Originally Posted by redietz View Post
Before commenting further, I'm going to open the floor to blackhole, coach belly, and Mr. Mendelson, all of whom have presumably had to zero out large W2Gs. Mr. Mendelson appears to follow the letter of the law, so I'm assuming he does what Jean Scott, Bob Dancer, and the IRS guidelines suggest when it comes to gambling and federal taxes.

I'll give these folks a crack at theorizing why Rob studiously avoids any mention of proof of losses.

Meanwhile, mickeycrimm pointed out another major issue with the myth. Rob, after years of losing, basically took a 60% pay cut or thereabouts to pursue his "professional video poker" career. Right out of the shoot, more or less. After years of losing. Very ballsy. Or insane. Or a myth. You know, my late wife took a 30% pay cut from the military to teach at a university, and 30% ain't no small thing. I honestly do not know anyone else who took that kind of pay cut, except Rob, who evidently took a much larger pay cut "on spec."

While that may be hard to understand, let's get back to the zeroing out of the W2Gs and the IRS protocols for doing that. I'm sure blackhole, coach belly, and Mr. Mendelson understand some of the problems with Rob's stories.
It'll be my pleasure to help redietz and mickey look like dumb & dumber.

First, mickey has no concept of what it means to earn money working, and he's a million miles away from understanding executive wage packages. And that's precisely why he automatically thinks someone like me losing about $45k/yr. for 6 years is a "really big amount". Again, the "little people" point personified.

Now the supposed "pay cut" stab by redietz. To him, I took a "cut" to play vp professionally. What a ditz! Even though I've written a thousand times that I had already set up our retirement prior to quitting work, it doesn't fit his agenda because he's jealous (first of all, because my wife didn't kill herself like his apparently did). Anyone who takes on professional gambling without first securing their future is an idiot. In other words, if I had lost my $171,600 gambling bankroll instead of winning, we'd still be living exactly the same as we are today. I know these are big numbers to AP's, but that only goes to prove why my recent $200k win has been such an arrow thru your broken hearts.

Finally, I'll address redietz and his continuing nonsense about getting "university math professors" to comment on the viability of my claim of winning $984k over 10 years on mostly 99% games. Again, what a dunce. Any educated person with a math background would tell everyone, without hesitation, that playing slightly -EV games over ANY amount of time can indeed, mathematically, produce a winner, just as anyone playing slightly +EV games can produce a loser. And why you don't understand that beyond not wanting it to be factual, is because you don't understand mathematical distribution. The only part that would be true is if you added "it's more probable to lose playing slightly negative games" or "it's more probable to win playing slightly positive games". But because you don't want that to be true, you stick with your more convenient lie. And you advertise yourself as someone who comprehends gambling math?

Wise up.