Help me to understand why it bothers red and some others here that Alan doesn''t play Rob's system. He has stated repeatedly that he's not interested in using the bankroll that Rob's system requires. Does that make the system bad?? Who knows. Does that mean Alan is wrong?? Why??Originally Posted by redietz
What am I missing that this bothers some of you. They are 2 different people using 2 different methods. Who cares?
No one should care. They are both playing negative games. That is not something anyone should follow. Singer is a proven liar and Alan admits his overall gambling results have been losses.Originally Posted by regnis
Hold it, Arc. I don't think negative games are the issue. I also play positive expectation games when I can find them. And I am sure Rob would also play positive games when he can find them. Rob does not play negative expectation games as a rule and I am sure he would tell you that his strategies would also work on positive paytables.
Now, as far as my overall gambling results: I've put the blame on craps -- I am ahead at video poker, and have been. I am also ahead at cash live poker games, but lost too much playing tournaments which is why I've just about completely given up tournaments except for a rare $60 or $70 tournament. The last one I played was about six months ago... so that is pretty rare.
I think he needs one of those vacations normal people take.Originally Posted by arcimede$He lies about me, then he lies about Alan's vp results since adopting goals, and then he lies about playing only -EV games. Remember the 25c thru $5 machines with all the 100%+ games I i'd'd @ Eldorado? Being couped up in a house of pain with a ball & chain THAT HE MANUFACTURED! causes strange rumblings....
Last edited by Rob.Singer; 07-20-2013 at 10:52 AM.
There's two: RTT & ARTT (Romp-Thru-Town & Advanced RTT).Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
The bankroll required for that 5-level RTT is, in detail, as follows: 50 credits @ 25c BP/50 @ 25c SDBP; 50 @ 50c BP/100 @ 50c SDBP; 100 @ $1 BP/100 @ $1 SDBP; 100 @ $2 BP/200 @ $2 SDBP; & 100 @ $5 BP/300 @SDBP. That's $2900 for a session and I recommend a 3X total gambling bankroll--or $8700--and your SINGLE SESSION WIN GOAL, which is a function of the lowest denomination being played, is $50. Your DAILY OVERALL WIN GOAL is $250. In other words, you'd play until you got at least $50 ahead in each session, then you'd go back and restart. You keep doing this until you hit $250 in profit minimum. If you happen to lose a session--which will only occur no more than 10% of the time--that's where the two additional session bankrolls come into play. I have never lost three in the same day or even two, and losing one or two is near-meaningless overall anyway because of the multiple big hits you'll experience.
Most people would rather play ARTT, because of the smaller bankroll requirement and the fact that it is far more interesting and entertaining. Here on that same 5-level spread, you'll need $2000/session, and again, I recommend 3X that for a total bankroll if doing this seriously. Your single session mini-win goal is $1.25, & your daily win goal is $200.
I know your first comment will be about such small win goals with such big risk. You will notice many big dollar wins because of this, and a large bankroll makes the small win goals easy to attain. Large bankrolls with relatively small win goals is the trademark of all my strategies, and is one of the main reasons I've succeeded with each of them.
I can hit a $250 win goal playing a couple of hands on $5 Bonus. It seems to me your system is a lot of trouble for little return.
Alan you are mostly correct. Go in with $2700 with a win goal of $250. It is going to work out in your favor quite often. But you better hope you don't have a tough session the first time out brotha!
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
It seems that way to you because you're forgetting you usually have losing years. How often do you think you can sit down and win $250 on $5 BP only, in comparison to how much you will lose trying that continuously? You like to keep it simple because all you want is the action without too much effort, and you have money to lose. But think if you had put in similar effort to mine over the years. I'm far ahead; you could be too. I guess it boils down to your commitment level, and if you ever want to do anything at a casino other than rush in and sit down for some quick action. I used to get sweaty hands also as I neared casinos. But I eventually discovered it's so much more than that, because I no longer went to casinos for thrills--I went to win their money.
Rob are you trying to tell me that only your system allows small win goals to work? Sorry Rob. You don't have the exclusive on small win goals.
Let me turn this around and ask you: what makes you think you will win $250 with your $2900 bankroll playing 25-cent and fifty cent and one-dollar games? In order to win significant money at those lower levels games, you need to hit the "big winners".Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Take the same $2900 to a 8/5 $5 bonus game and hit one full house and you have a profit of $175 (actual win $200). Hit a straight and you have a $75 profit.
Your system requires "banking" a lot of small wins at the lower levels to accumulate profits. Well how many small wins must you accumulate at 25 cent games and fifty cent games? And why would accumulating small wins at 25-cent and 50-cent games be a faster route to a $250 win goal than accumulating small wins at a $5 game? And the answer is: it isn't. Both require luck.
Frankly, Rob, if I brought $2900 to a casino (which I never do) I'd feel pretty stupid walking out with only a $250 profit after taking into consideration the cost of going to the casino.
I look at your claims about "smart play" as being no different than an AP who says that if they are on a positive expectation game that they will be profitable. Your system does not guarantee profits. If it did, you wouldn't have to chase your losses to the tune of $53,000 ... and still not hit a $2,500 win goal with a $173,000 bankroll.
Look Rob, you have valid points, and you have good ideas, and you help many players see the truth about casino gambling. But don't make the mistake of trying to claim that your system is better than any other system. It's not. It's worthwhile, but it doesn't have any lock on ingenuity. If you did have a lock, you wouldn't be telling people to have a $173,000 bankroll or a $2,900 bankroll. You need those bankrolls because your system has no lock on anything but the idea to hope you get lucky before an underfunded bankroll becomes exhausted.
Last edited by Alan Mendelson; 07-20-2013 at 08:14 PM.
Only small win goals? The win goal is "just" $250, but I've won everywhere between $250 & nearly $20,000/session going for it. Where did you get that from?
You don't understand the reason for playing low to higher denoms. either. It's not about winning $250 all on one hit. It's about winning a bit here and a bit there so you DON'T NEED a big win all the time, and the majority of your session wins will be won in that manner. Your mind seems to be stuck on the point that it's difficult to get ahead $250 on quarters & halves. Mostly yes, but you are completely ignoring their win-reduction factor for the higher level games. And THAT is where the majority of the 80%-90% win rate comes from. As for your continued belief that playing only $5 will win $250 faster? Correct, but as you've experienced and as you should know by now, you'll lose a lot of money overall doing that because the wipeout session losses of $2900/ will come far more often. Remember, NO GREED is a key part of any winning player's successful approach to playing. Once you get that out of your head--along with your nonsensical moving target win goals because you just can't bear to stop the action, which goes hand in hand with greed--then you will NEVER feel silly walking out of ANY casino with ANY amount of profit.
The remainder of your comments about the bankroll I used shows you never want to seriously understand such a complicated strategy. I believe even Frank had the same problem and took the same easy way out. Do you understand why there's a saying "you need money to win money"? That's because if you play a game with $20 you will almost always lose it going for a $10 win. Your chances get better & better as your win % requirement gets lower. And that's why my strategies have such low % win goals and why I've had such incredible success. Yes any strategy requires luck to win. My strategies, including ALL the special plays, simply give MEANINGFUL luck (ie, session-ending hits coming from more volatile & higher denominational games) much more opportunity to appear in every session. And the reason I always say unique ingenuity went into what I've developed, is because I know of no one else who's ever come up with something as successful against the vp machines as this.
Last edited by Rob.Singer; 07-21-2013 at 12:14 PM.
Your post is filled with inconsistencies. If 90 pct of wins come from higher denominations then why not just play at that level?
Who said anything about a $10 win goal with a $20 bankroll? That's a fantasy. Let's try one dollar.
The inconsistencies begin and end with you not paying attention to what was said....again.
Do you remember reading "the win reduction factor", and what the lower level wins have to do with that? Here it is again: You win some on the lower levels; now it's time to play at the higher levels. Your recovery + $250 is now less or much less because of your wins at the lower levels.
If you're playing only $5 and you're stuck $1800 then hit four Aces on BP, you STILL are not able to quit. But if you were smart and played my strategy you very well could have been down only $1400 because of your wins at the smaller denominations. Then suddenly, you're up $600 and it's time to go home. Except for you of course. You'd change your win goal to something more, then lose a few hundred, then claim you went home "happy" with the $250. And that's where lifetime losing comes into play--all that extra profit you just had to squander away because you didn't want to stop when you said you would. That, and the ridiculous program of giving away thousands in handpay tips because you get intimidated by floor stiffs.
I can help you win overall, be happy 80% to 90% of the time you go to casinos, and I can help you KEEP your winnings by doing what you say you're going to do and not continually be overcome with the craving for more action. I can do it alan. Just ask....and get motivated.
Rob what makes you think you won't have smaller wins to bank playing at $5?? You make it seem as though at $5 you can't have small wins just as in small denomination games.
Won a little over $5,000.00 playing craps Saturday afternoon at Rincon. Shooter rolled a 5-point FireBet for $1250.00 and also shot lots of hardways. I left too much money on the table....feels like the rolls will never end sometimes.
Congratulations on the win! Ironically, I hear more about Fire Bet payoffs at Rincon which is card craps, and totally random play, than I hear about at other casinos such as Caesars and Rio where shooters have a "chance" at dice influencing.Originally Posted by JamieV
You can't influence the dice in card craps because how you throw the dice has no impact on the cards and what numbers they will reveal. It makes you wonder if just random luck is all that matters in any version of the game of craps?
Nice win. I have never had the opportunity, or should I say displeasure, of playing card craps. After playing craps all my life, I don't think I could get excited about card craps. Of course, 5 numbers on the fire would help.
Alan, I am still a firm believer in some degree of dice control, and I wasn't barred because of "bad" shooting. But I trust the cards more than some of the wild random shooters that we all hate in craps.
I was at a real dice craps table when a shooter made all six points in the fire bet -- and he was a random shooter. The dice flew and bounced all over the place.
I try to influence the dice. I set them and roll them carefully. Here are my results with the fire bet:
Made five numbers: Caesars with real dice, once. Rio with real dice, once. Rincon with card craps, once.
Made four numbers: Caesars with real dice, three times. Rincon with card craps, once.
Number of times I played craps with real dice at Caesars or Rio -- too many to count.
Number of times I was the shooter at Rincon -- not more than ten times my entire life.
Question: why do I have a much higher percentage of fire bet payoffs at card craps? LOL
Didn't say you won't have any. But you'll have less of them because you'll have far less credits to play with, and those 80 losing hands at $5 only are far more costly and will lead to bankroll ruin far sooner than being less greedy from the start. Playing that way is no different than what an AP does--banging away at a single denomination for hours on end, hoping to win every time and trying to pile up as many of those sacred slot club points as possible. They lose the majority of their sessions, and they play on better pay tables. Your one advantage over that is in your goal-setting, even though yours is moving target-baseOriginally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Last edited by Rob.Singer; 07-22-2013 at 10:54 AM.
At Rincon this very moment a guy sitting to my left was dealt a royal on a five play machine with $5.00 bet..They have been over an hour and he hasn't got paid yet. $100, 000.00.
Wow, what's the hangup? I've seen them pay $400,000 royals on $100 single line machines without a hitch.Originally Posted by spojoey
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote