Now Isn't This Special.....

[Rob_Singer1]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:
> > > > > > > I think $1910....or even $1500....is a fine result

from

> > less
> > > > than
> > > > > > an hour's play, don't you!??? And not to rub in your
> > > inferiority
> > > > > > complex, but the bankroll for winning $2500 is $17,200

+.

> > Seems
> > > > > your
> > > > > > facts are just a wee bit on the wavering side again.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My facts are just fine. It's your stupid win goal, not
mine.
> > > > >
> > > > > Face it. You realize how stupid you are for not following
> what
> > > I'm
> > > > > saying and you deeply regret the error. To get your facts
> right
> > > you
> > > > > have to know what to look at. You never have.
> > > >
> > > > You mean the fact that you change you goals and have no
> > discipline.
> > >
> > > Let's see.....Go into the casino everyday and pound away at

the

> > > machines making believe I have a 1% advantage, or set

whatever

> goal
> > > I'd like, attain it, and go home when I hit it?? That's a

real

> > tough
> > > choice, and I wonder which one requires more discipline.....
> >
> > Certainly NOT changing goals every other trip, or changing
between
> > 5/6 levels. Especially from someone who claims discipline is

the

> > reason for their success.
>
> I see your problem--you've blocked out the structure of my play
> strategies and instead inserted something weird that you made up!
You
> really can't comprehend it can you!

Oh, I comprehend your lies, alright. Too bad you can't come up with
anything to refute my statements. It makes it obvious that I speak
the truth.

I haven't seen a statement from you yet. All you do is try to cover
your butt after I whip it red. Give me some substance for a change.

> Every trip/every session is
> different, and every trip has a different goal. You'd never get
that
> because addicts only goals are to play. As much as possible. With
no
> rhyme or reason.

Your denials to protect your con will get you nowhere. Like I've
pointed out many times before, a sure sign of a con is a

complicated

system that changes all the time.

Hmmmm....Are you sure about that? I wrote my strategy up in 1996/1997
and put it on my site in 2000---and it's never changed. So has the
cat got your tongue little dicky?? Whatcha gonna say now.....
Anything else to make up so you can build your failing confidence??
  

> > Could it be little Robbie finally understands the impossibility
of
> > his claims? How sweet it is ...
>
> Success equates to actual and not 'possible'. That's what gets

you

> about all this. You don't understand it and can't make up

anything

> that disputes it, so you baffle yourself and make believe others
will
> be baffled by your rambling and scrambling. Keep it up. I like

the

> entertainment!

LMAO. Another opportunity to refute my statements passes with not

so

much as a poor attempt to answer them. More proof for anyone hoping
you'd come up with something.

You haven't made a statement here in weeks or even longer. All you
can do is cover your butt with clouds after I whip it red. See what
you can do about that embarrassing situation you've gotten yourself
into.

> > So,

> > > > > let's
> > > > > > take a look at Rob's results. He claims to have won

23/31

> at
> > > $25
> > > > > and
> > > > > > 7/8 at $100 ... for a total of 30/39 wins. He also

claims

> to
> > > have
> > > > > > had, at most, 31 losses at the $10 level. I believe Rob
is
> > now
> > > a
> > > > > 259
> > > > > > total tries.
> > > > > > > With all your running around it appears you're so

lost

in
> a
> > > > > myriad
> > > > > > of facts on my site that even the geek of the year has
> > trouble
> > > > > > following them. I've played $100 a grand total of 3
times.
> > > Sorry
> > > > > (not
> > > > > > really!) you feel so bad again!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I 'm glad you finally admitted lying previously when

you

> > stated
> > > > 10%
> > > > > > of the time you used 6 levels. Now, on to the next lie.
> > > > >
> > > > > Never said that. You did. I can't even count your
> > > > misrepresentations
> > > > > and lies.
> > > >
> > > > Chalk up another lie ...
> > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/message/2843
> > >
> > > I knew it! You're lying yet again! I was curious as to how

that

> > could
> > > have been true, and once again here's proof that you made it
up.
> As
> > I
> > > was babysitting you thru my play strategy's groundrules so

you

> > could
> > > run your now-stupid sims with as much educated probability as
> > > possible, I ASKED A QUESTION, and get ready--here it is,
directly
> > > from post #2843!: "Also, is it possible to run 10% of the
> sessions
> > at
> > > 6 levels?"
> >
> > You also asked several other questions. Like whether I could
> simulate your special plays. Are you now saying you really don't
use
> special plays?
>
> So now you're assuming everything--the number one culprit of

geeks

> and their theories. Both questions are what-ifs if you really
> understand trial & error.

You forget, the purpose was to evaluate your strategy. Each change
was an attempt to zero in on a correct simulation. Except, it
appears, for the 10% value. The important message for anyone

reading

is why Rob ask about something he doesn't do? Could it be he wanted
some basis for future lies?

You remember how I've coerced you into doing just about anything at
my every command? You're such a geek you undoubtedly thought i was
going along with you seriously when all you were doing was making a
huge fool of yourself while we all laughed at you for not recognizing
what was going on! Oh how its it I was blessed with such talent!!

> I've played 3 sessions at level 6, so I was
> interested in what you'd come up with at about 25 for my own
> curiosity. You are the picture of inaccuracy, and now I see
questions
> confuse you so.

Interestingly, you never mentioned that little fact. So, as I was
providing results based on 10% of the sessions at 6 levels you let
them slide. I'll let others judge what that means.

It means you ran all over the map like a lost nerd when all you had
to do was read my strategy with understanding.

> >
> > > And at least 4 times around that post and at least twice
> > > in this thread, I've told you $100 (LEVEL 6) was actually
played
> 3
> > > times! What a dufus!!
> >
> > That reminds me. I once stated that Robbie played a 5 level
> > progression and he called me a liar and stated it was 6 levels.
> Now,
> > he states he's only played 6 levels 3 times (1%). Hmmmmmmm.
>
> Well you are a liar when you state I play a 5-level progression!
That
> implies I play 5 levels every time I play--which is as usual,

100%

> wrong. It is a 6-level strategy, and it is not necessary to go up
ANY
> level if the win goal (or even loss goal at times) is met at a
lower
> level--even at the first level. Duh!

No, it requires that you bring along $57,500. Without that you
couldn't play 6 levels.

Huh? Did you just not read that if i win $2500 on dollars I don't
play any more for that session? Where are you, on Mars?

But, more importantly, it begs the question

of why you would react so strongly to a statement, that even you
admit, applies 99% of the time. For example, I can bowl right or

left

handed. However, I bowl right handed almost all the time. If anyone
asked me I wouldn't say I bowled with both hands because that would
be misleading at best.

I have no idea, and you already know when you insert a stupid analogy
(as all geeks like to do when confused in order to have peace in
their own minds) you get so far off track that you look like a dumb
idiot all over again. You know the facts about my strategy, so why
keep whining about the mistakes you made from the start? Have you no
dignity??

No, I avoided responding to your rambles. When you can explain how
you've only lost 22 times at level 4 and have reached level 5 30
times then we'll get somewhere.

So now a 10% approximation = 30? Where'd you go to school--mental
high?? Get over the numbers and stop staying up at night trying to
paste together your lost logic when I've given you the facts. I'm not
neurotic about the numbers like you. Approx. is all I need to be
happy. You're the clown who chases your own tail over numbers--a
curse you had since your geek days in high school.

> > > Anything 'can be' if that's what you want it to be so you

don't

> > > continue to look like an idiot here. The facts is, you are
> claiming
> > > my strategy isn't what it is, and that only firmly implants

the

> > Dunce
> > > Cap on your head even more permanently.
> >
> > Yes, I certainly am claiming your "strategy isn't what it is".
> Thanks for proving it to everyone.
>
> Oh gee thanks! So now I can claim, according to YOUR rules that

any

> cash out should count as a win, that my record is more like 478-
31!!
> You're a freakin' GENIUS!!! A stupid geek (especially

here)....but

a
> genius!
> > > Your 'statements' had no facts, and by your own admission of
not
> > > having read my strategies, the only thing left to refute

after

> > > proving how you're a true moron is that you can put both

shoes

on
> > > each day without help!
> >
> > Now he's back to claiming I haven't been to his site. You can't
> stick with a position for one minute.
>
> I'm claiming that? Are you blind again?? In what way does saying
that
> help build your waning self-confidence here?

It demonstrates how hard you're trying to stay away from the real
issue. 30>22.

It still makes no sense. Here's a helping hand. go to my site, look
at the record, then weep. It's all the same--you don'tlike it so
you'll whine about it here now and forever. And I enjoy every minute
you scramble around trying to come up with various scenarios!

> >
> > > > > The first issue you need to clear up with yourself is

envy

> over
> > > my overall nearly 90% win ratio! Yes, that's what it is. You
also
> > > need to purge your use of 'impossible' when it comes to my
> > strategies.
> > > >
> > > > Too late. We've already seen absolute proof of your lies.
It's
> a
> > > > little late to start whining.
> > >
> > > It's actually very enjoyable watching you step in it every

time

> you
> > > attempt to get out of the spot you're in. It couldn't happen

to

a
> > > better gut either!
> >
> > 30>22.
>
> Good job, Einstein! 227>31!

That it is. Finally, a fact from little Robbie. Let me mark my
calendar.

> >
> > >
> > > > > > > I believe if you (and me) stop laughing at all your

mis-

> > > > > information about how I play and what I've accomplished,
you
> > > might be able to do a worthwhile analysis.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Already done. Complete proof that you are lying.
> > > > >
> > > > > And eliminate the word 'denial' from your vocabulary.
> > > >
> > > > I think those of who know that 30>22 can easily see who's

in

> > denial.
>
> Where's the denial? 227>31 too!

No denial here. It is a fact.

then 30>22 is not a fact??

> > >
> > > The typical nebulous statement of any weakened debater.

You're

> > > argument (actually, lie) has been diffused in front of your
eyes,
> > and
> > > you're sore about it too. May I offer up a box of tissues?
> >
> > 30>22. What more do I need to say? Absolute PROOF of Rob's lies.
>
> Make that a large for little dicky please....

Maybe what you need is to take a moment to look at the extremes you
go to each and every post. You lie and you bully.

Poor little dicky....he feels bullied now. Oh my! Let me weep for the
geeky little putz!

For what? Simply to

protect your con. You should realize by now that this has become an
addiction with you. You are right back to 1996 with an old problem

in

a new form. It's called living a lie. It's too bad you got sucked
into it. You probably could have been just as successful by

pointing

out some of the truths about AP gambling that don't get much
publicity. Not everyone will win as the bell curve promises, some
with addictive personalities will become addicted, some will be too
lazy to succeed, etc.

And I'm so glad you got tough here, little dicky! I can't really bear
to see you keep coming apart and then trying in vain to come back
with a load of corn. Maybe you should try another subject.

···

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

[rgmustain]

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

> > > > Making believe your frenzied/rabid/compulsive
> > > > casino play is all done as a nice, respectable, non-

gambling,

> > > > everyday "AP" is all part of the typical cover-up of
seriously
> > > > inflicted problem gamblers on out-of-control paths.
> > >
> > > And, just how would you know? Simply because that's what you
did?
> > > Now, there's a real good methodology ... assume everyone else
has
> > the poor gambling habits you've admitted to. Are you really

this

> > stupid?
> >
> > How about listening to experience for a change instead of

coming

> > apart at the seams and virtually admitting that you know I'm
right?
>
> Experience is fine ... if it applies. Your experiences simply

don't

> apply to me.

Denial. The #1 trait of an addicted gambler. It's always 'the other
guys', isn't it.

No. However, it is in this case. Rob Singer.

However, they still apply to you. I think it's pretty
> obvious that you've simply altered your addiction. You are now
> addicted to your CON. You deny each and every FACT that
demonstrates
> unequivocally that your system is of no value. You even go to the
> extremes of claiming machines cycles, just like our addicted
gambler
> in the book ... not to mention your claims that NGC regulations

are

> not enforced. It's obvious to everyone else, it's obvious to your
> inner voice ... look in the mirror.

On and on and on with no particular place to go. I'd say you've

been

wounded more than I realized you would by the book. And it may just
be the piece of magic that'll get your life back in one piece yet.

Look in the mirror ... listen to your inner voice. Why do you think
it keeps harping at you?

>
> > >
> > > > You fit EVERY
> > > > alert that GA puts out about what constitutes the disease,
and
> > > denial-
> > > > -which is one of your most glaring traits--is like a drug

on

> top
> > of it all. You've got it baaaddddd.....
> > >
> > > OK. Name a couple that you haven't made up in your own mind

so

> you
> > > can continue your con. I went over the 20 GA questions and

only

> > > answered yes partially to two of them. It's so obvious why

you

> keep
> > > pushing the addiction button. THE CON.
> >
> > DENIAL! Your #1 nemisis.
> > Moving to be closer to the machines.
> > Daily play that interrupts what COULD be a normal life.
> > Inability to live a single day without either playing vp,

talking

> > about it, having anxiety over it, or all three.
>
> Like I said ... 3 weeks and counting. How long since you gambled?

Denial. The number 1 trait of addicted gamblers.

RIV. Why do you think it harps at you?

>
> >
> > Should I continue?
>
> Describing your addiction? ... feel free. I have no problem
> discussing addiction since I'm clearly not addicted.

Denial. the number 1 trait of addicted gamblers.

RIV. Why do you think it is harping at you?

> > > > > > ALL AP's are addicts, and the degree to which they are
> > > inflicted
> > > > > with the disease is defined by how often they go to
casinos.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry to come in with the facts again.
> > > >
> > > > Translation: "I can't help myself spout more DENIAL!
> > >
> > > You do remember that the amount of time spent in a casino is
not
> > > relevant as far as GA is concerned? Of course you do, I

already

> > > pointed that out long ago.
> >
> > Your 'spin' on that would include the blind. Irrelevant. The

more

> > time one who GAMBLES is in a casino determines their degree of
> > degeneracy.
>
> This is known as illogic.

Denial. the number 1 trait of addicted gamblers.

RIV. Why do you think it is harping at you?

If I remember right it is one of the signs
> of mental retardation. It's the inability to understand the fact
that
> (A imples B) does not mean (B implies A). For example, Rob uses

the

> facts that addicts gamble a lot to conclude that a lot of

gambling

> implies one is an addict. Let's look at another example ...
> alcoholics drink almost every day. So, using Rob's logic, if you
> drink every day you are an alcoholic. Another example ... all

cars

> have wheels clearly doesn't mean all things with wheels are cars.

Rambling on aimlessly to make one feel better about their disease.
The number 2 trait of all addicted gamblers.

I see you got the point. Look in a mirror and admit the truth.

