Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 168

Thread: The Complete Sequence

  1. #41
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    It's common knowledge that Rob announced his retirement in 2009. And everyone should remember the Singer/Arci challenge over producing tax returns. It was for the years 2000 thru 2009, the last year Rob said he filed schedule C as a professional gambler. Rob refused to produce the returns. Was it because they would have showed him making a hell of a lot more from gambling that the 100K per year he claimed at the time?
    I like to do a timeline thing, mickey, so can you and Rob verify the following timeline just so I am not confused.

    Prior to 1999, Rob was a losing video poker player, unsuccessfully attempting to play with an advantage for 7 years.

    From 1999 until 2004 Rob played his SPS (progressive wagering system) winning $375k

    From 2004 until 2009, Rob played the double up bug to the tune of 3 million dollars.

    1n 2009, when Kane/Nestor exposed the play, Rob retired.

    Is this correct?

  2. #42
    Ok I was hoping to get a confirmation on this time line, but I have to move on as I am short on time. I am designated driver for my brothers out-of-town guests in Vegas for Life is Beautiful and have to head out.

    So Shackleford linked to Rob's written claim, written on Alan's website posted in June of this year. I believe Rob posted the same written claim here. But the link to Alan's website, is apparently some sort of blog or space that Alan set aside for Rob to have his say about anything he wanted. (link below)

    so going back a few articles I see a post by Rob dated May 24,2014, entitled The undeniable truth about special plays. There is one hell of a lot to argue there, but I am going to just bring one thing to light. Rob says that in 2013 he earned 200k via these special plays, along with progression wagering. This is the first time Rob has mentioned play after his "announced retirement". Now Rob does say that the 2013 play was recreation play, not professional play as he did prior to 2009. He distinguishes the difference as once a month vs weekly play as a professional.

    This 2013 play and results was after Rob stopped playing the double up bug and was waiting for statute of limitations to expires, so it had nothing to do with double up. It was strictly additional SPS play never mentioned before. Therefore Rob's adjusted claim of the SPS of 375K over 4 years has now changed to 575k over 5 years.

    One has to wonder how in 1999 thru 2004 playing the SPS, rob played once a week, 52 times a year and averaged just under $94,000, but in 2013, he played monthly, 12 times a year and won 200k, more than double what he made when he played 5 times as much?

    But moving on, whatever the explanation is, the new number won from SPS is 575k and that is not accounting for any other post-retirement years. What happened in 2011?, 2012?, 2014, 15, 16?

    The point being that the claims involving the SPS were all but impossible at $375K and even more so at $575K or whatever the even larger total is when adding other post-retirement years. This is important because it again comes back to credibility. Even the few people willing to accept the possibility of Rob's double up bug claim, know his SPS claim can't be and with numbers changing yet again, now even more impossible than before. It comes down to credibility over and over and , Rob has lied and changed stories and facts over and over. God knows how any of these claims will change as time goes on.

    Thank you and good night.

    http://alanbestbuys.com/id362.html

  3. #43
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Ok I was hoping to get a confirmation on this time line, but I have to move on as I am short on time. I am designated driver for my brothers out-of-town guests in Vegas for Life is Beautiful and have to head out.

    So Shackleford linked to Rob's written claim, written on Alan's website posted in June of this year. I believe Rob posted the same written claim here. But the link to Alan's website, is apparently some sort of blog or space that Alan set aside for Rob to have his say about anything he wanted. (link below)

    so going back a few articles I see a post by Rob dated May 24,2014, entitled The undeniable truth about special plays. There is one hell of a lot to argue there, but I am going to just bring one thing to light. Rob says that in 2013 he earned 200k via these special plays, along with progression wagering. This is the first time Rob has mentioned play after his "announced retirement". Now Rob does say that the 2013 play was recreation play, not professional play as he did prior to 2009. He distinguishes the difference as once a month vs weekly play as a professional.

    This 2013 play and results was after Rob stopped playing the double up bug and was waiting for statute of limitations to expires, so it had nothing to do with double up. It was strictly additional SPS play never mentioned before. Therefore Rob's adjusted claim of the SPS of 375K over 4 years has now changed to 575k over 5 years.

    One has to wonder how in 1999 thru 2004 playing the SPS, rob played once a week, 52 times a year and averaged just under $94,000, but in 2013, he played monthly, 12 times a year and won 200k, more than double what he made when he played 5 times as much?

    But moving on, whatever the explanation is, the new number won from SPS is 575k and that is not accounting for any other post-retirement years. What happened in 2011?, 2012?, 2014, 15, 16?

    The point being that the claims involving the SPS were all but impossible at $375K and even more so at $575K or whatever the even larger total is when adding other post-retirement years. This is important because it again comes back to credibility. Even the few people willing to accept the possibility of Rob's double up bug claim, know his SPS claim can't be and with numbers changing yet again, now even more impossible than before. It comes down to credibility over and over and , Rob has lied and changed stories and facts over and over. God knows how any of these claims will change as time goes on.

