Warning to Forum Readers -- Gambling Credentials

[redietz]

I don't know how to put this in any simpler, clearer way, and I think it puts things in this forum in perspective. The forum host, Alan Mendelson, does not win gambling. He has made this clear by his own admission. He has been gambling for decades, and he does not win gambling.

So I ask the simple question -- why would anyone expect someone who has not won and does not win to provide them with insights on how to win? That kind of expectation is kind of silly.

Expecting Alan Mendelson to be able to evaluate gambling systems and the math of gambling is somewhat irrational. I mean, do you ask coaches who have lost way more than they've won the secrets of winning coaching? Do you ask doctors whose patients die for the best methods of treatment?

There's a bizarro world aspect to this -- if Alan endorses a gambling system, it's probably a bad one. Otherwise, he'd be winning.

[Alan Mendelson]

Hi redietz, thanks for posting. But I don't offer any insights into winning. I'm trying to find out your insights for winning. And I don't endorse any gambling system. Thanks for posting.

Edited to add:

I gave this a few more minutes of thought, and I do have some insights to offer to everyone: Do not go to casinos with the anticipation or expectation of winning. You should go to casinos for recreation and only with a budget earmarked for recreation. And if you happen to win -- good for you!

[Rob.Singer]

Funny thread. It's like when supposed winning gambler Bob Dancer 5 or 6 years ago, as blabbed in one of his columns, was asked about the secret behind his success....and he said "my wonderful supportive wife!

[quahaug]

Some people take things way too seriously. Its an internet forum for goodness sakes. Relax, get your panties unbunched and have some fun in life.

[redietz]

"If only you stick to that part of Rob's system, I think anyone will come out way ahead when they play." Alan Mendelson -- from the Jumping the Shark thread.

If this doesn't constitute some kind of endorsement, I'm not sure what does. I realize Alan is usually more careful with what he says (maybe he had a few drinks or was tired), but this was probably the most irresponsible comment regarding Rob's system and win goals. It's a strong statement and unsupported by any evidence.

To me, that line sounds like an endorsement, and a strong one at that. I do realize, to be fair, that it stands out like a sore thumb, as Alan is usually more measured in his comments.

[regnis]

Qua is right. I didn't realize Alan was on trial here. It is, as Qua says, just an internet forum, which by definition, means every nut-job can offer an opinion. Is it really worth 10 years of debate whether Rob is right, wrong, or got lucky and is somewhere in between.

[Alan Mendelson]

I am not taking this thread seriously. I think it goes down as being one of the most absurd threads ever.

[arcimede$]

Whatsa matter, Alan? The truth hurts?

[Alan Mendelson]

Here's the truth: I gamble only for fun, as recreation with a limited "recreation budget." I've never had a profitable year gambling. That's the truth.

[Rob.Singer]

Well known fact and the undeniable truth: Alan gambles for fun and enjoyment and can easily afford to lose whatever he loses. That bothers arci, because he neither has the resources....or the supprt system at home, to play the menial amounts he probably lies about playing anyway, given his history of being a proven liar on the Internet (and God only knows what WHOPPERS he feeds his other half, who is completely helpless to do anything about it....to his ultimate delight of course).

Well known fact and undeniable truth: SPS was developed to--and has proven to--win consistently and overall, on ANY pay table available on BP and SDBP, TBP+, SABP, or DDBP. And people who don't understand how to not want to understand how to, and will go to any lengths to make it not be what it is. They will also start threads out of frustration with the truth.

[arcimede$]

You've just got to love it when speedo drops in with his normal projections while flat out claiming his system can overcome simple mathematical proofs to the contrary. This is exactly what redietz was talking about. This forum is dangerous to anyone who might think Alan's Best Buys are really best buys. Alan has proven his brand is worthless.

[Rob.Singer]

Everything ok at home arci?

[arcimede$]

Everything is great at home, speedo. Instead of living in a cramped trailer I get to spread out and relax in my nearly maintenance free townhouse. Grilled a couple of burgers and served with corn on the cob. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

gnaw, gnaw.

[Alan Mendelson]

This forum is dangerous to anyone who might think Alan's Best Buys are really best buys. Alan has proven his brand is worthless.

Quite the contrary Arc: I think this forum is a best buy. The price that I pay each quarter is modest, the service is good, there have only been very minor problems which the forum company has fixed immediately. So, this forum is a best buy.

Thanks for posting.