>
> > > > and on but I think everyone else gets the picture.
> > > >
> > > > There's that incredible sense of guilt being tranformed

into

> > denial
> > > > again as we speak.
> > >
> > > Yes, we can see that in your answer. You ALREADY know the

TRUTH

> and
> > > yet you come back and lie. Don't you have the faintest clue
that
> > > these obvious lies make you look completely foolish?
> >
> > Every time you claim I'm 'lying' it's tainted by the ugly black
> cloud
> > of denial and guilt. And deceit.
>
> LMAO. Now that you've concluded you are an alcoholic, when are

you

> going to AA?

Changing the subject when clearly caught up in the truth of the
matter. The number 3 trait of all addicted gamblers.

RIV. Why do you think it harps at you?

>
> > >
> > > > Comparing a gambling problem, which you have a
> > > > black belt in, to people doing normal, productive things is
> > simply
> > > an
> > > > addict's way of creating a net of false security around

their

> > sick
> > > > activity.
> > >
> > > Once again you start off with an asserted lie, you must

really

> love
> > > being the villiage idiot.
> >
> > Undeniable fact: Anyone held in the grips of addiction will

call

> any
> > person who reveals the addict's problem, a liar.
>
> Is that why you go to such depths to protect your con? Of course

it

> is. You will call anyone who attacks your con just about anything
to avoid discussing YOUR addiction.

I write publicly about my addiction all the time in the paper and
talk about it on the radio. You're not there yet--you hide and make
believe it isn't there because your mouth says so. Certainly, an
effect of the overall disease.

How about your new addiction? Your addiction to your con. Do you
discuss it? Why do you think RIV is harping at you?

>
> It's well known that addiction has genetic roots. Current

research

> indicates that low levels of norepinephrine are found in those

with

> addictive tendencies. Since we already know you have these
> tendencies, guess what? Now do your understand your internal

voice?

Reachiung for the far ends of the earth in order to talk onself out
of an addiction. the number 4 trait of all addicted gamblers.

Whatsa matter? The facts starting to get to you. They usually do ...
and leave you babbling.

>
> > > > > What part of the word "good" didn't you understand? Your
> > > addiction
> > > > > promoting ideas should place you in the Hall of Shame.
> > > >
> > > > "good count": a couple of hands better than trips. I don't
call
> > > > that 'good' because I don't play for them.
> > >
> > > "good" and "hot" are just two different words of the same

idea.

> You
> > > have your ideas and he had his. They are both meaningless and
> > promote addiction.
> >
> > Then you didn't get what the author was saying. I suspect

that's

> part
> > of your program of denial.
>
> I understood exactly what the author was saying. Now, the real
> question is whether you'll see how it relates to you.

You deliberately misinterpreted in order to cover your own guilt

over

your addiction. The number 5 trait of all addicted gamblers.

LMAO. Yes, I think Rob is getting the picture. You're a little late
but now is the time to face facts.

>
> > > > > > And I agree--his fantasy didn't and doesn't exist. The
> > > > > > programmed hot & cold cycles of today's machines
absolutely
> > do.
> > > > My record is a testament to that undeniable fact.
> > > > >
> > > > > LMAO. Your record is about as meaningful as someone who
wins
> > the
> > > > > lottery. Not to mention, your approach is down to a 1 in
1000
> > > > chance of success and we already know you've been lying

with

> the
> > > > 30>22 factoid.
> > > >
> > > > In a few months you'll have talked yourself into thinking

my

> > > chances
> > > > of success have been 1 in a million.
> > >
> > > Since you keep changing your story, that could easily be the
> case.
> > > Sooner or later you'll have to admit that you lied (since
30>22).
> > > When you admit the truth, I will once again need to change

the

> > > simulator.
> >
> > If you would have read my strategiy with comprehension instead

of

> > making things up about it as you go along just so the sim

results

> > wouldn't look so great to you, you wouldn't continue to look so
> weak
> > when you say I lied or that nonsense about 30-22.
>
> Just the facts, as usual.
>
> > Hiding behind time
> > and error while generalizing about their spin in the future is
> > exactly what denyers and liars always do.
> > > > A geek will do whatever's
> > > > necessary to mitigate his sufferring. It's all because it's
> > eating
> > > > away at you inside and you just don't want it to be real.
> > > Eventually,
> > > > it'll bother you soooo much that you'll make believe I've
never
> > > > existed either.
> > >
> > > LMAO. It's really been "eating" at me to see your lies

exposed

> for
> > > everyone to see.
> >
> > Denial: the #1 trait of problem gamblers.
>
> Or ... as in this case ... someone addicted to a con. You know

it's

> very possible that Rob started out believing that his progression
and
> special plays made a difference. Since he failed at AP he

probably

> thought it was flawed. When he had some luck, he got on a

crusade,

> then got to write for GT, got a few others to side with him, felt
> important. This got the norepinephrine levels elevated and the
> addiction was born.

I'm glad you notice part of how I became the famous person you've
always wanted to be but not only were too dorky to succeed---you

have

no friends to support your quest. Truly, a sad scenario.

What part of "few" didn't you understand? Naturally, even a few was a
first in your life and sent your norepinephrine levels skyrocketing.
I guess your inability to read comes with denial. Look in the mirror.

>
> > > > You know, you could have just said "LIAR" again instead of
> going
> > > thru
> > > > all those nervously-tainted words. You just don't like the
> facts
> > > that
> > > > hurt, but there they are right there in front of you. And
since
> > > > DENIAL is your most prolific trait, have at it!
> > >
> > > Facts make Robbie babble.
> >
> > CNBC had the facts. You've got denial. Any questions?
>
> Sure, what did they base the number on? Your IQ?

They looked at your life and the wife of your poor wife's

(whatever's

left to it that's worth anything any more).

I guess humor is one of the first things to go when an obvious
addiction is pointed out to a former addict. I also see you deleted
that actually numbers and the reference. Denial of the facts is a
clear sign of problems.

>
> > > > > > > APers already know that there is no system, only

sound,

> > > > > > > mathematically proven strategies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Another ramble of how it's the 'other guy' and not you.
> > Another
> > > > > > collection of feel-good nonsense that'll allow you to
sleep
> > > with
> > > > > your eyes closed for a change. Nothing holds water with

you

> > > unless
> > > > you create the theory.
> > > > >
> > > > > Did I mention babbling? Rob, if you didn't want me read

the

> > book
> > > > and analyze it, maybe you shouldn't have sent it to me.
> > > >
> > > > ?? The book was sent to you to help you realize both the
> > nightmare
> > > > you live as well as the fact that it can be beaten. You

keep

> > > blaming
> > > > all woes on 'other people' -
> > >
> > > Name a single woe I have blamed on anyone. Please provide
> > references. PS. I do blame AP for adding to my taxable income.
> >
> > #1 thru #1,000,000: Blamed the wife for your gambling problem.
>
> And ... where is that reference? Nowhere to be found. Just like

all

> your lies. You know, those lies you keep inventing to hide your
> addiction to your CON.

Everywhere in freevpfree. you stated it, not me. Now live with it,
Me. & Mrs. Addict.

Nope, I never said it. Now, the lack of any reference and your
continued insistence on repeating an obvious lie is yet another sign
that you have problems. Look in the mirror.

>
> > > LMAO. In one paragraph Robbie says I deny addiction, then

later

> he
> > > says I blame it on my wife. Which one is it little man? Pick
one
> > lie
> > > and try to stick to it for a change. These constant
descrepancies
> > in
> > > Rob's statement are vivid examples that he has no clues about
me.
> > He
> > > simply keeps bringing this up so he doesn't have to answer
> > questions
> > > like ... 30>22.
> >
> > Just like all problem gamblers, you chase away the truth and

view

> it
> > as an attack in any form. When you claim gambling is a hobby,

you

> > deny addiction....the same addiction you blame your wife for
> causing
> > it. You see, the truth is simple, regardless of the weasel-word
> spin
> > you put on the words.
>
> RIV is in form today. How sweet it is ...

you asked for it and you got it. Now live with it.

RIV.

>
> > > > > > Admit it for a change--you had sweaty palms from the
moment
> > you
> > > > > > reitred, thinking about when you could move to LV to be
> > closer
> > > to
> > > > > the machines.
> > > > >
> > > > > LMAO. When faced to total humiliation, Rob resorts to his
> > > asserted
> > > > > lies. If what you said were true then I had sweating

palms

> for
> > 6
> > > > > years and did nothing about it. You're looking more

foolish

> > every
> > > > > time to try to save face.
> > > >
> > > > Nobody does 'anything about it' immediately after retiring.
> > >
> > > Why not? The guy in the book moved without retiring. He left
one
> > job
> > > and got another one in LV.
> >
> > In your usual effort to use meaningless analogies to cover for
your
> > excuses and problem, you predictably became lost here
> > again. "Immediately after retiring" has nothing to do with the
> author
> > and everything to do with you.
>
> You stated "nobody" ... I gave you an example where you were

wrong.

> Even a cave man could understand this.

'Everything to do with you'. Read it again and weep.

RIV. Look in the mirror.

>
> > > > For all
> > > > we know, you and the wife had on-going viscious fights over
> > whether
> > > > to move or not....and as usual, you got your way.
> > >
> > > LMAO. Robbie turns a question into an asserted lie. You

really

> must
> > > enjoy looking foolish, why else would you do it so often.
> >
> > You have the traits of ugliness in everything you do, little
dicky.
> I
> > simply bring them to surface.
>
> Does anyone else detect a little frustration here? Pretty obvious
> that Rob's position has fallen completely apart. How sweet it

is ...

What number trait was avoiding the issue?? Number 2?

RIV. Don't worry, RIV is not avoiding the issue. It keeps harping at
you.

>
> > >
> > > > Now you know why
> > > > she wanted to stay. I suspect the 6-month thing was a
> compromise
> > > > where cooler heads prevailed. But it won't last - you know
that.
> > >
> > > More lies ... we're still waiting for you explain 30>22.
> >
> > Every time you mention the 30-22 thing---which I've lost tract

of

> > what it means anyway---it shows how uncomfortable you are with
the
> > baloney your writing. It's like some sort of crutch, and it
> basically
> > confirms I'm spot-on right about you.
>
> 30>22 ... PROOF of your lies. Let's watch Robbie's frustration
build
> some more ...

Let's see the proof of whatever 30>22 is!>

Already done. We all read it. It was less than a week ago.

> > >
> > > > The
> > > > addiction has now diseased both of you and it won't be long
> > before
> > > > the final and full move is made.
> > >
> > > Yeah, I'm thinking Carefree, AZ. I hear it's a good place
> > for "loser"
> > > watching.
> >
> > Oops! Being a little testy and jealous in the same sentence are
we??
>
> Nope, a little humor that went right by you. Could it be the
> frustration?

Nah, it was jealousy and you know it.

RIV. Rob's obvious jealousy of me and all the gurus is an example of
where his addiction to the con leads him.

>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Do you believe you're gonna stay in Minn. for 6 months
> > > > > > after getting a taste of the craving you fix in the
casinos
> > > every
> > > > > > day? HA!
> > > >
> > > > > Already done it twice. 2004 and 2005. Any more idiotic
> attempts
> > > to
> > > > > save face up your sleeve?
> > > >
> > > > It's not my face I'm trying to save here, little dicky.
> > > Minimalizing
> > > > the obvious only digs your hole deeper over time.
> > >
> > > Once again, the facts leave Robbie with nothing but the
babbles.
> > You
> > > just said I couldn't stay away for 6 months and I

demonstrated

> you
> > > were wrong. You sure are looking foolish today. Good job.
> >
> > After I demonstrated how you deny and lie at every turn, the

hole

> > you're digging just keeps getting deeper.
>
> We're still waiting for that reference. Just one ...

Avoiding the issue--was that #2?

RIV.

>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > It's like you've been cursed by some sort of voodoo---
just
> > > > > > like Jean Scott was. You're dissecting this very

telling

> book
> > > > about people who move to LV to be closer to the machines,
along
> > > with
> > > > your rabid flow of denial after denial only puts a tougher
> piece
> > of
> > > > meat on your plate.
> > > > >
> > > > > Did I mention babbling?
> > > >
> > > > I guess I'd turn the other cheek to the truth about those

who

> > move
> > > to
> > > > LV too.....if I were the infected fool.
> > >
> > > So, EVERYONE who moves to LV is an addict ... LMAO. How does
that
> > > clown suit fit?
> >
> > What irks you is that we're just talking about YOU & the Queen
> right
> > now. Diluting the issue only makes you look all the more guilty
of
> > degenerate behavior.
>
> I didn't dilute anything ... you said "move to LV", not me. LMAO.

Denial and lying all in one sentence again! Loving every minute of
it!!

RIV.

> > > > Going to the gym once in 3 months
> > > > would EASILY allow a person in such denial and slave to the
> > > machines
> > > > such as you to say "the gym is my on-going interest".
> > >
> > > Is that what you did? Interesting. I'm sure glad I'm much
smarter
> > > than you.
> >
> > Need I say any more? You do so well at digging your own grave.
>
> You've said more than enough to convince us all that you will do
> anything to protect your con and your addiction to it.

Hmmm....Seems you're getting desperate with your cover-up again.

Now,

my addiction is to a 'con'!!

It's obvious. Why else would you go to such extremes to protect it?
The con has become your life. You can't see living without it. You
are just as trapped as the victim in the book. You need help.
Admitting your problem would help, so would professional counseling.

Oh, how you make my day with your idiocy
and scrambling around at my every command.....

RIV.

>
> > > > The CON is between you and yourself if you haven't seen it
yet.
> > The
> > > > rest of us can, CON.
> > >
> > > LMAO. This entire post of yours is almost constant babbling.
You
> > have
> > > not refuted a single thing I posted. Instead you continue
making
> > > yourself look idiotic by supporting addictive behavior and
> stating
> > > outright lies. I've got you right where I want you and I know
> > you'll
> > > come back with the same old drivel again. You have no other
> choice.
> > > How sweet it is ...
> >
> > 95% of what you're being accused of here by reason of

degeneracy

> over
> > gambling is DENIED. Is that a surprise?? HAHA!
>
> Good going RIV, you've nailed Rob again. His suppport of

addictive

> behaviors simply to continue his con is degenerate. His lies to
> protect the con are simply denials of the truth. I couldn't have
said
> it better myself.

Ramble and scramble. How well you do that dance!

RIV. I think Rob is starting to understand ... however, he's still in
denial and that will take some time to overcome.

>
> > You won't say it here,
> > but i know you are second-guessing your move to LV. Not only
doies
> it
> > contribute to your gambling problem, the city is a cesspool and
> > getting worse.
>
> 100% wrong. While I may not stay in LV forever, the move has
already
> been a complete success. Significant appreciation of my home,
> gambling success, playing golf all year long ... how sweet it
is ...

Oh I already know you'll be out of LV before long. The losing will
make you say 'uncle' soon enough. And houses have appreciated far
more in other parts of the country....like over here bozo.