    Thank you and good night.

    http://alanbestbuys.com/id362.html
    KJ, you were clearly trying to set a trap with the timeline thing.

    From what I recall Rob got lucky and hit some big hands in 2013 while playing $25 denom. IOW, he wasn't using the progressive betting system. I think there were some threads about it here. He was no longer filing as a professional and I think he complained about the high taxes he had to pay.

    And even this story bolsters his claim. How can one afford to play $25 video poker if they don't have big bucks? Someone will have to jog my memory but I think there was a thread where he put up pics of big hits, 50K and 100K.

    Rob's strategy was progressive betting with special plays. If he "retired" from professional play would he quit using special plays? Probably not. But I think the gist of what happened in 2013 was Rob played for a relatively short period of time and got taxed pretty good on those jackpots so gave up play at that denom.
    Last edited by mickeycrimm; 09-20-2019 at 01:49 AM.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  4. #44
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    From what I recall Rob got lucky and hit some big hands in 2013 while playing $25 denom.
    I just want to be clear what you are telling us Mickey.

    So 1999 thru 2004 Rob played once a week, that would be 52 times a year, 208 times over 4 years and won $375 thousand dollars, playing negative EV games, using progressive wagering and "special plays", meaning not optimal plays, meaning his play would be even more negative expectation.

    Then in 2013, Rob jumped up in stakes, playing higher stakes once a month and won an additional $200 thousand dollars, playing negative EV games, using progressive wagering and "special" non optimal plays.

    Yeah this guy Rob Singer must be the luckiest fuck on the face of the earth.

    The fact is Mickey, you can not play negative expectation games and not even play optimally, meaning even more negative expectation and overcome that negative expectation on a long term basis. AND 220 days play and hundreds of thousands of dollars constitutes long-term.

    You used to argue this very point Mickey. You may have forged a new alliance with Rob, but the math hasn't changed. What Rob is claiming in regards to his SPS remains for all intensive purposes impossible.

  5. #45
    This stuff must be eating kew alive....and I LIKE IT!!

    As usual he got dates and types of play wrong. First, he needs to understand how gambling at vp works. People can win playing -EV games. Deal with it!

    Next flub: I played my SPS Jan. 2000 thru Feb. 2004, profiting $375k. I've Never Played It Since.

    Next screw-up: mickey's exactly right--I played some hi-limit VP games around 2012-2013 and posted a few pics of some of my wins. I've only played as a recreational player, infrequently, since 2009, and I spend the majority of my casino time searching for machines that may still be double up bug-infected.

    Next enlightment: I place my recreational VP earnings since 2009 to be around $500k. Much of this has been the result of my playing one of my other strategies--ARTT--that I used to and still do train interested players on because it's interesting, capable, and more fun to play than the standard methods. The majority of this $500k came when I hit those 3 hi-limit winners just mentioned above, and my take from playing with another player on that $200k LUCKY winner I posted that kew just can't get over..

    Next lesson for kew: People can win playing -EV games, and they do so all the time. While he says he focuses on playing a casino game using a strategy that allows for a tiny player's edge after an ungodly amount of hands and hours, I chose to become an expert playing a game that requires I overcome a tiny house advantage with exponentially less hands played, and only in short term bursts. IE, if a strategy is capable of winning TODAY, there is no magic set of hands that swoops down and snatches it all away tomorrow. The chance of that strategy winning is the same today as it is tomorrow, the next day, and the next day, etc., and SPS has a very high expectation (85%) of winning every time over the limited time I played it. Casinos see winners on slightly -EV games all the time. Where is it written that one person can't continually do that? Even the math supports such a concept. Conclusion: Kew must not believe in it understand the math.

    Final kew teachable moment: kew, just look at me as a smart SOB who came up with a play strategy that gave luck a far better chance of occurring. You'll sleep better.
    Last edited by Rob.Singer; 09-20-2019 at 02:55 AM.

  6. #46
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Conclusion: Kew must not believe in it understand the math.
    I do believe in the math....the REAL math, not some Singer alternative, twi-light zone, version of math. You defying the real math for number of rounds played (long-term) and for the money you claim to have won, is about as likely as you defying gravity and flying.

    Rob Singer or whatever your name is....you are a bold faced liar. You lie about almost everything, big, small, total inconsequential. Just yesterday I discovered yet another of your lies. Earlier this year I mentioned that you had sent me a nasty email, not PM but email. You claimed you didn't, that it must have been someone else. So when Shackleford posted that blog or area that Alan set up for you to have your say, I read through some of the posts. In one of the posts, you say you welcome questions and provide an email address, rob.singer111@yahoo.com.....the same damn email address that you denied was you. Totally inconsequential. but proof that you lie about anything and everything. You are a compulsive liar!

    And then you come along with this tall tale of the double up bug and expect everyone to believe you, a compulsive liar, without offering a shred proof or documentational supporting evidence. I don't know who is the bigger fool....YOU or anyone ridiculous enough to believe a word out of your lying mouth.

