Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 81

Thread: More success for Bob Dancer losing $21,000.

  1. #41
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Alan,

    To put this as bluntly as possible, you know as much about winning gambling as I know about making infomercials. You really have no business telling someone who has won for years what they are doing wrong in terms of money outlay. It's semi-ridiculous.
    I'm not talking about gambling and winning. I'm talking about financial planning and being a smart consumer. Before I went into the infomercial and advertising business, I was a financial reporter and well known for my financial advice reporting which included articles in Barron's and New York Magazine and my reporting did win several major awards including those from various consumer protection groups and the Mortgage Bankers Association. But that's not the issue here. The issue is Arc's comments about his source of gambling money.

    Now Arc further confuses the issue. He writes: "I don't use any of my retirement account for living expenses. I have other sources of income."

    Oh, I get it now. He has other sources of income for living expenses, and his retirement account is for gambling? Huh? Is that it, Arc?? So now we have a guy who plays 25-cent and $1 video poker, has a six-figure net income playing those games, never has an annual loss over the last seven or eight years, is retired but has other sources of income for living expenses, and doesn't use his retirement account for living expenses but uses it for gambling. Okay, I give up.
    Last edited by Alan Mendelson; 11-01-2012 at 04:12 PM.

  2. #42
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    I'm not talking about gambling and winning. I'm talking about financial planning and being a smart consumer. Before I went into the infomercial and advertising business, I was a financial reporter and well known for my financial advice reporting which included articles in Barron's and New York Magazine and my reporting did win several major awards including those from various consumer protection groups and the Mortgage Bankers Association. But that's not the issue here. The issue is Arc's comments about his source of gambling money.
    And with that you couldn't even understand how compounding an advantage is better than an interest rate. Yeah Alan, I think we already know enough of your financial expertise to have a good howl over this claim.

    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Now Arc further confuses the issue. He writes: "I don't use any of my retirement account for living expenses. I have other sources of income."
    Shouldn't be all that confusing.

    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Oh, I get it now. He has other sources of income for living expenses, and his retirement account is for gambling? Huh? Is that it, Arc?? So now we have a guy who plays 25-cent and $1 video poker, has a six-figure net income playing those games, never has an annual loss over the last seven or eight years, is retired but has other sources of income for living expenses, and doesn't use his retirement account for living expenses but uses it for gambling. Okay, I give up.
    Never said my retirement account was for gambling but it could be, it's not doing much else. However, I stated the liquid assets of my retirement portfolio doubles as my gambling bankroll. Is that really beyond your capabilities to understand? And, since I have won all those years you mentioned it simply means those assets keep increasing.

    In addition, all of my play now is at the dollar level. Haven't played any quarters in over 3 years.

    Alan, once again you need to stop trying to compare your negative recreational gambling with advantage play.

  3. #43
    Arc wrote: Never said my retirement account was for gambling but it could be, it's not doing much else. However, I stated the liquid assets of my retirement portfolio doubles as my gambling bankroll. Is that really beyond your capabilities to understand?

    It's not beyond my capabilities to understand, but it is against my religion, so to speak. I'd never do it. Good luck to you.

  4. #44
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Arc wrote: Never said my retirement account was for gambling but it could be, it's not doing much else. However, I stated the liquid assets of my retirement portfolio doubles as my gambling bankroll. Is that really beyond your capabilities to understand?

    It's not beyond my capabilities to understand, but it is against my religion, so to speak. I'd never do it. Good luck to you.
    Since you play negative games it's wise that you don't use it for VP play. However, that is completely different than my situation. You must realize that all investments are a gamble of sorts. The fact I use a small part of a pool of money to support a different form of increasing the size of that pool should not be hard to understand by a competent analyst. The fact it has grown every year for the last 9 years is better results than any other investments I have made.

    Since the activity is based on a positive return scenario I can only laugh that you would think it's a poor choice. Once again your lack of any mathematical knowledge is showing.

  5. #45
    Arc, I've said this before and I will say it again: You are a Superman "with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men" sitting there in Minnesota, blasting away the VP machines under the guise of mild-mannered Arcimede$....



    There you are, using your investment money as a retiree pounding away at the one-eyed jacks, beating them into submission as you bank six-figure profits with year-to-year consistent wins, and with no regard for green kryptonite to foil your plans. No slot manager represents Lex Luther for you, for you have your own empire even if it is in the Bottle City of Kandor.

    Sometimes I think all of your talk about your big, consistent wins with the math always bailing you out in the long run, is a great work of fiction. If Brainiac weren't a villain in the world of super-herous, you would be the Brainiac.
    Last edited by Alan Mendelson; 11-02-2012 at 07:05 PM.

  6. #46
    Alan, you'd like to believe my claims are fiction because you want to believe there are other ways to beat the odds. It is your own lack on knowledge that makes you susceptible to this nonsense. However, rather than defer to experts, you choose to argue with them. I am no superman. I only do what makes logical sense. I find games where I have a mathematical advantage and then utilize that advantage to make money. Is that really so hard to understand?

    Also, please stick to the facts. I've never claims the full "six-figure profits with year-to-year consistent wins" were due to OEJs. There were many games and situations that came into play. However, I will admit that OEJs provided the biggest share of those wins.

  7. #47
    Here's the problem Arc, and I want to make this clear to everyone who reads this:

    You are in a unique situation, because for the most part you are playing POSITIVE EXPECTATION GAMES. Most casino goers and most casino players will not find the positive expectation games that you have been lucky on.

    And, not everyone will have the luck that Rob Singer talks about either.

    I don't want anyone to ever think that it is okay to use retirement money, long term investment money, or anything besides "recreation money" in a casino. And even if they do stumble upon a positive expectation game such as your One Eyed Jacks machines in your casino in Minnesota I don't want them to think that just by sitting there for an hour or two or four or eight that they are going to walk away with profits.

    The casino business is a very seductive industry, and I don't want anyone getting seduced by it, and I certainly don't want to be part of the seduction.

    Now, I am all in favor of giving "good gambling information" that will help people, but I also want to be sure that the "black box warning labels" and disclaimers are attached. That's why I say you don't take these Internet reports with a grain of salt... you take them with a boulder of salt.

  8. #48
    Alan, if you want people to understand the situation why do you keep bringing up Singer's ridiculous claims. You are the worst one at throwing in obfuscation. It's all very cut and dried. It gets down to probabilities that can be computed. For you to continue to spew the Singer BS can only lead people astray. If you're so worried about people getting the wrong idea you should start by looking in the mirror and cleaning up your act.

  9. #49
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Here's the problem Arc, and I want to make this clear to everyone who reads this:

    You are in a unique situation, because for the most part you are playing POSITIVE EXPECTATION GAMES. Most casino goers and most casino players will not find the positive expectation games that you have been lucky on.

    And, not everyone will have the luck that Rob Singer talks about either.

    I don't want anyone to ever think that it is okay to use retirement money, long term investment money, or anything besides "recreation money" in a casino. And even if they do stumble upon a positive expectation game such as your One Eyed Jacks machines in your casino in Minnesota I don't want them to think that just by sitting there for an hour or two or four or eight that they are going to walk away with profits.

    The casino business is a very seductive industry, and I don't want anyone getting seduced by it, and I certainly don't want to be part of the seduction.

    Now, I am all in favor of giving "good gambling information" that will help people, but I also want to be sure that the "black box warning labels" and disclaimers are attached. That's why I say you don't take these Internet reports with a grain of salt... you take them with a boulder of salt.
    Alan, this post of yours is very sensible and well worth the read--even twice--by anyone who plays. And while you made scant mention of RS in this very informative & diverse post, notice how arci can't take his eyes off of me. That should say volumes about his only agenda as he sits in front of his computer for hours on end, trying his best to come up with a meaning for all that down time he has on his hands.

  10. #50
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    Alan, if you want people to understand the situation why do you keep bringing up Singer's ridiculous claims. You are the worst one at throwing in obfuscation. It's all very cut and dried. It gets down to probabilities that can be computed. For you to continue to spew the Singer BS can only lead people astray. If you're so worried about people getting the wrong idea you should start by looking in the mirror and cleaning up your act.
    Initially, I wanted to talk to him about his claims that VP machines were not random. I wanted to know what he knew because if he could prove it, it would be quite the story. But he can't prove it. End of story.