Not even close. Did I mention lying was one of the aspects of your
addiction?

Go ahead--
paing a pretty picture while you can. But don't be seen crying in
your beer when the floor falls out of your nightmare!

RIV.

>
> > > > > > You just don't get it. Anyone who on one
> > > > > > hand says they have it all under control, then on the
other
> > > brags
> > > > > > about hitting 26 royals in 5 or 6 months,
> > > > >
> > > > > Just the facts, as usual. What you call bragging was a
simple
> > > > > response to your statements that I always lost.
> > > >
> > > > 'Just the facts' by little dicky is right! "It's 'all under
> > > control'
> > > > yet I can't help myself by admitting I was in casinos for a
> HUGE
> > > > amount of time as I hit those 26 royals in a short period

of

> time.
> > >
> > > Just the facts, as usual. We already covered the fact
that "time"
> > has
> > > nothing to do with addiction.
> >
> > Yup, in your own mind it doesn't. What an idiot....and that's
kind.
>
> LMAO. I don't think there's any cure for mental retardation but

you

> could check.

I have no interest in checking up on your problems.

Truth got your tongue? Don't you just love it. I come up with
reference after reference proving Rob is lying. The best Rob can do
is delete a reference and move on. A clear example of the types of
behavior brought on by his addiction to the con.

> > > Talk about an impotent reply. Did I mention that you are
starting
> > to
> > > make all the other villiage idiots look smart?
> >
> > And, um....the proof is WHERE??
>
> Simple, your constant use of illogic.

Supply proof....get it? Not how much I've made you cry.

I already did. Remember, "The frequency of a person's gambling does
not determine whether or not they have a gambling problem". I
provided this reference long ago that time in a casino was NOT an
indicator of addiction. Your insistence on still claiming it is, is
illogic, pure and simple. It's all part of your addiction (or you
actually are retarded).

http://www.ncpgambling.org/about_problem/about_problem_faq.asp

> > >
> > > Yes FACTS. You know, like casino time NOT being a cause of
> > addiction
> > > whereas chasing non-existent "cycles" is. Yes FACTS.
> >
> > Here's some more education: Chasing cycles is dumb if you

intend

to
> > try it. Detecting your machine's cycle is intelligence
personified.
> I
> > have it, you don't. You never will. And your envious that I

have

> that
> > over you too. Next.
>
> LMAO. Clear addictive denial.

Clear confusion on your part. That response made no sense.

It did to everyone else ... you keep insisting that the machines are
not random when the regs require them to be random. This "denial" of
the truth is part of your addiction to the con.

[rgmustain]

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

> > I see your problem--you've blocked out the structure of my play
> > strategies and instead inserted something weird that you made

up!

> You
> > really can't comprehend it can you!
>
> Oh, I comprehend your lies, alright. Too bad you can't come up

with

> anything to refute my statements. It makes it obvious that I

speak

> the truth.

I haven't seen a statement from you yet. All you do is try to cover
your butt after I whip it red. Give me some substance for a change.

You've seen it. Everyone has. 30>22. Let's chalk up another lie.

>
> > Every trip/every session is
> > different, and every trip has a different goal. You'd never get
> that
> > because addicts only goals are to play. As much as possible.

With

> no
> > rhyme or reason.
>
> Your denials to protect your con will get you nowhere. Like I've
> pointed out many times before, a sure sign of a con is a
complicated
> system that changes all the time.

Hmmmm....Are you sure about that? I wrote my strategy up in

1996/1997

and put it on my site in 2000---and it's never changed. So has the
cat got your tongue little dicky?? Whatcha gonna say now.....
Anything else to make up so you can build your failing confidence??

Never changed? 6 levels ... 5 levels, $2500 ... $1500 ... LMAO.

> > > Could it be little Robbie finally understands the

impossibility

> of
> > > his claims? How sweet it is ...
> >
> > Success equates to actual and not 'possible'. That's what gets
you
> > about all this. You don't understand it and can't make up
anything
> > that disputes it, so you baffle yourself and make believe

others

> will
> > be baffled by your rambling and scrambling. Keep it up. I like
the
> > entertainment!
>
> LMAO. Another opportunity to refute my statements passes with not
so
> much as a poor attempt to answer them. More proof for anyone

hoping

> you'd come up with something.

You haven't made a statement here in weeks or even longer. All you
can do is cover your butt with clouds after I whip it red. See what
you can do about that embarrassing situation you've gotten yourself
into.

30>22.

>
> You forget, the purpose was to evaluate your strategy. Each

change

> was an attempt to zero in on a correct simulation. Except, it
> appears, for the 10% value. The important message for anyone
reading
> is why Rob ask about something he doesn't do? Could it be he

wanted

> some basis for future lies?

You remember how I've coerced you into doing just about anything at
my every command?

Of course you did ... LMAO. I wonder why Rob would want to "coerce"
me into proving he lies?

You're such a geek you undoubtedly thought i was
going along with you seriously when all you were doing was making a
huge fool of yourself while we all laughed at you for not

recognizing

what was going on! Oh how its it I was blessed with such talent!!

More hollow words. Anyone who wishes to know the truth simply has to
go back and read the words you wrote in early Dec.

>
> > I've played 3 sessions at level 6, so I was
> > interested in what you'd come up with at about 25 for my own
> > curiosity. You are the picture of inaccuracy, and now I see
> questions
> > confuse you so.
>
> Interestingly, you never mentioned that little fact. So, as I was
> providing results based on 10% of the sessions at 6 levels you

let

> them slide. I'll let others judge what that means.

It means you ran all over the map like a lost nerd when all you had
to do was read my strategy with understanding.

It's all back there in Dec. How sweet it is ...

>
> > >
> > > > And at least 4 times around that post and at least twice
> > > > in this thread, I've told you $100 (LEVEL 6) was actually
> played
> > 3
> > > > times! What a dufus!!
> > >
> > > That reminds me. I once stated that Robbie played a 5 level
> > > progression and he called me a liar and stated it was 6

levels.

> > Now,
> > > he states he's only played 6 levels 3 times (1%). Hmmmmmmm.
> >
> > Well you are a liar when you state I play a 5-level

progression!

> That
> > implies I play 5 levels every time I play--which is as usual,
100%
> > wrong. It is a 6-level strategy, and it is not necessary to go

up

> ANY
> > level if the win goal (or even loss goal at times) is met at a
> lower
> > level--even at the first level. Duh!
>
> No, it requires that you bring along $57,500. Without that you
> couldn't play 6 levels.

Huh? Did you just not read that if i win $2500 on dollars I don't
play any more for that session? Where are you, on Mars?

That's not the point, retarded one, you needed to take more money
with you if you planned on playing 6 levels.

But, more importantly, it begs the question
> of why you would react so strongly to a statement, that even you
> admit, applies 99% of the time. For example, I can bowl right or
left
> handed. However, I bowl right handed almost all the time. If

anyone

> asked me I wouldn't say I bowled with both hands because that

would

> be misleading at best.

I have no idea, and you already know when you insert a stupid

analogy

(as all geeks like to do when confused in order to have peace in
their own minds) you get so far off track that you look like a dumb
idiot all over again. You know the facts about my strategy, so why
keep whining about the mistakes you made from the start? Have you

no

dignity??

The babblemaster returns. You must have liked my analogy.

> No, I avoided responding to your rambles. When you can explain

how

> you've only lost 22 times at level 4 and have reached level 5 30
> times then we'll get somewhere.

So now a 10% approximation = 30?

Nope. Level 5, not level 6. That is where you claimed a 22-8 record.
Now, try adding 22+8 and see what you get. Take your time, I know
this is difficult for you.

Where'd you go to school--mental
high?? Get over the numbers and stop staying up at night trying to
paste together your lost logic when I've given you the facts. I'm

not

neurotic about the numbers like you. Approx. is all I need to be
happy. You're the clown who chases your own tail over numbers--a
curse you had since your geek days in high school.

LMAO. Rob sure can look foolish at any time.

>
> > > > Anything 'can be' if that's what you want it to be so you
don't
> > > > continue to look like an idiot here. The facts is, you are
> > claiming
> > > > my strategy isn't what it is, and that only firmly implants
the
> > > Dunce
> > > > Cap on your head even more permanently.
> > >
> > > Yes, I certainly am claiming your "strategy isn't what it

is".

> > Thanks for proving it to everyone.
> >
> > Oh gee thanks! So now I can claim, according to YOUR rules that
any
> > cash out should count as a win, that my record is more like 478-
> 31!!
> > You're a freakin' GENIUS!!! A stupid geek (especially
here)....but
> a
> > genius!
> > > > Your 'statements' had no facts, and by your own admission

of

> not
> > > > having read my strategies, the only thing left to refute
after
> > > > proving how you're a true moron is that you can put both
shoes
> on
> > > > each day without help!
> > >
> > > Now he's back to claiming I haven't been to his site. You

can't

> > stick with a position for one minute.
> >
> > I'm claiming that? Are you blind again?? In what way does

saying

> that
> > help build your waning self-confidence here?
>
> It demonstrates how hard you're trying to stay away from the real
> issue. 30>22.

It still makes no sense. Here's a helping hand. go to my site, look
at the record, then weep. It's all the same--you don'tlike it so
you'll whine about it here now and forever. And I enjoy every

minute

you scramble around trying to come up with various scenarios!

30>22.

>
> > >
> > > > > > The first issue you need to clear up with yourself is
envy
> > over
> > > > my overall nearly 90% win ratio! Yes, that's what it is.

You

> also
> > > > need to purge your use of 'impossible' when it comes to my
> > > strategies.
> > > > >
> > > > > Too late. We've already seen absolute proof of your lies.
> It's
> > a
> > > > > little late to start whining.
> > > >
> > > > It's actually very enjoyable watching you step in it every
time
> > you
> > > > attempt to get out of the spot you're in. It couldn't

happen

to
> a
> > > > better gut either!
> > >
> > > 30>22.
> >
> > Good job, Einstein! 227>31!
>
> That it is. Finally, a fact from little Robbie. Let me mark my
> calendar.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > > I believe if you (and me) stop laughing at all your
mis-
> > > > > > information about how I play and what I've

accomplished,

> you
> > > > might be able to do a worthwhile analysis.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Already done. Complete proof that you are lying.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And eliminate the word 'denial' from your vocabulary.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think those of who know that 30>22 can easily see who's
in
> > > denial.
> >
> > Where's the denial? 227>31 too!
>
> No denial here. It is a fact.

then 30>22 is not a fact??

LMAO. Yup, it is a fact. Oh, and proof that you lie.

>
> > > >
> > > > The typical nebulous statement of any weakened debater.
You're
> > > > argument (actually, lie) has been diffused in front of your
> eyes,
> > > and
> > > > you're sore about it too. May I offer up a box of tissues?
> > >
> > > 30>22. What more do I need to say? Absolute PROOF of Rob's

lies.

> >
> > Make that a large for little dicky please....
>
> Maybe what you need is to take a moment to look at the extremes

you

> go to each and every post. You lie and you bully.

Poor little dicky....he feels bullied now. Oh my! Let me weep for

the

geeky little putz!

Just the fact, as usual.

For what? Simply to
> protect your con. You should realize by now that this has become

an

> addiction with you. You are right back to 1996 with an old

problem

in
> a new form. It's called living a lie. It's too bad you got sucked
> into it. You probably could have been just as successful by
pointing
> out some of the truths about AP gambling that don't get much
> publicity. Not everyone will win as the bell curve promises, some
> with addictive personalities will become addicted, some will be

too

> lazy to succeed, etc.

And I'm so glad you got tough here, little dicky! I can't really

bear

to see you keep coming apart and then trying in vain to come back
with a load of corn. Maybe you should try another subject.

The truth hurts, doesn't it. You could have succeeded without
resorting to lies and fantasies. Unfortunately, your lack of self
confidence couldn't let you see that. Sad, but true.

[Rob_Singer1]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:
> > > > > Making believe your frenzied/rabid/compulsive
> > > > > casino play is all done as a nice, respectable, non-
gambling,
> > > > > everyday "AP" is all part of the typical cover-up of
> seriously
> > > > > inflicted problem gamblers on out-of-control paths.
> > > >
> > > > And, just how would you know? Simply because that's what

you

> did?
> > > > Now, there's a real good methodology ... assume everyone

else

> has
> > > the poor gambling habits you've admitted to. Are you really
this
> > > stupid?
> > >
> > > How about listening to experience for a change instead of
coming
> > > apart at the seams and virtually admitting that you know I'm
> right?
> >
> > Experience is fine ... if it applies. Your experiences simply
don't
> > apply to me.
>
> Denial. The #1 trait of an addicted gambler. It's always 'the

other

> guys', isn't it.

No. However, it is in this case. Rob Singer.

Little dicky.....Looks like you've wasted your time here once again.
If all you can do is take what I type and say it about me from the
beginning to the end (but I do like how you get irritated whenever I
bring up how you've ruined your wife's life with addiction), I guess
you've given in to the fact that you know your disease will haunt you
forever. I especially enjoy knowing on your next frenzied trip to LV,
as you unlock the door to that puny 'townhome' (that you could have
bought a real house instead if you didn't lose so much money to the
machines) you WILL be thinking about my words of wisdom aand look
into your poor addicted wife's eyes and recall all the haom you've
caused as you are the catalyst in a ruined marriage and life. May God
have mercy on your soul.....Our Father Who Art In Heaven, Hallowed Be
Thy Name, Thy Kingdom Come.......

···

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

[Rob_Singer1]

> Hmmmm....Are you sure about that? I wrote my strategy up in
1996/1997 and put it on my site in 2000---and it's never changed.

So has the cat got your tongue little dicky?? Whatcha gonna say
now..... Anything else to make up so you can build your failing
confidence??

Never changed? 6 levels ... 5 levels, $2500 ... $1500 ... LMAO.

That shows you have little knowledge of the subject. Read it again.
And it also shows how you even wasted your own time with the
sims...or, snicker snicker....how I MADE you waste the time!
   

> You haven't made a statement here in weeks or even longer. All

you can do is cover your butt with clouds after I whip it red. See
what you can do about that embarrassing situation you've gotten
yourself into.

> > You forget, the purpose was to evaluate your strategy. Each
change
> > was an attempt to zero in on a correct simulation. Except, it
> > appears, for the 10% value. The important message for anyone
> reading
> > is why Rob ask about something he doesn't do? Could it be he
wanted
> > some basis for future lies?
>
> You remember how I've coerced you into doing just about anything

at

> my every command?

Of course you did ... LMAO. I wonder why Rob would want to "coerce"
me into proving he lies?

> You're such a geek you undoubtedly thought i was
> going along with you seriously when all you were doing was making

a

> huge fool of yourself while we all laughed at you for not
recognizing
> what was going on! Oh how its it I was blessed with such talent!!

More hollow words. Anyone who wishes to know the truth simply has

to go back and read the words you wrote in early Dec.

I guess I'd say 'hollow words' when I showed how hurt I was over
having my leg pulled over a geek-event too! You poor fool.....

> >
> > > I've played 3 sessions at level 6, so I was
> > > interested in what you'd come up with at about 25 for my own
> > > curiosity. You are the picture of inaccuracy, and now I see
> > questions
> > > confuse you so.
> >
> > Interestingly, you never mentioned that little fact. So, as I

was

> > providing results based on 10% of the sessions at 6 levels you
let
> > them slide. I'll let others judge what that means.
>
> It means you ran all over the map like a lost nerd when all you

had

> to do was read my strategy with understanding.

It's all back there in Dec. How sweet it is ...

Living in the past again?.....Is that how angered but wounded geeks
get through each day?

> > > > > And at least 4 times around that post and at least twice
> > > > > in this thread, I've told you $100 (LEVEL 6) was actually
> > played
> > > 3
> > > > > times! What a dufus!!
> > > >
> > > > That reminds me. I once stated that Robbie played a 5 level
> > > > progression and he called me a liar and stated it was 6
levels.
> > > Now,
> > > > he states he's only played 6 levels 3 times (1%). Hmmmmmmm.
> > >
> > > Well you are a liar when you state I play a 5-level
progression!
> > That
> > > implies I play 5 levels every time I play--which is as usual,
> 100%
> > > wrong. It is a 6-level strategy, and it is not necessary to

go

up
> > ANY
> > > level if the win goal (or even loss goal at times) is met at

a

> > lower
> > > level--even at the first level. Duh!
> >
> > No, it requires that you bring along $57,500. Without that you
> > couldn't play 6 levels.
>
> Huh? Did you just not read that if i win $2500 on dollars I don't
> play any more for that session? Where are you, on Mars?

That's not the point, retarded one, you needed to take more money
with you if you planned on playing 6 levels.

I made a mistake---you're from Jupiter. Why does your messed up mind
think 6 levels must be played if $57.2k is taken? It's called
something you idiots don't know how to do--preparation. And if I were
planning on playing 2 sessions I'd take $114.4k. Big deal. Both could
end on the first hand on dollars.

> But, more importantly, it begs the question
> > of why you would react so strongly to a statement, that even

you

> > admit, applies 99% of the time. For example, I can bowl right

or

> left
> > handed. However, I bowl right handed almost all the time. If
anyone
> > asked me I wouldn't say I bowled with both hands because that
would
> > be misleading at best.
>
> I have no idea, and you already know when you insert a stupid
analogy
> (as all geeks like to do when confused in order to have peace in
> their own minds) you get so far off track that you look like a

dumb

> idiot all over again. You know the facts about my strategy, so

why

> keep whining about the mistakes you made from the start? Have you
no
> dignity??

The babblemaster returns. You must have liked my analogy.
  
> > No, I avoided responding to your rambles. When you can explain
how
> > you've only lost 22 times at level 4 and have reached level 5

30

> > times then we'll get somewhere.
>
> So now a 10% approximation = 30?

Nope. Level 5, not level 6. That is where you claimed a 22-8

record.

Now, try adding 22+8 and see what you get. Take your time, I know
this is difficult for you.

I claimed I have 8 losses at $25, which is exact. It's you who came
up with a firm 22 wins--even after I continue to tell you the 10% of
259 overall at level 5 is an approximation. It's all part of the geek-
math. You can't deal with anything unless you make it up first. I
don't need to be neurotic when reviewing anything--ballparks will do
for real men.

> Where'd you go to school--mental
> high?? Get over the numbers and stop staying up at night trying

to

> paste together your lost logic when I've given you the facts. I'm
not
> neurotic about the numbers like you. Approx. is all I need to be
> happy. You're the clown who chases your own tail over numbers--a
> curse you had since your geek days in high school.

LMAO. Rob sure can look foolish at any time.

When watching you chase your tail as you try to run away and hide, it
does get strenuous on the neck!

> > > > > It's actually very enjoyable watching you step in it

every

> time
> > > you
> > > > > attempt to get out of the spot you're in. It couldn't
happen
> to
> > a
> > > > > better gut either!
> > > >
> > > > 30>22.
> > >
> > > Good job, Einstein! 227>31!
> >
> > That it is. Finally, a fact from little Robbie. Let me mark my
> > calendar.
> >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I believe if you (and me) stop laughing at all

your

> mis-
> > > > > > > information about how I play and what I've
accomplished,
> > you
> > > > > might be able to do a worthwhile analysis.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Already done. Complete proof that you are lying.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And eliminate the word 'denial' from your vocabulary.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think those of who know that 30>22 can easily see

who's

> in
> > > > denial.
> > >
> > > Where's the denial? 227>31 too!
> >
> > No denial here. It is a fact.
>
> then 30>22 is not a fact??

LMAO. Yup, it is a fact. Oh, and proof that you lie.

So you're lying about it too? Then what's it pertain to other than
one is 8 more than the other?? Is this how nerds play games?

> >
> > > > >
> > > > > The typical nebulous statement of any weakened debater.
> You're
> > > > > argument (actually, lie) has been diffused in front of

your

> > eyes,
> > > > and
> > > > > you're sore about it too. May I offer up a box of tissues?
> > > >
> > > > 30>22. What more do I need to say? Absolute PROOF of Rob's
lies.
> > >
> > > Make that a large for little dicky please....
> >
> > Maybe what you need is to take a moment to look at the extremes
you
> > go to each and every post. You lie and you bully.
>
> Poor little dicky....he feels bullied now. Oh my! Let me weep for
the
> geeky little putz!

Just the fact, as usual.

I quiver and weep for the little lost dicker.

>
> For what? Simply to
> > protect your con. You should realize by now that this has

become

an
> > addiction with you. You are right back to 1996 with an old
problem
> in
> > a new form. It's called living a lie. It's too bad you got

sucked

> > into it. You probably could have been just as successful by
> pointing
> > out some of the truths about AP gambling that don't get much
> > publicity. Not everyone will win as the bell curve promises,

some

> > with addictive personalities will become addicted, some will be
too
> > lazy to succeed, etc.
>
> And I'm so glad you got tough here, little dicky! I can't really
bear
> to see you keep coming apart and then trying in vain to come back
> with a load of corn. Maybe you should try another subject.

The truth hurts, doesn't it. You could have succeeded without
resorting to lies and fantasies. Unfortunately, your lack of self
confidence couldn't let you see that. Sad, but true.

Do you know what 'corn' is? The fact that I've been far more
successful than you in your habit and my job eats away at you no end,
doesn't it little dicky! Whenever a debater comes up with corn like
you usually do at the end of a thread where you've talked yourself
into a corner, it's a certain sign of frustration with the truth
about both his opponent and himself. I understand I've ridiculed both
you and your miserable wife, but you asked for the truth and heaven
knows, all nerds just like a continual beating rather than give up.
Ypu'll never be anything in video poker little dicky, and all you're
doing is hurting yourself over and over. Face it--you're longing
to 'belong' to the clique ain't never gonna happen, no matter how
many 'posts of corn' you spread on the forums. But I'm happy to watch
you make a fool of yourself and slap you down hard at every
opportunity. Oooo...oooo--let me say it for you! RIV!! (i.e.,
dumbfoundedness; lack of words)

···

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

[rgmustain]

I found it unusual that Robbie decided to delete the thread that
dealt with using other sources of cash to supplement gambling
winnings. It got me to thinking and ... it helped me get what I
believe is the entire picture of his con. He is doing exactly
that ... supplementing his winnings. Just how? Stay tuned.

Keep in mind that Rob has mentioned rebuilding muscle cars several
times. It would be easy for Rob to ask someone purchasing a rebuilt
car if they wanted to save some money. Since the book value of these
old cars is < $1000, Rob could ask the buyer if that was what they
wanted to claim as the purchase price. The buyer saves the taxes and
Robbie would have what, a lot of unreported cash from the actual
amount he was paid. The next part is also easy. Rob takes this extra
cash with him when he heads to a casino. He withdraws only the amount
required for his progression. After he plays he deposits what's left,
plus the extra cash from the car sale, and claims the difference as
the win/loss. The money has now been laundered and Robbie has more
than covered his losses.

No wonder Rob's win percentage is almost impossibly high. This also
explains why Rob seldom uses a player's card. A player's card would
provide a true picture of his play. In addition, his complex strategy
is simply a smokescreen. Constantly moving between levels while
pulling out 40 credits wins every so often would be difficult to
track by anyone watching Rob. And, isn't it true that Rob plays late
at night and doesn't like any watchers at all? Pretty obvious how
this fits into the picture.

With this simple scheme Rob has what appears to be irrefutable
evidence that his progression is successful. Clearly, it could fool
both the GT publishers and the gov't. The final tidbit was coming up
with wild claims for his apparent success ... that just happen to be
what typical casino losers want to hear ... hot/cold cycles, non-
random patterns, inside info, winning on negative plays, etc. There
you have it ... the CON, to which Rob has also become addicted (due
to the notariety he has received).

Now, you can see why Rob will say and do anything to keep the con
going. Of course, he will deny this scenario and attempt to laugh it
off. Just keep in mind how all the pieces fit together so well.

[rgmustain]

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

> > Hmmmm....Are you sure about that? I wrote my strategy up in
> 1996/1997 and put it on my site in 2000---and it's never changed.
So has the cat got your tongue little dicky?? Whatcha gonna say
now..... Anything else to make up so you can build your failing
confidence??

> Never changed? 6 levels ... 5 levels, $2500 ... $1500 ... LMAO.

That shows you have little knowledge of the subject. Read it again.
And it also shows how you even wasted your own time with the
sims...or, snicker snicker....how I MADE you waste the time!

Hollow words again, little man. Your con has been exposed.

> > You haven't made a statement here in weeks or even longer. All
you can do is cover your butt with clouds after I whip it red. See
what you can do about that embarrassing situation you've gotten
yourself into.
> > > You forget, the purpose was to evaluate your strategy. Each
> change
> > > was an attempt to zero in on a correct simulation. Except, it
> > > appears, for the 10% value. The important message for anyone
> > reading
> > > is why Rob ask about something he doesn't do? Could it be he
> wanted
> > > some basis for future lies?
> >
> > You remember how I've coerced you into doing just about

anything

at
> > my every command?
>
> Of course you did ... LMAO. I wonder why Rob would want

to "coerce"

> me into proving he lies?

I guess he is rethinking this one.

>
> > You're such a geek you undoubtedly thought i was
> > going along with you seriously when all you were doing was

making

a
> > huge fool of yourself while we all laughed at you for not
> recognizing
> > what was going on! Oh how its it I was blessed with such

talent!!

>
> More hollow words. Anyone who wishes to know the truth simply has
to go back and read the words you wrote in early Dec.

I guess I'd say 'hollow words' when I showed how hurt I was over
having my leg pulled over a geek-event too! You poor fool.....

Nothing but more of the same hollow words. How sweet it is ...

>
> > >
> > > > I've played 3 sessions at level 6, so I was
> > > > interested in what you'd come up with at about 25 for my

own

> > > > curiosity. You are the picture of inaccuracy, and now I see
> > > questions
> > > > confuse you so.
> > >
> > > Interestingly, you never mentioned that little fact. So, as I
was
> > > providing results based on 10% of the sessions at 6 levels

you

> let
> > > them slide. I'll let others judge what that means.
> >
> > It means you ran all over the map like a lost nerd when all you
had
> > to do was read my strategy with understanding.
>
> It's all back there in Dec. How sweet it is ...

Living in the past again?.....Is that how angered but wounded geeks
get through each day?

Just the facts, as usual.

>
> > > > > > And at least 4 times around that post and at least

twice

> > > > > > in this thread, I've told you $100 (LEVEL 6) was

actually

> > > played
> > > > 3
> > > > > > times! What a dufus!!
> > > > >
> > > > > That reminds me. I once stated that Robbie played a 5

level

> > > > > progression and he called me a liar and stated it was 6
> levels.
> > > > Now,
> > > > > he states he's only played 6 levels 3 times (1%).

Hmmmmmmm.

> > > >
> > > > Well you are a liar when you state I play a 5-level
> progression!
> > > That
> > > > implies I play 5 levels every time I play--which is as

usual,

> > 100%
> > > > wrong. It is a 6-level strategy, and it is not necessary to
go
> up
> > > ANY
> > > > level if the win goal (or even loss goal at times) is met

at

a
> > > lower
> > > > level--even at the first level. Duh!
> > >
> > > No, it requires that you bring along $57,500. Without that

you

> > > couldn't play 6 levels.
> >
> > Huh? Did you just not read that if i win $2500 on dollars I

don't

> > play any more for that session? Where are you, on Mars?
>
> That's not the point, retarded one, you needed to take more money
> with you if you planned on playing 6 levels.

I made a mistake---you're from Jupiter. Why does your messed up

mind

think 6 levels must be played if $57.2k is taken?

That's not what I said, retarded one. However, it's tough to play 6
levels without the money. Do I need to draw you a picture?

It's called
something you idiots don't know how to do--preparation. And if I

were

planning on playing 2 sessions I'd take $114.4k. Big deal. Both

could

end on the first hand on dollars.

Right, but without it you couldn't be assured of playing 6 levels
twice. Is this really so complex that Rob can't understand simple
sentences?

> > But, more importantly, it begs the question
> > > of why you would react so strongly to a statement, that even
you
> > > admit, applies 99% of the time. For example, I can bowl right
or
> > left
> > > handed. However, I bowl right handed almost all the time. If
> anyone
> > > asked me I wouldn't say I bowled with both hands because that
> would
> > > be misleading at best.
> >
> > I have no idea, and you already know when you insert a stupid
> analogy
> > (as all geeks like to do when confused in order to have peace

in

> > their own minds) you get so far off track that you look like a
dumb
> > idiot all over again. You know the facts about my strategy, so
why
> > keep whining about the mistakes you made from the start? Have

you

> no
> > dignity??
>
> The babblemaster returns. You must have liked my analogy.
  
> > > No, I avoided responding to your rambles. When you can

explain

> how
> > > you've only lost 22 times at level 4 and have reached level 5
30
> > > times then we'll get somewhere.
> >
> > So now a 10% approximation = 30?
>
> Nope. Level 5, not level 6. That is where you claimed a 22-8
record.
> Now, try adding 22+8 and see what you get. Take your time, I know
> this is difficult for you.

I claimed I have 8 losses at $25, which is exact. It's you who came
up with a firm 22 wins--even after I continue to tell you the 10%

of

259 overall at level 5 is an approximation. It's all part of the

geek-

math. You can't deal with anything unless you make it up first. I
don't need to be neurotic when reviewing anything--ballparks will

do

for real men.