  7. #47
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Conclusion: Kew must not believe in it understand the math.
    I do believe in the math....the REAL math, not some Singer alternative, twi-light zone, version of math. You defying the real math for number of rounds played (long-term) and for the money you claim to have won, is about as likely as you defying gravity and flying.

    Rob Singer or whatever your name is....you are a bold faced liar. You lie about almost everything, big, small, total inconsequential. Just yesterday I discovered yet another of your lies. Earlier this year I mentioned that you had sent me a nasty email, not PM but email. You claimed you didn't, that it must have been someone else. So when Shackleford posted that blog or area that Alan set up for you to have your say, I read through some of the posts. In one of the posts, you say you welcome questions and provide an email address, rob.singer111@yahoo.com.....the same damn email address that you denied was you. Totally inconsequential. but proof that you lie about anything and everything. You are a compulsive liar!

    And then you come along with this tall tale of the double up bug and expect everyone to believe you, a compulsive liar, without offering a shred proof or documentational supporting evidence. I don't know who is the bigger fool....YOU or anyone ridiculous enough to believe a word out of your lying mouth.
    KJ, I have not forged an alliance with anyone. That's what you don't get. Forming an unbiased opinion does not mean I have forged an alliance. It's something you are not capable of. It took you awhile but you've succeeded. You are now King Troll on VCT.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  8. #48
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Mickeycrimm: Mickey has detailed some of his plays. A lot of low limit stuff. Stuff a lot of other AP's wouldn't find worthwhile. THAT is a real AP! Mickey doesn't toot his horn as one of the greats, although for my money, he just may be.
    A lot of people equate low limit plays to low money. My specialty has always been low risk/high reward plays. My average seat time held at $140 an hour for years in Montana. Although I was only able to get in an average of 4 hours per day the edge was so big that it was payday everyday. And this was on an average wager of just $1000 per hour. That means very low money swings.

    A quarter FPDW player with a $1000 wager per hour makes about $7.50 an hour. A dollar player making $4000 an hour in action makes about $30 an hour.

    A $5 player makes about $150 an hour but that is with a $20,000 per hour wager where your money is taking huge fluctuations and you only get a payday when you hit a royal. You have to bankroll all that and you can go along time between paydays.

    So of all the above scenarios which one would you prefer? I like my scenario much much better than the other three. It's the equivalent of making $5 denom money playing quarter video poker.

    So I'll stick with my way of doing things and everyone can laugh at the low denom. I'll be crying about it all the way to the bank.

    However, don't think that's all I do. I played a $50 Golden Egypt today and won $492 on a two minute play.
    Last edited by mickeycrimm; 09-20-2019 at 03:40 AM.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  9. #49
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    From what I recall Rob got lucky and hit some big hands in 2013 while playing $25 denom.
    I just want to be clear what you are telling us Mickey.

    So 1999 thru 2004 Rob played once a week, that would be 52 times a year, 208 times over 4 years and won $375 thousand dollars, playing negative EV games, using progressive wagering and "special plays", meaning not optimal plays, meaning his play would be even more negative expectation.

    Then in 2013, Rob jumped up in stakes, playing higher stakes once a month and won an additional $200 thousand dollars, playing negative EV games, using progressive wagering and "special" non optimal plays.

    Yeah this guy Rob Singer must be the luckiest fuck on the face of the earth.

    The fact is Mickey, you can not play negative expectation games and not even play optimally, meaning even more negative expectation and overcome that negative expectation on a long term basis. AND 220 days play and hundreds of thousands of dollars constitutes long-term.

    You used to argue this very point Mickey. You may have forged a new alliance with Rob, but the math hasn't changed. What Rob is claiming in regards to his SPS remains for all intensive purposes impossible.
    The number of days or dollars played is really irrelevant. It's all about the number of trials. What is the formula you used to determine the number of Video Poker hands required to approach the true probability with a very high confidence level? How many hands did Rob actually play? Show us your work. I'm not so sure Rob played enough hands to approximate the 'Long Term'.

  10. #50
    Originally Posted by unowme View Post
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    From what I recall Rob got lucky and hit some big hands in 2013 while playing $25 denom.
    I just want to be clear what you are telling us Mickey.

    So 1999 thru 2004 Rob played once a week, that would be 52 times a year, 208 times over 4 years and won $375 thousand dollars, playing negative EV games, using progressive wagering and "special plays", meaning not optimal plays, meaning his play would be even more negative expectation.

    Then in 2013, Rob jumped up in stakes, playing higher stakes once a month and won an additional $200 thousand dollars, playing negative EV games, using progressive wagering and "special" non optimal plays.

    Yeah this guy Rob Singer must be the luckiest fuck on the face of the earth.

    The fact is Mickey, you can not play negative expectation games and not even play optimally, meaning even more negative expectation and overcome that negative expectation on a long term basis. AND 220 days play and hundreds of thousands of dollars constitutes long-term.

    You used to argue this very point Mickey. You may have forged a new alliance with Rob, but the math hasn't changed. What Rob is claiming in regards to his SPS remains for all intensive purposes impossible.
    The number of days or dollars played is really irrelevant. It's all about the number of trials. What is the formula you used to determine the number of Video Poker hands required to approach the true probability with a very high confidence level? How many hands did Rob actually play? Show us your work. I'm not so sure Rob played enough hands to approximate the 'Long Term'.
    Kew has no clear idea about anything, and he lies his way through all his uncomfortable situations.

    I did not play "208 pro sessions" from Jan. 2000-Feb. 2004. That's his assumption--he wants it to be that I played EVERY week but I didn't (I played 40-45/yr.) as he tries to conjure up some non-existant "long-term"--because he never listens. He only wants his narrative to be true history--a known flaw of serial fabricators. How many hands did I play on avg. per session? Probably less than 1000. But it's really irrelevant, because each session is stand alone, where after winning or losing it you always begin the next one at the lowest denomination.

    Oh....his other big blooper lie? My email address for years has always been rob.singer1111@yahoo.com. Notice the four 1's.

    What an idiot.
    Last edited by Rob.Singer; 09-20-2019 at 04:44 AM.

  11. #51
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Conclusion: Kew must not believe in it understand the math.
    I do believe in the math....the REAL math, not some Singer alternative, twi-light zone, version of math. You defying the real math for number of rounds played (long-term) and for the money you claim to have won, is about as likely as you defying gravity and flying.

    Rob Singer or whatever your name is....you are a bold faced liar. You lie about almost everything, big, small, total inconsequential. Just yesterday I discovered yet another of your lies. Earlier this year I mentioned that you had sent me a nasty email, not PM but email. You claimed you didn't, that it must have been someone else. So when Shackleford posted that blog or area that Alan set up for you to have your say, I read through some of the posts. In one of the posts, you say you welcome questions and provide an email address, rob.singer111@yahoo.com.....the same damn email address that you denied was you. Totally inconsequential. but proof that you lie about anything and everything. You are a compulsive liar!

    And then you come along with this tall tale of the double up bug and expect everyone to believe you, a compulsive liar, without offering a shred proof or documentational supporting evidence. I don't know who is the bigger fool....YOU or anyone ridiculous enough to believe a word out of your lying mouth.
    KJ, I have not forged an alliance with anyone. That's what you don't get. Forming an unbiased opinion does not mean I have forged an alliance. It's something you are not capable of. It took you awhile but you've succeeded. You are now King Troll on VCT.
    I attribute all of kew's missteps to his inexperience in life. He's just too stoopid to be capable of picking up the truth in what others say. Why else do you think he was banned from his sacred WoV and elsewhere? He thrives on conflict and chaos driven by his constant lies, then he expects all to pat him on the back for it. He seems to never have had any relevancy anywhere other than when he concocted his internet forum life for the BJ crowd. But he "blew" that opportunity with conflict too.

    Any wonder why he's such a bitter and angry person, who envies anyone with a successful life?

    waaa...waaa

  12. #52
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    How many hands did I play on avg. per session? Probably less than 1000. But it's really irrelevant, because each session is stand alone, where after winning or losing it you always begin the next one at the lowest denomination.
    .
    Actually the number of hands is very relevant. What's interesting is because of your progressive betting scheme what's most important is HOW MANY HANDS DID YOU PLAY AT THE HIGHER DOLLAR LEVELS. So....let's say you played 40 sessions a year at 1000 hands per session times 5 years. That's 200,000 hands. I don't even think that's going to be enough hands statistically for your results to approach the true probability if you were flat betting. But you weren't flat betting. The martingale betting on VP means that your real results are skewed by the larger bets. So the real question is how many hands did you play at say the $10 and above level? Maybe that goes down to 10,000 hands or 2000 hands or even less....which is clearly far less than the 'Long Run'.

    What does that mean? It means that it's certainly not impossible for Rob to have been a big winner using his strategy in what is really the short run. It may not even be improbable. That does not mean it is a winning strategy in the long run though. It is clearly a losing strategy. If you played enough hands at the high dollar levels, eventually you'd be broke. It's probably easier for some to understand this if you look at 10,000 people playing Robs Strategy. A certain percent will clearly be big winners like Rob claims he was. Another percentage will be huge losers. You add them all up and yeah...it's going to be negative. But just looking at a single player and a very small sample size....the results cannot be predicted.

  13. #53
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Oh....his other big blooper lie? My email address for years has always been rob.singer1111@yahoo.com. Notice the four 1's.
    The email I received DID have four 1's. I made an error in posting last night. Totally irrelevant. What is relevant is that it came from the same email address and you lied saying it wasn't you. Compulsive liar. THAT remains the point.

    Originally Posted by unowme View Post
    The number of days or dollars played is really irrelevant. It's all about the number of trials. What is the formula you used to determine the number of Video Poker hands required to approach the true probability with a very high confidence level? How many hands did Rob actually play? Show us your work. I'm not so sure Rob played enough hands to approximate the 'Long Term'.
    I go by Rob's own numbers. I can find a half dozen times when he said he played once a week. By my math that is 52 ish times a year, not 40 that Rob just changed his ever changing story to. And while I don't know how many hands (trials) Rob actually played, this once a week play consisted of a round trip drive from Phoenix to Las Vegas which is 10 hours or so. Are you and/or Rob now claiming that he drove 10 hours to get in a very small number of rounds (trials)?

    So your assertion here seems to be that Rob's play over 4 years was insignificant to have any meaning and that he was just lucky. That is how he overcame -EV, just dumb luck. I would like that on record then. Instead of all this nonsense about a winning SPS system that he has pushed for years all over the internet, I would like Rob to state that his system is a losing system and he just got lucky, exactly like a degenerate gambler.. He says that and I never bring it up again.

  14. #54
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Oh....his other big blooper lie? My email address for years has always been rob.singer1111@yahoo.com. Notice the four 1's.
    The email I received DID have four 1's. I made an error in posting last night. Totally irrelevant. What is relevant is that it came from the same email address and you lied saying it wasn't you. Compulsive liar. THAT remains the point.

    Originally Posted by unowme View Post
    The number of days or dollars played is really irrelevant. It's all about the number of trials. What is the formula you used to determine the number of Video Poker hands required to approach the true probability with a very high confidence level? How many hands did Rob actually play? Show us your work. I'm not so sure Rob played enough hands to approximate the 'Long Term'.
    I go by Rob's own numbers. I can find a half dozen times when he said he played once a week. By my math that is 52 ish times a year, not 40 that Rob just changed his ever changing story to. And while I don't know how many hands (trials) Rob actually played, this once a week play consisted of a round trip drive from Phoenix to Las Vegas which is 10 hours or so. Are you and/or Rob now claiming that he drove 10 hours to get in a very small number of rounds (trials)?

    So your assertion here seems to be that Rob's play over 4 years was insignificant to have any meaning and that he was just lucky. That is how he overcame -EV, just dumb luck. I would like that on record then. Instead of all this nonsense about a winning SPS system that he has pushed for years all over the internet, I would like Rob to state that his system is a losing system and he just got lucky, exactly like a degenerate gambler.. He says that and I never bring it up again.
    I see you conveniently ignored my last post where I explain how the martingale nature of Rob's system makes the number of high dollar plays the real driver as to whether his results would reflect the -EV nature of the play. Even if we accept your estimate of the number of Robs hands you have to base the 'long run' on the number of high dollar hands which is clearly a very small sample. You've said many times that Robs claims are impossible because of the math. I don't think you understand the math involved. Here...I'll give it to you again...

    "Actually the number of hands is very relevant. What's interesting is because of your progressive betting scheme what's most important is HOW MANY HANDS DID YOU PLAY AT THE HIGHER DOLLAR LEVELS. So....let's say you played 40 sessions a year at 1000 hands per session times 5 years. That's 200,000 hands. I don't even think that's going to be enough hands statistically for your results to approach the true probability if you were flat betting. But you weren't flat betting. The martingale betting on VP means that your real results are skewed by the larger bets. So the real question is how many hands did you play at say the $10 and above level? Maybe that goes down to 10,000 hands or 2000 hands or even less....which is clearly far less than the 'Long Run'.

    "What does that mean? It means that it's certainly not impossible for Rob to have been a big winner using his strategy in what is really the short run. It may not even be improbable. That does not mean it is a winning strategy in the long run though. It is clearly a losing strategy. If you played enough hands at the high dollar levels, eventually you'd be broke. It's probably easier for some to understand this if you look at 10,000 people playing Robs Strategy. A certain percent will clearly be big winners like Rob claims he was. Another percentage will be huge losers. You add them all up and yeah...it's going to be negative. But just looking at a single player and a very small sample size....the results cannot be predicted""

    Prove me wrong. Show your math. Oh...and I can envision a progressive system where the vast majority of players are winners but there are small number of very large losers that still make it -EV. Oh and still another thing. The 'long run' number of hands for VP is far different than the 'long run' for Blackjack. That's because the Royal only comes up every 100,000 + hands and it's a key element in the EV. I'm guessing the 'long run' for a VP calculation in is the millions of hands, but I've never seen that calculation.
    Last edited by unowme; 09-20-2019 at 09:39 AM.

  15. #55
    Originally Posted by unowme View Post
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post

    The email I received DID have four 1's. I made an error in posting last night. Totally irrelevant. What is relevant is that it came from the same email address and you lied saying it wasn't you. Compulsive liar. THAT remains the point.

    Originally Posted by unowme View Post
    The number of days or dollars played is really irrelevant. It's all about the number of trials. What is the formula you used to determine the number of Video Poker hands required to approach the true probability with a very high confidence level? How many hands did Rob actually play? Show us your work. I'm not so sure Rob played enough hands to approximate the 'Long Term'.
    I go by Rob's own numbers. I can find a half dozen times when he said he played once a week. By my math that is 52 ish times a year, not 40 that Rob just changed his ever changing story to. And while I don't know how many hands (trials) Rob actually played, this once a week play consisted of a round trip drive from Phoenix to Las Vegas which is 10 hours or so. Are you and/or Rob now claiming that he drove 10 hours to get in a very small number of rounds (trials)?

    So your assertion here seems to be that Rob's play over 4 years was insignificant to have any meaning and that he was just lucky. That is how he overcame -EV, just dumb luck. I would like that on record then. Instead of all this nonsense about a winning SPS system that he has pushed for years all over the internet, I would like Rob to state that his system is a losing system and he just got lucky, exactly like a degenerate gambler.. He says that and I never bring it up again.
    I see you conveniently ignored my last post where I explain how the martingale nature of Rob's system makes the number of high dollar plays the real driver as to whether his results would reflect the -EV nature of the play. Even if we accept your estimate of the number of Robs hands you have to base the 'long run' on the number of high dollar hands which is clearly a very small sample. You've said many times that Robs claims are impossible because of the math. I don't think you understand the math involved. Here...I'll give it to you again...

    "Actually the number of hands is very relevant. What's interesting is because of your progressive betting scheme what's most important is HOW MANY HANDS DID YOU PLAY AT THE HIGHER DOLLAR LEVELS. So....let's say you played 40 sessions a year at 1000 hands per session times 5 years. That's 200,000 hands. I don't even think that's going to be enough hands statistically for your results to approach the true probability if you were flat betting. But you weren't flat betting. The martingale betting on VP means that your real results are skewed by the larger bets. So the real question is how many hands did you play at say the $10 and above level? Maybe that goes down to 10,000 hands or 2000 hands or even less....which is clearly far less than the 'Long Run'.

    "What does that mean? It means that it's certainly not impossible for Rob to have been a big winner using his strategy in what is really the short run. It may not even be improbable. That does not mean it is a winning strategy in the long run though. It is clearly a losing strategy. If you played enough hands at the high dollar levels, eventually you'd be broke. It's probably easier for some to understand this if you look at 10,000 people playing Robs Strategy. A certain percent will clearly be big winners like Rob claims he was. Another percentage will be huge losers. You add them all up and yeah...it's going to be negative. But just looking at a single player and a very small sample size....the results cannot be predicted""

    Prove me wrong. Show your math. Oh...and I can envision a progressive system where the vast majority of players are winners but there are small number of very large losers that still make it -EV.
    This is what I've said before. I can believe he, or anyone, could've won that amount with that system, but not because it works. But only by sheer dumb luck. No different than Rusty Griswold in "Vegas Vacation" winning those cars on those slots. Do it long enough, you'll go broke.

  16. #56
    I've said time and again that my play strategy does not change anything about EV, ER, or re-write any of the math books. Kew keeps saying that it does, which shows how little he actually knows. The only thing it does (besides being much more interesting to play than any single denomination approach) is utilize multiple ways to increase the opportunity for good luck in every single individual session. What that did was WORK, and my disagreement is that it had a high probability of continuing to work because the probability odds do not change a bit in any particular session. They're always high. Where the real disconnect is revolves around the sudden cutting of ties with it being individual sessions of play, in order to lump the entire number of hands in those sessions into one "long-term session"--which it is not, regardless of how many sessions are played.

    We all keep saying "the math doesn't change". Well, why can't everyone just say that when there's an 85% chance I'll win a session, then EVERY SESSION I PLAY WILL BE AT THAT RATE? Sure there can be some five figure losers, but no one wants to accept that the even larger and more frequent five and six figure winners far surpass whatever is lost in the losers.

    For every 85 winning sessions there are 15 losing sessions. Does every winner win just $2500, and does every loser lose $57200? Of course not! Naturally a critic will go with those numbers though because it blindly makes their argument. But why do you think the math people at WoV ran away from my ten session challenge? Because they ran the numbers and knew better. My largest ever loss was around $35k, and my largest win was $96k.

    There were very few +EV machines around then (which would have made a negligible difference anyway) and I didn't have time to play "grind-it-out" vp since I didn't live in Nv. So if I wanted to play vp for a profit I needed to devise a strategy starting with optimal play and working it from there. What I did worked, but it would hardly be considered a "winning strategy" for the vast majority of players even willing to try it. They'd have to have a mind and personality characteristics exactly like mine along with the stamina and discipline to do exactly what they say they are going to do.

    The snowflake younger generations of today could never and would never succeed at this. It's too much work for them, and there's too much thinking involved. Aside from his obvious biases and overall forum "love of conflict" life, this is why someone like kew has so much trouble with this. These pussies just don't have the abilities my generation had, and all they do is live for today and for instant gratification. That's why you often see him so agitated--he has trouble with how other people work hard for their results, when all he can do is create some online fantasy about himself, then go bonkers over anyone who doesn't see "the world according to kew".

    But he's funny.....

  17. #57
    Originally Posted by jbjb View Post
    Originally Posted by unowme View Post
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post

    The email I received DID have four 1's. I made an error in posting last night. Totally irrelevant. What is relevant is that it came from the same email address and you lied saying it wasn't you. Compulsive liar. THAT remains the point.



    I go by Rob's own numbers. I can find a half dozen times when he said he played once a week. By my math that is 52 ish times a year, not 40 that Rob just changed his ever changing story to. And while I don't know how many hands (trials) Rob actually played, this once a week play consisted of a round trip drive from Phoenix to Las Vegas which is 10 hours or so. Are you and/or Rob now claiming that he drove 10 hours to get in a very small number of rounds (trials)?

    So your assertion here seems to be that Rob's play over 4 years was insignificant to have any meaning and that he was just lucky. That is how he overcame -EV, just dumb luck. I would like that on record then. Instead of all this nonsense about a winning SPS system that he has pushed for years all over the internet, I would like Rob to state that his system is a losing system and he just got lucky, exactly like a degenerate gambler.. He says that and I never bring it up again.
    I see you conveniently ignored my last post where I explain how the martingale nature of Rob's system makes the number of high dollar plays the real driver as to whether his results would reflect the -EV nature of the play. Even if we accept your estimate of the number of Robs hands you have to base the 'long run' on the number of high dollar hands which is clearly a very small sample. You've said many times that Robs claims are impossible because of the math. I don't think you understand the math involved. Here...I'll give it to you again...

    "Actually the number of hands is very relevant. What's interesting is because of your progressive betting scheme what's most important is HOW MANY HANDS DID YOU PLAY AT THE HIGHER DOLLAR LEVELS. So....let's say you played 40 sessions a year at 1000 hands per session times 5 years. That's 200,000 hands. I don't even think that's going to be enough hands statistically for your results to approach the true probability if you were flat betting. But you weren't flat betting. The martingale betting on VP means that your real results are skewed by the larger bets. So the real question is how many hands did you play at say the $10 and above level? Maybe that goes down to 10,000 hands or 2000 hands or even less....which is clearly far less than the 'Long Run'.

    "What does that mean? It means that it's certainly not impossible for Rob to have been a big winner using his strategy in what is really the short run. It may not even be improbable. That does not mean it is a winning strategy in the long run though. It is clearly a losing strategy. If you played enough hands at the high dollar levels, eventually you'd be broke. It's probably easier for some to understand this if you look at 10,000 people playing Robs Strategy. A certain percent will clearly be big winners like Rob claims he was. Another percentage will be huge losers. You add them all up and yeah...it's going to be negative. But just looking at a single player and a very small sample size....the results cannot be predicted""

    Prove me wrong. Show your math. Oh...and I can envision a progressive system where the vast majority of players are winners but there are small number of very large losers that still make it -EV.
    This is what I've said before. I can believe he, or anyone, could've won that amount with that system, but not because it works. But only by sheer dumb luck. No different than Rusty Griswold in "Vegas Vacation" winning those cars on those slots. Do it long enough, you'll go broke.
    Surely you jest, after all we are talking about Rob Singer here, he woiuld never go broke playing video poker. He has all kinds of abilities including recognizing all kinds of cycles, and patterns. Machines actually telepath to him when he is in hot and cold streaks. Long term his system would prove all the skeptics wrong. Of course I am only joking.

  18. #58
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    I've said time and again that my play strategy does not change anything about EV, ER, or re-write any of the math books. Kew keeps saying that it does, which shows how little he actually knows. The only thing it does (besides being much more interesting to play than any single denomination approach) is utilize multiple ways to increase the opportunity for good luck in every single individual session. What that did was WORK, and my disagreement is that it had a high probability of continuing to work because the probability odds do not change a bit in any particular session. They're always high. Where the real disconnect is revolves around the sudden cutting of ties with it being individual sessions of play, in order to lump the entire number of hands in those sessions into one "long-term session"--which it is not, regardless of how many sessions are played.

    We all keep saying "the math doesn't change". Well, why can't everyone just say that when there's an 85% chance I'll win a session, then EVERY SESSION I PLAY WILL BE AT THAT RATE? Sure there can be some five figure losers, but no one wants to accept that the even larger and more frequent five and six figure winners far surpass whatever is lost in the losers.

    For every 85 winning sessions there are 15 losing sessions. Does every winner win just $2500, and does every loser lose $57200? Of course not! Naturally a critic will go with those numbers though because it blindly makes their argument. But why do you think the math people at WoV ran away from my ten session challenge? Because they ran the numbers and knew better. My largest ever loss was around $35k, and my largest win was $96k.

    There were very few +EV machines around then (which would have made a negligible difference anyway) and I didn't have time to play "grind-it-out" vp since I didn't live in Nv. So if I wanted to play vp for a profit I needed to devise a strategy starting with optimal play and working it from there. What I did worked, but it would hardly be considered a "winning strategy" for the vast majority of players even willing to try it. They'd have to have a mind and personality characteristics exactly like mine along with the stamina and discipline to do exactly what they say they are going to do.

    The snowflake younger generations of today could never and would never succeed at this. It's too much work for them, and there's too much thinking involved. Aside from his obvious biases and overall forum "love of conflict" life, this is why someone like kew has so much trouble with this. These pussies just don't have the abilities my generation had, and all they do is live for today and for instant gratification. That's why you often see him so agitated--he has trouble with how other people work hard for their results, when all he can do is create some online fantasy about himself, then go bonkers over anyone who doesn't see "the world according to kew".