Now I have a question for both you and for Rob:

You both seem to overlook the RNG. Any betting strategy, any hold or draw strategy, ultimately depends on what the RNG does. How can either of you promise better results with your strategies when you have no control over the RNG??

[Rob.Singer]

Well, that RNG sure isn't working for arci these days! I mean, just how much bad luck can a guy have "over time" ....then be reminded of it just about every time he opens his eyes at home? (or has to read my posts!) It's right up his anal alley always trying to cover it up---but then again, nerds will be nerds, and the chipping away process is the chipping away process!

On my end, when relying on luck to make the session a success, that RNG and it's one lucky hit may come thru right away, and it may take a lot of time--or anywhere in between. The strategy was developed to see a lot of play when it needs to see a lot of play, always waiting for that one special hit. The majority of the time, they always come. 2400 credits, many of which get played over and over again, greatly contribute to that end.

[slingshot]

Well, that RNG sure isn't working for arci these days! I mean, just how much bad luck can a guy have "over time" ....then be reminded of it just about every time he opens his eyes at home? (or has to read my posts!) It's right up his anal alley always trying to cover it up---but then again, nerds will be nerds, and the chipping away process is the chipping away process!

On my end, when relying on luck to make the session a success, that RNG and it's one lucky hit may come thru right away, and it may take a lot of time--or anywhere in between. The strategy was developed to see a lot of play when it needs to see a lot of play, always waiting for that one special hit. The majority of the time, they always come. 2400 credits, many of which get played over and over again, greatly contribute to that end.

I had always wondered about this-good question Alan. Now I see that whenever that one lucky draw appears, the structured advance in denomination has the chance to make a difference.

[arcimede$]

Quite the contrary Arc: I think this forum is a best buy. The price that I pay each quarter is modest, the service is good, there have only been very minor problems which the forum company has fixed immediately. So, this forum is a best buy.

Thanks for posting.

The content, however, is a worst buy and it is the content that people will remember. Why should anyone trust your brand when you promote nonsense here?

Now I have a question for both you and for Rob:

You both seem to overlook the RNG. Any betting strategy, any hold or draw strategy, ultimately depends on what the RNG does. How can either of you promise better results with your strategies when you have no control over the RNG??

I never promise anything, Alan. I talk about probabilities. That is all one can do with random events. It gets down to whether you want to promote <50% chances of winning or real chances of winning from 50-99%. While no one can promise what you'll see out of an RNG on any given session, over time it averages out. So, why not give yourself the best chance to win? Are you against that?

[Rob.Singer]

Haha! When things don't go so well for poor arci, he tries everything to vent his frustrations. Here we see nothing else has worked, so now he's attacking Alan the businessman. So funny....

[Alan Mendelson]

The content, however, is a worst buy and it is the content that people will remember.

One day Arc, you will look back at the ridiculous, childish fighting you had here and say to yourself "thank goodness I didn't use my real name. There is plausible deniability."

I never promise anything, Alan. I talk about probabilities. That is all one can do with random events. It gets down to whether you want to promote <50% chances of winning or real chances of winning from 50-99%. While no one can promise what you'll see out of an RNG on any given session, over time it averages out. So, why not give yourself the best chance to win? Are you against that?

Actually, I am more concerned with results than with probabilities or chances. I am more concerned with someone who says they have pocketed X-number of dollars than someone who says "if you play this way" you'll get X-number of dollars. So when it comes to gambling information I guess I am more concerned with "the end" than with "the means to the end."

[arcimede$]

One day Arc, you will look back at the ridiculous, childish fighting you had here and say to yourself "thank goodness I didn't use my real name. There is plausible deniability."

Trying to change the subject again? This forum has YOUR name on it, not mine. YOU are the one putting your name on the line. Personally, now that I know your ability to judge something as simple as VP, I would never consider anything else you recommend.

Actually, I am more concerned with results than with probabilities or chances. I am more concerned with someone who says they have pocketed X-number of dollars than someone who says "if you play this way" you'll get X-number of dollars. So when it comes to gambling information I guess I am more concerned with "the end" than with "the means to the end."

Which demonstrates once again your opinion is not to be trusted. You clearly don't understand the forces that come into play. You are totally naive yet still try to tell people what to think as if your opinion had anything to do with reality. That is why you are contaminating your brand. What you should be saying is "listen to the experts". Instead you claim the experts are wrong and you and Singer have a better way. Pure nonsense.