Originally Posted by
Alan Mendelson
Guess what, Jatki. I've also been doing really well since I adopted the idea of quitting with win goals.
Now, please be specific: what exactly are you doing, that you learned from Rob's various systems, that is making you a winner? Please, specifics.
Is not tipping the floor people on a handpay one of those specifics? And just how many handpays are you getting playing on the "1c, 2c, 5c, 10c, 25c, $1 games" ??
Now, where Rob's claims cannot be tested comes down to his specific use of "moving up in denominations" and "using special plays." Because what you seem to have missed, is that he is on the record saying he only uses his special plays 5% of the time. How does he know when to use a special play? Well, he can't tell us that. He says conditions vary.
When does he move up in denominations? Oh, he tells you he has a formula based on playing so many credits and banking so much in soft profits. Yet, he has said this will also vary. The basic example is this: if he hits a royal at $1 he will never move up to $2 or $5 or $100 -- because the magical win goal of $2500 has been reached. Somewhere along the line you are going to realize that his overall strategy has so many variables to it, no one could possibly keep up with it. That's why we would like to see the whole thing written down. October is almost here.
Now about challenging the "AP community" to put up their money? Really? Part of the problem with Rob's challenge -- and I think the APers know this -- is that the APers don't know exactly what the challenge is?
If the challenge is that Rob can attain a $2500 win goal playing his various denominations starting at $1 and moving up to $100 if necessary, yes-- Rob can do that. Hitting a win goal of $2500 at just the $10 level only takes a minimal amount of luck.
If the challenge is that over time, Rob's special plays if used 100% of the time will win more than "conventional strategy" there can be "no contest" because Rob doesn't use his special plays 100% of the time.
And then there's the demand for a side bet to be put up in escrow in order for a challenge or contest to take place? Why? Winning the casino's money isn't enough? Showing that your "system" works and winning the casino's money aren't enough? Winning the casino's money, showing that your "system" works, and doing it in front of your harshest critics aren't enough? He has to demand a side bet too? Come on and get real!
Rob should have jumped at the chance. I was ready to video tape the entire thing and I was ready to put it all over the Internet and even on TV. So why didn't he jump at the chance? Why did he have to have the "side bet?" Is it because he knew the side bet money was the "one extra condition" that would prevent the contest/challenge from actually taking place?
Anyway, Rob has some good ideas -- and I always said he did. But I also find fault with some of the things he says and some of the things he does.
I find fault with chasing losses up to $35,000. I find fault with authoring a system but not using it 100% of the time. I certainly don't find fault with his win goals, and even some of his special plays make sense. But I will always fault him for his personal attacks which are always uncalled for.
But getting back to my question: what exactly are you doing, that you learned from Rob's various systems, that is making you a winner? Please, specifics.