An Open email to me about Rob Singer and the debate on this and the LVA Forums

[Alan Mendelson]

I received the following email from one of our website visitors and he said it was OK that I post it here. I asked him to post it himself, but he said he had a problem doing that. I hope he can post himself in the future. But until the bug is fixed (Dan also had a similar problem) here is his message to me without any editing, including his signature and permission to repost this on other forums:

*************************************************

I thought my personal take on the whole debate might be of some use to you. Feel free to post on your site or whatever site you choose. I think I have some clear and reasonable points.

If I Were Rob Singer

by Bob Dietz

Let me say that I despise pseudonyms, so I request permission in the future to use real names. The Dancer/Singer debates are so interesting from a social psychology perspective that I intend to write a paper on the topic, so I also request access to any "showdown" that occurs.

First off, the math of the poster known as "Arcimedes" is unassailable. His logic is also sound unless one challenges the presumption that literally all video poker machines are random. That presumption will be the topic of my next email. For now, I'd like to address what I would argue if I were promoting Rob Singer.

Rob Singer's "method" will not outperform advantage player strategies so long as the players execute perfectly on positive machines that are random. In today's ever-tightening video poker environment, however, the reality is that most people who consider themselves "advantage players" actually lose money. I believe Bob Dancer would completely agree with this. I'd estimate 60% to 80% of self-defined advantage players lose money; I'd love to hear Dancer's estimate. This is a key factor -- let me repeat it. Most of the people who invest in Jean Scott's software or Dancer's books or software lose money. I am, admittedly, speculating (I have no comprehensive data), but I do not think anyone will disagree with me. While Arcimedes might chide me for speculating, I think he would also agree with me.

The oxymoronic angle to this is that, for the majority of self-defined "advantage players," and for the majority of people buying the commercial advantage-play practice materials, there is no advantage.

If this is true, then there are two reasons I think the "Singer method" may be better for most players than so-called advantage play. Singer advocates pop in/pop out, disciplined win-goal play. This undoubtedly results in less seat-time than advantage play. If most alleged advantage players lose, then less seat-time means smaller lifetime losses. The reduced number of hands should more than compensate for the miniscule percentage lost due to using "special plays" instead of optimal play.

Dancer reportedly has his "vp teaching" contracts renewed based on how much his students play. If they play more after his classes, Dancer is renewed. This puts Dancer in the "more hours" advocacy group while Singer is clearly in conflict with Dancer, as Singer advocates fewer hours. Singer is also in conflict with the casinos' wishes on that point, also. One can infer the obvious from the casinos' decision to tie Dancer to his students playing more.

In this era of tightening video poker, advantage players now regularly factor mailers and comps into calculating "return." The second argument for the Singer method over advantage play is that the kamikaze Singer style undoubtedly results in more host-comps and offers than the same coin-in generated by low-stakes grinding. I have no way to quantify this, but for most casinos the Singer method will get you more offers, especially starting out. There is a good chance this comps/offers X-factor could also more than counterbalance the miniscule percentage lost on "special plays" versus optimal play.

While I have no catalogue of the so-called "special plays," it is clear they occur rather rarely. The percentage degradation from using them may, for most players, be less than normal error degradation. In addition, since players play briefly using the "Singer method," one could expect overall fatigue error percentage to be reduced.

These are some of the starting points for promoting the "Singer method" over so-called advantage play. Arcimedes' arguments are all sound, but only for winning advantage players, who represent a very small percentage of all vp players. If you are losing, then reducing hands and hours helps -- hard to argue with that. Varying wagers wildly in a short time makes one look like an impulsive whack job, which unsurprisingly gets one better X-factor offers.

If anyone cares to refute my logic, or my assumptions, please do.

I am a cynical advantage player; I am ahead lifetime. I think the Singer method is, in a basic sense, Martingale. However, that does not mean it isn't the better choice for most players. And the tighter the vp gets, the better choice it may become vis-a-vis so-called advantage play. As vp tightens, the percentage of self-defined advantage players who actually win will continue to decline.

My next report will address the presumption of "unanimous randomness."

Sincerely,

Bob Dietz

P.S. I think the language and tone directed at you in the LVA forums was, in many instances, reprehensible. People, no matter how bright or morally fueled, really need to maintain some formality and degree of respect.

[arcimede$]

A bunch of unverifiable speculation. Some may be true and some probably isn't. However, anyone trying to decide on the best method of play should be using facts, not speculation. The facts are:

1) Singer continues to promote playing negative return machines.
2) Singer promotes special plays that reduce the expected return.
3) Advantage play does NOT require playing long hours, it simply means playing with an advantage. IOW, one could play a progression with win goals and still be considered an advantage player as long as they simply do it on positive return machines.

The net is nothing that Bob stated is really relevant to the discussion of Singer. He promotes a losing approach to gambling. That is the bottom line.

[Rob.Singer]

[QUOTE=Alan Mendelson;506]I received the following email from one of our website visitors and he said it was OK that I post it here. I asked him to post it himself, but he said he had a problem doing that. I hope he can post himself in the future. But until the bug is fixed (Dan also had a similar problem) here is his message to me without any editing, including his signature and permission to repost this on other forums:

*************************************************

I thought my personal take on the whole debate might be of some use to you. Feel free to post on your site or whatever site you choose. I think I have some clear and reasonable points.

If I Were Rob Singer

by Bob Dietz

Bob:

1. My SPS was developed under the assumption that all machines are random.

2. Your assertion "Rob Singer's "method" will not outperform advantage player strategies so long as the players execute perfectly on positive machines that are random" is false based on the math behind my strategy, it is false based on my 10 years of results, and it will remain incorrect as long as you apply long-term theory to short-term play. In fact, the results as well as the projected expectation so far surpass anything even conceivable in the optimal-play world that you can easily understand the irritability, the constant lying, and name-calling that arcimedes and a few others engage in when they let their steam out over me.

3. Your point about how less "seat time" may be better for players is similar to Dancer saying it's better for players to play one coin than five when playing a -EV game. Neither makes any sense whatsoever. The more sessions I've played the more I've won. And if there were a few thousand just like me who played exactly the same as I do, the casinos where they played would close down.

4. You, like the others, including arcimedes, who have no more than a 60% at best knowledge of everything that goes into playing my strategy properly, continue to offer incomplete and misleading information when it comes the the special plays that deviate from optimal strategy. One example may help: I'm on $25 SDBP; the deal is 4c7d8dQsKh; the optimal hold by $2.50-$3.00 is the QK, but I always only hold the Q. THREE TIMES in 4 years I've drawn the other 3 face cards for a $15,000 quad. Do the math--or at least ask arci to help you with it: I don't play most of my hands above the $10 level. In the relatively short time that I play overall, $45,000 in wins will never even come close to being overtaken by the miniscule amounts supposedly "given up". And what the critics also like to ignore is all the other smaller winners that have shown up, because only holding one high card does not mean no winners at all will be the result.

5. Calling SPS a "Martingale" is and has always been the frustration answer leveled by critics who have very little information about the strategy.

[Rob.Singer]

A bunch of unverifiable speculation. Some may be true and some probably isn't. However, anyone trying to decide on the best method of play should be using facts, not speculation. The facts are:

1) Singer continues to promote playing negative return machines.
2) Singer promotes special plays that reduce the expected return.
3) Advantage play does NOT require playing long hours, it simply means playing with an advantage. IOW, one could play a progression with win goals and still be considered an advantage player as long as they simply do it on positive return machines.

The net is nothing that Bob stated is really relevant to the discussion of Singer. He promotes a losing approach to gambling. That is the bottom line.

1. I've never promoted anything other than to play the best paytable available for the game the player intends to play. Lying about that only weakens your agenda.

2. I've said many times that my special plays lower expected ER should one play video poker into infinity. However, utilizing special plays in short-term sessions as SPS requires INCREASES expected return for that session only. When you remove the higher possibility of a smaller win in favor of a lower possibility of a much higher win, BECAUSE YOU ARE PLAYING FOR A WIN GOAL AND STOPPING FOR THAT SESSION, game and hand-value has significantly been increased. The AP pitfall of applying long-term rules to short-term play weighs heavily on thr resulting AP confusion.

3. AP, by default, requires one to play long hours and as a result (just ask Bob Dancer) becoming extraordinarily addicted to the machines and playing far more than one should. No self-proclaimed AP could ever proclaim anything unless they believed they were playing millions and millions of hands that were getting them all the more closer to their sacred theoretical ER.

[arcimede$]

1) Sorry Robbie the "best paytable" is not the same as playing positive machines. Here's a quote from Singer's past: "This is all due to the gurus misleading others into thinking they first must only play positive machines if they want to win," So, Robbie, you claim it is misleading to point out playing positive games is necessary to win. This can only mean you believe one can win on negative machines. Oh yes, that was my point.

2) Very funny. A special play lowers ER unless it is done in a "short term session" where it magically increases ER. Of course, ALL sessions are essentially "short term" so you completely contradicted yourself yet again. If anyone can't see through this complete lack of simple logic then they aren't too bright.

3) Nope, AP simply means playing with an advantage. I only play about 6 hours a week and I'm clearly an APer. Interestingly, in my session last week I hit a RF after an hour of play. I was down about $500 and that put me ahead $3500. If I followed Singer's nonsense I should have gone home. Instead, I played another 5 hours as usual and won another $3000. There is no method of play that is any better than any other when dealing with random events ... and that includes SPS or any other progressive system. All VP play is short term. However, over time the results will approach the expectation of the games being played. Simple math.

[Rob.Singer]

arci, eventually you'll get tired of writing the same tired lies. You've been banned for it on vpFREE, you've been rebuked for it just this week on LVA, videopoker.com is much more upbeat without you the past few days, and now you feel the need to mislead people with illogic here.

Oh....did I mention that you only keep this up when you get so rattled you can't help yourself!?

[Vegas_lover]

Oh....did I mention that you only keep this up when you get so rattled you can't help yourself!?

Ohhhhhh, I'm glad you're not suffering this same problem, yeeezzz. Take a course of "self reflection", it might benefit you if you pay attention. Every time on any forum when someone disagrees with you, your reactions are similar. You attack people, insult them and start a fight. Arci and you have a beef, eveybody knows that by now. Only problem is, your math makes entirely NO sense, Arci's does. You can praise yourself for all the millions you've made, personally I don't believe any of your statements. If you even made one dime out of gambling it was out of pure luck. That's what you're "system" is about, luck! Nothing more, nothing less. You're strategy is based on taking long shots and you even have the guts to state that your chances grow (and your outcome is better on average) by taking long shots. Arci is right on that point, only naïve people believe that.

You state you have ended up bloody, freakin rich because of 10 years of professional luck. Well, you must be the luckiest son of a gun out there. I'm surprised lightning hasn't struck you yet out of pure luck. But, as I already said on the other thread......................still no bet with Dan.................and I'm not surprised.......

[Alan Mendelson]

Gentlemen, I know of many people who have left Vegas with tens of thousands of dollars in their pockets representing a huge win because they hit a royal on a "negative machine" because even on a "negative machine" the royal still pays 4,000 coins-- the same as it does on a positive machine.

I also know of players who have left casinos with huge $$ wins on negative machines because instead of settling for full houses or holding two-pairs they held the cards that gave them quads and "quads with kickers" on the "bonus" games. I remember very distinctly sitting next to a player who was dealt two pair with a pair of kings in a 9/5 $5 DDB game (negative paytable to be sure) who held only the kings. He drew the quad, was paid off $1250, and left.

As he left he commented -- "that's why I don't hold two pair when I have one paying pair." Clearly, his $1250 win was enough for him to get up and leave and holding only one paying pair fit his strategy and goal. Certainly he violated the "math" and he violated "correct strategy" but he got what he came for-- or at least got what made him happy-- and he took the money and left.

[Vegas_lover]

Gentlemen, I know of many people who have left Vegas with tens of thousands of dollars in their pockets representing a huge win because they hit a royal on a "negative machine" because even on a "negative machine" the royal still pays 4,000 coins-- the same as it does on a positive machine.

I also know of players who have left casinos with huge $$ wins on negative machines because instead of settling for full houses or holding two-pairs they held the cards that gave them quads and "quads with kickers" on the "bonus" games. I remember very distinctly sitting next to a player who was dealt two pair with a pair of kings in a 9/5 $5 DDB game (negative paytable to be sure) who held only the kings. He drew the quad, was paid off $1250, and left.

As he left he commented -- "that's why I don't hold two pair when I have one paying pair." Clearly, his $1250 win was enough for him to get up and leave and holding only one paying pair fit his strategy and goal. Certainly he violated the "math" and he violated "correct strategy" but he got what he came for-- or at least got what made him happy-- and he took the money and left.

Alan,
And what is your point with this post?? Proof that luck excists? We already knew that. But luck doesn't continue 10 years in a row and convert into a "system"............ Setting win goals is nice, but you still have to get lucky first to get close to your win goal.....which basically means.........luck has to continue. As I said in my previous post 10 years of luck is exactly what it is: a hoax!

[Alan Mendelson]

Here's my question -- because I don't have the "math" to make a "point": how many times do you have to "convert" a full house into quads to put you ahead at a negative expectation game?

For example, this happened in my new favorite game of 8/5 bonus which has a payback of 99.2% and falls in the category of a "negative game" even though it is a full pay game: (I wrote about this on the other message board.) One night at Rincon I was in the hole playing 8/5 Bonus when dealt a full house with three aces. And breaking correct strategy, I held only the three aces, hit the quad Ace and that not only turned around my session but gave me a bankroll to hit quad aces again plus other quads (all playing correct strategy, by the way) and to leave with a very nice profit.

So, using this as an example, how many times do you have to break up a dealt full house to hit quads to give you a "positive return"? (Now, since then I've returned to "correct strategy," because I haven't been in the hole that I was that time when I broke up the full house.)

From my conversations with Rob, and from his video here on my site, he would not break up a full house with three aces on 8/5 bonus. I did, because I had to get lucky.

[Vegas_lover]

Alan,

You're missing the point I'm trying to make. The chance of winning big by breaking up a hand which you shouldn't break up according to AP, or math if you will, is VERY and I mean VERY small. Now, according to Singer's "system" he does these break ups when he's behind, HE HAS ALREADY LOST!!! He has stated very clearly that he uses AP for 95% of the times. That means, that when he's behind, he starts taking long shots. Long shots with a VERY small chance of winning big. And hoopla, as a white bunny out of a black hat, he hits luck continiously over ten years and ends up winning millions..............Right......... There's really nothing more to it than this.

Throwing in win goals and loss limits is just a way to make this thing look like a "system". Now, all people out there already have a loss limit: bancruptcy! Most people just don't have a win goal and when they win they just continue to play too long. And in the end they just lost again. That's what makes casino's rich.

[Alan Mendelson]

Well, Vegas_Lover, I think Singer said he's won just shy of a million over a period of ten years, which is about $100-thou a year which is very realistic for someone playing $5 and $10 and $25 per coin video poker.

And you are correct that he says he plays correct strategy 95% of the time. So perhaps that 5% "gamble" is what he needs to reach his win goal? By the way, his stated win goal of $2500 per visit is really very modest when you have a player at the levels he plays at.

Why there is so much doubt about his claim of winning about $100k per year surprises me. At 25-cents per coin or even at $1 per coin I would also share your doubts. But Rob told me that most of his play is at the $10/coin level ($50 per push of the button) so winning about $100K per year seems very, very possible. He has already cleared up the issue that he played a substantial number of hours (not the 6 hours that was alleged).

Edited to add:

In a different thread, Rob posted this about his play stats, and please note the averages for his ten years of play:

--I played 427 sessions during my 10 years as a pro. The majority of my winning was done on single-play strategy, $1 thru $100 machines.
--262 of them were my Single-Play Strategy (SPS). I won 217 and lost 45. The average amount won per winning session was $4875; the average amount lost per losing session was $3400. Total net profit = ~$904k.
--165 were a mix between my self-developed RTT, ARTT, Multi-Strike, and 5-play strategies. These all were smaller stakes than SPS, and most began at quarters.
--Of the 165, I won ~80% of those and had an overall net profit of ~$80,000.

In fact, he says he averaged about $90,000 per year playing at these high limits. And over 427 sessions, his $904,000 of wins averages out to about $2,100 per win. These numbers all strike me as being realistic and not extraordinary. They would send off alarm bells if he said he was playing single line 25-cent video poker. But playing at his levels and leaving when he attained a certain win goal makes a lot of sense -- especially if he used his "special plays" only 5% of the time.

[Vegas_lover]

Well, Vegas_Lover, I think Singer said he's won just shy of a million over a period of ten years, which is about $100-thou a year which is very realistic for someone playing $5 and $10 and $25 per coin video poker.

And you are correct that he says he plays correct strategy 95% of the time. So perhaps that 5% "gamble" is what he needs to reach his win goal? By the way, his stated win goal of $2500 per visit is really very modest when you have a player at the levels he plays at.

Why there is so much doubt about his claim of winning about $100k per year surprises me. At 25-cents per coin or even at $1 per coin I would also share your doubts. But Rob told me that most of his play is at the $10/coin level ($50 per push of the button) so winning about $100K per year seems very, very possible. He has already cleared up the issue that he played a substantial number of hours (not the 6 hours that was alleged).

Alan, it surprises me that it surprises you. What is there so hard to believe about the fact that NOBODY gets lucky 10 years in a row as soon as they're losing. The only logic explanation is that the majority of his wins come from AP-sessions, in other words, doing the exact same thing as AP-ers do. If that's the case, his "system" simply doesn't excist. The chances that he hits big winners on his "special plays" REGULARLY every year during a period of 10 years are smaller than winning State lottery. The fact that he states he wins just 100.000 a year makes you WANT to believe it even more because it sounds reasonable. IT'S NOT, IT'S BOGUS!!!

[Alan Mendelson]

Thanks Vegas_Lover. I really hope Rob responds to this statement you made:

"The chances that he hits big winners on his "special plays" REGULARLY every year during a period of 10 years are smaller than winning State lottery."

I think a big question that needs to be answered is how often, or what percentage, his special plays actually hit and payoff?

But take a look at Special Play #13 on this page: http://alanbestbuys.com/id194.html This is where Rob breaks up three queens to hold three to the royal. Listen to what he says -- about how rarely he would break up the three queens but one time when he did it he hit a $100,000 royal. And he admits he has only been presented with this "special play" only twice in his life -- and it appears he took a shot at it only once.

So, maybe you are correct in saying that most of his wins are coming from playing correct strategy 95% of the time -- and this is why I think Rob should comment on the success rate of his special plays.

[Vegas_lover]

Thanks Vegas_Lover. I really hope Rob responds to this statement you made:

"The chances that he hits big winners on his "special plays" REGULARLY every year during a period of 10 years are smaller than winning State lottery."

I think a big question that needs to be answered is how often, or what percentage, his special plays actually hit and payoff?

Alan, this sure is one of the big questions. There's only one problem with the answer. The fact that it will come from Singer makes that I won't believe it anyhow. Other statements he has made have been so far off that I won't believe him until I see sound proof. Screen pictures of his big wins, a complete record of 10 years of W2-G forms, bank statements showing the growth of his assets during those ten years, etc will do but he will never provide that proof and he has every right not to provide it. I'm not sharing my bank statements, nore my tax files with the rest of the world so why should he right? But the result is we have to take his statements at face value and since they don't make sense, my statement is his "system" is not excisting. This all comes down to math and statistics. Both aren't in his advantage....

[Rob.Singer]

Ohhhhhh, I'm glad you're not suffering this same problem, yeeezzz. Take a course of "self reflection", it might benefit you if you pay attention. Every time on any forum when someone disagrees with you, your reactions are similar. You attack people, insult them and start a fight. Arci and you have a beef, eveybody knows that by now. Only problem is, your math makes entirely NO sense, Arci's does. You can praise yourself for all the millions you've made, personally I don't believe any of your statements. If you even made one dime out of gambling it was out of pure luck. That's what you're "system" is about, luck! Nothing more, nothing less. You're strategy is based on taking long shots and you even have the guts to state that your chances grow (and your outcome is better on average) by taking long shots. Arci is right on that point, only naïve people believe that.

You state you have ended up bloody, freakin rich because of 10 years of professional luck. Well, you must be the luckiest son of a gun out there. I'm surprised lightning hasn't struck you yet out of pure luck. But, as I already said on the other thread......................still no bet with Dan.................and I'm not surprised.......

Math is math--it makes no difference who refers to it or who uses it. What DOES make a difference is if the person applying it knows the baseline facts and entire scope of parameters before they end up jumping to biased & incorrect conclusions.

I haven't made "millions" gambling. It's just over $984,000 in 10 years. Continuously overstating it only means you can't deal with the fact that I've been successful with a play strategy that you do not understand.

Bingo! SPS was developed to win ONLY by doing all things right and then being able to take maximum advantage of the very good luck that infrequently comes along. And those "long shots" aren't as long as you think. That's where you would need to do the math, that's where arci doesn't want to do the math, and that's where Frank Kneeland has the guts to SEE the math.

Please learn to read: I am not retired comfortably because of gambling. I prepared for it beforehand.

Dan was totally unprepared for the challenge he made, then he danced around in circles both in silence and in stunning reality after I cleaned it up for him. He doesn't have the money to either play at or be engaged in a bet at the levels I'm able to. That's why I've asked him--and put out a plea multiple times for him to gather all his AP-friends who he knows win like crazy playing at their mythical advantage--to get his financial act together and come back with something he can handle.

I understand and can feel your pain.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, this sure is one of the big questions. There's only one problem with the answer. The fact that it will come from Singer makes that I won't believe it anyhow. Other statements he has made have been so far off that I won't believe him until I see sound proof. Screen pictures of his big wins, a complete record of 10 years of W2-G forms, bank statements showing the growth of his assets during those ten years, etc will do but he will never provide that proof and he has every right not to provide it. I'm not sharing my bank statements, nore my tax files with the rest of the world so why should he right? But the result is we have to take his statements at face value and since they don't make sense, my statement is his "system" is not excisting. This all comes down to math and statistics. Both aren't in his advantage....

What no one understands is that these "special plays" infrequently produce huge winners, but when they hit they are indeed huge. Not having kept specific track, I'd estimate they ended 1 out of every 4 sessions. Of similar importance is in how they also produced many smaller winners--some of which were not possible had I kept the "optimal hold". It is not simply a "You lose every time you do not hit a huge winner". Not even close. But one thing is absolutely for sure: The smaller losses sustained at times by using special plays are not even 10% (in dollar value) of what the overall winners has produced.

I could easily show winning $984K+ over the years, but the effort would require a huge amount of time and review of OUR personal financial records. If you had read the Fezzik Challenge in the Gaming Today front page article entitled "Gaming Today Columnist Lays Down The Gauntlet" I think from 2006, you see how I meticulously laid out the irrefutable steps I'd take to 100% prove every financial step I took along the way to winning that exact amount, and why I put up such a large escrow amount when I expected the HP crowd to accept the bet of proof of winning. I believe those steps are what made Team Fezzik walk away while eating their words and forever residing in shame because of it.

[Vegas_lover]

Math is math--it makes no difference who refers to it or who uses it. What DOES make a difference is if the person applying it knows the baseline facts and entire scope of parameters before they end up jumping to biased & incorrect conclusions.

I have math and statistics on my side, only thing you have is your own words..........


Continuously overstating it only means you can't deal with the fact that I've been successful with a play strategy that you do not understand.

Thank you for sharing how much it exactly was. Why do you always think people can't deal with the money you made? I have no desire for your life because I'm perfectly happy with mine. I also don't have the ambition to sit in casino's a large amount of time to "make" money. I go to Vegas to have fun, gamble, see shows, relax and eat good food. You assume I'm jealous or something but you don't know me and you have no knowledge about my private & financial sitiuation. I guess you like to think people are jealous of you. You can try and insult my intelligence as much as you want by stating that I simply don't understand your system, you and I both know it has nothing to do with that.........

Please learn to read
Same pattern again, calling people names and throwing insults. How's life on your planet? Must be really cold....

I understand and can feel your pain.
It's actually funny you'd think I feel any pain over this. That shows your personality. I'm just telling you're so called system is a hoax because math and statistics say it is! I hope you win 10 times as much as you did until now. More power to you! Have all the luck you can have........I'm not even a video poker player but do know a thing or 2 about math and statistics. I also know alot about sales, that's my speciality, and you're doing a crappy job "selling" your system.

[Vegas_lover]

What no one understands is that these "special plays" infrequently produce huge winners, but when they hit they are indeed huge. Not having kept specific track, I'd estimate they ended 1 out of every 4 sessions. Of similar importance is in how they also produced many smaller winners--some of which were not possible had I kept the "optimal hold".

Be careful you don't believe your own BS! In one out of 4 session where you were losing money (because otherwise you wouldn't be making your special plays), you applied long shots that actually made you a winner. That is statistically impossible! It's even impossible if you're really, really, really lucky. You really crack me up. This is close to being stand-up comedy......

[arcimede$]

Robbie has stated that he has won 70% of his $10 and $25 sessions. Of course, that is no different that Alan stating he has won 70% of his $5 gambling sessions. How about it, Alan, have you won 70%? Have won even close to 70%? If the answer is no then maybe you should start taking the claims of a proven liar with a little more skepticism.