    But he's funny.....

    Many times in life, it's what does NOT get said that's most interesting. In this case, let's give mickey crimm a day or two to comment on the post above. Or to not comment, whichever he prefers. And let's be clear -- Shackleford and GWAE are likely reading this stuff at this point.

  19. #59
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    KJ, I have not forged an alliance with anyone. That's what you don't get. Forming an unbiased opinion does not mean I have forged an alliance. It's something you are not capable of. It took you awhile but you've succeeded. You are now King Troll on VCT.

    "seen tons of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Singer will lie about anything".

    "Just another routine Singer prevarication. He's the most prolific liar in the history of the internet gambling forums".

    "Just more lying Robocchio bullshit".

    "All the while you were supposedly beating the casinos with a super duper system"

    "All you are doing here is trying to cover your own ass. Insults, lies, accusations, threats? That is your specialty."

    "This guy, Robert Harry Argentino, that has for years libeled anyone and everyone in the gambling world, including KJ and myself"

    "get Argentino to prove all the phony claims he's made in the last 15 years".

    "Argentino's lies/sock puppets are legendary. He tells so many lies he can't keep up with them so it's easy to bust him out. He's a compulsive liar."

    "we have a confederacy of dunces on this site, Singer, Belly, Blackhole, Mendelson, that are to stupid to learn advantage play. They brag about beating negative expectation games and call us AP's dumb."

    "Your lugubrious penchant for lying is based in your Narcissistic Personality Disorder."

    "You were caught as a bald face liar again, Rob."

    "Those with Narcissistic Personality Disorder like Rob believe they are entitled to be admired without the requisite accomplishments to be admired. It is a big blow to their egos when someone calls them what they really are, scumbags. Rob's belittling of others gives him temporary feelings of superiority. But after awhile the self loathing sets back in and he has to go back to denigrating others to extinguish the mental pain of low-self esteem. It's a rinse and repeat scenario with no end in site until he seeks help for his mental illness."

    "Rob is a cancer on the site."


    Mickey, you say you have no new alliance, so how do you explain the 180 you have done since making these quotes....all of which come from the 2 month period just prior to you speaking privately with Rob. Just imagine what I could have found had I wanted to spend more time go back even further. (where is the yikes emoji?)

    Look Mickey, I don't care if you and Rob now have an agreement not to tear each other down, especially with the stuff that doesn't matter. But the fact are this guy is a "compulsive lying narcissist"....just like you said. He has and will lie about anything and everything. And for 15 years he has been lying about his SPS system and the results from because he seeks that attention. He has had an agenda to be recognized as some sort of 'VP great' using claims based on alternative math. Just like I continue to do, you have pointed that out for years….even decades.

    So if there is no new alliance, how do you explain the change to now he is no longer lying about these things.

    And look, this is completely separate from the double up bug. YOU chose to believe that....that is fine. It doesn't change this long, long history of lying, fabrications, and impossible claims.

  20. #60
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    I've said time and again that my play strategy does not change anything about EV, ER, or re-write any of the math books. Kew keeps saying that it does, which shows how little he actually knows.
    Rob, I don't know why, but I will try to explain this again. Let's try a roulette analogy (a different one than I used before). Roulette is a negative expectation game for the player (absent some anomaly like a biased wheel). So a player has system where he bets his 5 favorite numbers. So he plays for a couple hours. Sure he can win over that short term, small trial size, if his favorite numbers hit more than expected...this is possible. This is the equivalent to what you are claiming. You can win playing -EV short-term.

    Ok, now the guy is going to come back...lets say 208 times over 4 years and play for 2 hours playing these favorite numbers. This now moves into longer term play, the kind of larger sample size that luck no longer can overcome negative expectation. It is no longer possible for him to be a winner after these 208, 2 hour sessions, let alone a winner to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. IT JUST ISN'T MATHEMATCALLY POSSIBLE.

    And all the special plays, progressive wagering, stop limits and any other "voodoo" you throw in can't change that fact or that math. What you are claiming in regards to your SPS is complete nonsense. Every legitimate gambling and math person has told you that, including mickeycrimm, back when he was speaking the truth.

    Now you can call me every name in your troll book and even think up a few new ones, but it doesn't change these facts.


    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post

    For every 85 winning sessions there are 15 losing sessions.
    This is how progression systems ALL work. They change the number of winning sessions and losing sessions, but that can't change the total results. That means that the losing sessions will be much larger than the winning sessions. And every once in a while you will have that massive losing session that wipes out all those smaller winners. This isn't theory...it is proven mathematics. And stop limits can't and don't change anything.

    There is nothing new here Rob. What you are arguing has been argued for hundreds of years. And it has been definitively proven.

    To continue to argue this proven point is simply the same as arguing the earth is flat, when it has long since been proven that it isn't.
    Last edited by kewlJ; 09-20-2019 at 11:29 AM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 90
    Last Post: 04-03-2020, 10:45 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •