More success for Bob Dancer losing $21,000.

[arcimede$]

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.

[Alan Mendelson]

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.

[Rob.Singer]

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.

[arcimede$]

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.

Silly nonsense from someone who obvious cannot add. I wonder why he believes he can make money in a 401K but can't when given an edge in gambling. Only a complete idiot thinks math only works sometimes.

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.

Actually, this kind of idiotic statement only proves what I've been saying about Singer all along. How could it possibly be "statistically impossible" to win when a person has an advantage? That's like saying it's statistically impossible for a casino to win. Obviously, it can't be. In fact, it is improbable that a person with a good edge will not win. But hey, it's Singer spewing exactly the lies I've mentioned before. Nice of him to repeat them, thus proving me correct yet again.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, I would like to address these two statements, and I am asking these questions as a journalist who is curious about your position -- and nothing more. And I think I am going to ask questions here that other readers might also be asking themselves.

Your first statement:

I wonder why he believes he can make money in a 401K but can't when given an edge in gambling. Only a complete idiot thinks math only works sometimes.

There are different kinds of 401k's some of which can have guaranteed returns, such as a 401k made up of insured government municipal bonds and US debt obligations. Even some corporate bonds can have insurance. These offer the ultimate in security and don't depend on the irregularities of VP play, having to play or not having income, and the associated risk that your positive edge machines might someday disappear.

So where are your guarantees? You also have told us about losing streaks. Do you ever have a losing streak that is too long and too deep? What assurance do you have that you won't? What if you can't get to the casino to play, then what happens to the video poker income vs income that might be in a 401k made up of government-insured and guaranteed bonds?

Now, your second statement:

How could it possibly be "statistically impossible" to win when a person has an advantage? That's like saying it's statistically impossible for a casino to win.

We've gone over this before, I think. Are you really playing with the same advantage that a casino has that is open 24/7/365 and has perhaps hundreds or even thousands of machines to use to diversify its risk? A casino certainly can base its existence on the math with hundreds and thousands of machines, even if a few "advantage players" take their bite on a few tables or games or machines -- the casino math can accept some of these losses. Businesses can account for losses in their plans.

But can you account for your unexpected losses caused by a bad run from the RNG or bad weather that keeps you from going to the casino, or a cold that keeps you out of the casino for a week at a time, or (hopefully this never happens) the positive edge games that your entire theory depends on are no longer available to play?

As I mentioned before, there are NO positive expectation video poker games in any casino in Southern California. Zero.

[arcimede$]

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.

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.

[Alan Mendelson]

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.

Oops, he just said it again. "it is only a small percentage of the portfolio." It absolutely amazes me if this guy would actually touch his investment principal to play video poker. But apparently he does. I really can't say anything more.

[arcimede$]

Oops, he just said it again. "it is only a small percentage of the portfolio." It absolutely amazes me if this guy would actually touch his investment principal to play video poker. But apparently he does. I really can't say anything more.

Well, you could but you would look just as foolish as you currently look. Once again slowly ... all investments have risk. You do understand this, don't you? Or do you believe your investments can only increase in value? Are you really that clueless?

Once you understand what risk means, then maybe you will learn that some things have more risks and other others have less risks. That isn't above you head, is it? Once you figure all this out then get back to me.

[Alan Mendelson]

Once again slowly ... all investments have risk. You do understand this, don't you? Or do you believe your investments can only increase in value?

This will come as a shock to you Arc, but there are some investments that never lose value... unless this country fails and that black hole swallows up the earth. And then, your video poker return won't matter anymore anyway.

No one has ever lost a dime in a government insured bank account, or in a US treasury security. Take that to the bank.

[Alan Mendelson]

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."

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.

[Rob.Singer]

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?

[Alan Mendelson]

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:

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?

[Rob.Singer]

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:



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?

I'm not familiar with union pensions but they may be similar to a US Gov't. pension, in that I believe there were contributions taken out for it each month. The big company pensions, however, are a benefit that we never put a dime towards, and they are very generous retirement income sources.

If arci is telling you he dips into "investment accounts" for gambling money, he's either trying to impress you with Suzy Orman-type chatter, he's embarrassed over the piddly amount of his pension from IBM, or he's just about had enough of being couped up and is applying a "who cares at this point anyway?" type attitude. He spends all his time trying to make people think he's the most impressive thing to come along since the toilet seat, and he comes up with a statement like that? You're absolutely right.

[arcimede$]

If arci is telling you he dips into "investment accounts" for gambling money, he's either trying to impress you with Suzy Orman-type chatter,

I've only stated that the money originally constituted my bankroll. The fact is I have already tripled the amount I set aside as my bankroll and never actually touched it. That's what often happens when a player has a big edge. So, in many ways this discussion is moot. My current bankroll is all composed of previous winnings. In other words, all the complaints now are beyond silly.

he's embarrassed over the piddly amount of his pension from IBM,

It covers my expenses. Seeing as how I've lived on it for over 14 years without dipping into my retirement account should put this Singer lie to rest.

or he's just about had enough of being couped up and is applying a "who cares at this point anyway?" type attitude. He spends all his time trying to make people think he's the most impressive thing to come along since the toilet seat, and he comes up with a statement like that? You're absolutely right.

So, you think I'm "impressive". I always knew you were jealous, but it sounds like you've turned a permanent shade of green.

[Alan Mendelson]

My current bankroll is all composed of previous winnings.

Well why didnt you say that originally instead of making it seem as though you are using life savings?

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, if our country goes bankrupt, all of that money you won playing video poker won't do you any good.

You remind of a little kid who keeps saying "why" or "what if" or "but" and has an answer for everything.

[Alan Mendelson]

The union pension that I have is employer paid, and it is a defined benefit plan. I've been employed at union-TV and radio stations going back to the mid-1970s. The contributions made currently are by the companies that I produce the TV infomercials for. I don't personally make the contributions. But because I am still working, contributions continue to be made to my "account" and therefore my pension benefits get an annual increase from the additional contributions.

besides my pension benefits, our health insurance is covered. they picked up the entire tab for my transplants (even the pancreas transplant which was considered experimental) as well as for dialysis.

[Alan Mendelson]

For everyone who thinks there is risk that the United States will go broke or default, or that our money will be worthless as what happened to "Confederate States" currency and bonds after the Civil War, consider this:

If the U. S. defaults, goes broke, or our currency is deemed worthless, it won't matter anymore that you win at video poker. Period.

[arcimede$]

For everyone who thinks there is risk that the United States will go broke or default, or that our money will be worthless as what happened to "Confederate States" currency and bonds after the Civil War, consider this:

If the U. S. defaults, goes broke, or our currency is deemed worthless, it won't matter anymore that you win at video poker. Period.

Nonsense. Investments in gold and/or other currencies could still do quite well.

[Alan Mendelson]

Nonsense. Investments in gold and/or other currencies could still do quite well.

Oh yeah, I forgot that IGT was developing video poker machines that take gold coins. LOL