    But I've told you here and on LVA many times that the reason I reported on Rob's strategy and special plays is because he has been mentioned in so many posts on so many websites and NO ONE ever detailed what his "special plays" and strategies were until Rob agreed to show me and we did the video taped interviews. I understand that much of it was in Gaming Today and his website, but they are not readily available. My website is. Everyone can come here and see his special plays -- and now his SPS -- and make up their own minds. That was my goal. To present his information so everyone can make up their own minds.

    In your case Arc, you now have lots of information to attack Rob with. For everyone else, they can see exactly what he is talking about.

  11. #51
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Initially, I wanted to talk to him about his claims that VP machines were not random. I wanted to know what he knew because if he could prove it, it would be quite the story. But he can't prove it. End of story.
    It should have been but you didn't stop there.

    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    But I've told you here and on LVA many times that the reason I reported on Rob's strategy and special plays is because he has been mentioned in so many posts on so many websites and NO ONE ever detailed what his "special plays" and strategies were until Rob agreed to show me and we did the video taped interviews. I understand that much of it was in Gaming Today and his website, but they are not readily available. My website is. Everyone can come here and see his special plays -- and now his SPS -- and make up their own minds. That was my goal. To present his information so everyone can make up their own minds.

    In your case Arc, you now have lots of information to attack Rob with. For everyone else, they can see exactly what he is talking about.
    Excuses, excuses. This doesn't change the fact that you have given visibility to a worthless approach. You can't claim on one hand to be worried about the ideas put forth to your readers and then turn around and present nonsense as if it was a valid approach to winning. One might even call you a hypocrite.

  12. #52
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    One might even call you a hypocrite.
    I would be a hypocrite if as a trained journalist I didn't give him a fair opportunity to express himself and to give everyone a fair opportunity to judge his play for themselves. That includes giving you a fair opportunity to criticize him -- and me -- here. I have my standards, my ethics, and I live by them.

    You have the opportunity to say what you like about his system. Don't limit the opportunity for others. It might surprise you Arc, but some people think very highly of Rob's systems.

  13. #53
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    I would be a hypocrite if as a trained journalist I didn't give him a fair opportunity to express himself and to give everyone a fair opportunity to judge his play for themselves. That includes giving you a fair opportunity to criticize him -- and me -- here. I have my standards, my ethics, and I live by them.

    You have the opportunity to say what you like about his system. Don't limit the opportunity for others. It might surprise you Arc, but some people think very highly of Rob's systems.
    Right over your head. Let's try it again, try to read slowly.

    You went out of your way to claim my approach to bankrolls is wrong and warn your readers. You did this even though I explained to you that it is a reasonable money making proposition on positive machines. However, with Singer and his money losing approach to negative machines, you claim you are just "reporting". Sorry Alan, you can't have it both ways and not be considered a hypocrite.

  14. #54
    Arc, your approach of using "investment money" for playing casino games because you think you have an edge over the casino is simply w r o n g.

    Anyone who is a retiree has no business considering money spent in a casino as part of some investment strategy. It can be recreational money because even retirees are allowed to have fun. But to consider it an "investment" is nothing less than sick.

    I don't recall anywhere that I endorsed Rob's system. However, I am on the record saying that what you are doing mixing "investment" and "casino" in the same breath, sentence and thought, is ludicrous.

  15. #55
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    Right over your head. Let's try it again, try to read slowly.
    Smug meet condescending.

  16. #56
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Arc, your approach of using "investment money" for playing casino games because you think you have an edge over the casino is simply w r o n g.

    Anyone who is a retiree has no business considering money spent in a casino as part of some investment strategy. It can be recreational money because even retirees are allowed to have fun. But to consider it an "investment" is nothing less than sick.

    I don't recall anywhere that I endorsed Rob's system. However, I am on the record saying that what you are doing mixing "investment" and "casino" in the same breath, sentence and thought, is ludicrous.
    Alan, again you have more than meaningful input here. VP play as some obtuse sort of investment strategy is nothing short of wreckless, and only tried & true addicts would present it as such. Just take a quick look at the Dancer situation. Here we have a prominent boaster of years of winning big money, yet all sense points to him not only not winning what he purports to win--he so obviously has lost bundle after bundle with his pathological habit. Has any casino stopped him from taking their money at will, even though he broadcasts it every chance he gets? And how many supposed 6-figure per year gambling winners continue to work multiple jobs past retirement age anyways?

