lied.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I haven't made a personal attack. I just relate facts.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Alan, when a person continually lies about everything and their only defense when pressured is to attack the person relating nothing but facts, what should that tell an unbiased person????Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
What it should tell you is he is most likely lying about everything. Only a fool believes a proven liar.
Well said, and I care even less about those things but felt obligated to explain what it is that I saw. Now lets get on to discussing videopoker.
The famous arci line item veto.
It's obvious I've inflicted some sort of stinging pain upon arci lately, and he just couldn't take it any more. But what this "tested genius" who's been pushed over the edge didn't see coming was that, this is exactly what I try to bring out in him all the time, and every so often, albeit not frequently, he complies! This time he's even looking up addresses for my kids, what apartments I got and where for my son, and who knows what else!? But what he doesn't really want to see in all this is that, at the end of the day, he's stuck with a bad situation and I am not
Last edited by Rob.Singer; 08-26-2012 at 10:59 AM.
As I stated, Singer would provide no address. The reason is simple ... there is none. He's basically lied about his entire life. Does anyone believe a person who claimed to have won $100K/year while his wife was earning $100K/year would live in a 800 sq ft one bedroom apartment?
His entire life is nothing but one big lie after another. So, when you are dealing with someone who does nothing but tell lies the only thing you can assume is he is lying.
Well, that wraps it up. Nothing Robert Harry says can be believed. You'd think someone who was a reporter for a living could have done the one hour's worth of work I put into it this morning. I guess not.
Alan,
As a journalist, I just want to make a small but critical correction to what you stated above. You said, "Because it doesn't follow the math is what what allows him to beat the game."
The problem is your use of tenses. You could state that "Rob beat the game" -- past tense -- and be correct. Saying that it's what "allows him to beat the game" refers to both present and future. It is a prediction based on past history and incorporates personal speculation that could be viewed as shaky. It's also basically an endorsement. An endorsement for a journalist is a bad idea, and I think you'll agree with that.
So I would be more careful with your use of tenses. Anybody, using any system, can "have beaten the game." But "beating the game" -- when it refers to future endeavors -- is an endorsement that may lie on the San Andreas fault.
Redietz, while arci may still either be in his fog of lies about me or still reeling from the series of hits that pushed him over the edge today (I'll take pats on the back, thank you, for that one!) even he knows if there's historical data then that data can be used to predict the future. I'm a little surprised you didn't respond to the challenge you began. In the meantime, here's something to ponder: in the nation's largest firms, when a job is quoted the engineers always look to see if there's any historical data they can use as a baseline for their quote. When there isn't because it's for something new and not yet developed, that's where theory, probabilities, and yes even those SWAGS come into play. The guys use every mathematical idea they can come up with to quote as accurately as possible. But again, the next time they quote, if the products have been manufactured, they ONLY use historical facts because they are so much more likely to be representative of what will happen in the future, regardless of how much closer or further away their original math-based estimates may have or have not been originally.
Same goes for my play strategy. Exactly the same.
A very interesting analogy Rob. I'll bet arc's looking all that up as we speak, trying to come up with more of his crap just so he can dispute what you say. You've turned into quite the puppet master.
Silly analogy. What would the historical data be for VP. Some people will win and some people will lose.
Only a complete moron would fall for that kind of BS, right jatki?
Looks like the arci BS pkg. was averted!
I never endorsed Rob but I did report on his system so that everyone has an opportunity to know what it is. And at the time, what I reported on were basically two things:Originally Posted by redietz
1. His belief that the games are not truly random. And I not only disagreed but I pointed out why I disagreed.
2. His basic "special plays" and I never endorsed them but said there were a couple I would follow in Triple Double Bonus.
Presenting his info is not an endorsement.
But later I found out about his money management system, his win goal system, and frankly that also makes sense and I know that had I used it in the past, I would be much better off today. I can remember having big wins that I later gave back.
Now, about the line "Because it doesn't follow the math is what what allows him to beat the game." I have this reponse which I think you "math devotees" will agree with:
If you play a 99.2% game following the optimum strategy, over time you will have a 99.2% return on your money. But if you alter that "optimum strategy" as Rob does you will either do better or worse than the 99.2% return. That's what Rob does with his special plays, and he ends up "on the positive side of the bell curve."
Using the tense "allows him to beat the game" is not a prediction but is actually a proper news style. The word used is allows him to beat the game but allow does not mean will.
Now, if you think I am wrong, why don't you go to your local university and ask a journalism professor.
Arc asking someone for their expert opinion? WTF? When he can look it up on the internet and then make up any meaning he wants from it? Forgive me, but him going to a university to ask advice is like Joe Biden asking Jay Leno for a one liner.
Silly nonsense yet again. Once again I could play with a blindfold on and "will either do better or worse than the 99.2% return". the problem with that statement is the chances are MUCH higher I will do worse. It's the old possibility vs. probability problem. I think a jury would find you guilty of bending the truth by promoting a method of play based on this claim.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
See. He skipped the most important part that would have him seek out factual information instead of making it all up.Originally Posted by arcimede$
Gee, it didn't take you very long to figure this guy out. Might it have something to do with how he always acted like this on LVA and nobody listened to him? Talk about frustrating him!Originally Posted by jatki
Ahhh, the liars are trying too hard now. They have no defense. Now look at the projection from Singer "nobody listened to him? Talk about frustrating him!"
A short sentence that describes his entire life.
I am waiting for Arc to now say that I am part of Rob's "con" because I presented his information for the public to see on my free and public website.
Come on Arc, say it. Say I am part of the "con." I am waiting for it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote