Final Opportunity

[quahaug]

This has turned out the way every single person said it would.

This has been a silly exercise. If a lottery player touting a system produced tax returns proving he/she won money IN THE PAST, how is that "slamming the door in critics' faces?" It's not.

Rob, why don't you spell out exactly how the use of transcripts will enable arci to fool Alan? That's what you're saying here. Exactly how would the obfuscation work? I'm asking because I have read all of your responses, and you do not spell it out or present a theory of how he would fool anybody.

This isn't you versus arci. This is you versus credibility. If you're going to tout a system on someone else's forum. and the system cannot be shown mathematically to work (and it can't), then what you are left with is demonstrating that at least it worked FOR YOU FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. But you can't even do that.

No math prove. You seem to trust Alan, but would prefer not giving him historical evidence.

Let's stop spinning this as Rob vs. arci and start calling it Rob vs. Alan. Does that motivate Rob to send in income tax evidence or does it simply enable him to categorize Alan as a "critic" who is therefore unworthy of seeing any evidence?

Personally, I think this is all silly. If Rob lost for five or seven years before his 10 years of winning, how or why do the losing years not count? Because he was wearing a blue shirt rather than a gray one?

I don't see where this is about Arci at all. He claims to play a positive VP variant with proper strategy, gets cash back, free play. bounce back, and whatever else. He then claims to have come out modestly ahead. Doesn't sound too outrageous or far fetched to me... yawn, nothing to see here. Rob on the other hand....well we all know about his claims.

[Rob.Singer]

This has been a silly exercise. If a lottery player touting a system produced tax returns proving he/she won money IN THE PAST, how is that "slamming the door in critics' faces?" It's not.

Because red, that's exactly the position the critics are taking--that it couldn't POSSIBLY have occurred. As for future expectations: I still use several of my strategies, and they have continued to allow me to win. I also continue to offer my free training as well as having critics witness my play directly at machines. To date, everyone has been afraid for fear they would not be able to lie about what I do any longer.

Rob, why don't you spell out exactly how the use of transcripts will enable arci to fool Alan? That's what you're saying here. Exactly how would the obfuscation work? I'm asking because I have read all of your responses, and you do not spell it out or present a theory of how he would fool anybody.

He's spent far more time researching transcripts that I have, yet he continues to claim Line 28 will categorize deductions when they clearly do not. But this as you assert is not really about him--it's about me. By him realizing his mistake to require full returns, he knew transcripts would be incomplete evidence from a filer of Schedule C, so he scrambled to alter the original terms. He always uses a safety net in his deceptions. With transcripts, he's free to claim how they don't show or break down the info enuf to yield an unarguable conclusion. Everyone can see that, yet no one will say it. And this is exactly why tax returns are needed and we should both be held to the same standards, not to mention because it was arci who proposed the whole thing. You may also notice how the last time I posted that I had already sent my form in. That set off alarms inside arci's core, so what does he do? Yup, he suddenly backs out, and talks Alan into agreeing with him because "it's all about Rob, not arci". This time, arci writes that he will go first to get returns, and when I accepted he went into his survival mode by altering his own terms. In short, what a scared weasel would do. He is more afraid of being wrong about me than he is of showing people he was right about himself.

This isn't you versus arci. This is you versus credibility. If you're going to tout a system on someone else's forum. and the system cannot be shown mathematically to work (and it can't), then what you are left with is demonstrating that at least it worked FOR YOU FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. But you can't even do that.

Of course I can. Read my first statement, then what I am willing to do to prove the past.

No math prove. You seem to trust Alan, but would prefer not giving him historical evidence.

Let's stop spinning this as Rob vs. arci and start calling it Rob vs. Alan. Does that motivate Rob to send in income tax evidence or does it simply enable him to categorize Alan as a "critic" who is therefore unworthy of seeing any evidence?

Alan believes I have won. And you remain wrong. I am motivated to send tax evidence if they are tax returns, not transcripts. That's what's needed on my end.

Personally, I think this is all silly. If Rob lost for five or seven years before his 10 years of winning, how or why do the losing years not count? Because he was wearing a blue shirt rather than a gray one?

It IS silly. I lost around $250k over about 6 years, but of course the critics don't care to see proof of that. They (you included) just don't like the fact that I've won well over a million dollars since by using non-AP methods, and that I am able to continue doing that basically at-will. No one wants to see that either. All they want is proof of winning years because it hurts to see someone win consistently at a game most players have big trouble with.

One last thing red--my tax returns are no simple set of documents. Arci's are. Mine have multiple sources of domestic income, several homes involved in most years, foreign funds income & credits, and some other very personal sets of information that does affect my gambling income. Plus my wife still walks the earth and her info is there also. That's why when I proposed the Fezzik bet that was also covered by a gal at the LV Sun, I made it for over a half million dollars. That's what it was worth to us to have all of our personal information out in the open. In this case, I get zilch in return for full disclosure, yet I am willing to let Alan see every bit of it in order to make idiots like arci throw up. It's taking a big chance but now that my life has settled down it doesn't mean all that much to me any longer. And all arci has to do is send his form 4506 to Alan for the past 10 years. That's it. Instead, because he knows I won't bother with transcripts, he changed over to them. What's that tell you?

I consider what this has turned into to be 7th or 8th grade level, and it's all because of another arci-scramble.

[jbjb]

Megabucks slot jackpot winners use non AP methods also yet they most likely made more money lifetime gambling than everyone here combined. Your argument holds no water. Nor will yours or anyone's tax returns prove yours or anyone else's system(s) works. And that's what it really boils down to.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, I don't doubt you won the money. You were playing high stakes video poker and in doing so you could easily average $100,000 per year. I think by also using the strategy of quitting when ahead you kept much of those big wins. I agree with you that we all seem to hit big winners and if we know to leave with a profit we can come back and hit another big winner and leave again with a profit.

Because we play hundreds or thousands of hands of video poker we get those opportunities to hit a big winner and leave. Players at blackjack and sports betting don't have that opportunity so this is a foreign concept to them.

I do not endorse your special plays, but in reality, you've scored some big wins with conventional strategy yourself.

But with that said why must Arc provide his tax returns first, and why does he have to provide them at all?

Why not show me the returns, let me take a photo of key lines on the returns (namely your gambling wins and gambling losses), and let me put the photos online (while keeping all other personal info private) and be done with it?

Frankly, Arc should not be criticized for providing transcripts as transcripts might tell his story 100% accurately.

If you feel you need to provide the full 1040 then go ahead and get the returns and show them to me and allow me to report what I see. Arc may not need to provide full 1040 forms to see his complete story.

[Alan Mendelson]

Nor will yours or anyone's tax returns prove yours or anyone else's system(s) works. And that's what it really boils down to.

This is true. Tax returns will not prove any system or methodology works. But in this case, the "test" is about Rob's reports of having net wins averaging $100,000 per year. Ironically, he also reported he paid no taxes on those wins.

[jbjb]

With him regularly playing very high limit machines, I can see it being possible. But the real question is, was it due to his strategy or just plain dumb luck?

[Alan Mendelson]

With him regularly playing very high limit machines, I can see it being possible. But the real question is, was it due to his strategy or just plain dumb luck?

We won't know.

[redietz]

The number is still -340 that Rob's tax returns do not wind up in Alan's hands.

That was the opening number ages ago. If Rob's tax returns don't wind up in Alan's hands in a week, NO is the winner at -340.

[Rob.Singer]

jbjb, the best and probably only way to identify it is both: strategy & dumb luck....although the term "dumb" might not work best here.

Because of my failed effort at being a vp ap--where everything I did was actually controlled by +EV games, slot clubs & promotions as well as utilizing casino tools such as ATM's, hosts, mailed offers, casino credit lines, etc.--I did a sharp 180, totally reversing my approach as well as my idealogy about gambling.

Yes people win, but they only do so if the cards fall their way. Even for AP's--it's all really nothing more than a waiting-it-out game. Those royals MUST HIT in order to achieve that edge, and every royal is 100% luck.

I recognized luck as being the ONLY method of winning, so it only made sense to give good luck as many opportunities to appear as possible when one plays. And that's done thru a structured increase in denomination & game volatility, special plays that deviate from optimal holds, and an intricate money management system. At the same time, my true "advantage" came by completely rejecting every one of those reel 'em in casino tools I mentioned, because as we all know (but few will admit to) they are designed to extract every dollar possible from every player who succombs to their hard-to-resist tools. It is as simple as that.

So yes, I won and I still do because of luck, only it's not as random as you think. I do not mathematically beat anything. Give anything good in life more opportunity to show up, and it will. You just have to use that magnificent computer attached to your neck, and not the one in your hands. For instance, my marriage has been a good one, but it takes work. We both always look for ways to make it more fun and satisfying all the time, so we "go for" whatever might accomplish that. Some people might say owning a big RV is a negative--it's a big waste, a burden, anti-"green", or whatever. In other words, to most it's a big risk. But to us it's enhanced our lives, so it was a big win. And this is exactly how playing vp has worked for me. The opportunity is there, waiting to be exploited. But who's gonna take advantage of it? So far, only me.

[Rob.Singer]

This is true. Tax returns will not prove any system or methodology works. But in this case, the "test" is about Rob's reports of having net wins averaging $100,000 per year. Ironically, he also reported he paid no taxes on those wins.

Alan, if arci continues to refuse to submit the tax forms he first said he would, then when we have dinner I will explain something that will be an eye-opener. After that, I believe you will firmly agree with me that full tax returns are really my only option.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, if arci continues to refuse to submit the tax forms he first said he would, then when we have dinner I will explain something that will be an eye-opener. After that, I believe you will firmly agree with me that full tax returns are really my only option.

I don't think they are the ONLY option. I won't know anything until I get Arc's transcripts. I do know what questions to ask Arc to be sure HIS TRANSCRIPTS are what's needed.

It really comes down to what other gains/losses are included in the same tax return lines that include casino wins and casino losses. In my case I don't have anything for those same lines. If Arc doesn't have anything else that would be included in those same lines then what's the problem? Rob, do you have other gains/losses that would be included on those same tax form lines for casino wins and casino losses?

Let me give you examples from the IRS instructions:

Examples of income to report on
line 21 include the following.
Most prizes and awards.
Jury duty pay. Also see the instructions
for line 36.
Alaska Permanent Fund dividends.
Reimbursements or other amounts
received for items deducted in an earlier
year, such as medical expenses, real estate
taxes, general sales taxes, or home
mortgage interest. See Recoveries in
Pub. 525 for details on how to figure the
amount to report.
Income from the rental of personal
property if you engaged in the rental for
profit but were not in the business of
renting such property. Also see the instructions
for line 36.
Income from an activity not engaged
in for profit. See Pub. 535.
Taxable distributions from a Coverdell
education savings account (ESA)
or a qualified tuition program (QTP).
Distributions from these accounts may
be taxable if (a) they are more than the
qualified higher education expenses of
the designated beneficiary in 2014, and
(b) they were not included in a qualified
rollover. See Pub. 970. Nontaxable distributions
from these accounts, including
rollovers, do not have to be reported on
Form 1040.

Taxable distributions from a health
savings account (HSA) or an Archer
MSA. Distributions from these accounts
may be taxable if (a) they are more than
the unreimbursed qualified medical expenses
of the account beneficiary or account
holder in 2014, and (b) they were
not included in a qualified rollover. See
Pub. 969.

Amounts deemed to be income
from an HSA because you did not remain
an eligible individual during the
testing period. See Form 8889, Part III.
Gambling winnings, including lotteries,
raffles, a lump-sum payment from
the sale of a right to receive future lottery
payments, etc. For details on gambling
losses, see the instructions for
Schedule A, line 28.

Now, as far as deductions go in addition to the losses that would go on the same line with casino losses on Schedule A:

Gambling losses (gambling losses
include, but are not limited to, the cost
of non-winning bingo, lottery, and raffle
tickets), but only to the extent of gambling
winnings reported on Form 1040,
line 21.
Casualty and theft losses of income-producing
property from Form
4684, lines 32 and 38b, or Form 4797,
line 18a.
Loss from other activities from
Schedule K-1 (Form 1065-B), box 2.
Federal estate tax on income in respect
of a decedent.
A deduction for amortizable bond
premium (for example, a deduction allowed
for a bond premium carryforward
or a deduction for amortizable bond premium on bonds acquired before October
23, 1986).
An ordinary loss attributable to a
contingent payment debt instrument or
an inflation-indexed debt instrument (for
example, a Treasury Inflation-Protected
Security).
Deduction for repayment of
amounts under a claim of right if over
$3,000. See Pub. 525 for details.
Certain unrecovered investment in
a pension.
Impairment-related work expenses
of a disabled person.

So... how many of these "others" do you have on your tax return, Rob, that would conflict with just using the the basic line amounts?

And I ask this WITHOUT first seeing a transcript because the transcripts just might show these breakdowns as well. And if the transcripts do, then the transcripts are all that is needed.

[Rob.Singer]

You'll need to see the transcripts first. I have one here and it is not what you'd expect for our purposes. It requires both assumptions and additional info needed from the supplier, unsupportable info that can be fed in any way desired.

[arcimede$]

Alan, if arci continues to refuse to submit the tax forms he first said he would, then when we have dinner I will explain something that will be an eye-opener. After that, I believe you will firmly agree with me that full tax returns are really my only option.

No one is stopping you from submitting form 4506 and getting full year returns from 2008 and 2009.

All the information is also available on transcripts but you may not be able to request them for those years. We should find out when Alan gets my returns. Since you said you were willing to pay $500 for forms why do you balk at $100. Could it be back payments are due on your trailer?

[Rob.Singer]

No one is stopping you from submitting form 4506 and getting full year returns from 2008 and 2009.

All the information is also available on transcripts but you may not be able to request them for those years. We should find out when Alan gets my returns. Since you said you were willing to pay $500 for forms why do you balk at $100. Could it be back payments are due on your trailer?

Back from your bender again??

Explain why you chickened out of the original challenge. Every IRS FAQ states that these "transcripts" are only available for the past 3 years. If so, are you unequivocably stating that you will give in to the pressure you've created for yourself and submit 4506 for 10 years? If so I will, per the conditions set forth when you weren't running away from me.

Oh I get it--you don't have the wife around to brow beat any longer, so you think you can get away with the lies and nonsense on a forum. Better hope that wretched, decomposing old "hellcat" isn't watching you.....

[arcimede$]

Back from your bender again??

I did see the new Star Wars movie yesterday.

Explain why you chickened out of the original challenge. Every IRS FAQ states that these "transcripts" are only available for the past 3 years. If so, are you unequivocably stating that you will give in to the pressure you've created for yourself and submit 4506 for 10 years? If so I will, per the conditions set forth when you weren't running away from me.

Why would I explain something that has not occurred. If Alan only gets the last 4 years I will submit form 4506 for 2008 and 2009. You can avoid the rush and submit yours today. LOL. Of course, we know you won't. I've been 100% right in my predictions.

Oh I get it--you don't have the wife around to brow beat any longer, so you think you can get away with the lies and nonsense on a forum. Better hope that wretched, decomposing old "hellcat" isn't watching you.....

Once again, the sure fired clue that Robbie is scared witless.

You know Rob, this may be the time to come clean. Everyone already knows you lied. So, maybe you should profit off this. Get out there and write a new book. Come clean. Rob Singer tells all. You must have lots of stories of all the suckers who fell for your scam. Could be very entertaining explaining how you fooled them. It might actually be something people would read. You could make a lot of money (for real this time). Just don't embellish or you will lose credibility once again. Don't forget to send me my 5% fee for suggesting this approach.

[dannyj]

By the way, does nobody save their old returns? I have returns in my file for about 30 years. It doesn't take up much space. Also, if you had an accountant do the returns, the accountant probably still has copies.

Regnis,
My wife and I still have every return filed as married (26 years) and single (7 years each) in our file cabinet. Doesn't take much space.

[Rob.Singer]

I sit back and read your attempts arci and they're laced with just too much sadness. You scramble around your little video poker-controlled world thinking all that nonsense and the lies you tell about me is the meaning of life. I prefer being able to laugh with, do things with, & enjoy my wife's touch--while all you can do is read science books on body-decomposition. Or, as any loner would do: GO SEE STAR WARS!

What a dufus!!!

Anyway, a few points that might cheer you up (if you can get your mind off of video poker): first, you now save money on all those diapers she used; and, since the odds were in favor of "Deb" croaking, look how nicely the math worked out on that one!

C'Mon arci, play along. Let's see more of those tell-tale signs how sore you are at me for mocking you. Lie about me, call me "Robbie", make a challenge then change it, and my personal favorite....explain again how "nothing he says bothers me"!! Hahahahahahaha!!!

It's Christmas time, and although you have to spend it w/o the missus while I have mine right here next to me (and that's what REALLY counts in all this, of course....) THANK YOU FOR BEING THE GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING!

[Rob.Singer]

Regnis,
My wife and I still have every return filed as married (26 years) and single (7 years each) in our file cabinet. Doesn't take much space.

What's the purpose of keeping those? You're only required to keep them three years unless you have some other need.

[regnis]

1. cost basis for investments. Have you ever sold a stock that you owned for 30 years and tried to determine capital gain or loss?
2. Movements between professional gambler status and non-professional status. It helps to have prior years records to establish profit or profit motive when needed.
3. It takes up one drawer in my file cabinet. What's the harm.
4. As a former tax attorney it's just a fetish I have.

[Rob.Singer]

No, not really. Never kept a stock that long outside of the ones in our 401k's. The real issue for me was the unruly stacks of so many different styles of the W2G's every year. I couldn't wait to shred it all.