vpFREE2 Forums

Can YOU do it?

#1

Elliott Shapiro wrote:
"Rob Singer has NEVER proved that he is a winner. He will NOT allow
anyone to watch him, etc, and if he is really telling the truth, he
would be flying in on his private jet."

I don't know who you are sir, but how irresponsible and dumb a
statement is that? Has anyone else ever PROVED they win? If I recall,
even you've written on vpfree that you always win. So go ahead and
PROVE it! Show us how it's done.

If you read Gaming Today, you'd have seen where Mr. Singer openly
challenged some sportsbetting fool who basically said the same thing
you just did (called him a liar) on a radio show and RS called him on
it in the paper. He was ready to show & prove to this guy and his boss
Anthony Curtis from LVA that his winnings was over $640000 over X
amount of years playing vp, and if I recall the method of documentation
was impossible to argue (gaming day withdraw/re-deposit records, IRS
audit reports, gaming records, casino reports, financial institution
reviews with passwords, etc. and on and on). The bet was on at $640k
and he put up the escrow at one of the casinos, which was also
documented. When the day was done the sports guy was last seen running
away with his tail tucked firmly between his legs. I fully expect
you'd do the same. Why don't you offer to take his place?

You couldn't duplicate his results? Where'd you try it? I tried and
also couldn't at low level machines, so I contacted him and he met up
with me in Laughlin. When I was made aware of all the non-expert plays
his strategies require, I just didn't have the time to follow through
on it and I gave up. I imagine you DO know his strategy inside out to
be able to say you couldn't do it right. Or am I wrong?

#2

I'll chime in here. Most of what aces-hi says is correct. The article
on that can be found on my site vptruth.com in the archives. It's the
biggest choke I've ever seen from a big-mouth radio guy.

I too would like to hear Elliot's explanation on who else has ever
even offered to provide proof-of-winning. Actually, who would RISK it
besides me? I do know Elliot has claimed to be a perennial winner,
but even he can't provide proof, and I don't believe he ever could
even if he stood to win $640,000 if he were to attempt it. That's
because he'd have to show the public his personal losing record as
well as his team play record. The method of proof I offered was fool-
proof, and included a recent 5-year IRS audit record and report. All
the daily gaming records as well as the bank withdrawal
records/redeposit records after winning (or in 13% of the time,
losing) trip were to be supplied, and they would exactly correlate to
each entry on my contemporaneous gambling records as well as with
casino win/loss reports in total and in general. No one else would do
that. No one else COULD do that.

Elliot, I'd like to see how you'd react to having someone watch you
every time you played (which is far too often for your own good) over
a year's time. You get unnerved after 5 minutes doing anything. I
can't imagine your reaction of having someone peering over your
shoulder during your play.

Do worry though. As soon as some of the jealous goons read this
they'll be at your side in a flash. The same ones all the time, and
the same ones who've said I'll be gone or broke or this or that for
many years now. Maybe they'll talk about Wynn!

#3

Robby, no one cares if you've won or lost. What I'm STILL waiting for
is PROOF that your system provides some advantage. Where are those 3
mathematicians you claimed had evaluated your system and verified
it's validity? Maybe now is the time to give us their names so we can
contact them.

And, since you are aces-hi all you just did with that post is claim
that you are correct.

Finally, if you want to talk about running away with ones' tail
between their legs, I think that pretty much describes your actions
on OUR last bet.

Now, please, go back and put your head in the sand and keep it there
this time.

Dick

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@c...>
wrote:

I'll chime in here. Most of what aces-hi says is correct. The

article

on that can be found on my site vptruth.com in the archives. It's

the

biggest choke I've ever seen from a big-mouth radio guy.

I too would like to hear Elliot's explanation on who else has ever
even offered to provide proof-of-winning. Actually, who would RISK

it

besides me? I do know Elliot has claimed to be a perennial winner,
but even he can't provide proof, and I don't believe he ever could
even if he stood to win $640,000 if he were to attempt it. That's
because he'd have to show the public his personal losing record as
well as his team play record. The method of proof I offered was

fool-

proof, and included a recent 5-year IRS audit record and report.

All

the daily gaming records as well as the bank withdrawal
records/redeposit records after winning (or in 13% of the time,
losing) trip were to be supplied, and they would exactly correlate

to

each entry on my contemporaneous gambling records as well as with
casino win/loss reports in total and in general. No one else would

do

that. No one else COULD do that.

Elliot, I'd like to see how you'd react to having someone watch you
every time you played (which is far too often for your own good)

over

···

a year's time. You get unnerved after 5 minutes doing anything. I
can't imagine your reaction of having someone peering over your
shoulder during your play.

Do worry though. As soon as some of the jealous goons read this
they'll be at your side in a flash. The same ones all the time, and
the same ones who've said I'll be gone or broke or this or that for
many years now. Maybe they'll talk about Wynn!

#4

Robby, no one cares if you've won or lost.

Ha! I knew it would drag one of the goons who require attention!
You as usual missed it. There IS someone who cares, so much so that
he slandered me on his radio show about it. He then paid the price.

What I'm STILL waiting for is PROOF that your system provides some
advantage.

You missed out on that too. The only way to do this is to have a
third party mathematically prove my strategy wins. After the Wizard
of whatever (Shackleford?) called me a fraud, I publicly challenged
him to sit with me for whatever amount of time it took (for free) to
understand all of my special plays in order to do a mathematical
analysis of it, and he was never heard from again. The radio guy also
challenged me to do the same thing with his choice of mathematicians.
I accepted, and then you've never heard or seen such a pathetic array
of excuses anywhere. The acceptance is there. Maybe you could get
someone to work with me on it. But I suspect the thrill is in the
criticism and you guys just can't live without it.

Where are those 3 mathematicians you claimed had evaluated your
system and verified it's validity? Maybe now is the time to give us
their names so we can contact them.

Old news. If I remember correctly I told you where 2 of them worked
and gave you their names. I haven't spoken to them in probably 8 or 9
years. Who cares any more? Supply fresh bodies and I'll work with
YOUR people. Or again, is the thrill of it all in the criticism?

And, since you are aces-hi all you just did with that post is claim
that you are correct.

I'll be anybody you want me to be, as usual.

Finally, if you want to talk about running away with ones' tail
between their legs, I think that pretty much describes your actions
on OUR last bet.

Ha again! At least the radio jock has the money to be challenging me
at my level. You're a walking excuse when it comes to backing off of
bets.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

#5

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@c...>
wrote:

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

> Robby, no one cares if you've won or lost.

Ha! I knew it would drag one of the goons who require attention!
You as usual missed it. There IS someone who cares, so much so that
he slandered me on his radio show about it. He then paid the price.

OK, one person besides you cares. What a fan club. I bet you get
chills all over your body just thinking about it.

>What I'm STILL waiting for is PROOF that your system provides some
>advantage.

You missed out on that too. The only way to do this is to have a
third party mathematically prove my strategy wins. After the Wizard
of whatever (Shackleford?) called me a fraud, I publicly challenged
him to sit with me for whatever amount of time it took (for free)

to

understand all of my special plays in order to do a mathematical
analysis of it, and he was never heard from again. The radio guy

also

challenged me to do the same thing with his choice of

mathematicians.

I accepted, and then you've never heard or seen such a pathetic

array

of excuses anywhere. The acceptance is there. Maybe you could get
someone to work with me on it. But I suspect the thrill is in the
criticism and you guys just can't live without it.

You shouldn't need ANYONE else to provide a proof. This is a prime
example of how you try to misdirect perfectly valid complaints about
your system because there is no proof. Now, I think I mentioned
Reeds' proof that shows your system CANNOT work several times and I
think your best response was to call all mathematicain geeks.

>Where are those 3 mathematicians you claimed had evaluated your
>system and verified it's validity? Maybe now is the time to give

us

>their names so we can contact them.

Old news. If I remember correctly I told you where 2 of them worked
and gave you their names. I haven't spoken to them in probably 8 or

9

years. Who cares any more? Supply fresh bodies and I'll work with
YOUR people. Or again, is the thrill of it all in the criticism?

No, you never provided any names. That's because there never were nor
ever could be any mathematicians that would validate your system.
That's just one reason I've called you a liar and a fraud.

> And, since you are aces-hi all you just did with that post is

claim

> that you are correct.

I'll be anybody you want me to be, as usual.

Admit it Rob. You have make up names to get anyone to support your
bogus system.

>
> Finally, if you want to talk about running away with ones' tail
> between their legs, I think that pretty much describes your

actions

> on OUR last bet.

Ha again! At least the radio jock has the money to be challenging

me

at my level. You're a walking excuse when it comes to backing off

of

bets.

My willingness never faltered. You're the one who always kept trying
to change the rules when it became obvious you would lose.

#6

OK, one person besides you cares. What a fan club. I bet you get
chills all over your body just thinking about it.

When you think about it, that's one more than who cares if anybody
anywhere wins.

You shouldn't need ANYONE else to provide a proof. This is a prime
example of how you try to misdirect perfectly valid complaints
about your system because there is no proof. Now, I think I
mentioned Reeds' proof that shows your system CANNOT work several
times and I think your best response was to call all mathematicain
geeks.

You're correct. I don't NEED anyone else to provide a proof. Others,
like you, want the proof. If I were to provide it directly then
critics like you would find something nebulous to argue about with
me, the provider. The radio jock at least had the sense to see that
in his challenge, so he publicly asked for me to agree to a third
party verification OF HIS CHOICE so there would be no nonsense nor
waste of time. I offer you the same opportunity. And BTW, attempts at
providing proof by back-dooring with the procedure of disproving
facts is not an accepted standard, if you remember your classroom
instruction on theory. It will ALWAYS leave a hole, and with
mathematical proof absolutes are required.

No, you never provided any names. That's because there never were
nor ever could be any mathematicians that would validate your
system. That's just one reason I've called you a liar and a fraud.

You're wrong. I did provide all 3 names, where they're all from, and
where 2 of them have worked when i knew them. As I recall, you were
more interested in putting your money in the Indian casino slot
machines than the pay phone to do your research.

My willingness never faltered. You're the one who always kept
trying to change the rules when it became obvious you would lose.

Now you're crying again. Remember how similar your attempts to escape
are to the Pee Wee Herman defense?

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

#7

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@c...>
wrote:

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

> OK, one person besides you cares. What a fan club. I bet you get
> chills all over your body just thinking about it.

When you think about it, that's one more than who cares if anybody
anywhere wins.
>
> You shouldn't need ANYONE else to provide a proof. This is a

prime

> example of how you try to misdirect perfectly valid complaints
>about your system because there is no proof. Now, I think I
>mentioned Reeds' proof that shows your system CANNOT work several
>times and I think your best response was to call all mathematicain
>geeks.

You're correct. I don't NEED anyone else to provide a proof.

Others,

like you, want the proof. If I were to provide it directly then
critics like you would find something nebulous to argue about with
me, the provider.

Typical Singer response. Why don't you provide the proof and find out
what happens? Of course, you know as well as I do that there is no
proof and all you are doing is sucking air.

The radio jock at least had the sense to see that
in his challenge, so he publicly asked for me to agree to a third
party verification OF HIS CHOICE so there would be no nonsense nor
waste of time. I offer you the same opportunity. And BTW, attempts

at

providing proof by back-dooring with the procedure of disproving
facts is not an accepted standard, if you remember your classroom
instruction on theory. It will ALWAYS leave a hole, and with
mathematical proof absolutes are required.

Are you completely bonkers. Proofs are proofs. Period. As long as the
proof is completely in agreement with sound mathemathical principles.
By the way, blurting out "because I won" is not a sound mathematical
principle.

Finally, any and all systems based on progressions have already been
PROVEN to be worthless. PROVEN, Robby, that's right. PROVEN. Got it?

>
> No, you never provided any names. That's because there never were
>nor ever could be any mathematicians that would validate your
>system. That's just one reason I've called you a liar and a fraud.

You're wrong. I did provide all 3 names, where they're all from,

and

where 2 of them have worked when i knew them.

Actually, I'd be more than willing to give you the date and time of
your post (around July/August 2004) where you stated that you WOULD
NOT provide these names. Are you going to try and keep this latest
lie alive? You can't lie and lie and lie and expect anyone to believe
you.

As I recall, you were
more interested in putting your money in the Indian casino slot
machines than the pay phone to do your research.

All I ask for was the names. That's all I'm asking right now. Obvious
attempts to deflect this discussion make you look moronic.

>
> My willingness never faltered. You're the one who always kept
>trying to change the rules when it became obvious you would lose.

Now you're crying again. Remember how similar your attempts to

escape

are to the Pee Wee Herman defense?

More obvious attempts at deflection. If you want to continue to look
like a moron, please keep it up.

#8

Typical Singer response. Why don't you provide the proof and find
out what happens? Of course, you know as well as I do that there is
no proof and all you are doing is sucking air.

Because you're a nobody who wouldn't know what to do with proof it it
were staring you in the wrinkles. But read on.

Are you completely bonkers. Proofs are proofs. Period. As long as
the proof is completely in agreement with sound mathemathical
principles.

Not with you it isn't. I have suspicions that you lack the
qualifications to even understand a mathematical presentation, let
alone judge one.

Finally, any and all systems based on progressions have already
been PROVEN to be worthless. PROVEN, Robby, that's right. PROVEN.
Got it?

Yup, got it. I'll make you feel good by printing the words you need
to see. Remember that when you figure out no one here has yet
disproven mine.
  

> You're wrong. I did provide all 3 names, where they're all from,
and where 2 of them have worked when i knew them.

Actually, I'd be more than willing to give you the date and time of
your post (around July/August 2004) where you stated that you WOULD
NOT provide these names. Are you going to try and keep this latest
lie alive?

Uh, remember the name Graham, the New Zealander from the Middle
East?? How about Franz??? And just what would you do with these folks
even if you could find their numbers? Gee, I don't think you speak
German, or Chinese. Now why's that? Because you've really done
nothing of importance your entire life, and you haven't been
anywhere. That's why you're so angry and lead such a sour life in
your declining years. Everything seems to have passed you by, and now
the low class/low life game of video poker's overtaken you. What a
legacy.......

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

#9

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

> Typical Singer response. Why don't you provide the proof and find
>out what happens? Of course, you know as well as I do that there

is

>no proof and all you are doing is sucking air.

Because you're a nobody who wouldn't know what to do with proof it

it

were staring you in the wrinkles. But read on.

I can see how easily I'd win a debate with you right away. It's so
easy to point out when you're trying to avoid answering a question
because you have no answer. Now quit trying to deflect the discussion
and produce your proof.

> Are you completely bonkers. Proofs are proofs. Period. As long as
>the proof is completely in agreement with sound mathemathical
>principles.

Not with you it isn't. I have suspicions that you lack the
qualifications to even understand a mathematical presentation, let
alone judge one.

As usual your suspicions are 180 degrees off target. Although I
haven't done an actual proof since I received my Math degree, I don't
think it would take me very long to find any errors in your, as yet,
unproduced proof.

> Finally, any and all systems based on progressions have already
>been PROVEN to be worthless. PROVEN, Robby, that's right. PROVEN.
>Got it?

Yup, got it. I'll make you feel good by printing the words you need
to see. Remember that when you figure out no one here has yet
disproven mine.

What part of "ALL" don't you understand? Clearly, you have no idea
just what a proof entails or you would not make such a ridiculous
statement.

> > You're wrong. I did provide all 3 names, where they're all

from,

> and where 2 of them have worked when i knew them.
>
> Actually, I'd be more than willing to give you the date and time

of

> your post (around July/August 2004) where you stated that you

WOULD

> NOT provide these names. Are you going to try and keep this

latest

> lie alive?

Uh, remember the name Graham, the New Zealander from the Middle
East?? How about Franz??? And just what would you do with these

folks

even if you could find their numbers? Gee, I don't think you speak
German, or Chinese. Now why's that?

Those are just a sets of letters. Until you provide first and last
names and internet IDs you've provided NOTHING. PS. Just about any
good mathematican understands how to read and write English.

Because you've really done
nothing of importance your entire life, and you haven't been
anywhere. That's why you're so angry and lead such a sour life in
your declining years. Everything seems to have passed you by, and

now

the low class/low life game of video poker's overtaken you. What a
legacy.......

I see your back to worthless, idiotic name calling as your first line
of defense. It won't work with me because I've already accomplished
plenty in my lifetime. Showing that your progressive system is
worthless really doesn't even make the top 100.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "aces_hii" <aces_hii@y...> wrote:

#10

At 8:10 pm on 9/9/2005, three months since his last post, aceshii
mysteriously reappers in post #2015.

Elliott Shapiro wrote:
"Rob Singer has NEVER proved that he is a winner. He will NOT allow
anyone to watch him, etc, and if he is really telling the truth, he
would be flying in on his private jet."

I don't know who you are sir, but how irresponsible and dumb a
statement is that? Has anyone else ever PROVED they win? If I

recall,

even you've written on vpfree that you always win. So go ahead and
PROVE it! Show us how it's done.

If you read Gaming Today, you'd have seen where Mr. Singer openly
challenged some sportsbetting fool who basically said the same

thing

you just did (called him a liar) on a radio show and RS called him

on

it in the paper. He was ready to show & prove to this guy and his

boss

Anthony Curtis from LVA that his winnings was over $640000 over X
amount of years playing vp, and if I recall the method of

documentation

was impossible to argue (gaming day withdraw/re-deposit records,

IRS

audit reports, gaming records, casino reports, financial

institution

reviews with passwords, etc. and on and on). The bet was on at

$640k

and he put up the escrow at one of the casinos, which was also
documented. When the day was done the sports guy was last seen

running

away with his tail tucked firmly between his legs. I fully expect
you'd do the same. Why don't you offer to take his place?

You couldn't duplicate his results? Where'd you try it? I tried

and

also couldn't at low level machines, so I contacted him and he met

up

with me in Laughlin. When I was made aware of all the non-expert

plays

his strategies require, I just didn't have the time to follow

through

on it and I gave up. I imagine you DO know his strategy inside out

to

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "aces_hii" <aces_hii@...> wrote:

be able to say you couldn't do it right. Or am I wrong?

#11

And, coincidents of coincidences, about two and a half hours after
aceshii reappeared, Rob Singer, under the screen name of rsing1111,
and having been missing from the site for nine months, suddenly
reappears. Here is the post he made, #2016:

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

I'll chime in here. Most of what aces-hi says is correct. The

article

on that can be found on my site vptruth.com in the archives. It's

the

biggest choke I've ever seen from a big-mouth radio guy.

I too would like to hear Elliot's explanation on who else has ever
even offered to provide proof-of-winning. Actually, who would RISK

it

besides me? I do know Elliot has claimed to be a perennial winner,
but even he can't provide proof, and I don't believe he ever could
even if he stood to win $640,000 if he were to attempt it. That's
because he'd have to show the public his personal losing record as
well as his team play record. The method of proof I offered was

fool-

proof, and included a recent 5-year IRS audit record and report.

All

the daily gaming records as well as the bank withdrawal
records/redeposit records after winning (or in 13% of the time,
losing) trip were to be supplied, and they would exactly correlate

to

each entry on my contemporaneous gambling records as well as with
casino win/loss reports in total and in general. No one else would

do

that. No one else COULD do that.

Elliot, I'd like to see how you'd react to having someone watch you
every time you played (which is far too often for your own good)

over

···

a year's time. You get unnerved after 5 minutes doing anything. I
can't imagine your reaction of having someone peering over your
shoulder during your play.

Do worry though. As soon as some of the jealous goons read this
they'll be at your side in a flash. The same ones all the time, and
the same ones who've said I'll be gone or broke or this or that for
many years now. Maybe they'll talk about Wynn!

#12

rgmustain responds in post #2018.

Robby, no one cares if you've won or lost. What I'm STILL waiting

for

is PROOF that your system provides some advantage. Where are those

3

mathematicians you claimed had evaluated your system and verified
it's validity? Maybe now is the time to give us their names so we

can

contact them.

And, since you are aces-hi all you just did with that post is claim
that you are correct.

Finally, if you want to talk about running away with ones' tail
between their legs, I think that pretty much describes your actions
on OUR last bet.

Now, please, go back and put your head in the sand and keep it

there

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@...> wrote:

this time.

#13

This is post #2030. Rob Singer is posting as Rob Singer to an
Rgmustain post. But the bozo doesn't know he's got the wrong screen
name up. He's posting as Rob but he has aceshii's screen name up.
He made this post on 9/9/05 at 10:47 PM.

Rgmustain wrote:
> Typical Singer response. Why don't you provide the proof and find
>out what happens? Of course, you know as well as I do that there
is no proof and all you are doing is sucking air.

Because you're a nobody who wouldn't know what to do with proof it it
were staring you in the wrinkles. But read on.

> Are you completely bonkers. Proofs are proofs. Period. As long as
>the proof is completely in agreement with sound mathemathical
>principles.

Not with you it isn't. I have suspicions that you lack the
qualifications to even understand a mathematical presentation, let
alone judge one.

Finally, any and all systems based on progressions have already
been PROVEN to be worthless. PROVEN, Robby, that's right. PROVEN.
Got it?

Yup, got it. I'll make you feel good by printing the words you need
to see. Remember that when you figure out no one here has yet
disproven mine. You're wrong. I did provide all 3 names, where
they're all from, and where 2 of them have worked when i knew them.

Actually, I'd be more than willing to give you the date and time of
your post (around July/August 2004) where you stated that you WOULD
NOT provide these names. Are you going to try and keep this
latest lie alive?

Uh, remember the name Graham, the New Zealander from the Middle
East?? How about Franz??? And just what would you do with these folks
even if you could find their numbers? Gee, I don't think you speak
German, or Chinese. Now why's that? Because you've really done
nothing of importance your entire life, and you haven't been
anywhere. That's why you're so angry and lead such a sour life in
your declining years. Everything seems to have passed you by, and now
the low class/low life game of video poker's overtaken you. What a
legacy.......

···

FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "aces_hii" <aces_hii@...> wrote: