Page 19 of 23 FirstFirst ... 9151617181920212223 LastLast
Results 361 to 380 of 441

Thread: Rob Singer didn't beat video poker

  1. #361
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Rob's soft profits don't make money. They prevent you from losing all your money.
    This is partially true. The other part is that the soft profits, as they accumulate, require less and less of a winning hit to attain a session ending win goal. This is how they help make money. They also many times mean you are going down in denomination to continue play--not up.
    Rob- doesn't cashing out also help one keep up with the strategy? I mean, keeping up with the soft profits and starting over ?

  2. #362
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post

    Ah, yes, the soft profits. This is where Rob plays a game with himself. He will occasionally cash out a ticket, stick it in his pocket, then insert more money into the machine. He says he usually does this after a full house. Does it change his results? No. He is still up or down the exact same amount. There is zero effect on outcome. But what it does serve to do is muddy up the waters for anyone trying to draw a bead on what he is doing.

    He starts with a 57K bankroll. And he had three 57K bankrolls. He says he has an 85% success rate at getting the $2500 or higher win with just one 57K bankroll. From these two stats one would assume he has a failure rate of 15% of losing the 57K. Failure rates are important. You can calculate things from it. Like you would have a 1 in 44 chance of losing two 57K bankrolls in a row. And a 1 in 267 chance of losing all three 57K bankrolls in a row.

    A trip a week to the casino is 50 times a year. Ten years and its 500 visits. That would be like a dozen times Rob would have lost two bankrolls in a row, down to his last bankroll and sweating bullets. And he dodged the bullet of losing three bankrolls in a row, which would wipe him out, even though it should happen about twice in 500 sessions.

    Thats what the overview is. But Rob muddies all that up with the soft profit bullshit about not really losing all of the 57K bankroll. So much so that any math professor would be driven nuts by his bullshit.
    This is the craziest mumbo jumbo I've read so far! It is a make believe world created by make believe math! My son made thousands of dollars as a computer analyst selling virtual property to people who were unable to program them in their make believe cities, etc. I couldn't believe anyone would purchase something that didn't exist so they could operate in a make believe world- but now I see it's possible. Use make believe math to create make believe sessions. It's easy to put it on paper- but it comes out different in the real world.
    So it's "make believe math" to you? How quaint. In the forward to his book, A Brief History of Time, Dr. Stephen Hawking said he was told by other published astro-physicists that if he put just one equation in the book it would cut sales in half. That's just how averse the masses are to mathematics. I think you are just a little more math challenged than the average person in a masses. You've never heard of "failure rate?" It was the first concept established in Probability Theory. It's been around for 370 years.

    What if I were to proposition you to a little game played with one die and a cup? You know the chances of rolling a 3 are 1 in 6. Expressed as odds it's 5 to 1 against. I say I can roll a 3 in just 4 rolls of the die. Let's make it an even money proposition and we play the game 500 times.

    Hint: Sling, you have to use the failure rate to determine where you are percentagewise in this game.
    All I'm saying is math is solid and concrete in the real world. Once you step inside a casino, it is constantly changing because of the hold and simulated randomness.

  3. #363
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Originally Posted by RS__ View Post
    Alan and Rob are masters at moving the goal posts.

    There’s nothing wrong with stopping and counting your money and deciding if you want to keep playing or take a break. But how does that help you make money?
    It doesn't. It only gives you an opportunity to decide to say "I've had enough" or "I'll try again." And what's wrong with that?

    Because you're sitting at a machine doesn't mean you have to play like a machine. (Unless of course you're an AP and you have an edge?????)
    Nothings wrong with any of this stuff. Playing less hands on a -EV game is always a good thing. The wrong is when you claim your system is profitable and one will become a winning player if they use it. If Rob touted his system as an etertaining way to lose less money most of us wouldnt have a problem with it.

  4. #364
    AxelWolf wrote " If Rob touted his system as an etertaining way to lose less money most of us wouldnt have a problem with it."

    So you actually know what Rob's system is all about? Good for you for studying it.

    After all these years I still don't know when Rob moves up in denomination and when he moves down and when he switches from Bonus to a different game.

    Right now I'm in the dark and I can't tell you if you'll make a profit or not following Rob's system.