    He's always been the biggest hoax in video poker, and probably anyone who can rationalize these type of situations already knows it. I'll say this again, NO ONE who says they play only "positive EV" vp games wins anything unless they are extremely and overly lucky, year-in & year-out. It is a statistical impossibility to do what he claims to have done and is still doing, and anyone who says different is simply reading script out of the math books while applying such a mythical effort to a very perfect, non-stop-playing robot. It is and always has been a validation prop for him to make a successful living out of his video poker business. And kudos to him for being successful at that part of it.

  17. #57
    Rob, what I find ironic is that lately, the only thing I read from Dancer is who he lost thousands of dollars on various promotional "plays" for this or that. I really wish he would tell us about his winnings and give us some inspiration. When I read about how he lost $20-thou doing this, and $35-thou doing that I really am not thinking that video poker is a winnable game.

    But this isn't about Dancer, right now. It's about Arc's assertion that playing video poker can be part of an investment strategy because he claims he has an edge. Did Arci also invest with Bernie Madoff? Could you imagine the reaction that Arc would receive at a cocktail party of Certified Financial Planners telling these financial experts how VP is part of his investment plan?

    I am still hoping that Arc will realize that he applied the wrong label to his video poker bankroll, and that it is part of his entertainment money or recreation money or mad money (yes, retirees can have these set aside) but not "investment" money.

    Of course there are professional gamblers who do market themselves -- and their play -- as "investments." At the WSOP of poker some pros will sell "shares" of themselves. One pro player allegedly even sold 150% of himself, lost the tournament, and just kept the extra money as his income for running his scam.

    Here's how it works: the WSOP entry fee is $10,000. And you approach ten people and sell them each a 10% share of your entry and winnings for $1,500. That gives you a $15,000 "bankroll" with which to buy your $10,000 seat. Of course none of the other backers knows each other or knows that you have sold multiple shares in yourself. Now, you make sure you lose... and you keep the extra $5,000.

    Oh, is $5,000 too little? Then if you are a big name pro you sell a 10% share for $2,000 or $3,000 and your sales pitch includes your previous success and how you have an edge over the field.

    Gee, I hope Arc doesn't do this. I was curious when he said something about "other sources of income."

    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    I don't use any of my retirement account for living expenses. I have other sources of income.
    I would think that a retiree's other sources of income would all be part of a retirement account, unless he is not really retired? It's all very confusing.

  18. #58
    Alan, other sources of income for a retiree coming from the type businesses arci & I are from, consists of pensions and SS. I haven't started my SS up yet but I do get a pension from the Gov't. and from Northrop-Grumman. My wife also gets one from Honeywell. Retirement "accounts" in my and Cindy's cases at least, are in the form of 401k's and some gold.

    Does that help?

  19. #59
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Arc, your approach of using "investment money" for playing casino games because you think you have an edge over the casino is simply w r o n g.
    Nonsense. You are making claims you cannot backup with any evidence. You are welcome to your opinions no matter how uninformed they are, that doesn't make them worth squat.

    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Anyone who is a retiree has no business considering money spent in a casino as part of some investment strategy. It can be recreational money because even retirees are allowed to have fun. But to consider it an "investment" is nothing less than sick.
    As I said before it is only a small percentage of the portfolio and I suspect that the money is less at risk than most of your investments. You are simply talking out of your ass without understanding the situation. But then, that is typical of a lot of the things you say.

  20. #60
    Rob, I fully understand about pensions. In fact, I started to collect my union pension after I turned 55 even though I continue to work, continue to make contributions to my pension fund, and continue to see my pension increase. Actually, I decided to start drawing my pension early when I heard about financial planner Suze Orman talk about it and discovered that over my lifetime I will actually take in more money than waiting till I'm 65 to draw on it.

    But again Arc is considering playing video poker as part of his "investment" plan. The key word is "investment". Remembering this post earlier:

    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    Alan/Rob, a bankroll does not sit in a drawer in the kitchen. In my case it is all invested except for a small amount used for regular gambling. Might have to dip into it once in awhile but many investment accounts allow that. I assume Bob does about the same.
    He says he dips into investment accounts for gambling. This is what I am challenging. You never dip into any investment account for gambling. Money for recreation that comes from a pension or SS or even from distributions of investments do make sense. But you never use the base amount of an investment pool for something like gambling. Does Arc want to clarify his statement now?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •