Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 119

Thread: Jumping the Shark

  1. #1
    When I first heard that a reporter was investigating Rob Singer I had high hopes that after more than a decade of obfuscation and misrepresentation the “undeniable truth” about Rob Singer might finally be revealed. But after an initial period where Alan appeared to be willing to question statements that ran counter to what Rob professed, it now appears that primarily applied when he was directly attacked. Alan’s recent comments have led me to believe that he does not possess the ability to be able to objectively analyze information that may run counter to his existing bias.

    As much fun as it is watching Rob squirm from his obvious P-A-I-N in having his little fantasy world rocked by inconvenient facts, having a forum moderator who demonstrates his favoritism through an unequal meting out of justice and who actively attempts to undermine contrary opinions is not conducive to intellectual discourse. As such, from my standpoint this forum has “jumped the shark”, and this will be my final post.

    This issue may be new to this forum, but the controversy has been raging for a decade or more. There are forum posts dating back to the mid 2000’s where Rob is posting that Arci dragged his wife to the smoky casinos and ruined her health as well as scores of occasions where people tried to obtain confirmation for a variety of Rob’s claims, none of which ever materialized. Despite the fact that this has gone one for so long I’ve never been able to find even one iota of reliable evidence that would verify a single thing Rob has ever promoted. Even on this forum promises he made to supply additional information have gone unfulfilled while characters of dubious legitimacy were effusive in their support of Rob. No matter what explanation you accept for his involvement with Jatki the end result of that incestuous relationship was that it was a covert effort to manipulate public opinion. When you consider all of this I believe there are many people that are absolutely astounded that Alan dismisses well-documented contrary opinions so easily while accepting Rob’s completely unsubstantiated statements as gospel.

    Alan appears to require a “smoking gun” but life rarely hands out such a gift, in which case we can only rely on what is at hand. What Alan cavalierly referred to as “nit picking” shows the only pattern that has been consistent over the years; inconsistency. The fact that Rob can usually come up with a barely plausible, yet unlikely explanation for these discrepancies shows how easy it is to do so. Try it yourself; make up something and then try to come up with an explanation for it. You’ll be able to do so every time. All you need to do is ignore much of the critical information and use the classic “I don’t remember” or its companion “I didn’t keep exact track” or make another claim that is patently false while dodging as much as you can get away with, and BINGO! You’re exonerated.

    Rob’s response to the pictures and the exceptional rate he hits high paying hands are prime examples of all of these. Despite claiming multiple IRS audits in the past and frequently advocating for the need to keep a gambling log with both wins and losses, (which would seem to be particularly important when claiming over $100,000 in wins in the past 18 months as Rob has), as well as his frequent statements about how infrequently he plays, he now claims he doesn’t keep track. While pushing the proposition that he carried multiple phones with him he completely ignored the issue that the majority of the file names showing his purported wins were out of sequence or were even in reverse order which suggests they were not taken on the dates stated, a fact accented by his more recently posted photo file names which are in perfect sequence. And even though he made a huge deal about some of the previous statements surrounding his play occurring while he was still playing “professionally”, (which, for some reason apparently meant they didn’t count), in the original source document, a mere two paragraphs below where he wrote about his phenomenal wins in 2010, he stated “I suppose one could say I actually surpassed the goal with the year I've had in 2010, but technically this year doesn't count. I am no longer a professional player”. Once you’ve accomplished the evasion portion you just engage in the Goebbelsesque tactic of constantly repeating the lie, for then it becomes true forever. And don’t forget to attack, attack, and then attack a little more anyone who has the audacity to question your greatness.