  5. #365
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    A question for you kewlj: is there any casino that really knows you are counting and where you win big money and doesn't care and lets you continue without comment?
    Interesting question Alan. As it is written, I would say no. If you substitute out "casino" and insert "casino personnel or pit personnel", my answer would be yes. But I wouldn't use the term "doesn't care". I would categorize it as "looks the other way". And that can change at any time. It is an ongoing effort to remain within comfort levels or at least where you are 'tolerated'.

  6. #366
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    AxelWolf wrote " If Rob touted his system as an etertaining way to lose less money most of us wouldnt have a problem with it."

    So you actually know what Rob's system is all about? Good for you for studying it.

    After all these years I still don't know when Rob moves up in denomination and when he moves down and when he switches from Bonus to a different game.

    Right now I'm in the dark and I can't tell you if you'll make a profit or not following Rob's system.

    Perhaps you should stop thinking so hard about your boyfriend`s system and think harder about buying a book titled "How to pay my son back after he did work for me and I stiffed him".....asswipe

  7. #367
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
    This is the craziest mumbo jumbo I've read so far! It is a make believe world created by make believe math! My son made thousands of dollars as a computer analyst selling virtual property to people who were unable to program them in their make believe cities, etc. I couldn't believe anyone would purchase something that didn't exist so they could operate in a make believe world- but now I see it's possible. Use make believe math to create make believe sessions. It's easy to put it on paper- but it comes out different in the real world.
    So it's "make believe math" to you? How quaint. In the forward to his book, A Brief History of Time, Dr. Stephen Hawking said he was told by other published astro-physicists that if he put just one equation in the book it would cut sales in half. That's just how averse the masses are to mathematics. I think you are just a little more math challenged than the average person in a masses. You've never heard of "failure rate?" It was the first concept established in Probability Theory. It's been around for 370 years.

    What if I were to proposition you to a little game played with one die and a cup? You know the chances of rolling a 3 are 1 in 6. Expressed as odds it's 5 to 1 against. I say I can roll a 3 in just 4 rolls of the die. Let's make it an even money proposition and we play the game 500 times.

    Hint: Sling, you have to use the failure rate to determine where you are percentagewise in this game.
    All I'm saying is math is solid and concrete in the real world. Once you step inside a casino, it is constantly changing because of the hold and simulated randomness.
    It is? Could you explain that to me in detail?
    "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. #368
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post

    So it's "make believe math" to you? How quaint. In the forward to his book, A Brief History of Time, Dr. Stephen Hawking said he was told by other published astro-physicists that if he put just one equation in the book it would cut sales in half. That's just how averse the masses are to mathematics. I think you are just a little more math challenged than the average person in a masses. You've never heard of "failure rate?" It was the first concept established in Probability Theory. It's been around for 370 years.

    What if I were to proposition you to a little game played with one die and a cup? You know the chances of rolling a 3 are 1 in 6. Expressed as odds it's 5 to 1 against. I say I can roll a 3 in just 4 rolls of the die. Let's make it an even money proposition and we play the game 500 times.

    Hint: Sling, you have to use the failure rate to determine where you are percentagewise in this game.
    All I'm saying is math is solid and concrete in the real world. Once you step inside a casino, it is constantly changing because of the hold and simulated randomness.
    It is? Could you explain that to me in detail?
    Been talked about over and over- just like most threads here. First of all, I don't believe anyone here believes in a simulated randomness which basically ensures the hold, payouts, etc., stay within the parameters of a true randomness. See where this is going? Old stuff which only infuriates and causes another 10 pages of name calling, profanity, and "it just can't be" conversations. I should just keep quiet here.

  9. #369
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
    Been talked about over and over- just like most threads here. First of all, I don't believe anyone here believes in a simulated randomness which basically ensures the hold, payouts, etc., stay within the parameters of a true randomness. See where this is going? Old stuff which only infuriates and causes another 10 pages of name calling, profanity, and "it just can't be" conversations. I should just keep quiet here.
    Wait, what now? Are you saying because they are not TRULY random, but only pseudo-random, that the results wouldn't be within the parameters of true randomness? I assume you're talking about the results of a game long term, right (not long term)?

    That's just preposterous.

    We know that nothing is truly random, because every action or decision is based on another. It isn't that PRNGs aren't "truly random" (they aren't) that's a problem, it's that they are predictable. If you always give it the same input, it will always give you the same output. That doesn't mean the average result from a PRNG or a true RNG are going to be different though, long term.
    #FreeTyde

  10. #370
    [/QUOTE] Nothings wrong with any of this stuff. Playing less hands on a -EV game is always a good thing. The wrong is when you claim your system is profitable and one will become a winning player if they use it. If Rob touted his system as an etertaining way to lose less money most of us wouldnt have a problem with it.[/QUOTE]

    Exactly how is it "wrong" after I've won so much using it....while you have no idea what it is about? The lazy way as I said is for people to simply say it's not a winner because it's played on less than 100% games. I suppose you'd say it IS a winner if played on a 100.17% game right? And that is as ignorant and close-minded as it gets.

    Bob Dancer tries using the stupid phrase "playing less hands/slowly/low denominations is fine if you're playing for entertainment on 99.9999% games". But he looks so foolish when he spews such nonsense. I've won more than him--not because I play more than him....hey, he's a poker machine's addict's addict. But because he loses and I don't. Why? He's still playing, working, and paying Shirley like a dog, and he's OLDER than me. I spend $3000-6000/week as I will for the rest of my life, enjoying travel and retirement the way it was meant to be enjoyed. He, like most ap's are stuck in the same old rut that leads to nowhere.

    So please wise up axel and try to stop saying dumb things. It would be different if you had good knowledge on what I do but you don't show that you do....even though I believe you'd get it like my ap friend in LV does.

  11. #371
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    I spend $3000-6000/week as I will for the rest of my life, enjoying travel and retirement the way it was meant to be enjoyed. He, like most ap's are stuck in the same old rut that leads to nowhere.
    Were this in fact the case, one might wonder why you feel the need the brag about it on a public message board?

    In my experience most emotionally well-balanced people with money don't brag about having it.

    Think of guys like Sam Walton or Warren Buffet, for example.

    No, I suspect you're just a wannabe.

    Whatever, macht nichts.
    What, Me Worry?

  12. #372
    I always have contended that the gamblers who are really making money are quietly sipping pina coladas on the beach or at the pool of their favorite casino of that particular week. They dont give a shit if a handful of anonymous people know about them. They are content to live the good life.

    Singer had his 15 minutes of fame, and seems to want to regain that level of respect. But its just not there....and it seems to be tearing him up to the point where he needs to engage meaningless people in his life with insults and bigoted remarks.

    so yeah dont piss on my leg with a weak old mans stream of urine and tell me its raining. Things just dont add up to be what he says things are.

    reminds me of poorer bred version of john patrick. Another dude that craves the spotlight and the attention but alas has seen it fade away never to return.

    patrick has his stanton........singer has his alan.

    and thats it........each has the one deluded person that worships the ground he walks on. And patrick/singer is king of the castle,,a castle of 2 people.

  13. #373
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post

    Bob Dancer tries using the stupid phrase "playing less hands/slowly/low denominations is fine if you're playing for entertainment on 99.9999% games". But he looks so foolish when he spews such nonsense. I've won more than him--not because I play more than him....hey, he's a poker machine's addict's addict. But because he loses and I don't. Why? He's still playing, working, and paying Shirley like a dog, and he's OLDER than me. I spend $3000-6000/week as I will for the rest of my life, enjoying travel and retirement the way it was meant to be enjoyed. He, like most ap's are stuck in the same old rut that leads to nowhere.

    So please wise up axel and try to stop saying dumb things. It would be different if you had good knowledge on what I do but you don't show that you do....even though I believe you'd get it like my ap friend in LV does.
    Says the guy with piddly $800-1200 judgements against him running from bill collector's in a POS camper truck.

  14. #374
    just an aside...patrick hasnt posted for a month and a half......his board is having posts go thru..so "the girl" must be taking over in that respect.

    However since its not a broken site as it was before....there may be health reasons afoot.....

    unless he couldnt pay the electric bill or had to hock his electronics

  15. #375
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Exactly how is it "wrong" after I've won so much using it....while you have no idea what it is about? The lazy way as I said is for people to simply say it's not a winner because it's played on less than 100% games. I suppose you'd say it IS a winner if played on a 100.17% game right? And that is as ignorant and close-minded as it gets.

    So please wise up axel and try to stop saying dumb things.
    Rob, it is you that are saying dumb things. Things that just don't add up. And that's what this is about. It isn't personal. But your math just doesn't add up.

    I am sure you have seen me post "it isn't that hard or doesn't take that much to figure out who knows what they are talking about and who is just talking". That is a 2 part process. When someone makes some claim...."I did this", "I did that", "I won this", "I won that", step 1 is does the math add up. If someone claims to have made such and such playing machines, what are they doing to make their play +EV, where you could be a longterm winner? And similarly if someone makes similar claims, regarding blackjack, or craps, or roulette, what are they doing to turn the game +EV and a longterm winner?

    Machine AP's such as mickey, Monet, Axel, RS have explained what they do that makes their play +EV and a longterm winner. The BJ players, such as myself, jbjb, MaxPen (I am including MaxPen with the BJ guys. I think he does more than that, but frankly we need more representation...lol) tell you what we do, card counting, I think jbjb has mentioned hole carding with his team, that makes our play +EV or a longterm winner.

    So that is the first hurdle. Does the math add up? Is it mathematically possible. Rob, you simply have failed to clear that first hurdle.

    IF the math adds up, the next step or hurdle is to read what the person says. Do they know what they are talking about? Say things founded in mathematical principals? Are they credibile? Quite frankly, you fail here as well, because at this stage all you do is resort to personal attacks against anyone who points out that you have failed the first hurdle. But that doesn't even matter because you have failed that first hurdle. The math doesn't add up.

    So it just is not personal. It doesn't matter if someone likes you or dislikes you, or can relate to you. In this case, you simple fail to clear the first hurdle....the math simply doesn't add up.

    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    It would be different if you had good knowledge on what I do but you don't show that you do....even though I believe you'd get it like my ap friend in LV does.
    Can you get this AP friend to post here, and tell us his experiences? (hopefully not from any of your matching IP addresses?). I have requested that before. I would like to see someone else (real) tell us their experiences playing your "system". So far the only supporters I have seen are Alan and Slingshot, two people that both admit they don't play or even know your system. So let's hear from this AP friend.

  16. #376
    AP's can back up their claims with math and many other facts. System player's can't and won't ever back anything up with any proof what so ever. That should tell you something.

    Alan will want.AP proof. OK, no problem put up enough money and and someone will show proof. Ask Rob and other system players to do the same and it will never happen. You all come up with BS like I don't make personal bets. Alan said that. HOWEVER I bet I can show you where he has said he Will bet.

  17. #377
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    You all come up with BS like I don't make personal bets.
    Singer filed for bankruptcy and is too cheap to tip; what makes you think he'd pay off a losing bet?

    When you look behind his veil of his bullshit all you see is more bullshit.

    Continuing to engage in arguments with him is like riding the crazy train.
    What, Me Worry?

  18. #378
    So far the only forum member who I believe has had a profit is Arcimede$ because I saw his tax returns. Sorry I am unable to believe the rest of you.

    You can tell me your beliefs about play but without tax returns leave out your claims of winning.

    Yes, Rob too.

    So go ahead and explain your strategies but back off on your financial claims... unless you admit to losing like me. LOL

  19. #379
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    So far the only forum member who I believe has had a profit is Arcimede$ because I saw his tax returns. Sorry I am unable to believe the rest of you.

    You can tell me your beliefs about play but without tax returns leave out your claims of winning.

    Yes, Rob too.

    So go ahead and explain your strategies but back off on your financial claims... unless you admit to losing like me. LOL
    IIRC KJ offered to back up his claims with tax returns and whatnot. He just asked that someone take action for a sizable bet against his claims. Feel free to call his bet.

    Speaking of claims, I noticed your son won't back up the claim you made about his 5 Royals in a day and still lost. I bet if you pay him what you owe him he might lie for you. He probably won't since he avoided commenting on it. He didnt want to call his dad a lier and he didnt want directly tell a lie himself. FYI IIRC you made an offer(bluff) for a personal bet regarding that claim. However, you claim you don't make personal bets. Were you lying then, or are you lying now?

  20. #380
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    So far the only forum member who I believe has had
    So go ahead and explain your strategies but back off on your financial claims... unless you admit to losing like me. LOL
    a profit is Arcimede$ because I saw his tax returns. Sorry I am unable to believe the rest of you.

    You can tell me your beliefs about play but without tax returns leave out your claims of winning.

    Yes, Rob too.
    Alan, you have seriously lost your mind. You thinking you have a right to see anyone's tax return is way beyond crazy. And that kind of thing is sure to encourage new people to want to participate.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. New Rob Singer Article about pay tables and video poker
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 04-20-2015, 06:00 AM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-08-2013, 10:25 PM
  3. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-10-2012, 02:32 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-21-2011, 03:07 PM
  5. Rob Singer's Video poker tips and strategy
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-31-2011, 07:44 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
  •