Photos of Rob Singer's Home

[redietz]

I haven't challenged Rob. I am on record on this site as stating that I believed Rob won what he said in the time frame he said. As time has passed, I think it more possible that I was wrong, but all things considered, I still think it very possible Rob did what he claimed. Do I think Rob's "systems" had anything to do with his doing what he claimed? I don't think his systems did, but I think his ring generalship regarding casinos may have helped.

My issues with Rob have to do with his continual nonsense regarding lifestyle and RVs and automobiles as evidence for the success of his "systems" and his harping on who died when as evidence of this or that regarding video poker. Rob hasn't found a way to circumvent math. He hasn't discovered some brilliant disconnect between short term and long term so that long term doesn't really exist. He just does what he does, and if the story regarding his asking Dancer's company for a position is correct, he does it with a wink and a roll of his eyes.

I'm still trying to figure out why he posted photos of a house he doesn't own. Who does that? What was the point? I'm not going to be envious of any house he put up there.

Now, the schlong, that's another issue....I want one of those.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob NEVER challenged the math of video poker. NEVER.

I don't know who brought up the houses first -- Rob or Arc -- but houses NEVER mattered to me. Why did they matter to you redietz?

Your links?

[redietz]

Rob NEVER challenged the math of video poker. NEVER.

I don't know who brought up the houses first -- Rob or Arc -- but houses NEVER mattered to me. Why did they matter to you redietz?

Your links?

The house never mattered to me. I just think it's weird Rob posted it. I don't care if Rob lives with Donald Trump and gives him schlong lessons.

Alan, if you say you win via special plays and win goals, you are challenging the math of video poker. If you say, "I'm not challenging the math of video poker, but I win due to special plays and win goals," then you are making an oxymoronic statement.

You're not going to believe me. Dial up some probability profs at a UC campus. One of the big giveaways with Rob is that if you ask him at what percentage return point his strategies fail, he never provides an answer. If I were him, I'd just make something up; it would be more credible.

Let's presume Rob won. Lottery winners have won. If a lottery winner tells you he won because he picked numbers from license plates on the way to work, that may be true. And, in a sense, he won because he picked those numbers from those license plates. But that is no rationale for other people to use. It was cause-and-effect for that person that one specific time. It will not be cause and effect for other people driving to work.

Or, if it is, we have a real story here.

[Alan Mendelson]

You are absurd redietz. People can and do win playing negative games all the time. That doesn't mean you can BEAT negative games.

Rob never BEAT negative games. But he did WIN at them.

Where are your links?

[HardEight]

Please advise me why this subject is still being replied to? It's absurd now that we are at page 9.

[Alan Mendelson]

Please advise me why this subject is still being replied to? It's absurd now that we are at page 9.

No. This is more like page 6,926 of this subject.

[slingshot]

You are absurd redietz. People can and do win playing negative games all the time. That doesn't mean you can BEAT negative games.

Rob never BEAT negative games. But he did WIN at them.

Where are your links?

Alan, that is a great explanation.

[RS__]

You are absurd redietz. People can and do win playing negative games all the time. That doesn't mean you can BEAT negative games.

Rob never BEAT negative games. But he did WIN at them.

Where are your links?

Now this is hilarious. Thanks for the laughs, Alan.

[Alan Mendelson]

Now this is hilarious. Thanks for the laughs, Alan.

Actually, I got that off of the WOV forum. Some of your "most respected" math guys explained it that way. Send my laughs over to them.

[RS__]

Actually, I got that off of the WOV forum. Some of your "most respected" math guys explained it that way. Send my laughs over to them.

That's why I think it's funny -- or maybe you're confused. "Beating" a game would be what Rob describes he's done (made more money than lost, over time), while "winning" at a game is more like having a positive session but still a loser overall. Makes it even funnier when you go after redeitz. Hint -- he's right.

[Alan Mendelson]

Still waiting for redietz to post his links.

Right? If you read it on the Internet it must be right. Right?

Give it a rest. It's tiring.

[RS__]

I heard on the Internet someone witnessed a craps player shoot 18 yo's in a row. I believe it, too.

[jbjb]

I heard on the Internet someone witnessed a craps player shoot 18 yo's in a row. I believe it, too.

Checkmate!!!

[slingshot]

That's why I think it's funny -- or maybe you're confused. "Beating" a game would be what Rob describes he's done (made more money than lost, over time), while "winning" at a game is more like having a positive session but still a loser overall. Makes it even funnier when you go after redeitz. Hint -- he's right.

Whhhaaat? How can you win and be a loser?? Oh, that's right. I forgot most people play right thru their winnings. Sorry.

[Alan Mendelson]

What we have here are people who firmly believe that if you play negative expectation games you must certainly lose. At the same time if you play positive expectation games you must win.

I only wish it were true that you would always win at positive expectation games. Life would be so much easier.

[RS__]

Whhhaaat? How can you win and be a loser?? Oh, that's right. I forgot most people play right thru their winnings. Sorry.

Ask Alan. He won $100k on a royal, but still claims to be negative lifetime.


Alan, if you thought to do some math, you'd realize how hard it is to be a lifetime winner on a negative expectation game over a long period of time.

[Alan Mendelson]

Ask Alan. He won $100k on a royal, but still claims to be negative lifetime.


Alan, if you thought to do some math, you'd realize how hard it is to be a lifetime winner on a negative expectation game over a long period of time.

What math? All I have to do is look at my checkbook or at my wallet.

If I go to a casino and play a negative expectation game and I have more money after playing... then I won. It didn't matter that it was a negative expectation game.

I hit a $100,000 royal on a negative expectation game. I started with $2,000. That's what counts. It didn't matter to me that it was a negative expectation game. When I sat at that negative expectation game I didn't see a sign that said "this machine will suck you dry." Have you seen such a sign?

I am not saying you should choose a negative expectation game over a positive expectation game. But you can't dismiss that people can and do win on negative expectation games. And it appears you do dismiss that possibility.

[jbjb]

Depends on the definition of winning. I don't use that term in a casino. Either a game is profitable or not under certain circumstances (card counting, etc.). I prefer the profitable ones.

[Alan Mendelson]

Depends on the definition of winning. I don't use that term in a casino. Either a game is profitable or not under certain circumstances (card counting, etc.). I prefer the profitable ones.

That is very well put.

[HardEight]

All of this bunk about negative expectation game(s) if you people really knew certain machines paid off more, you wouldn't share that information. I'd say 99.5% of every casino gambler loses exactly what they had planned on.
About a $100,000 royal flush who gives a raccoons butt. It appears the former owner here likes to brag and carry on, very typical of his upbringing and background.

What math? All I have to do is look at my checkbook or at my wallet.

If I go to a casino and play a negative expectation game and I have more money after playing... then I won. It didn't matter that it was a negative expectation game.

I hit a $100,000 royal on a negative expectation game. I started with $2,000. That's what counts. It didn't matter to me that it was a negative expectation game. When I sat at that negative expectation game I didn't see a sign that said "this machine will suck you dry." Have you seen such a sign?

I am not saying you should choose a negative expectation game over a positive expectation game. But you can't dismiss that people can and do win on negative expectation games. And it appears you do dismiss that possibility.