Rob stated, "2-1 at $100, approx. 22-8 at $25, and approx. 204-22 at
$10 and below". I just used your own figures. Now who is making up
what?

>
> > Where'd you go to school--mental
> > high?? Get over the numbers and stop staying up at night trying
to
> > paste together your lost logic when I've given you the facts.

I'm

> not
> > neurotic about the numbers like you. Approx. is all I need to

be

> > happy. You're the clown who chases your own tail over numbers--

a

> > curse you had since your geek days in high school.
>
> LMAO. Rob sure can look foolish at any time.

When watching you chase your tail as you try to run away and hide,

it

does get strenuous on the neck!

Just the facts, as usual.

>
> > > > > > It's actually very enjoyable watching you step in it
every
> > time
> > > > you
> > > > > > attempt to get out of the spot you're in. It couldn't
> happen
> > to
> > > a
> > > > > > better gut either!
> > > > >
> > > > > 30>22.
> > > >
> > > > Good job, Einstein! 227>31!
> > >
> > > That it is. Finally, a fact from little Robbie. Let me mark

my

> > > calendar.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I believe if you (and me) stop laughing at all
your
> > mis-
> > > > > > > > information about how I play and what I've
> accomplished,
> > > you
> > > > > > might be able to do a worthwhile analysis.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Already done. Complete proof that you are lying.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And eliminate the word 'denial' from your

vocabulary.

> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think those of who know that 30>22 can easily see
who's
> > in
> > > > > denial.
> > > >
> > > > Where's the denial? 227>31 too!
> > >
> > > No denial here. It is a fact.
> >
> > then 30>22 is not a fact??
>
> LMAO. Yup, it is a fact. Oh, and proof that you lie.

So you're lying about it too? Then what's it pertain to other than
one is 8 more than the other?? Is this how nerds play games?

Now that you've seen your own words again, I think we can all see
who's lying. Do you just have a selective memory ... or, is that part
of your retardation?

>
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The typical nebulous statement of any weakened debater.
> > You're
> > > > > > argument (actually, lie) has been diffused in front of
your
> > > eyes,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > you're sore about it too. May I offer up a box of

tissues?

> > > > >
> > > > > 30>22. What more do I need to say? Absolute PROOF of

Rob's

> lies.
> > > >
> > > > Make that a large for little dicky please....
> > >
> > > Maybe what you need is to take a moment to look at the

extremes

> you
> > > go to each and every post. You lie and you bully.
> >
> > Poor little dicky....he feels bullied now. Oh my! Let me weep

for

> the
> > geeky little putz!
>
> Just the fact, as usual.

I quiver and weep for the little lost dicker.

I suspect you're quivering a little more tonight.

>
> >
> > For what? Simply to
> > > protect your con. You should realize by now that this has
become
> an
> > > addiction with you. You are right back to 1996 with an old
> problem
> > in
> > > a new form. It's called living a lie. It's too bad you got
sucked
> > > into it. You probably could have been just as successful by
> > pointing
> > > out some of the truths about AP gambling that don't get much
> > > publicity. Not everyone will win as the bell curve promises,
some
> > > with addictive personalities will become addicted, some will

be

> too
> > > lazy to succeed, etc.
> >
> > And I'm so glad you got tough here, little dicky! I can't

really

> bear
> > to see you keep coming apart and then trying in vain to come

back

> > with a load of corn. Maybe you should try another subject.
>
> The truth hurts, doesn't it. You could have succeeded without
> resorting to lies and fantasies. Unfortunately, your lack of self
> confidence couldn't let you see that. Sad, but true.

Do you know what 'corn' is? The fact that I've been far more
successful than you in your habit and my job eats away at you no

end,

doesn't it little dicky!

Nope.

Whenever a debater comes up with corn like
you usually do at the end of a thread where you've talked yourself
into a corner, it's a certain sign of frustration with the truth
about both his opponent and himself.

RIV. I can tell from all these words that you are very frustrated.

I understand I've ridiculed both
you and your miserable wife, but you asked for the truth and heaven
knows, all nerds just like a continual beating rather than give up.
Ypu'll never be anything in video poker little dicky, and all

you're

doing is hurting yourself over and over. Face it--you're longing
to 'belong' to the clique ain't never gonna happen, no matter how
many 'posts of corn' you spread on the forums. But I'm happy to

watch

you make a fool of yourself and slap you down hard at every
opportunity. Oooo...oooo--let me say it for you! RIV!! (i.e.,
dumbfoundedness; lack of words)

It does appear I've hit a few nerves. How sweet it is ...

···

From: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/message/4215

[rgmustain]

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

> > > > > > Making believe your frenzied/rabid/compulsive
> > > > > > casino play is all done as a nice, respectable, non-
> gambling,
> > > > > > everyday "AP" is all part of the typical cover-up of
> > seriously
> > > > > > inflicted problem gamblers on out-of-control paths.
> > > > >
> > > > > And, just how would you know? Simply because that's what
you
> > did?
> > > > > Now, there's a real good methodology ... assume everyone
else
> > has
> > > > the poor gambling habits you've admitted to. Are you really
> this
> > > > stupid?
> > > >
> > > > How about listening to experience for a change instead of
> coming
> > > > apart at the seams and virtually admitting that you know

I'm

> > right?
> > >
> > > Experience is fine ... if it applies. Your experiences simply
> don't
> > > apply to me.
> >
> > Denial. The #1 trait of an addicted gambler. It's always 'the
other
> > guys', isn't it.
>
> No. However, it is in this case. Rob Singer.

Little dicky.....Looks like you've wasted your time here once

again.

If all you can do is take what I type and say it about me from the
beginning to the end

That's because you can't come up with anything that isn't in your own
experience. This lack of intelligence gives you away every time.

(but I do like how you get irritated whenever I
bring up how you've ruined your wife's life with addiction), I

guess

you've given in to the fact that you know your disease will haunt

you

forever. I especially enjoy knowing on your next frenzied trip to

LV,

as you unlock the door to that puny 'townhome' (that you could have
bought a real house instead if you didn't lose so much money to the
machines) you WILL be thinking about my words of wisdom aand look
into your poor addicted wife's eyes and recall all the haom you've
caused as you are the catalyst in a ruined marriage and life. May

God

have mercy on your soul.....Our Father Who Art In Heaven, Hallowed

Be

Thy Name, Thy Kingdom Come.......

Did I mention that words = frustration. I see you deleted the rest of
this thread. You know, the parts that point out your obvious
addiction. How sweet it is ...

[Rob_Singer1]

The creative minds of addicted gamblers never cease to amaze----
especially the jealous ones!

I have no idea where the invisible thread was that brought
up 'supplemental income' but it does seem to bother little dicky no
end abut my success. And I'll help him out a little more right now!
True, I do have 3 old 'muscle cars that I've restored or am in the
process of restoring with my own hands, but I've never nor would I
ever 'sell' any of them. Just like the new 6.1 Hemi-Charger I just
purchased and put a blower into. That'll never go either. If little
dicky wants to pay $50,000 to prove he's wrong, he's welcome to come
over and I'll take him to the garages where they're stored. That'll
certainly 'supplement' my income!

Use (or non-use) of my player's card: If he ever really figured out
even after my telling the world about it for 3 years now, why I don't
use one on my single-play strategy only, he'd be dangerous.....

I especially enjoy his envy at my being the premier writer for Gaming
today--a publication he would DIE for to become a contributor each
week--for 5-1/2 years and counting. This is even sweeter knowing he
knows I replaced a fired set of 'gurus' (Hughes & Dancer) who just
couldn't cut the mustard in their short runs at fame.

God bless the day he put geeks onto the earth!

I found it unusual that Robbie decided to delete the thread that
dealt with using other sources of cash to supplement gambling
winnings. It got me to thinking and ... it helped me get what I
believe is the entire picture of his con. He is doing exactly
that ... supplementing his winnings. Just how? Stay tuned.

Keep in mind that Rob has mentioned rebuilding muscle cars several
times. It would be easy for Rob to ask someone purchasing a rebuilt
car if they wanted to save some money. Since the book value of

these

old cars is < $1000, Rob could ask the buyer if that was what they
wanted to claim as the purchase price. The buyer saves the taxes

and

Robbie would have what, a lot of unreported cash from the actual
amount he was paid. The next part is also easy. Rob takes this

extra

cash with him when he heads to a casino. He withdraws only the

amount

required for his progression. After he plays he deposits what's

left,

plus the extra cash from the car sale, and claims the difference as
the win/loss. The money has now been laundered and Robbie has more
than covered his losses.

No wonder Rob's win percentage is almost impossibly high. This also
explains why Rob seldom uses a player's card. A player's card would
provide a true picture of his play. In addition, his complex

strategy

is simply a smokescreen. Constantly moving between levels while
pulling out 40 credits wins every so often would be difficult to
track by anyone watching Rob. And, isn't it true that Rob plays

late

at night and doesn't like any watchers at all? Pretty obvious how
this fits into the picture.

With this simple scheme Rob has what appears to be irrefutable
evidence that his progression is successful. Clearly, it could fool
both the GT publishers and the gov't. The final tidbit was coming

up

with wild claims for his apparent success ... that just happen to

be

what typical casino losers want to hear ... hot/cold cycles, non-
random patterns, inside info, winning on negative plays, etc. There
you have it ... the CON, to which Rob has also become addicted (due
to the notariety he has received).

Now, you can see why Rob will say and do anything to keep the con
going. Of course, he will deny this scenario and attempt to laugh

it

···

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

off. Just keep in mind how all the pieces fit together so well.

[Rob_Singer1]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:
> > > Hmmmm....Are you sure about that? I wrote my strategy up in
> > 1996/1997 and put it on my site in 2000---and it's never

changed.

> So has the cat got your tongue little dicky?? Whatcha gonna say
> now..... Anything else to make up so you can build your failing
> confidence??
>
> > Never changed? 6 levels ... 5 levels, $2500 ... $1500 ... LMAO.
>
> That shows you have little knowledge of the subject. Read it

again. And it also shows how you even wasted your own time with the

> sims...or, snicker snicker....how I MADE you waste the time!

Hollow words again, little man. Your con has been exposed.

Hollow....The favorite word of lost little boys.

>
> > > You haven't made a statement here in weeks or even longer.

All

> you can do is cover your butt with clouds after I whip it red.

See

> what you can do about that embarrassing situation you've gotten
> yourself into.
> > > > You forget, the purpose was to evaluate your strategy. Each
> > change
> > > > was an attempt to zero in on a correct simulation. Except,

it

> > > > appears, for the 10% value. The important message for

anyone

> > > reading
> > > > is why Rob ask about something he doesn't do? Could it be

he

> > wanted
> > > > some basis for future lies?
> > >
> > > You remember how I've coerced you into doing just about
anything
> at
> > > my every command?
> >
> > Of course you did ... LMAO. I wonder why Rob would want
to "coerce"
> > me into proving he lies?

I guess he is rethinking this one.

I didn't need any assistance in helping you look stupid again!

> >
> > > You're such a geek you undoubtedly thought i was
> > > going along with you seriously when all you were doing was
making
> a
> > > huge fool of yourself while we all laughed at you for not
> > recognizing
> > > what was going on! Oh how its it I was blessed with such
talent!!
> >
> > More hollow words. Anyone who wishes to know the truth simply

has

> to go back and read the words you wrote in early Dec.
>
> I guess I'd say 'hollow words' when I showed how hurt I was over
> having my leg pulled over a geek-event too! You poor fool.....

Nothing but more of the same hollow words. How sweet it is ...

> > There's that crutch word of nerds again!
> > > >
> > > > > I've played 3 sessions at level 6, so I was
> > > > > interested in what you'd come up with at about 25 for my
own
> > > > > curiosity. You are the picture of inaccuracy, and now I

see

> > > > questions
> > > > > confuse you so.
> > > >
> > > > Interestingly, you never mentioned that little fact. So, as

I

> was
> > > > providing results based on 10% of the sessions at 6 levels
you
> > let
> > > > them slide. I'll let others judge what that means.
> > >
> > > It means you ran all over the map like a lost nerd when all

you

> had
> > > to do was read my strategy with understanding.
> >
> > It's all back there in Dec. How sweet it is ...
>
> Living in the past again?.....Is that how angered but wounded

geeks

> get through each day?

Just the facts, as usual.

Thank you. I knew you lived in the past, but I didn't know
how 'usual' it was.

> >
> > > > > > > And at least 4 times around that post and at least
twice
> > > > > > > in this thread, I've told you $100 (LEVEL 6) was
actually
> > > > played
> > > > > 3
> > > > > > > times! What a dufus!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That reminds me. I once stated that Robbie played a 5
level
> > > > > > progression and he called me a liar and stated it was 6
> > levels.
> > > > > Now,
> > > > > > he states he's only played 6 levels 3 times (1%).
Hmmmmmmm.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well you are a liar when you state I play a 5-level
> > progression!
> > > > That
> > > > > implies I play 5 levels every time I play--which is as
usual,
> > > 100%
> > > > > wrong. It is a 6-level strategy, and it is not necessary

to

> go
> > up
> > > > ANY
> > > > > level if the win goal (or even loss goal at times) is met
at
> a
> > > > lower
> > > > > level--even at the first level. Duh!
> > > >
> > > > No, it requires that you bring along $57,500. Without that
you
> > > > couldn't play 6 levels.
> > >
> > > Huh? Did you just not read that if i win $2500 on dollars I
don't
> > > play any more for that session? Where are you, on Mars?
> >
> > That's not the point, retarded one, you needed to take more

money

> > with you if you planned on playing 6 levels.
>
> I made a mistake---you're from Jupiter. Why does your messed up
mind
> think 6 levels must be played if $57.2k is taken?

That's not what I said, retarded one. However, it's tough to play 6
levels without the money. Do I need to draw you a picture?

Preparation....think about it spaceman.

> It's called
> something you idiots don't know how to do--preparation. And if I
were
> planning on playing 2 sessions I'd take $114.4k. Big deal. Both
could
> end on the first hand on dollars.

Right, but without it you couldn't be assured of playing 6 levels
twice. Is this really so complex that Rob can't understand simple
sentences?

Here's a good one if I'm understanding your scramble correctly: Take
enough for 6 levels, win on level 2 and leave, but count it as 6
levels anyway because I was prepared to play that far if needed!
Please tell me you're THAT STUPID again!!

>
> > > But, more importantly, it begs the question
> > > > of why you would react so strongly to a statement, that

even

> you
> > > > admit, applies 99% of the time. For example, I can bowl

right

> or
> > > left
> > > > handed. However, I bowl right handed almost all the time.

If

> > anyone
> > > > asked me I wouldn't say I bowled with both hands because

that

> > would
> > > > be misleading at best.
> > >
> > > I have no idea, and you already know when you insert a stupid
> > analogy
> > > (as all geeks like to do when confused in order to have peace
in
> > > their own minds) you get so far off track that you look like

a

> dumb
> > > idiot all over again. You know the facts about my strategy,

so

> why
> > > keep whining about the mistakes you made from the start? Have
you
> > no
> > > dignity??
> >
> > The babblemaster returns. You must have liked my analogy.
>
> > > > No, I avoided responding to your rambles. When you can
explain
> > how
> > > > you've only lost 22 times at level 4 and have reached level

5

> 30
> > > > times then we'll get somewhere.
> > >
> > > So now a 10% approximation = 30?
> >
> > Nope. Level 5, not level 6. That is where you claimed a 22-8
> record.
> > Now, try adding 22+8 and see what you get. Take your time, I

know

> > this is difficult for you.
>
> I claimed I have 8 losses at $25, which is exact. It's you who

came

> up with a firm 22 wins--even after I continue to tell you the 10%
of
> 259 overall at level 5 is an approximation. It's all part of the
geek-
> math. You can't deal with anything unless you make it up first. I
> don't need to be neurotic when reviewing anything--ballparks will
do
> for real men.

From: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/message/4215

Rob stated, "2-1 at $100, approx. 22-8 at $25, and approx. 204-22

at

$10 and below". I just used your own figures. Now who is making up
what?

2-1: Exact. 8 losses at $25 (level 5): Exact. The 22-8/204-22 are
based on the incorrect 10% of 259 = 30. Just like a typo--is that
what you look for here? Are you THAT desperate to be right?

> >
> > > Where'd you go to school--mental
> > > high?? Get over the numbers and stop staying up at night

trying

···

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

> to
> > > paste together your lost logic when I've given you the facts.
I'm
> > not
> > > neurotic about the numbers like you. Approx. is all I need to
be
> > > happy. You're the clown who chases your own tail over numbers-

-

a
> > > curse you had since your geek days in high school.
> >
> > LMAO. Rob sure can look foolish at any time.
>
> When watching you chase your tail as you try to run away and

hide,

it
> does get strenuous on the neck!

Just the facts, as usual.

Thanks again. I try to lay out the factual evidence about you every
single time!

> > > > go to each and every post. You lie and you bully.
> > >
> > > Poor little dicky....he feels bullied now. Oh my! Let me weep
for
> > the
> > > geeky little putz!
> >
> > Just the fact, as usual.
>
> I quiver and weep for the little lost dicker.

I suspect you're quivering a little more tonight.

Only from too much laughter.

> >
> > >
> > > For what? Simply to
> > > > protect your con. You should realize by now that this has
> become
> > an
> > > > addiction with you. You are right back to 1996 with an old
> > problem
> > > in
> > > > a new form. It's called living a lie. It's too bad you got
> sucked
> > > > into it. You probably could have been just as successful by
> > > pointing
> > > > out some of the truths about AP gambling that don't get

much

> > > > publicity. Not everyone will win as the bell curve

promises,

> some
> > > > with addictive personalities will become addicted, some

will

be
> > too
> > > > lazy to succeed, etc.
> > >
> > > And I'm so glad you got tough here, little dicky! I can't
really
> > bear
> > > to see you keep coming apart and then trying in vain to come
back
> > > with a load of corn. Maybe you should try another subject.
> >
> > The truth hurts, doesn't it. You could have succeeded without
> > resorting to lies and fantasies. Unfortunately, your lack of

self

> > confidence couldn't let you see that. Sad, but true.
>
> Do you know what 'corn' is? The fact that I've been far more
> successful than you in your habit and my job eats away at you no
end,
> doesn't it little dicky!

Nope.

Yup.

> Whenever a debater comes up with corn like
> you usually do at the end of a thread where you've talked

yourself

> into a corner, it's a certain sign of frustration with the truth
> about both his opponent and himself.

RIV. I can tell from all these words that you are very frustrated.

There's that lost and bewildered riv word use again!

> I understand I've ridiculed both
> you and your miserable wife, but you asked for the truth and

heaven

> knows, all nerds just like a continual beating rather than give

up.

> Ypu'll never be anything in video poker little dicky, and all
you're
> doing is hurting yourself over and over. Face it--you're longing
> to 'belong' to the clique ain't never gonna happen, no matter how
> many 'posts of corn' you spread on the forums. But I'm happy to
watch
> you make a fool of yourself and slap you down hard at every
> opportunity. Oooo...oooo--let me say it for you! RIV!! (i.e.,
> dumbfoundedness; lack of words)

It does appear I've hit a few nerves. How sweet it is ...

....as the smallest record in the world continues to play "lottle
dicky will never belong, and will forever envy the greatest vp player
in the world!"

[Rob_Singer1]

> > > > > How about listening to experience for a change instead of
> > coming
> > > > > apart at the seams and virtually admitting that you know
I'm
> > > right?
> > > >
> > > > Experience is fine ... if it applies. Your experiences

simply

> > don't
> > > > apply to me.
> > >
> > > Denial. The #1 trait of an addicted gambler. It's always 'the
> other
> > > guys', isn't it.
> >
> > No. However, it is in this case. Rob Singer.
>
> Little dicky.....Looks like you've wasted your time here once
again.
> If all you can do is take what I type and say it about me from

the

> beginning to the end

That's because you can't come up with anything that isn't in your

own

experience. This lack of intelligence gives you away every time.

> (but I do like how you get irritated whenever I
> bring up how you've ruined your wife's life with addiction), I
guess
> you've given in to the fact that you know your disease will haunt
you
> forever. I especially enjoy knowing on your next frenzied trip to
LV,
> as you unlock the door to that puny 'townhome' (that you could

have

> bought a real house instead if you didn't lose so much money to

the

> machines) you WILL be thinking about my words of wisdom aand look
> into your poor addicted wife's eyes and recall all the haom

you've

> caused as you are the catalyst in a ruined marriage and life. May
God
> have mercy on your soul.....Our Father Who Art In Heaven,

Hallowed

Be
> Thy Name, Thy Kingdom Come.......
>

Did I mention that words = frustration.

Again, you repeat what I say about you because you're held speechless
by the truth about your gambling problems. I just get better and
better.

I see you deleted the rest of this thread. You know, the parts that
point out your obvious addiction. How sweet it is ...

Yes, it was a little tough deleting all my facts about you, but since
all you could do is follow with your constant imitation of Pee Wee
Herman and repeating of what I said, it was obvious you were crying
Uncle. I do have mercy at times.....

···

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

[rgmustain]

Did I mention DENIAL? Right on clue, little man. Thanks.

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

The creative minds of addicted gamblers never cease to amaze----
especially the jealous ones!

I have no idea where the invisible thread was that brought
up 'supplemental income' but it does seem to bother little dicky no
end abut my success. And I'll help him out a little more right now!
True, I do have 3 old 'muscle cars that I've restored or am in the
process of restoring with my own hands, but I've never nor would I
ever 'sell' any of them. Just like the new 6.1 Hemi-Charger I just
purchased and put a blower into. That'll never go either. If little
dicky wants to pay $50,000 to prove he's wrong, he's welcome to

come

over and I'll take him to the garages where they're stored. That'll
certainly 'supplement' my income!

Use (or non-use) of my player's card: If he ever really figured out
even after my telling the world about it for 3 years now, why I

don't

use one on my single-play strategy only, he'd be dangerous.....

I especially enjoy his envy at my being the premier writer for

Gaming

today--a publication he would DIE for to become a contributor each
week--for 5-1/2 years and counting. This is even sweeter knowing he
knows I replaced a fired set of 'gurus' (Hughes & Dancer) who just
couldn't cut the mustard in their short runs at fame.

God bless the day he put geeks onto the earth!

> I found it unusual that Robbie decided to delete the thread that
> dealt with using other sources of cash to supplement gambling
> winnings. It got me to thinking and ... it helped me get what I
> believe is the entire picture of his con. He is doing exactly
> that ... supplementing his winnings. Just how? Stay tuned.
>
> Keep in mind that Rob has mentioned rebuilding muscle cars

several

> times. It would be easy for Rob to ask someone purchasing a

rebuilt

> car if they wanted to save some money. Since the book value of
these
> old cars is < $1000, Rob could ask the buyer if that was what

they

> wanted to claim as the purchase price. The buyer saves the taxes
and
> Robbie would have what, a lot of unreported cash from the actual
> amount he was paid. The next part is also easy. Rob takes this
extra
> cash with him when he heads to a casino. He withdraws only the
amount
> required for his progression. After he plays he deposits what's
left,
> plus the extra cash from the car sale, and claims the difference

as

> the win/loss. The money has now been laundered and Robbie has

more

> than covered his losses.
>
> No wonder Rob's win percentage is almost impossibly high. This

also

> explains why Rob seldom uses a player's card. A player's card

would

> provide a true picture of his play. In addition, his complex
strategy
> is simply a smokescreen. Constantly moving between levels while
> pulling out 40 credits wins every so often would be difficult to
> track by anyone watching Rob. And, isn't it true that Rob plays
late
> at night and doesn't like any watchers at all? Pretty obvious how
> this fits into the picture.
>
> With this simple scheme Rob has what appears to be irrefutable
> evidence that his progression is successful. Clearly, it could

fool

> both the GT publishers and the gov't. The final tidbit was coming
up
> with wild claims for his apparent success ... that just happen to
be
> what typical casino losers want to hear ... hot/cold cycles, non-
> random patterns, inside info, winning on negative plays, etc.

There

> you have it ... the CON, to which Rob has also become addicted

(due

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@> wrote:
> to the notariety he has received).
>
> Now, you can see why Rob will say and do anything to keep the con
> going. Of course, he will deny this scenario and attempt to laugh
it
> off. Just keep in mind how all the pieces fit together so well.
>

[Rob_Singer1]

Did I mention DENIAL? Right on clue, little man. Thanks.

It's only gonna cost you 50 grand little dicky....50 grand to feel
good about yourself again. What? You can't come up with it? Oh....I
FORGOT....You're an addicted gambler! Uh-Oh....You've been dismissed
on this one. Try again!!

What's 'right on clue'? Do you mean "Right On, Clue" (as in that's
who you're addressing?)...or "right arm clue" or what?

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:
>
> The creative minds of addicted gamblers never cease to amaze----
> especially the jealous ones!
>
> I have no idea where the invisible thread was that brought
> up 'supplemental income' but it does seem to bother little dicky

no

> end abut my success. And I'll help him out a little more right

now!

> True, I do have 3 old 'muscle cars that I've restored or am in

the

> process of restoring with my own hands, but I've never nor would

I

> ever 'sell' any of them. Just like the new 6.1 Hemi-Charger I

just

> purchased and put a blower into. That'll never go either. If

little

> dicky wants to pay $50,000 to prove he's wrong, he's welcome to
come
> over and I'll take him to the garages where they're stored.

That'll

> certainly 'supplement' my income!
>
> Use (or non-use) of my player's card: If he ever really figured

out

> even after my telling the world about it for 3 years now, why I
don't
> use one on my single-play strategy only, he'd be dangerous.....
>
> I especially enjoy his envy at my being the premier writer for
Gaming
> today--a publication he would DIE for to become a contributor

each

> week--for 5-1/2 years and counting. This is even sweeter knowing

he

> knows I replaced a fired set of 'gurus' (Hughes & Dancer) who

just

> couldn't cut the mustard in their short runs at fame.
>
> God bless the day he put geeks onto the earth!
>
>
> > I found it unusual that Robbie decided to delete the thread

that

> > dealt with using other sources of cash to supplement gambling
> > winnings. It got me to thinking and ... it helped me get what I
> > believe is the entire picture of his con. He is doing exactly
> > that ... supplementing his winnings. Just how? Stay tuned.
> >
> > Keep in mind that Rob has mentioned rebuilding muscle cars
several
> > times. It would be easy for Rob to ask someone purchasing a
rebuilt
> > car if they wanted to save some money. Since the book value of
> these
> > old cars is < $1000, Rob could ask the buyer if that was what
they
> > wanted to claim as the purchase price. The buyer saves the

taxes

> and
> > Robbie would have what, a lot of unreported cash from the

actual

> > amount he was paid. The next part is also easy. Rob takes this
> extra
> > cash with him when he heads to a casino. He withdraws only the
> amount
> > required for his progression. After he plays he deposits what's
> left,
> > plus the extra cash from the car sale, and claims the

difference

as
> > the win/loss. The money has now been laundered and Robbie has
more
> > than covered his losses.
> >
> > No wonder Rob's win percentage is almost impossibly high. This
also
> > explains why Rob seldom uses a player's card. A player's card
would
> > provide a true picture of his play. In addition, his complex
> strategy
> > is simply a smokescreen. Constantly moving between levels while
> > pulling out 40 credits wins every so often would be difficult

to

> > track by anyone watching Rob. And, isn't it true that Rob plays
> late
> > at night and doesn't like any watchers at all? Pretty obvious

how

> > this fits into the picture.
> >
> > With this simple scheme Rob has what appears to be irrefutable
> > evidence that his progression is successful. Clearly, it could
fool
> > both the GT publishers and the gov't. The final tidbit was

coming

> up
> > with wild claims for his apparent success ... that just happen

to

> be
> > what typical casino losers want to hear ... hot/cold cycles,

non-

> > random patterns, inside info, winning on negative plays, etc.
There
> > you have it ... the CON, to which Rob has also become addicted
(due
> > to the notariety he has received).
> >
> > Now, you can see why Rob will say and do anything to keep the

con

> > going. Of course, he will deny this scenario and attempt to

laugh

···

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

> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@> wrote:
> it
> > off. Just keep in mind how all the pieces fit together so well.
> >
>

[rgmustain]

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

> Did I mention DENIAL? Right on clue, little man. Thanks.

It's only gonna cost you 50 grand little dicky....50 grand to feel
good about yourself again. What? You can't come up with it? Oh....I
FORGOT....You're an addicted gambler! Uh-Oh....You've been

dismissed

on this one. Try again!!

Denial. The #1 trait of a con man.

What's 'right on clue'?

It's right on cue. I see you're into spelling errors again. It must
mean I've got you completely rattled.

Do you mean "Right On, Clue" (as in that's
who you're addressing?)...or "right arm clue" or what?

Rambling on aimlessly to make one feel better about their con. The
number #2 trait of a con man.

Did you know that having your wife sign your fraudulent tax returns
makes her an accessory to your crimes? You should be ashamed of
yourself for dragging her into your little con.

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

wrote:

> >
> > > I found it unusual that Robbie decided to delete the thread
that
> > > dealt with using other sources of cash to supplement gambling
> > > winnings. It got me to thinking and ... it helped me get what

I

> > > believe is the entire picture of his con. He is doing exactly
> > > that ... supplementing his winnings. Just how? Stay tuned.
> > >
> > > Keep in mind that Rob has mentioned rebuilding muscle cars
> several
> > > times. It would be easy for Rob to ask someone purchasing a
> rebuilt
> > > car if they wanted to save some money. Since the book value

of

> > these
> > > old cars is < $1000, Rob could ask the buyer if that was what
> they
> > > wanted to claim as the purchase price. The buyer saves the
taxes
> > and
> > > Robbie would have what, a lot of unreported cash from the
actual
> > > amount he was paid. The next part is also easy. Rob takes

this

> > extra
> > > cash with him when he heads to a casino. He withdraws only

the

> > amount
> > > required for his progression. After he plays he deposits

what's

> > left,
> > > plus the extra cash from the car sale, and claims the
difference
> as
> > > the win/loss. The money has now been laundered and Robbie has
> more
> > > than covered his losses.
> > >
> > > No wonder Rob's win percentage is almost impossibly high.

This

> also
> > > explains why Rob seldom uses a player's card. A player's card
> would
> > > provide a true picture of his play. In addition, his complex
> > strategy
> > > is simply a smokescreen. Constantly moving between levels

while

> > > pulling out 40 credits wins every so often would be difficult
to
> > > track by anyone watching Rob. And, isn't it true that Rob

plays

> > late
> > > at night and doesn't like any watchers at all? Pretty obvious
how
> > > this fits into the picture.
> > >
> > > With this simple scheme Rob has what appears to be

irrefutable

> > > evidence that his progression is successful. Clearly, it

could

> fool
> > > both the GT publishers and the gov't. The final tidbit was
coming
> > up
> > > with wild claims for his apparent success ... that just

happen

to
> > be
> > > what typical casino losers want to hear ... hot/cold cycles,
non-
> > > random patterns, inside info, winning on negative plays, etc.
> There
> > > you have it ... the CON, to which Rob has also become

addicted

> (due
> > > to the notariety he has received).
> > >
> > > Now, you can see why Rob will say and do anything to keep the
con
> > > going. Of course, he will deny this scenario and attempt to
laugh
> > it
> > > off. Just keep in mind how all the pieces fit together so

well.

···

> > >
> >
>

[rgmustain]

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

> > > > Hmmmm....Are you sure about that? I wrote my strategy up in
> > > 1996/1997 and put it on my site in 2000---and it's never
changed.
> > So has the cat got your tongue little dicky?? Whatcha gonna say
> > now..... Anything else to make up so you can build your failing
> > confidence??
> >
> > > Never changed? 6 levels ... 5 levels, $2500 ... $1500 ...

LMAO.

> >
> > That shows you have little knowledge of the subject. Read it
again. And it also shows how you even wasted your own time with the
> > sims...or, snicker snicker....how I MADE you waste the time!
>
> Hollow words again, little man. Your con has been exposed.
>
Hollow....The favorite word of lost little boys.

Just the facts, as usual.

> >
> > > > You haven't made a statement here in weeks or even longer.
All
> > you can do is cover your butt with clouds after I whip it red.
See
> > what you can do about that embarrassing situation you've gotten
> > yourself into.
> > > > > You forget, the purpose was to evaluate your strategy.

Each

> > > change
> > > > > was an attempt to zero in on a correct simulation.

Except,

it
> > > > > appears, for the 10% value. The important message for
anyone
> > > > reading
> > > > > is why Rob ask about something he doesn't do? Could it be
he
> > > wanted
> > > > > some basis for future lies?
> > > >
> > > > You remember how I've coerced you into doing just about
> anything
> > at
> > > > my every command?
> > >
> > > Of course you did ... LMAO. I wonder why Rob would want
> to "coerce"
> > > me into proving he lies?
>
> I guess he is rethinking this one.
>
I didn't need any assistance in helping you look stupid again!

LMAO, didn't you mean "coerce" me into making you look stupid.

> > > There's that crutch word of nerds again!
> > > > >
> > > > > > I've played 3 sessions at level 6, so I was
> > > > > > interested in what you'd come up with at about 25 for

my

> own
> > > > > > curiosity. You are the picture of inaccuracy, and now I
see
> > > > > questions
> > > > > > confuse you so.
> > > > >
> > > > > Interestingly, you never mentioned that little fact. So,

as

I
> > was
> > > > > providing results based on 10% of the sessions at 6

levels

> you
> > > let
> > > > > them slide. I'll let others judge what that means.
> > > >
> > > > It means you ran all over the map like a lost nerd when all
you
> > had
> > > > to do was read my strategy with understanding.
> > >
> > > It's all back there in Dec. How sweet it is ...
> >
> > Living in the past again?.....Is that how angered but wounded
geeks
> > get through each day?
>
> Just the facts, as usual.

Thank you. I knew you lived in the past, but I didn't know
how 'usual' it was.

Just referencing more of your lies ... I guess little Robbie doesn't
like to see them exposed along with his con.

>
> > >
> > > > > > > > And at least 4 times around that post and at least
> twice
> > > > > > > > in this thread, I've told you $100 (LEVEL 6) was
> actually
> > > > > played
> > > > > > 3
> > > > > > > > times! What a dufus!!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That reminds me. I once stated that Robbie played a 5
> level
> > > > > > > progression and he called me a liar and stated it was

6

> > > levels.
> > > > > > Now,
> > > > > > > he states he's only played 6 levels 3 times (1%).
> Hmmmmmmm.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well you are a liar when you state I play a 5-level
> > > progression!
> > > > > That
> > > > > > implies I play 5 levels every time I play--which is as
> usual,
> > > > 100%
> > > > > > wrong. It is a 6-level strategy, and it is not

necessary

to
> > go
> > > up
> > > > > ANY
> > > > > > level if the win goal (or even loss goal at times) is

met

> at
> > a
> > > > > lower
> > > > > > level--even at the first level. Duh!
> > > > >
> > > > > No, it requires that you bring along $57,500. Without

that

> you
> > > > > couldn't play 6 levels.
> > > >
> > > > Huh? Did you just not read that if i win $2500 on dollars I
> don't
> > > > play any more for that session? Where are you, on Mars?
> > >
> > > That's not the point, retarded one, you needed to take more
money
> > > with you if you planned on playing 6 levels.
> >
> > I made a mistake---you're from Jupiter. Why does your messed up
> mind
> > think 6 levels must be played if $57.2k is taken?
>
> That's not what I said, retarded one. However, it's tough to play

6

> levels without the money. Do I need to draw you a picture?

Preparation....think about it spaceman.

My point exactly. You can't play 6 levels unless you're prepared. I
thought you'd never figure it out.

>
> > It's called
> > something you idiots don't know how to do--preparation. And if

I

> were
> > planning on playing 2 sessions I'd take $114.4k. Big deal. Both
> could
> > end on the first hand on dollars.
>
> Right, but without it you couldn't be assured of playing 6 levels
> twice. Is this really so complex that Rob can't understand simple
> sentences?

Here's a good one if I'm understanding your scramble correctly:

Take

enough for 6 levels, win on level 2 and leave, but count it as 6
levels anyway because I was prepared to play that far if needed!
Please tell me you're THAT STUPID again!!

No one ever said anything about counting it as six levels. I guess
Robbie can't understand simple sentences afterall.

>
> >
> > > > But, more importantly, it begs the question
> > > > > of why you would react so strongly to a statement, that
even
> > you
> > > > > admit, applies 99% of the time. For example, I can bowl
right
> > or
> > > > left
> > > > > handed. However, I bowl right handed almost all the time.
If
> > > anyone
> > > > > asked me I wouldn't say I bowled with both hands because
that
> > > would
> > > > > be misleading at best.
> > > >
> > > > I have no idea, and you already know when you insert a

stupid

> > > analogy
> > > > (as all geeks like to do when confused in order to have

peace

> in
> > > > their own minds) you get so far off track that you look

like

a
> > dumb
> > > > idiot all over again. You know the facts about my strategy,
so
> > why
> > > > keep whining about the mistakes you made from the start?

Have

> you
> > > no
> > > > dignity??
> > >
> > > The babblemaster returns. You must have liked my analogy.
> >
> > > > > No, I avoided responding to your rambles. When you can
> explain
> > > how
> > > > > you've only lost 22 times at level 4 and have reached

level

5
> > 30
> > > > > times then we'll get somewhere.
> > > >
> > > > So now a 10% approximation = 30?
> > >
> > > Nope. Level 5, not level 6. That is where you claimed a 22-8
> > record.
> > > Now, try adding 22+8 and see what you get. Take your time, I
know
> > > this is difficult for you.
> >
> > I claimed I have 8 losses at $25, which is exact. It's you who
came
> > up with a firm 22 wins--even after I continue to tell you the

10%

> of
> > 259 overall at level 5 is an approximation. It's all part of

the

> geek-
> > math. You can't deal with anything unless you make it up first.

I

> > don't need to be neurotic when reviewing anything--ballparks

will

> do
> > for real men.
>
> From: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/message/4215
>
> Rob stated, "2-1 at $100, approx. 22-8 at $25, and approx. 204-22
at
> $10 and below". I just used your own figures. Now who is making

up

> what?

2-1: Exact. 8 losses at $25 (level 5): Exact. The 22-8/204-22 are
based on the incorrect 10% of 259 = 30. Just like a typo--is that
what you look for here? Are you THAT desperate to be right?

They're your words. If they are incorrect why don't you correct them
instead of whining? Do you expected everyone to read your mind and
correct them for you? LMAO. Oh, and did you forget you called me a
liar for quoting you on these numbers. Your scrambling here is very
humerous.

> > >
> > > > Where'd you go to school--mental
> > > > high?? Get over the numbers and stop staying up at night
trying
> > to
> > > > paste together your lost logic when I've given you the

facts.

> I'm
> > > not
> > > > neurotic about the numbers like you. Approx. is all I need

to

> be
> > > > happy. You're the clown who chases your own tail over

numbers-

-
> a
> > > > curse you had since your geek days in high school.
> > >
> > > LMAO. Rob sure can look foolish at any time.
> >
> > When watching you chase your tail as you try to run away and
hide,
> it
> > does get strenuous on the neck!
>
> Just the facts, as usual.

Thanks again. I try to lay out the factual evidence about you every
single time!

By lying about everything, including your results ... OK, we now
understand Rob's definition of "factual evidence".

>
> > > > > go to each and every post. You lie and you bully.
> > > >
> > > > Poor little dicky....he feels bullied now. Oh my! Let me

weep

> for
> > > the
> > > > geeky little putz!
> > >
> > > Just the fact, as usual.
> >
> > I quiver and weep for the little lost dicker.
>
> I suspect you're quivering a little more tonight.

Only from too much laughter.

Hollow, very hollow.

>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > For what? Simply to
> > > > > protect your con. You should realize by now that this has
> > become
> > > an
> > > > > addiction with you. You are right back to 1996 with an

old

> > > problem
> > > > in
> > > > > a new form. It's called living a lie. It's too bad you

got

> > sucked
> > > > > into it. You probably could have been just as successful

by

> > > > pointing
> > > > > out some of the truths about AP gambling that don't get
much
> > > > > publicity. Not everyone will win as the bell curve
promises,
> > some
> > > > > with addictive personalities will become addicted, some
will
> be
> > > too
> > > > > lazy to succeed, etc.
> > > >
> > > > And I'm so glad you got tough here, little dicky! I can't
> really
> > > bear
> > > > to see you keep coming apart and then trying in vain to

come

> back
> > > > with a load of corn. Maybe you should try another subject.
> > >
> > > The truth hurts, doesn't it. You could have succeeded without
> > > resorting to lies and fantasies. Unfortunately, your lack of
self
> > > confidence couldn't let you see that. Sad, but true.
> >
> > Do you know what 'corn' is? The fact that I've been far more
> > successful than you in your habit and my job eats away at you

no

> end,
> > doesn't it little dicky!
>
> Nope.

Yup.

Now you're answering questions for me? You can't even list your own
results correctly.

>
> > Whenever a debater comes up with corn like
> > you usually do at the end of a thread where you've talked
yourself
> > into a corner, it's a certain sign of frustration with the

truth

> > about both his opponent and himself.
>
> RIV. I can tell from all these words that you are very frustrated.

There's that lost and bewildered riv word use again!

LMAO. RIV has him pegged and Robbie knows it. Just look at all the
denial whenever RIV is mentioned. Denial, the #1 trait of a con man.

>
> > I understand I've ridiculed both
> > you and your miserable wife, but you asked for the truth and
heaven
> > knows, all nerds just like a continual beating rather than give
up.
> > Ypu'll never be anything in video poker little dicky, and all
> you're
> > doing is hurting yourself over and over. Face it--you're

longing

> > to 'belong' to the clique ain't never gonna happen, no matter

how

> > many 'posts of corn' you spread on the forums. But I'm happy to
> watch
> > you make a fool of yourself and slap you down hard at every
> > opportunity. Oooo...oooo--let me say it for you! RIV!!

(i.e.,

> > dumbfoundedness; lack of words)
>
> It does appear I've hit a few nerves. How sweet it is ...

....as the smallest record in the world continues to play "lottle
dicky will never belong, and will forever envy the greatest vp

player

in the world!"

"lottle dickey"? I thought you were above spelling errors.

[rgmustain]

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

> > > > > > How about listening to experience for a change instead

of

> > > coming
> > > > > > apart at the seams and virtually admitting that you

know

> I'm
> > > > right?
> > > > >
> > > > > Experience is fine ... if it applies. Your experiences
simply
> > > don't
> > > > > apply to me.
> > > >
> > > > Denial. The #1 trait of an addicted gambler. It's

always 'the

> > other
> > > > guys', isn't it.
> > >
> > > No. However, it is in this case. Rob Singer.
> >
> > Little dicky.....Looks like you've wasted your time here once
> again.
> > If all you can do is take what I type and say it about me from
the
> > beginning to the end
>
> That's because you can't come up with anything that isn't in your
own
> experience. This lack of intelligence gives you away every time.
>

I can see why Rob couldn't respond to this. He has demonstrated a
complete lack of any ability to do anything but use his own life as
an example for all of his insults. It is really quite humerous
because he unwittingly exposes himself every time.

> > (but I do like how you get irritated whenever I
> > bring up how you've ruined your wife's life with addiction), I
> guess
> > you've given in to the fact that you know your disease will

haunt

> you
> > forever. I especially enjoy knowing on your next frenzied trip

to

> LV,
> > as you unlock the door to that puny 'townhome' (that you could
have
> > bought a real house instead if you didn't lose so much money to
the
> > machines) you WILL be thinking about my words of wisdom aand

look

> > into your poor addicted wife's eyes and recall all the haom
you've
> > caused as you are the catalyst in a ruined marriage and life.

May

> God
> > have mercy on your soul.....Our Father Who Art In Heaven,
Hallowed
> Be
> > Thy Name, Thy Kingdom Come.......
> >
>
> Did I mention that words = frustration.

Again, you repeat what I say about you because you're held

speechless

by the truth about your gambling problems. I just get better and
better.

Denial. The #1 trait of a con man.

> I see you deleted the rest of this thread. You know, the parts

that

point out your obvious addiction. How sweet it is ...

Yes, it was a little tough deleting all my facts about you, but

since

all you could do is follow with your constant imitation of Pee Wee
Herman and repeating of what I said, it was obvious you were crying
Uncle. I do have mercy at times.....

Did I mention that words = frustration?

[Rob_Singer1]

I'd say my belittling of you and your addict wife has taken its toll
over the past several months or so. It's almost sad to see a once
confident nerd resort to the desperation of copying my insults. But I
guess that's what constitutes frustration.....

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:
> > Did I mention DENIAL? Right on clue, little man. Thanks.
>
> It's only gonna cost you 50 grand little dicky....50 grand to

feel

> good about yourself again. What? You can't come up with it?

Oh....I

> FORGOT....You're an addicted gambler! Uh-Oh....You've been
dismissed
> on this one. Try again!!

Denial. The #1 trait of a con man.

>
> What's 'right on clue'?

It's right on cue. I see you're into spelling errors again. It must
mean I've got you completely rattled.

> Do you mean "Right On, Clue" (as in that's
> who you're addressing?)...or "right arm clue" or what?

Rambling on aimlessly to make one feel better about their con. The
number #2 trait of a con man.

Did you know that having your wife sign your fraudulent tax returns
makes her an accessory to your crimes? You should be ashamed of
yourself for dragging her into your little con.

> > > --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > > I found it unusual that Robbie decided to delete the thread
> that
> > > > dealt with using other sources of cash to supplement

gambling

> > > > winnings. It got me to thinking and ... it helped me get

what

I
> > > > believe is the entire picture of his con. He is doing

exactly

> > > > that ... supplementing his winnings. Just how? Stay tuned.
> > > >
> > > > Keep in mind that Rob has mentioned rebuilding muscle cars
> > several
> > > > times. It would be easy for Rob to ask someone purchasing a
> > rebuilt
> > > > car if they wanted to save some money. Since the book value
of
> > > these
> > > > old cars is < $1000, Rob could ask the buyer if that was

what

> > they
> > > > wanted to claim as the purchase price. The buyer saves the
> taxes
> > > and
> > > > Robbie would have what, a lot of unreported cash from the
> actual
> > > > amount he was paid. The next part is also easy. Rob takes
this
> > > extra
> > > > cash with him when he heads to a casino. He withdraws only
the
> > > amount
> > > > required for his progression. After he plays he deposits
what's
> > > left,
> > > > plus the extra cash from the car sale, and claims the
> difference
> > as
> > > > the win/loss. The money has now been laundered and Robbie

has

> > more
> > > > than covered his losses.
> > > >
> > > > No wonder Rob's win percentage is almost impossibly high.
This
> > also
> > > > explains why Rob seldom uses a player's card. A player's

card

> > would
> > > > provide a true picture of his play. In addition, his

complex

> > > strategy
> > > > is simply a smokescreen. Constantly moving between levels
while
> > > > pulling out 40 credits wins every so often would be

difficult

> to
> > > > track by anyone watching Rob. And, isn't it true that Rob
plays
> > > late
> > > > at night and doesn't like any watchers at all? Pretty

obvious

> how
> > > > this fits into the picture.
> > > >
> > > > With this simple scheme Rob has what appears to be
irrefutable
> > > > evidence that his progression is successful. Clearly, it
could
> > fool
> > > > both the GT publishers and the gov't. The final tidbit was
> coming
> > > up
> > > > with wild claims for his apparent success ... that just
happen
> to
> > > be
> > > > what typical casino losers want to hear ... hot/cold

cycles,

> non-
> > > > random patterns, inside info, winning on negative plays,

etc.

> > There
> > > > you have it ... the CON, to which Rob has also become
addicted
> > (due
> > > > to the notariety he has received).
> > > >
> > > > Now, you can see why Rob will say and do anything to keep

the

···

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

> con
> > > > going. Of course, he will deny this scenario and attempt to
> laugh
> > > it
> > > > off. Just keep in mind how all the pieces fit together so
well.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[Rob_Singer1]

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

> > > > > > No, it requires that you bring along $57,500. Without

that
> > you
> > > > > > couldn't play 6 levels.
> > > > >
> > > > > Huh? Did you just not read that if i win $2500 on dollars

I

> > don't
> > > > > play any more for that session? Where are you, on Mars?
> > > >
> > > > That's not the point, retarded one, you needed to take more
> money
> > > > with you if you planned on playing 6 levels.
> > >
> > > I made a mistake---you're from Jupiter. Why does your messed

up

> > mind
> > > think 6 levels must be played if $57.2k is taken?
> >
> > That's not what I said, retarded one. However, it's tough to

play

6
> > levels without the money. Do I need to draw you a picture?
>
> Preparation....think about it spaceman.

My point exactly. You can't play 6 levels unless you're prepared. I
thought you'd never figure it out.

And here's a mindblower--I don't play 6 levels unless I need to! Who
was it that say 'luck favors the prepared mind'??

I
> > were
> > > planning on playing 2 sessions I'd take $114.4k. Big deal.

Both

> > could
> > > end on the first hand on dollars.
> >
> > Right, but without it you couldn't be assured of playing 6

levels

> > twice. Is this really so complex that Rob can't understand

simple

> > sentences?
>
> Here's a good one if I'm understanding your scramble correctly:
Take
> enough for 6 levels, win on level 2 and leave, but count it as 6
> levels anyway because I was prepared to play that far if needed!
> Please tell me you're THAT STUPID again!!

No one ever said anything about counting it as six levels. I guess
Robbie can't understand simple sentences afterall.

Now it's the old 'backpeddal'! Kind of lonely when you're out there
all on your own without either paddle, isn't it.

> > > I claimed I have 8 losses at $25, which is exact. It's you

who

> came
> > > up with a firm 22 wins--even after I continue to tell you the
10%
> > of
> > > 259 overall at level 5 is an approximation. It's all part of
the
> > geek-
> > > math. You can't deal with anything unless you make it up

first.

I
> > > don't need to be neurotic when reviewing anything--ballparks
will
> > do
> > > for real men.
> >
> > From: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/message/4215
> >
> > Rob stated, "2-1 at $100, approx. 22-8 at $25, and approx. 204-

22

> at
> > $10 and below". I just used your own figures. Now who is making
up
> > what?
>
> 2-1: Exact. 8 losses at $25 (level 5): Exact. The 22-8/204-22 are
> based on the incorrect 10% of 259 = 30. Just like a typo--is that
> what you look for here? Are you THAT desperate to be right?

They're your words. If they are incorrect why don't you correct

them

instead of whining? Do you expected everyone to read your mind and
correct them for you? LMAO. Oh, and did you forget you called me a
liar for quoting you on these numbers. Your scrambling here is very
humerous.

And this is exactly why you continue to show envy over me along with
radiating an inferiority complex that glows every time you THINK
you've caught me in some mistake but then realize it was all you in
the first place. Next time come prepared....READ the strategies and
you'll become a better opponent. And realize no one cares about
being 'exact' but you. We're not balancing your $25.00 checkbook here.

> > > > > > publicity. Not everyone will win as the bell curve
> promises,
> > > some
> > > > > > with addictive personalities will become addicted, some
> will
> > be
> > > > too
> > > > > > lazy to succeed, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > And I'm so glad you got tough here, little dicky! I can't
> > really
> > > > bear
> > > > > to see you keep coming apart and then trying in vain to
come
> > back
> > > > > with a load of corn. Maybe you should try another subject.
> > > >
> > > > The truth hurts, doesn't it. You could have succeeded

without

> > > > resorting to lies and fantasies. Unfortunately, your lack

of

> self
> > > > confidence couldn't let you see that. Sad, but true.
> > >
> > > Do you know what 'corn' is? The fact that I've been far more
> > > successful than you in your habit and my job eats away at you
no
> > end,
> > > doesn't it little dicky!
> >
> > Nope.
>
> Yup.

Now you're answering questions for me? You can't even list your own
results correctly.

I have no need to. I count the money to the penny, not the neurotic
statistics that seem to bother you.
  

> > > I understand I've ridiculed both
> > > you and your miserable wife, but you asked for the truth and
> heaven
> > > knows, all nerds just like a continual beating rather than

give

> up.
> > > Ypu'll never be anything in video poker little dicky, and all
> > you're
> > > doing is hurting yourself over and over. Face it--you're
longing
> > > to 'belong' to the clique ain't never gonna happen, no matter
how
> > > many 'posts of corn' you spread on the forums. But I'm happy

to

> > watch
> > > you make a fool of yourself and slap you down hard at every
> > > opportunity. Oooo...oooo--let me say it for you! RIV!!
(i.e.,
> > > dumbfoundedness; lack of words)
> >
> > It does appear I've hit a few nerves. How sweet it is ...
>
> ....as the smallest record in the world continues to play "little
> dicky will never belong, and will forever envy the greatest vp
player
> in the world!"

"lottle dickey"? I thought you were above spelling errors.

When you think about it, any vowel will do when the end product is to
humiliate you!

···

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

[Rob_Singer1]

I can see why Rob couldn't respond to this. He has demonstrated a
complete lack of any ability to do anything but use his own life as
an example for all of his insults. It is really quite humerous
because he unwittingly exposes himself every time.

Insults that are true representations of little dickey just seem to f-
l-o-w off my fingertips!

> > > (but I do like how you get irritated whenever I
> > > bring up how you've ruined your wife's life with addiction),

I

> > guess
> > > you've given in to the fact that you know your disease will
haunt
> > you
> > > forever. I especially enjoy knowing on your next frenzied

trip

to
> > LV,
> > > as you unlock the door to that puny 'townhome' (that you

could

> have
> > > bought a real house instead if you didn't lose so much money

to

> the
> > > machines) you WILL be thinking about my words of wisdom aand
look
> > > into your poor addicted wife's eyes and recall all the harm
> you've
> > > caused as you are the catalyst in a ruined marriage and life.
May
> > God
> > > have mercy on your soul.....Our Father Who Art In Heaven,
> Hallowed
> > Be
> > > Thy Name, Thy Kingdom Come.......
> > >
> >
> > Did I mention that words = frustration.
>
> Again, you repeat what I say about you because you're held
speechless
> by the truth about your gambling problems. I just get better and
> better.

Denial. The #1 trait of a con man.

and better.

>
> > I see you deleted the rest of this thread. You know, the parts
that
> point out your obvious addiction. How sweet it is ...
>
> Yes, it was a little tough deleting all my facts about you, but
since
> all you could do is follow with your constant imitation of Pee

Wee

> Herman and repeating of what I said, it was obvious you were

crying

> Uncle. I do have mercy at times.....

Did I mention that words = frustration?

and better.....

···

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

[rgmustain]

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

I'd say my belittling of you and your addict wife has taken its

toll

over the past several months or so. It's almost sad to see a once
confident nerd resort to the desperation of copying my insults. But

I

guess that's what constitutes frustration.....

Denial. The #1 trait of a con man. Since you've copied me so often I
thought I return the favor. Besides, the comments actually are
relevant this time.

> > > Did I mention DENIAL? Right on clue, little man. Thanks.
> >
> > It's only gonna cost you 50 grand little dicky....50 grand to
feel
> > good about yourself again. What? You can't come up with it?
Oh....I
> > FORGOT....You're an addicted gambler! Uh-Oh....You've been
> dismissed
> > on this one. Try again!!
>
> Denial. The #1 trait of a con man.
>
> >
> > What's 'right on clue'?
>
> It's right on cue. I see you're into spelling errors again. It

must

> mean I've got you completely rattled.
>
> > Do you mean "Right On, Clue" (as in that's
> > who you're addressing?)...or "right arm clue" or what?
>
> Rambling on aimlessly to make one feel better about their con.

The

> number #2 trait of a con man.
>
> Did you know that having your wife sign your fraudulent tax

returns

> makes her an accessory to your crimes? You should be ashamed of
> yourself for dragging her into your little con.
>
> > > > --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I found it unusual that Robbie decided to delete the

thread

> > that
> > > > > dealt with using other sources of cash to supplement
gambling
> > > > > winnings. It got me to thinking and ... it helped me get
what
> I
> > > > > believe is the entire picture of his con. He is doing
exactly
> > > > > that ... supplementing his winnings. Just how? Stay tuned.
> > > > >
> > > > > Keep in mind that Rob has mentioned rebuilding muscle

cars

> > > several
> > > > > times. It would be easy for Rob to ask someone purchasing

a

> > > rebuilt
> > > > > car if they wanted to save some money. Since the book

value

> of
> > > > these
> > > > > old cars is < $1000, Rob could ask the buyer if that was
what
> > > they
> > > > > wanted to claim as the purchase price. The buyer saves

the

> > taxes
> > > > and
> > > > > Robbie would have what, a lot of unreported cash from the
> > actual
> > > > > amount he was paid. The next part is also easy. Rob takes
> this
> > > > extra
> > > > > cash with him when he heads to a casino. He withdraws

only

> the
> > > > amount
> > > > > required for his progression. After he plays he deposits
> what's
> > > > left,
> > > > > plus the extra cash from the car sale, and claims the
> > difference
> > > as
> > > > > the win/loss. The money has now been laundered and Robbie
has
> > > more
> > > > > than covered his losses.
> > > > >
> > > > > No wonder Rob's win percentage is almost impossibly high.
> This
> > > also
> > > > > explains why Rob seldom uses a player's card. A player's
card
> > > would
> > > > > provide a true picture of his play. In addition, his
complex
> > > > strategy
> > > > > is simply a smokescreen. Constantly moving between levels
> while
> > > > > pulling out 40 credits wins every so often would be
difficult
> > to
> > > > > track by anyone watching Rob. And, isn't it true that Rob
> plays
> > > > late
> > > > > at night and doesn't like any watchers at all? Pretty
obvious
> > how
> > > > > this fits into the picture.
> > > > >
> > > > > With this simple scheme Rob has what appears to be
> irrefutable
> > > > > evidence that his progression is successful. Clearly, it
> could
> > > fool
> > > > > both the GT publishers and the gov't. The final tidbit

was

> > coming
> > > > up
> > > > > with wild claims for his apparent success ... that just
> happen
> > to
> > > > be
> > > > > what typical casino losers want to hear ... hot/cold
cycles,
> > non-
> > > > > random patterns, inside info, winning on negative plays,
etc.
> > > There
> > > > > you have it ... the CON, to which Rob has also become
> addicted
> > > (due
> > > > > to the notariety he has received).
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, you can see why Rob will say and do anything to keep
the
> > con
> > > > > going. Of course, he will deny this scenario and attempt

to

···

> > laugh
> > > > it
> > > > > off. Just keep in mind how all the pieces fit together so
> well.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>