    When reading Rob’s posts I can’t help but frequently think of the term overcompensation. I started conversing with other people online through local bulletin boards before the Internet existed and have been doing so ever since yet I’ve never encountered anyone who felt such a strong need to constantly promote their own existence. I would guess that many of the people reading this have visited other forums in the past, and while they may have encountered a single post here and there, I suspect that few, if any, have ever seen someone compelled to post on a near daily basis how fabulous, fulfilling, and intimate their spousal relationship was. It is a pattern that repeats itself frequently on a variety of topics. You’d be hard pressed to find a reference to Gambling Today where Rob, (or a mirror image of him), doesn’t include something about how it was “the most read column during the 7 ˝ years” he wrote it, a claim that would appear to be impossible to substantiate given that it was a free written publication that had no ability to track what articles people read. Regular readers of this forum may remember his frequent posting that he only played “1 ˝ hours every 10 days” and he even included that or a similar statement in 3 out of 5 paragraphs in one recent message, all of which appear to run counter to his latest statement that he doesn’t keep track of such things. And if he ever posts a link to another gambling forum it will invariably be accompanied by a statement that “someone sent me this”, probably inserted in no small part due to comments he’s made in the past about forum addiction going hand in hand with video poker addiction and his desire to distance himself from any implication that he regularly visits a number of forums, despite the fact that he is acutely aware of what is happening in every forum where gambling is discussed and when he does participate he posts at a staggering rate. While I really can’t state with any certainty either way regarding Rob’s video poker prowess, when it comes to self promotion and truthiness, Rob is a master.

    As for Rob, if he actually did what he claims more power to him. If I had ever encountered even a small amount of documentable information that supported his claims I wouldn’t even be here now. But for all his rhetoric and rampant puffery the end result today is the same as it was 10 years ago; a multitude of claims that strain credulity with absolutely nothing to back it up. This isn’t just about “the math” or “special plays”; the reason there is such a large contingent that doesn’t believe he is being truthful is because they’ve never been given any reason to believe it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and in most peoples eyes 10 years of dodging requests to produce even a speck of proof speaks far louder than anything else. And contrary to what Rob likes to comfort himself by saying, you won’t find a single person who has ever existed that was envious of something they didn’t believe was true. It’s completely impossible considering the definition of the word.

    Over the years there have been far more questions than answers, and if anyone ever decides to dig deeper to determine if Rob’s claims are true they may find any one of the following to be a good place to start. Keep in mind these are but a few of many potential questions that exist.

    Continued below

  2. #2
    1) A number of years ago Rob claimed he paid 3 mathematicians to analyze his system and stated that they found it sound, yet no evidence of this was ever presented and he refused to release the names of those who participated so they could be questioned. He recently attempted to compare those requests for authentication to what he termed his “silly” demand that he be allowed to know the full identities of 3 co-authors of a book so he could question them. While this was a masterful representation of obfuscation, there is little in the way of correlation between 3 authors who’s names are given and who’s written words are included in the subject piece and a completely undocumented claim that was supposedly reviewed by three people who’s identities and qualifications are unknown.

    When he had such conclusive evidence many years ago, which would have served to silence his critics from the beginning, why did he fail to produce it?

    2) There has been a pattern over the years where questionable “3rd parties” have “verified” claims of Rob’s. Soon after Jatki arrived here he recounted a story where he called his host at Silverton to ask why Rob was banned and the host started to give him an answer which was just enough to “verify” the claim but was then hushed by someone else who stated they were unable to give out personal information about others, (with the additional puffery that it applied to “public people” as well as regular folks). It is difficult to imagine a host would even begin to do such a thing given their training and the emphasis that is placed on player privacy, and quite “convenient” they gave out just enough to “confirm” the claim before being cut off.

    Given what we now know about Jatki, why was it so important to fabricate the meme that Rob had been banned and why does anyone who speaks the “undeniable truth” need to bring in another character for support?

    3) For many years there have been numerous people showing up in forums who are virtually mirror images of Rob. They’ll praise Rob. Rob praises them. They’ll attack anyone who has “wronged” Rob. They’ll give out huge amounts of information about their true name, their age, where they live and what they do for a living, and with amazing frequency they include stories about their sexual prowess and/or how well armed they are. And when questioned, they’ll spend post after post after post “explaining” every inconsistency. I’ve never ever encountered as much ‘splainin’ as what goes on in Singer related threads. Even “new” posters will spend hours and hours trying to convince everyone they are not related to former posters, even though logic dictates that a truly “new” poster who found themselves under attack soon after they joined would be far more likely to leave and never return than try to fight to stay as a participant in a forum with which they had little vested interest.

    Readers may remember that Jatki not only did most of the above, but also revealed the full name and location of his daughter, something very few people would do on the Internet, (unless the information wasn’t factual, in which case it doesn’t matter). In some cases posters who admitted to using different user names included different life stories with each of them. In every case the language and phrases used are amazingly similar to what Rob writes, including frequent statements about how they are “winning” with their arguments. (However, so far at least, I’ve yet to see a similar endorsement from Charlie Sheen).

    Rob claims: ”I have never posted as anyone other than myself, and if I’ve ever used anything other than my name I have identified that in my first post” but that doesn’t appear to match the historical record. In 2005 a “new” poster showed up at FreeVPFree and immediately started to argue with Arci. You can review all of his posts here. Its important to note that unlike most forums the Yahoo groups are actually a mailing list first, forum second. In other words, as soon as you hit “post” your message is on its way to thousands of others via email, and there is no way you can edit it.

    The above page is in reverse order, so at the bottom you are looking at the first post of “aces_hii”. His initial post is relatively innocuous and concerns a Singer bet, and they grow increasingly corrosive from there. It was on his 12th post where “aces_hii” truly “became” Rob, writing, (among other things); "Sitting and making up theories that I post under other id's, especially when making you look like a fool (which is a bonus beyond enjoyment) is just another of your boring past times."

    Irony: using an alternative identity to repudiate the claim that you have ever used an alternative identity

    Fourteen minutes later, (which probably seemed like an eternity to Rob and it isn’t difficult to visualize his S-Q-U-I-R-M-I-N-G while trying to figure out how to explain this flagrant error), “aces_hii” posted again stating: “Since it appears my rsing1111 identity has been terminated for some reason from freevpfree, I'm using the one given me a few days ago by aces_hii.”

    This of course makes perfect sense. As we all know it is incredibly difficult to get a new Yahoo ID given all the fees and requirements for positive identification. No. Wait. They don’t require any of that and its completely free. But who among you hasn’t given your user ID and password to someone else to use? While it may be technically argued that he did state his true identity, it certainly wasn't prior to posting, and the circumstances surrounding the disclaimer have every indication of it being made only because there was no other option. The horse had already left the barn by the time it was sent out.

    Given that Rob has been tied to scores of various user names over the years, why did a “winning” gambling system and a well known “gambling celebrity” require extensive clandestine support?

    Continued below

  3. #3
    4) Rob frequently states that in every challenge he has ever been involved in people were scared and ran away from it, including one relatively recent event at the WizardOfVegas. However, if you read through the Wizard Of Vegas bet post it doesn’t appear to have happened in quite the way Rob likes to describe it. Rob was banned after making the initial post, but then a “new” poster, “JL2”, (who closely resembled and was pegged as being yet another poster, Jerry Logan, who had also recently been banned and was widely considered to actually be Rob), continued the arguments. Rob now says that when he “offered to actually PROVE it all to them they quietly mumbled away and demanded I pay for hotel rooms, airfares, etc.” If you read through the thread you see that the initial suggestion for payment was actually made by JL2, repeatedly pushed by JL2, and then turned by JL2 into a weapon to make it seem as if everyone else was unreasonable and “scared” of the challenge. And rather than a “quiet mumble,” my read of that thread suggests that the primary participants merely refused to jump around a cascading series of obstacles that were repeatedly placed in their way, especially since they had previously gone through the same routine.

    There was also a side bet proposed by the Wizard concerning “5th card flipovers” which gave Rob the OPTION to “scour all the casinos he wishes to find one that cheats” which by the middle of the thread had been flipped by JL2 into being a requirement: “Then why don't you ask singer if he wants to or has the time to ‘scour the machines of Clark County’ and maybe you could go along with him on that 5 year journey as a witness!” What began us a generous allowance by the Wizard to give Rob as much latitude as possible was turned into an "impossible task". Rob never accepted this 2nd challenge, despite previously writing in his column: “I will bet anyone or everyone who claims the flip-over is not considerably outside the margin of error." In regards to his evidence of 5th card flipovers, Michael Shackleford wrote on page 6 of that thread, ”I asked him in person for his evidence and was denied” despite Rob writing here ”Wizard and his batch of braniacs would not look at it.”

    Considering the above history surrounding the WOV bet, why should Rob’s recounting of similar events be beyond question?

    5) Rob has stated “I've written gaming columns in GT about my knowledge of machine non-randomness as told to me in person by an IGT sw engineer” but that’s not quite what he said in his GT article. In that article he wrote, I was not told outright, mind you, of the machines operating differently than is of the popular mindset. I was just told to watch for certain occurrences, pay attention to how the machine performed during and after those occurrences, then to use my head and either adjust my bet up or leave the machine.”

    If he wasn’t told “outright” then how can it be determined if the engineer wasn’t just making a generic statement designed to apply to anyone who questioned the authenticity of the programming, especially considering that due to the secretive nature of what he was doing the programmer was virtually certain to be working under a non-disclosure clause and would be risking his job by divulging any information?

    6) Alan recently stated that Gambling Today is a reputable organization and that they printed his wins so it must be true, (because as we all know, everything ever printed or posted on the internet has to be true), but I have two problems with that. The first is that there is no hard evidence showing it. Once again we had Jatki come to the rescue stating that he saw all of Rob’s wins posted in the columns but I've checked other sources and nobody could verify that claim nor does there appear to be anything online to back it up. My second problem regards the "reputability" of the publication. There are numerous examples where Rob used the column to attack, by name, people on various forums and he also penned at least 2 uncomplimentary "obituaries", one of which ended with the somewhat less-than-pious statement, "Eat dirt, pig". Quite frankly, these columns seemed more like the Facebook postings of a 15-year-old girl spurned by her classmates than that of a "journalist". Reputable publications don't allow their writers to use their column space for advancing personal vendettas, especially those that are primarily ad hominem attacks that are potentially libelous.

    Would CBS have allowed Alan to end a segment using this statement, “Earlier we were blessed with the Godly elimination of Skip Hughes; now we get rid of this fool" as Rob did in one of his articles? If not, then why should it be assumed that the editors did anything at all to verify his claims if they were less than meticulous about policing his articles?

    That should be enough to get you started, and believe me, you’ll find plenty more if you pay attention and dig a little below the surface.

    For those that remain here and would like to see the forum be less confrontational than it has in the past I’d suggest adhering to the tenets of Proverbs 26:4. I’ve found it to be of great guidance. And as long as you never forget that while he doesn’t always drink beer, when Rob does he prefers Dos Equis, the forum will remain a nice, peaceful place.

    Live long and prosper

  4. #4
    Thank you for taking the time to write this. I think you did an excellent job summarizing many of the things that were discussed here. Some of the things you mentioned I don't know about. It is certainly true that Rob never came up with the proof or data he says he has or could get. It is certainly true that Rob has rubbed a lot of people the wrong way and he certainly has made a lot of enemies.

    I still believe Rob was entitled to a fair hearing and I know I did the right thing putting the videos of his special plays on this site and the lengthy video interview I did with him at the Hard Rock where I questioned his basic beliefs speaks for itself. Too many critics of Rob expect me as a reporter to also be a policeman, an arbiter, a prosecutor, a judge and a jury and I can't be those things. My job is to report and let you the reader and the viewer to make up your own minds.

    Spock, I think we all know where you stand. You will be welcome to post here anytime. Take care and best wishes.

  5. #5
    I continue to enjoy seeing how much I have to be in Spock's head. If I am whatever it is he wants me to be by spending incredible amounts of time rehashing and opining everything ROB SINGER, it would be nothing in comparison to the fascination he has with RS. That in itself is a victory of unintended & untold magnitude for me.

    But alas, he does seem beside himself. Could it be the recent demise of Bob Dancer and his theoretical "edge" he claims to have when he plays, now being reduced by a whole 50% MINIMUM because Dancer got thrown out of the house after his gambling habit finally caught up with him....could THIS be the reason he's sore at ME? Or is he annoyed the way I mock arci for mistreating HIS missus in her time of need, and from now on he has to pay dearly for putting video poker before everything else? Why, what in heck is going on here--why are all these "AP's" worlds falling apart, when good 'ol boy ROB SINGER continues along on his merry way in retirement, with a healthy, happy family from top to bottom? Is it even fair? I mean, how can it possibly be that such a terrible, phoney, awful, lying person could be coming upon his THIRTY-FIFTH wedding anniversary, have two wonderful & successful children, four loving grandchildren....and be living such a happy life after several successful careers? Mind-boggling "Spock", wouldn't you say?! That bothers you doesn't it....almost as much as it gets to arci.

    Oh well, these fallen AP's....I hear Obama's got their backs. I hear he's pretty liberal with food stamps and health care these days. And Dancer now has even MORE options out there in case he wants to marry a man this time around

    All this whining about proof--I'm having too much fun these days to care. Why should I drive a giant RV to southern Az. to look up piles of paper that no one will see anyway? It's not like I'm "divorced" or just sitting around watching someone die. And it's actually much more stimulating seeing someone like "Spock" spill his guts, and watch these so-called AP's' lives crumble before MY & THEIR very eyes....just as I've always predicted they would!

    Like I said, it just doesn't get any better than this. It just doesn't.
    Last edited by Rob.Singer; 05-14-2013 at 08:55 AM.

  6. #6
    but a most compelling post. Much better than the name-calling, etc. My final comment:
    (1 I haven't noticed one defiant who has said they tried, say his artt strategy-and it doesn't have to be at higher stakes-and made a summary of their results
    (2 I have oft times told someone at work about things they weren't aware of by saying "I wasn't told outright or exactly or whatever the word, but there's a rumor...."
    (3 He has at least challenged people to an open-minded approach instead of being tied down by numbers, statistics, and casino manipulation.
    (4 I wish each and everyone health, happiness, and well-being. One day we will see that we're here NOT to see through people, but to see people through.

  7. #7
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Thank you for taking the time to write this. I think you did an excellent job summarizing many of the things that were discussed here. Some of the things you mentioned I don't know about. It is certainly true that Rob never came up with the proof or data he says he has or could get. It is certainly true that Rob has rubbed a lot of people the wrong way and he certainly has made a lot of enemies.

    I still believe Rob was entitled to a fair hearing and I know I did the right thing putting the videos of his special plays on this site and the lengthy video interview I did with him at the Hard Rock where I questioned his basic beliefs speaks for itself. Too many critics of Rob expect me as a reporter to also be a policeman, an arbiter, a prosecutor, a judge and a jury and I can't be those things. My job is to report and let you the reader and the viewer to make up your own minds.

    Spock, I think we all know where you stand. You will be welcome to post here anytime. Take care and best wishes.
    This will be my last post here as well Alan.

    I first followed you here from the Las Vegas Advisor boards, over a year ago because I was curious about this Rob Singer fellow that was talked about over there, but wasn't allowed to post. I came to your boards initially because Rob said he would provide proof that his "system" works. That proof never materialized. Instead, every single thread devolves into an insult thread with Rob making fun of people's wives all the while bragging how great his life is.

    I don't think Rob is a "con man" because he's not (to my knowledge) trying to sell anything or trick people out of their money. As you and he have said, his system is not supported by the math. If a mathematical endeavor such as a gambling system cannot be proven with math, how can it be proven?

    Anyways, for all I know Rob could be lying about his family life. I've got a great family life as well, but I don't go on internet forums bragging about it. You are much older than me Rob, and likely much more experienced. If I could just offer 1 small piece of advice, it would be this. All it takes would be for you to anger the wrong type of person (the kind that doesn't care about jail or the law) and the health and well being of you and your family could be put in danger. People know you and your real name. I've read that you always carry a gun. I pray you never need to use it.

    These forums do have a sort of "Jerry Springer" entertainment value to them, but lack any real gambling strategy information or Las Vegas travel information. So, Alan, I wish you continued success, luck and happiness. I would wish the same to Rob, but as he constantly reminds everyone, he already has it all.

  8. #8
    Don't worry Alan I'm not going anywhere.

  9. #9
    Well we are! We're taking off for the summer this weekend to travel around the west. And seeing that it's like I "died and went to heaven" as I get to gleefully watch my failed critics who pathologically lie about me, rightfully suffer the deserving consequences of allowing habitual video poker play come before their families....there's really nothing more enjoyable for me no matter WHERE it comes from! In fact, their unravelling comes in a close 2nd to the joyous days when CDDENVER from that hack site videopoker.com, and failed/disgraced "AP" Skip Hughes began eating dirt together. It was, as they say, a very righteous ending to the "what goes around comes around" cliche'.

    So I'll leave the assertion-based analysis up to "Spock" while we enjoy life and he continues to be irritated by Rob Singer. Some of these people.....just how much must I keep them awake each night!? It's enough to make me GIDDY You see, I have no problem mocking fools or making people believe I'm more a part of their lives than they ever thought possible. After all, being the smartest person here BEGS for unusual expectations. Just look at what I did to Dancer this week on vpFree. Knowing it would be out of place for me to tell the real story on why he's now just another divorced loser, I sent a message to a supporter of his who I KNEW would post my message for all to see--and at the same time I chastised Dancer publicly for using the forum to attack me!

    Arci: who's the "tested genius"??

    Enjoy the summer everyone. And arci, have fun doing nothing! But I got a GRRRREAT idea. Why don't you invite Dancer up there and show him how it's done!!!

  10. #10
    Enjoy the serenity around here Alan. That loud mouth has shown beyond reasonable doubt he's just that: a loud mouth. And you have supported him in his ways from day one. A reporter should be objective. In my opinion (nobody has to agree) you have been far from it accepting way more crap from blabber mouth than from anybody else.

    You had momentum while it lasted. Most people with common sense are more than fed up with the ongoing BS of Mr. Singer. He enjoys to insult people as much as possible, that's his sick hobby. Before long Alan, you'll be the only left for him to insult. Bye bye, good luck. I know you won't miss me, but if it makes you feel any better, the feeling is mutual.

    I was "invited back to your party after a bogus one week ban". Needless to say, your parties suck because you always invite the drunk bum from down the street as your most important guest. And as soon as the drunk bum picks a fight and your guests try to defend themselves because their host won't, you as the host throw out the guests and give shelter to the drunk bum.

    @Spock, I take a deep bow for you. There's so much detail in your post Singer can't even argue the content with you. The only thing that's left is more insults because he has been caught (again) with his pants down. You sir hit a homerun with your last post and I salute you.

    Peace out!
    Last edited by Vegas_lover; 05-14-2013 at 03:31 PM.

  11. #11
    Well, there you have it. Speedo's obvious lies are laid bare and all he can do is claim he is "in their head". Of course, this is nothing but his typical projection. These comments get into his head because he is so envious of successful players. When anyone even slightly infers he's not what he claims, he goes off the deep end.

    Alan, it's time to give up this forum. You have allowed it to become a sewer. Either clean it up or shut it down.

  12. #12
    Spock--that is a well written thoughtful summary----and obviously has no place on this forum.

    What continues to amaze me is that, after all these years, the anger that Singer provokes continues. Why don't you and Arci and Red do what my mother used to tell us to do when we were kids and there was some obnoxious kid--IGNORE HIM!!! If you keep the discussion going, you only feed and encourage him. So just ignore him. It will be better for your health and mental well being. You have to know, and Singer regularly states, how much fun this is to him. So if you want it to stop--ignore him. Or else take it all for what it is, or what you think it is. But really everyone---relax.

  13. #13
    Should I know what "jumping the shark" means?

  14. #14
    Originally Posted by quahaug View Post
    Should I know what "jumping the shark" means?
    Qua--here ya go:

    Jumping the shark is an idiom created by Jon Hein that was used to describe the moment in the evolution of a television show when it begins a decline in quality that is beyond recovery, which is usually a particular scene, episode, or aspect of a show in which the writers use some type of "gimmick" in a desperate attempt to keep viewers' interest.

    The phrase jump the shark comes from a scene in the fifth season premiere episode of the American TV series Happy Days titled "Hollywood: Part 3", written by Fred Fox, Jr.,[4] which aired on September 20, 1977. In the episode, the central characters visit Los Angeles, where a water-skiing Fonzie (Henry Winkler) answers a challenge to his bravery by wearing swim trunks and his trademark leather jacket, and jumping over a confined shark. The stunt was created as a way to showcase Winkler's real life water ski skills.[5]

  15. #15
    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    Qua--here ya go:

    Jumping the shark is an idiom created by Jon Hein that was used to describe the moment in the evolution of a television show when it begins a decline in quality that is beyond recovery, which is usually a particular scene, episode, or aspect of a show in which the writers use some type of "gimmick" in a desperate attempt to keep viewers' interest.

    The phrase jump the shark comes from a scene in the fifth season premiere episode of the American TV series Happy Days titled "Hollywood: Part 3", written by Fred Fox, Jr.,[4] which aired on September 20, 1977. In the episode, the central characters visit Los Angeles, where a water-skiing Fonzie (Henry Winkler) answers a challenge to his bravery by wearing swim trunks and his trademark leather jacket, and jumping over a confined shark. The stunt was created as a way to showcase Winkler's real life water ski skills.[5]
    Oh That shark. Cool I get it. But is Rob an expert water skier too? The guy's the best at everything!

  16. #16

  17. #17
    Not water skiing---but champion shark fighter

  18. #18
    Spock did a wonderful job in a journalistic sense of laying everything out.

    One of the reasons I have found the Singer debate so interesting is that for 30 years I've had an interest in debunking the paranormal. And make no mistake, what Rob claims to be able to do (going forward) is paranormal.

    In many ways, Rob's self-presentation is textbook for someone making extraordinary claims (which, as Spock said, require extraordinary evidence). He sounds like many perpetual motion entrepreneurs and psychics -- convinced, assured, and using all classic non-rational arguments.

    The thing about Rob is -- I agree with much of what he has to say regarding attitude, casinos, likelihood of non-randomness, life priorities, and so on. The problem is that he claims unique abilities and Einsteinian understanding of video poker which nobody else can grasp. He is, as I've said, the Da Vinci of video poker, or at least that's his schtick.

    Anyway, I think it's best if I also step aside for awhile here and let Rob have his say --- over and over and unchallenged. I think that's the best way to highlight the illogical aspects of his arguments.

    We're still waiting for the point-by-point rebuff of Spock's presentation, but alas, I think we will be waiting for that as long as we wait for those reams of proof in storage.

  19. #19
    Actually redietz you give Rob too much credit for things he really doesnt do. When you boil down Rob's play and practice it really is just a very simple strategy of trying to leave with more money and going for smaller wins with a better chance of succeeding.

    Where Rob has failed comes down to two things:

    1. He has promised to show data to support his claims about irregularities with machines
    2. He has promised to show data from math experts to support his claims that his way is better

    Yet, if you polled a group of video poker players who never heard of Rob Singer and presented his "special plays" and the "conventional plays" to them and asked them to choose "the play that makes more sense to you" I would suggest that some of the special plays would be chosen.

    I think if you also polled a group of casino gamblers in general who never heard of Rob Singer and asked them "is it better to quit with a profit now or keep playing because you think you have an advantage over the game" I would suggest that most would choose to quit.

    I think if Rob Singer had never offended people the way he did his critics would see more benefits in his system than they would admit to now.

    I also think that some of Rob Singer's critics (and I won't name them) have been just as caustic in their approach to honest discussion as Rob has. They might not have started it, but they certainly kept the hostility going and probably encouraged more of it.

    I think that all of these discussions prove one thing: people do act and say crazy things when they are shielded by the anonymity and distance of the Internet. No one would ever say these things if they were sharing a dinner table or drinks at a party. And this is a failure of the web.

  20. #20
    Alan, if you polled any math challenged group of people you probably would find some that couldn't add 2 and 2. What exactly do your polls have to do with anything based in reality?

    BTW, I would call Singer a liar and a con man at any dinner party. Try again.

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
  •