Objective proof?

[Don Perignom]

I stopped in LV for some Hi-limit VP entertainment with a friend. I actually won just over $165k on that machine--just my 2nd time playing UX because of his tutelage.

Did the friend advise you to move on to a different game selection or denom after you accumulated next hand multipliers?

[kewlJ]

Look, Rob Singer's story changes more frequently than the sun sets and rises. Major parts of his story and claims. Smaller less significant parts of his story and claims. Sometimes he has to change stories and timelines to make room for a new fantastical attention seeking claim. That occurred with the double up bug, when his timeline for playing the great Singer system went from 10 years to 4 years to make room for the new claim that he stole from news accounts. Less significant it occurred again here when a few weeks ago he told us he was heading to his kids home in South Dakota for the summer. A couple weeks later he is posting a fantastical picture of a win from a high limit room in Las Vegas and telling us, he returned from South Dakota to Las Vegas to play high limit with a friend.

Last year when Mdawg was posting pictures of piles of cash, Singer rightfully described that as the action of a desperate fraud. And guess what? Singer was right. Now he is threatening to post the same piles of cash type photos for attention. Any AP that has any kind of reasonable BR could post pictures of stacks of money and chips. Hell even any working stiff could withdraw savings and post pictures of stacks of cash. It is as meaningless as posting a picture of a car in a parking lot (or RV at the dealership) and claiming it is yours.

I know I fight a losing battle here because there are some that admire Singer and all his trolling. Some that think it is funny. Others that admire his bullying of people different than him, gays, blacks, probably even women. Some that like Singer are frustrated AP's or losing gamblers that admire him attacking players that can and have actually made money from the casinos. But none of that matters. This guy is a internet troll of the gambling community and this just another, his latest and weakest chapter.

But all hail this Rob Singer, James Bond character.

[accountinquestion]

To generate the 2x and 3x multipliers that Ron cashed his dealt royal flush on, it would be helpful to know what the dealt hand was on Ron's previous spin before the dealt royal flush spin. To generate the 2x multiplier, the ending hand of the spin before the dealt royal flush spin, would need to be a jacks or better pair, quads not consisting of rank 5 to King (kicker or not), a straight flush or a royal flush. To generate the 3x multiplier, the ending hand of the spin before the dealt royal flush spin would need to be two pair or quads of rank 5 to King. So there are a very large number of possibilities of what Ron was dealt on the spin before the dealt royal flush spin, that could generate a 2x and a 3x multiplier. The question then is what is the probability of getting exactly one 3X multiplier and exactly one 2x multiplier on the previous spin. I'm not interesting in going through the combinatorics of all the dealt hands that could lead to the 2x and 3x multiplier that two of Ron's five dealt Royals were used on. BTW, it is not at least one 2x and not a least one 3x multiplier, but exactly one of each, so the odds are a lot longer than 5x on the shot as you defined it. Also pat hands have nothing to do with the calculation of the probability of this shot, only the ending hand. If you get dealt a pair of jacks plus rags, you are holding the jacks. If they don't improve you get a 2x multiplier otherwise it could be a better multiplier available for the next spin. But many many other holds (for example you hold an Ace and get another Ace plus rags) besides a pair of jacks could get you a 2x multiplier to be cashed in on by one of Ron's royal flushes on the ensuing deal - again I am not going to go through all of the possible holds that could generate these multipliers.

I'll be honest, I just glanced at the picture originally and thought it was 2x every hand from previous round. Odds are actually far closer to a pat royal. So my math wasn't that off, just my memory of what was in the picture he posted was way off. If every hand has 2x multiplier then that'd almost always be a pat hand on the previous one. I was deserving of your snark.

Also when I define a longshot, I don't typically use the exact frequency on something like this but I'd use the floor of the odds of what happened (if that makes sense). Being dealt straights etc would also count as they'd be even better than 2x. When I was thinking it was 2x, all you need to do is basically figure out what the odds of pat jacks of better are and go from there. When it isn't a pat hand, then it becomes far far more difficult and truly not worth spending time on - like you've suggested.

If I was trying to figure out the likelihood of something like this happening, I would never try and calculate the exact odds of this specific instance. I'd instead try to calculate that it takes to get a 5x or higher total multiplier. That'd include 6x-30x totals. Seems like a better way to reference the improbability of something like this happening.

[Rob.Singer]

Look, Rob Singer's story changes more frequently than the sun sets and rises. Major parts of his story and claims. Smaller less significant parts of his story and claims. Sometimes he has to change stories and timelines to make room for a new fantastical attention seeking claim. That occurred with the double up bug, when his timeline for playing the great Singer system went from 10 years to 4 years to make room for the new claim that he stole from news accounts. Less significant it occurred again here when a few weeks ago he told us he was heading to his kids home in South Dakota for the summer. A couple weeks later he is posting a fantastical picture of a win from a high limit room in Las Vegas and telling us, he returned from South Dakota to Las Vegas to play high limit with a friend.

Last year when Mdawg was posting pictures of piles of cash, Singer rightfully described that as the action of a desperate fraud. And guess what? Singer was right. Now he is threatening to post the same piles of cash type photos for attention. Any AP that has any kind of reasonable BR could post pictures of stacks of money and chips. Hell even any working stiff could withdraw savings and post pictures of stacks of cash. It is as meaningless as posting a picture of a car in a parking lot (or RV at the dealership) and claiming it is yours.

I know I fight a losing battle here because there are some that admire Singer and all his trolling. Some that think it is funny. Others that admire his bullying of people different than him, gays, blacks, probably even women. Some that like Singer are frustrated AP's or losing gamblers that admire him attacking players that can and have actually made money from the casinos. But none of that matters. This guy is a internet troll of the gambling community and this just another, his latest and weakest chapter.

But all hail this Rob Singer, James Bond character.

This makes perfect sense. Kew is dis-encouraging me from posting a pic of cash won just so he can do what he always does: feel comfortable in his little safe space where he can claim over and over again how I "live off my children" and "all I have is an old cb radio etc." What's curious is what claim/excuse he'd make once he sees how dumb he's been for so long! Let's see---he turned MDawg cash into "it's all inherited and he plays with family money because he has none!"....remember?

You're like Joe Pesci's character Leo was in the Lethal Weapon films kew. Always excitedly reacting to everything that comes his way.

[Rob.Singer]

I stopped in LV for some Hi-limit VP entertainment with a friend. I actually won just over $165k on that machine--just my 2nd time playing UX because of his tutelage.

Did the friend advise you to move on to a different game selection or denom after you accumulated next hand multipliers?

Let's get something straight: my friend was in the main casino playing craps at the time. And if he were nearby there'd be no mistake about who runs my show. He explained the game to me, I played it a while back in a lower denomination, and this time I went in specifically to play it in five-play at up to the $10 level. As I ALWAYS do, whenever I hit one of these large winners that put me ahead my pre-determined win goal amount I never play another hand for that trip.

We have something family related going on in LV the next few days. We're not staying at SP because I'm on their restricted offers list since a few years ago. But if anyone wants to see me play above dollars (yes max, I changed) I'll be between SP, M, and Silverton overnight the next 5 nights.

Keep the hits a-coming....

[MaxPen]

I stopped in LV for some Hi-limit VP entertainment with a friend. I actually won just over $165k on that machine--just my 2nd time playing UX because of his tutelage.

Did the friend advise you to move on to a different game selection or denom after you accumulated next hand multipliers?

Let's get something straight: my friend was in the main casino playing craps at the time. And if he were nearby there'd be no mistake about who runs my show. He explained the game to me, I played it a while back in a lower denomination, and this time I went in specifically to play it in five-play at up to the $10 level. As I ALWAYS do, whenever I hit one of these large winners that put me ahead my pre-determined win goal amount I never play another hand for that trip.

We have something family related going on in LV the next few days. We're not staying at SP because I'm on their restricted offers list since a few years ago. But if anyone wants to see me play above dollars (yes max, I changed) I'll be between SP, M, and Silverton overnight the next 5 nights.

Keep the hits a-coming....

You can PM me a time and casino. I will be there. That could put a lot of this to rest.

[redietz]

Are people actually proud of hitting hands like this? If so, why? It's video poker. I can see being happy, but proud? Why would anyone be proud? Does this particular variation of video poker require some significant extra expertise that few people have?

[MaxPen]

Look, Rob Singer's story changes more frequently than the sun sets and rises. Major parts of his story and claims. Smaller less significant parts of his story and claims. Sometimes he has to change stories and timelines to make room for a new fantastical attention seeking claim. That occurred with the double up bug, when his timeline for playing the great Singer system went from 10 years to 4 years to make room for the new claim that he stole from news accounts. Less significant it occurred again here when a few weeks ago he told us he was heading to his kids home in South Dakota for the summer. A couple weeks later he is posting a fantastical picture of a win from a high limit room in Las Vegas and telling us, he returned from South Dakota to Las Vegas to play high limit with a friend.

Last year when Mdawg was posting pictures of piles of cash, Singer rightfully described that as the action of a desperate fraud. And guess what? Singer was right. Now he is threatening to post the same piles of cash type photos for attention. Any AP that has any kind of reasonable BR could post pictures of stacks of money and chips. Hell even any working stiff could withdraw savings and post pictures of stacks of cash. It is as meaningless as posting a picture of a car in a parking lot (or RV at the dealership) and claiming it is yours.

I know I fight a losing battle here because there are some that admire Singer and all his trolling. Some that think it is funny. Others that admire his bullying of people different than him, gays, blacks, probably even women. Some that like Singer are frustrated AP's or losing gamblers that admire him attacking players that can and have actually made money from the casinos. But none of that matters. This guy is a internet troll of the gambling community and this just another, his latest and weakest chapter.

But all hail this Rob Singer, James Bond character.

This makes perfect sense. Kew is dis-encouraging me from posting a pic of cash won just so he can do what he always does: feel comfortable in his little safe space where he can claim over and over again how I "live off my children" and "all I have is an old cb radio etc." What's curious is what claim/excuse he'd make once he sees how dumb he's been for so long! Let's see---he turned MDawg cash into "it's all inherited and he plays with family money because he has none!"....remember?

You're like Joe Pesci's character Leo was in the Lethal Weapon films kew. Always excitedly reacting to everything that comes his way.

That's what you should do. Post a pic of you with all that cash laying out in front of you. You could wear a Newell branded T-shirt while posing.

That's what I would do if I were you.

Shut all your detractors up......

[MaxPen]

Are people actually proud of hitting hands like this? If so, why? It's video poker. I can see being happy, but proud? Why would anyone be proud? Does this particular variation of video poker require some significant extra expertise that few people have?

UX has exponentially more variance than whatever version of VP it is. What Rob posted is a unicorn hand that he happened to hit the second time he played the game.

[The Boz]

I for one hope Max and Rob set something up to meet. It might not prove much gambling wise but would show that both are regular people and regardless of all the back and forth, can be civil to each other.

[redietz]

I for one hope Max and Rob set something up to meet. It might not prove much gambling wise but would show that both are regular people and regardless of all the back and forth, can be civil to each other.

In terms of evaluating a person, I don't see how six hours spent in someone's company would much soften 10,000 forum posts over 10 years. Or are expectations these days that everyone plays make believe when they're online for hours on end but are "their real selves" when they get to meet somebody face to face? Seems to me, it's more likely the other way around. It's easy to suck it up and pretend you're on Broadway when in someone's company for a few hours. Harder to reign in who you are over years and thousands of posts.

I don't even see how you can make a case for online personas "not being real." If a person spends thousands of hours posting as such-and-such, that's who they are. If you're an online pedophile, you're a pedophile. If you're an online liar, you're a liar.

Thinking that you "know the real person" after spending a little time with them face to face is the height of arrogance. It suggests that you have some godlike ability to "see the true person" in a couple of hours. You may as well claim you can read the other person's mind, because that's pretty much what you're claiming.

[MisterV]

I recall posting something unflattering about a WoV member, who took it personally.

The member and an accomplice confronted me about it at a WoV spring fling; rather than apologize I doubled down on the slam.

What you read is what you get.

[redietz]

I recall posting something unflattering about a WoV member, who took it personally.

The member and an accomplice confronted me about it at a WoV spring fling; rather than apologize I doubled down on the slam.

What you read is what you get.

Ditto and amen.

[Rob.Singer]

I for one hope Max and Rob set something up to meet. It might not prove much gambling wise but would show that both are regular people and regardless of all the back and forth, can be civil to each other.

In terms of evaluating a person, I don't see how six hours spent in someone's company would much soften 10,000 forum posts over 10 years. Or are expectations these days that everyone plays make believe when they're online for hours on end but are "their real selves" when they get to meet somebody face to face? Seems to me, it's more likely the other way around. It's easy to suck it up and pretend you're on Broadway when in someone's company for a few hours. Harder to reign in who you are over years and thousands of posts.

I don't even see how you can make a case for online personas "not being real." If a person spends thousands of hours posting as such-and-such, that's who they are. If you're an online pedophile, you're a pedophile. If you're an online liar, you're a liar.

Thinking that you "know the real person" after spending a little time with them face to face is the height of arrogance. It suggests that you have some godlike ability to "see the true person" in a couple of hours. You may as well claim you can read the other person's mind, because that's pretty much what you're claiming.

After reading yet another of your raps purporting to "really know a person's character because of how they act and react with mostly anonymous people in online forums that are known for being places of entertainment and guilty pleasures for the vast majority of posters"--and where you've talked yourself into believing I am some wicked, hateful, lying personality in real life---then explain how that squares with my being very happily married to the same woman for nearly 44 years, my having had two extremely successful working careers prior to also being successful in video poker, and having wonderful children and grandchildren -- a few of which you claim I "live off of"? And if I were as insulting and hateful in real life as you seem to want to believe I am, how in the world did I survive all those face-to-face meetings I've had in virtually every country on earth?

Boz, regarding how a meet-up would go with max, I do believe what you're saying because you've met us both. I expect he has the ability to understand when and why to antagonize on forums--like most people try to do tho not as successfully as him--but unlike someone like kew for example, he also has the sense to realize what exactly he's talking to in a face-to-face scenario. Kew is just too weak and lacking-in-confidence a person, and for some reason is hell-bent on his mission to discredit anyone he feels has him pegged. IE, he's a lost cause.

We're taking off now in this beautiful weather that we miss when we're away from Az. and Nv. and after LV we're again headed to the upper mid-west. Won't be much time to entertainingly bitch slap anyone, but I'll eventually be back.

Are you beginning to wonder what's going on with the sniff test?

[MaxPen]

I for one hope Max and Rob set something up to meet. It might not prove much gambling wise but would show that both are regular people and regardless of all the back and forth, can be civil to each other.

In terms of evaluating a person, I don't see how six hours spent in someone's company would much soften 10,000 forum posts over 10 years. Or are expectations these days that everyone plays make believe when they're online for hours on end but are "their real selves" when they get to meet somebody face to face? Seems to me, it's more likely the other way around. It's easy to suck it up and pretend you're on Broadway when in someone's company for a few hours. Harder to reign in who you are over years and thousands of posts.

I don't even see how you can make a case for online personas "not being real." If a person spends thousands of hours posting as such-and-such, that's who they are. If you're an online pedophile, you're a pedophile. If you're an online liar, you're a liar.

Thinking that you "know the real person" after spending a little time with them face to face is the height of arrogance. It suggests that you have some godlike ability to "see the true person" in a couple of hours. You may as well claim you can read the other person's mind, because that's pretty much what you're claiming.

After reading yet another of your raps purporting to "really know a person's character because of how they act and react with mostly anonymous people in online forums that are known for being places of entertainment and guilty pleasures for the vast majority of posters"--and where you've talked yourself into believing I am some wicked, hateful, lying personality in real life---then explain how that squares with my being very happily married to the same woman for nearly 44 years, my having had two extremely successful working careers prior to also being successful in video poker, and having wonderful children and grandchildren -- a few of which you claim I "live off of"? And if I were as insulting and hateful in real life as you seem to want to believe I am, how in the world did I survive all those face-to-face meetings I've had in virtually every country on earth?

Boz, regarding how a meet-up would go with max, I do believe what you're saying because you've met us both. I expect he has the ability to understand when and why to antagonize on forums--like most people try to do tho not as successfully as him--but unlike someone like kew for example, he also has the sense to realize what exactly he's talking to in a face-to-face scenario. Kew is just too weak and lacking-in-confidence a person, and for some reason is hell-bent on his mission to discredit anyone he feels has him pegged. IE, he's a lost cause.

We're taking off now in this beautiful weather that we miss when we're away from Az. and Nv. and after LV we're again headed to the upper mid-west. Won't be much time to entertainingly bitch slap anyone, but I'll eventually be back.

Are you beginning to wonder what's going on with the sniff test?

You went from, "I will be here for 5 overnights in 3 different casinos to leaving town" in one post

[MaxPen]

I for one hope Max and Rob set something up to meet. It might not prove much gambling wise but would show that both are regular people and regardless of all the back and forth, can be civil to each other.

In terms of evaluating a person, I don't see how six hours spent in someone's company would much soften 10,000 forum posts over 10 years. Or are expectations these days that everyone plays make believe when they're online for hours on end but are "their real selves" when they get to meet somebody face to face? Seems to me, it's more likely the other way around. It's easy to suck it up and pretend you're on Broadway when in someone's company for a few hours. Harder to reign in who you are over years and thousands of posts.

I don't even see how you can make a case for online personas "not being real." If a person spends thousands of hours posting as such-and-such, that's who they are. If you're an online pedophile, you're a pedophile. If you're an online liar, you're a liar.

Thinking that you "know the real person" after spending a little time with them face to face is the height of arrogance. It suggests that you have some godlike ability to "see the true person" in a couple of hours. You may as well claim you can read the other person's mind, because that's pretty much what you're claiming.

After reading yet another of your raps purporting to "really know a person's character because of how they act and react with mostly anonymous people in online forums that are known for being places of entertainment and guilty pleasures for the vast majority of posters"--and where you've talked yourself into believing I am some wicked, hateful, lying personality in real life---then explain how that squares with my being very happily married to the same woman for nearly 44 years, my having had two extremely successful working careers prior to also being successful in video poker, and having wonderful children and grandchildren -- a few of which you claim I "live off of"? And if I were as insulting and hateful in real life as you seem to want to believe I am, how in the world did I survive all those face-to-face meetings I've had in virtually every country on earth?

Boz, regarding how a meet-up would go with max, I do believe what you're saying because you've met us both. I expect he has the ability to understand when and why to antagonize on forums--like most people try to do tho not as successfully as him--but unlike someone like kew for example, he also has the sense to realize what exactly he's talking to in a face-to-face scenario. Kew is just too weak and lacking-in-confidence a person, and for some reason is hell-bent on his mission to discredit anyone he feels has him pegged. IE, he's a lost cause.

We're taking off now in this beautiful weather that we miss when we're away from Az. and Nv. and after LV we're again headed to the upper mid-west. Won't be much time to entertainingly bitch slap anyone, but I'll eventually be back.

Are you beginning to wonder what's going on with the sniff test?

I do believe the BTK killer was married with children too. Held down a job as well.

[redietz]

I for one hope Max and Rob set something up to meet. It might not prove much gambling wise but would show that both are regular people and regardless of all the back and forth, can be civil to each other.

In terms of evaluating a person, I don't see how six hours spent in someone's company would much soften 10,000 forum posts over 10 years. Or are expectations these days that everyone plays make believe when they're online for hours on end but are "their real selves" when they get to meet somebody face to face? Seems to me, it's more likely the other way around. It's easy to suck it up and pretend you're on Broadway when in someone's company for a few hours. Harder to reign in who you are over years and thousands of posts.

I don't even see how you can make a case for online personas "not being real." If a person spends thousands of hours posting as such-and-such, that's who they are. If you're an online pedophile, you're a pedophile. If you're an online liar, you're a liar.

Thinking that you "know the real person" after spending a little time with them face to face is the height of arrogance. It suggests that you have some godlike ability to "see the true person" in a couple of hours. You may as well claim you can read the other person's mind, because that's pretty much what you're claiming.

After reading yet another of your raps purporting to "really know a person's character because of how they act and react with mostly anonymous people in online forums that are known for being places of entertainment and guilty pleasures for the vast majority of posters"--and where you've talked yourself into believing I am some wicked, hateful, lying personality in real life---then explain how that squares with my being very happily married to the same woman for nearly 44 years, my having had two extremely successful working careers prior to also being successful in video poker, and having wonderful children and grandchildren -- a few of which you claim I "live off of"? And if I were as insulting and hateful in real life as you seem to want to believe I am, how in the world did I survive all those face-to-face meetings I've had in virtually every country on earth?

Boz, regarding how a meet-up would go with max, I do believe what you're saying because you've met us both. I expect he has the ability to understand when and why to antagonize on forums--like most people try to do tho not as successfully as him--but unlike someone like kew for example, he also has the sense to realize what exactly he's talking to in a face-to-face scenario. Kew is just too weak and lacking-in-confidence a person, and for some reason is hell-bent on his mission to discredit anyone he feels has him pegged. IE, he's a lost cause.

We're taking off now in this beautiful weather that we miss when we're away from Az. and Nv. and after LV we're again headed to the upper mid-west. Won't be much time to entertainingly bitch slap anyone, but I'll eventually be back.

Are you beginning to wonder what's going on with the sniff test?

God Bless someone who thinks "he also has the sense to realize what exactly he's talking to in a face-to-face scenario." Must be like a Spider-sense. Alas, I have no super powers.

FYI, I don't claim you "live off" your children. Depending on the date, that might have been mickey. Depending on the definition of "living off of," that might have been you. Some people think a parent who travels around, crashing at their kids' homes for big chunks of time or parking in their driveways, is "living off" them. I don't. Do you?

Also, I don't treat forums as places for "entertainment and guilty pleasures." I think you're confusing forums with online porn.

[MaxPen]

I for one hope Max and Rob set something up to meet. It might not prove much gambling wise but would show that both are regular people and regardless of all the back and forth, can be civil to each other.

In terms of evaluating a person, I don't see how six hours spent in someone's company would much soften 10,000 forum posts over 10 years. Or are expectations these days that everyone plays make believe when they're online for hours on end but are "their real selves" when they get to meet somebody face to face? Seems to me, it's more likely the other way around. It's easy to suck it up and pretend you're on Broadway when in someone's company for a few hours. Harder to reign in who you are over years and thousands of posts.

I don't even see how you can make a case for online personas "not being real." If a person spends thousands of hours posting as such-and-such, that's who they are. If you're an online pedophile, you're a pedophile. If you're an online liar, you're a liar.

Thinking that you "know the real person" after spending a little time with them face to face is the height of arrogance. It suggests that you have some godlike ability to "see the true person" in a couple of hours. You may as well claim you can read the other person's mind, because that's pretty much what you're claiming.

Even seeing him playing $50/hand VP for awhile would lend credibility to his latest claim.

[jbjb]

In terms of evaluating a person, I don't see how six hours spent in someone's company would much soften 10,000 forum posts over 10 years. Or are expectations these days that everyone plays make believe when they're online for hours on end but are "their real selves" when they get to meet somebody face to face? Seems to me, it's more likely the other way around. It's easy to suck it up and pretend you're on Broadway when in someone's company for a few hours. Harder to reign in who you are over years and thousands of posts.

I don't even see how you can make a case for online personas "not being real." If a person spends thousands of hours posting as such-and-such, that's who they are. If you're an online pedophile, you're a pedophile. If you're an online liar, you're a liar.

Thinking that you "know the real person" after spending a little time with them face to face is the height of arrogance. It suggests that you have some godlike ability to "see the true person" in a couple of hours. You may as well claim you can read the other person's mind, because that's pretty much what you're claiming.

After reading yet another of your raps purporting to "really know a person's character because of how they act and react with mostly anonymous people in online forums that are known for being places of entertainment and guilty pleasures for the vast majority of posters"--and where you've talked yourself into believing I am some wicked, hateful, lying personality in real life---then explain how that squares with my being very happily married to the same woman for nearly 44 years, my having had two extremely successful working careers prior to also being successful in video poker, and having wonderful children and grandchildren -- a few of which you claim I "live off of"? And if I were as insulting and hateful in real life as you seem to want to believe I am, how in the world did I survive all those face-to-face meetings I've had in virtually every country on earth?

Boz, regarding how a meet-up would go with max, I do believe what you're saying because you've met us both. I expect he has the ability to understand when and why to antagonize on forums--like most people try to do tho not as successfully as him--but unlike someone like kew for example, he also has the sense to realize what exactly he's talking to in a face-to-face scenario. Kew is just too weak and lacking-in-confidence a person, and for some reason is hell-bent on his mission to discredit anyone he feels has him pegged. IE, he's a lost cause.

We're taking off now in this beautiful weather that we miss when we're away from Az. and Nv. and after LV we're again headed to the upper mid-west. Won't be much time to entertainingly bitch slap anyone, but I'll eventually be back.

Are you beginning to wonder what's going on with the sniff test?

I do believe the BTK killer was married with children too. Held down a job as well.

Al Bundy?

[tableplay]

When I was thinking it was 2x, all you need to do is basically figure out what the odds of pat jacks of better are and go from there.

The 2X multiplier used on one of Rob's five Royal Flushes (the 3X was used on another of them) don't have to be generated by jacks or better. For example, if you are dealt a scratch hand (holding nothing), you're final hand created from the replacement cards could be a pair of jacks or pair of queens or pair of kings or pair of aces. Any of which would generate a next hand 2X multiplier which would then have been used on one of Ron's dealt royal flushes. The scratch hand's replacement cards could generate any of the paying quad-kicker hands, a straight flush or royal flush - any of which would also generate a 2X multiplier. If you were dealt three to straight flush with three low cards and the two discarded cards were replaced by a high pair you would generate a 2X multipler for the next spin (the royal flush spin) - and on and on and on. So no,you would not, in fact, just need to figure the probabability of dealt jacks (which never improved in the ending hand otherwise a higher multiplier would get generated). The interested reader (which is to say no one) can go through all the other holds that could create a 2X multiplier for the next hand (all high card single card holds, all holds of a low card three of a kind that end up improving to a four of a kind with a kicker, etc. ). The interested reader would have to figure out the probability of getting each type of dealt hand hold that has the potential for its discard replacement cards to create a 2x next hand multiplier and then also calculate the probability of getting the proper (2x next hand multiplier) ending hand with that particular hold. There's quite a few combinations - a pat jacks or better that does not improve is but one of them.