Big Casino Wins and Jackpots

[Rob.Singer]

Rob... the only thing responsible for your "ability to win consistent extraordinary amounts" is that you are playing $10 and $25 video poker. Other players get the same hands but playing 25-cent and 50-cent video poker. I see this all the time at Rincon in the video poker section. You are not hitting these quads with kickers any more frequently than lower level players do. Sorry. But that's reality.

The only way for you to prove to us that you do hit these "winners" more frequently is if you showed us some sort of casino statement that tracked your actual play: whether it be a coin-in/coin-out statement, or a tier score statement, or something where we could figure the percentage of your "big hits" to the number of hands played. And I know you won't come up with that data for whatever reason.

You say your ARTT method gets you to the higher denominations more quickly? Well I've said this before and I will say it again: with your bankroll you should be starting at the higher denominations... period.

Rob, here is what I VALUE about your systems and methodology:

1. Discipline following win goals and loss limits. Absolutely essential and because of that my video poker balance sheet has changed remarkably. I no longer chase royals meaning I no longer keep playing till I hit a royal or bust out. I now set and accept certain win goals.

2. Certain special plays. Yes, I see some value in certain special plays involving aces. However, I reserve judgment about when I might use a special play and when I might use conventional strategy (since I use conventional strategy most if not all of the time).

3. Changing denominations. I think it is important to change denominations -- but perhaps not the way you intended. But I think you'll agree with me that moving to a lower denomination when things are not going well makes sense. And moving to a lower denomination to preserve profits also makes sense.

4. Making "bonus poker" your primary workhorse for play since it has less volatility and will keep you in the game longer.

Your points aren't all that far off, except you keep making the same irresponsible comment about ARTT when you don't understand it nor have you ever been trained to play it.

I'm not here to prove that I win what and how I say I do. The only time "proving it" meant anything at all to me was when I humiliated the HP bunch back in 2006. People can either accept it or not, just as they have always done with anyone else anywhere who has ever made claims of winning or losing. Sure my picture postings here and in the paper have irritated many over the years, but at least I've posted my wins. Pictures don't prove much beyond a winning hand, but they're worth a lot more than someone like Dancer saying he always wins when it's obvious his money comes from working. And maybe Dan should spend his time trying to nail down that about him instead of theories about time stamps, which we discussed months ago and which can easily be changed but I wouldn't bother --or maybe I did just to bug the Sherlocks --and my CET offers. Here's an idea: he's got to be convinced I'm a photoshop sharpshooter at this point. Haters usually do. How about you send him to Wynn to take some pics in the high limit room and see what he can admit to when he REALLY has some facts.

[Vegas_lover]

First Robbieboy doesn't provide straight answers to Dan's questions about his New Orleans offer and than Robbie doesn't provide straight answers to Dan's questions about the dates of his pictures. Please do tell, why does anybody still discuss anything with this character? There really is no reason at all to discuss anything with him, it's all just completely useless and you're all waisting valuable time and energy.

There's only one solution: give this man a stage in an empty concert hall and let him sing whatever tune he likes.

[Alan Mendelson]

I'm not here to prove that I win what and how I say I do.

That's the funniest thing I ever read. Every time you post it's about how and why you do whether it involves your special plays, or ARTT, or discipline or whatever. Even when you comment about someone else winning it's about how the other person is doing it all wrong and is either destined to fail or is addicted because they don't do it your way.

Quite frankly, Rob, NO ONE knows what your way is, not even your most ardent supporters who continue to ask question after question.

Even I thought it was pretty clear about your "special plays" when it came to holding kickers and then we recently found out that even that simple rule was not a rule.

To be honest, if you can't come up with straight answers to legitimate questions you don't have a verifiable system and you have no right to make your claims about your system or your wins.

And a system that can't be verified is no system at all.

[a2a3dseddie]

To be honest, if you can't come up with straight answers to legitimate questions you don't have a verifiable system and you have no right to make your claims about your system or your wins.

And a system that can't be verified is no system at all.

[Rob.Singer]

That's the funniest thing I ever read. Every time you post it's about how and why you do whether it involves your special plays, or ARTT, or discipline or whatever. Even when you comment about someone else winning it's about how the other person is doing it all wrong and is either destined to fail or is addicted because they don't do it your way.

Quite frankly, Rob, NO ONE knows what your way is, not even your most ardent supporters who continue to ask question after question.

Even I thought it was pretty clear about your "special plays" when it came to holding kickers and then we recently found out that even that simple rule was not a rule.

To be honest, if you can't come up with straight answers to legitimate questions you don't have a verifiable system and you have no right to make your claims about your system or your wins.

And a system that can't be verified is no system at all.

Not a good idea Alan saying some of that. All you're doing is confirming that you do not understand something because you haven't the ability to learn it. I think I've tried to be as nice as possible in the past by loosely using the words "thick"....or "dense". In other words, you talk a big game here and you play higher limits than most, but you just don't have the aptitude to comprehend either that which is clearly explained to you, as I and Sling have detailed in ARTT, for example, multiple, multiple, multiple times, nor do you really have an interest in learning why you've lost so much, since taking time to do that would cut into your casino visits and ultimately, your need to spend hours and hours at the machines each visit because you just can't bear to leave the action behind. And here's a flash Alan--one which you've never understood, and frankly, couldn't. My strategies (aka "systems" to you) are based on mathematics, but unlike optimal strategy, they are not totally based on math. Remember? So for anyone who truly wanted to understand them would have to go into it comprehending that they are not 100% verifiable with the math, which in turn means they would need to have a bit more intelligence than the standard smart guy or math guy. And that's not you.