jwild2222 wrote:
On a topic actually related to video poker, are there any
non-Vegas locals who are receiving point multipliers in their
mailings from any Strip casinos. Like 2x points during your
next trip or something ...
I'm a LV local and can't help, but I would post video poker related
questions on vpFREE "http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/"
where there's a much larger audience.
vpFae
Thank you.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFae" <vpFae@...> wrote:
jwild2222 wrote:
> On a topic actually related to video poker, are there any
> non-Vegas locals who are receiving point multipliers in their
> mailings from any Strip casinos. Like 2x points during your
> next trip or something ...I'm a LV local and can't help, but I would post video poker related
questions on vpFREE "http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/"
where there's a much larger audience.vpFae
What's "non-Vegas locals" mean?
I get point multipliers all the time--mostly from MGM properties--but
I don't bother with them because piling up points is not why I'm
there, and it requires standing in slot club lines with a bunch of
misguided anticipative droolers.
My friend Dick: Are you losing your touch---or are you still shaking
off the effects of my VERY STINGING post recently. Or perhaps you're
having trouble (chuckle chuckle!) putting the administrator's
scolding and admonishment BEHIND you!! That last reply of
yours....nothing but one big "I KNOW YOU ARE!" Did you give up?
That's very un-nerd like! I've never seen you look so down. BTW---
Remember to show up April 4th at midnight with the specific proof I
requested (and you SAID you could prove it....) showing me you
absolutely won money this year at the machines without the fluff. I'm
counting on it. You chicken out now and you ain't gonna look that
good in a few weeks. In fact, what's that? You're looking kind of
pale right now.....
Oh well, enough with your depression. Here's something to cheer you
up this week. I ripped AP's a new one again this week, and my
publisher wants me to come up with more based on all the positive
comments they received since Tues. It's also for Melly so he can
wallow in his misery even more up in homo/Obama heaven...and the
pschyo-babbler will get a ton out of this too!
---------------------------------------------------------
Relax ..Mathematics hasn't changed at all.
(March 25, 2008 8:00 AM)
The Undeniable Truth by Rob Singer |
I've heard it come my way hundreds of times over the years: "Rob
Singer must have re-written the math books, because what he says he
does and how he says he does it just doesn't add up."
So what we have here are people who say they know what they
themselves are doing, but have no idea what it is I do which, of
course, is clearly evident. Yet they continue to criticize.
Let's take a look at what's going on here. I win approximately 85
percent of all my sessions and I've played 330 in about 10 years
time. I employ five separate Play Strategies (single-play/multi-
strike/five-play/Romp-Thru-Town, and an advanced version of RTT
called ARTT). I play the latter two of them most of the time these
days.
Yes, when I lose it's usually a large amount, but I've won a net
profit of just over $855,000 since I began playing them.
Almost all of my play is on what the video poker "experts" call
negative expectation (-EV) games, i.e., theoretically less than 100
percent payback even when played perfectly and into infinity. What
the critics don't understand is how EV games can turn a profit,
because on paper and into the theoretical "long-term" (whatever that
may be) they can't get it to add up.
To further confuse the issue, while others label the games I play as
negative ones, they play the same ones. Only this time, they claim
they're positive for them.
How's that done? Because the expert-play crowd chooses to toss in all
the slot club benefits in order to "create" something they believe is
positive. Not so with me. What cash I win from the machines is the
only measure of my success, as it should be for everyone. All the
other fluff is welcome, but meaningless.
Understandable? Certainly. Remember, I spent over six years as an
optimal video poker player. At the time, I too was blinded by what
was going on. Optimal play dictates making very few if any errors in
holds, and that just doesn't happen. In fact, play even 30 minutes
straight and your mistakes start to climb. So what do you think
happens as these players sit and pound away at their machines for
hour after hour after hour?
At the end of the day, optimal play is simply only a state of mind
rather than a reality to those with an open mind. And its theory is
based on beating the casinos at their own game the math. How many
local and Strip resorts have you seen close their doors because
of "optimal play"?
Better yet, how many actual & verifiable optimal video poker player
barrings have you read about? Further, have you seen a reduction or
increase in slot club promotions over the years?
I think you get the point by now. The casinos live by the math, while
optimal players live and die by the math. Most of them die a slow
death. I knew that and completely understood that back when I was
losing all the time as an expert math player. Yet, I just didn't want
it to be so. Funny how being so compelled to play all the time does
that.
Luckily, however, I woke up, and in 1997 my personally developed
single-play strategy that encompassed the essence of what successful
gambling is really all about, was put to the test in the casinos.
Proper bankroll, iron clad discipline, a structured pre-set/goal-
oriented game plan before going in, strong determination to see it
all through
and what others don't want to believe a solid (but not
complete) baseline in the math.
Although I've had thousands of players come to me for advice on what
it takes to do well in video poker, there remains those who just
can't accept it as being so. One recent detractor said "Rob wants us
to believe he somehow changes a EV game to a +EV game, and
mathematically that can't be done".
My response? He's absolutely right I change nothing. What I do,
however, is measure my game EV not by the theory of it all before
playing, but against how I actually did on the game once my session
is over. After all, someone who sits at a 98 or 102 percent game is
only there for so long. They're never going to even come to within a
fraction of a percent of the play necessary for those figures to
become valid for their session.
So is 98 percent truly a "negative" game? Hardly, and logically,
there can be no other conclusion. Similarly, about 5 percent of my
holds are what I call "special plays that deviate from optimal
strategy." This is done in order to take maximum advantage of those
opportunities that present themselves and to achieve good fortune
from multi-option deals, which underwent in-depth risk analysis for
short-term play years ago.
Critics say "Those special plays only make the game more negative."
Yet what they fail to accept is that anything can happen at any time,
and I assure you, it does. The math play may be the only play to make
if you were to see that particular deal a million times in a session,
but once or twice or even a dozen times today is reality. And,
reality requires one be able to adjust. That's exactly what my play
strategies have accomplished.
So in summary, does consistent winning at video poker over the years
require only 100 percent games? Never, and that's only a myth created
by those who want a reason to validate the fact that they play far
more than they should. Are we lost if we don't play every hand
perfectly? Ha! You don't want to play every hand perfectly.
And what about all those slot club and marketing extras? Are they
really needed in order to manufacture a sure-fire winner? Let's say
this: Advantage players do. I don't.
Who ya gonna call?
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jwild2222" <jwild2222@...> wrote:
Thank you.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFae" <vpFae@> wrote:
>
> jwild2222 wrote:
>
> > On a topic actually related to video poker, are there any
> > non-Vegas locals who are receiving point multipliers in their
> > mailings from any Strip casinos. Like 2x points during your
> > next trip or something ...
>
> I'm a LV local and can't help, but I would post video poker
related
> questions on vpFREE "http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/"
> where there's a much larger audience.
>
> vpFae
>
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "robsinger1111"
<robsinger1111@...> wrote:
What's "non-Vegas locals" mean?
I get point multipliers all the time--mostly from MGM properties--
but
I don't bother with them because piling up points is not why I'm
there, and it requires standing in slot club lines with a bunch of
misguided anticipative droolers.
Robbie does it again. Chalk up another idiotic statement. So, I guess
I should have just ignored the $7000 in CB/BB I've received already
this year. LMAO.
My friend Dick: Are you losing your touch---or are you still
shaking
off the effects of my VERY STINGING post recently.
Projection #1: Robbie clearly has been stung by the way his posts are
so easily interpreted.
Or perhaps you're
having trouble (chuckle chuckle!) putting the administrator's
scolding and admonishment BEHIND you!! That last reply of
yours....nothing but one big "I KNOW YOU ARE!" Did you give up?
We can see that Robbie feels "scolded and admonished" by the
continued interpretation of his projections. Just as it should be.
That's very un-nerd like! I've never seen you look so down. BTW---
Remember to show up April 4th at midnight with the specific proof I
requested (and you SAID you could prove it....) showing me you
absolutely won money this year at the machines without the fluff.
As I stated ALL along ... You are more than welcome to view my tax
returns before I seal the envelope and mail them. I just started
doing my taxes so I should have them done soon. However, you will
have to come to my place to see them. It's only 3-4 miles from
Southpoint. I will post when they are complete.
I'm
counting on it. You chicken out now and you ain't gonna look that
good in a few weeks. In fact, what's that? You're looking kind of
pale right now.....
I expect Robbie will "chicken out" just like he's always done. This
projection is telling us to expect that to happen.
Oh well, enough with your depression. Here's something to cheer you
up this week. I ripped AP's a new one again this week, and my
publisher wants me to come up with more based on all the positive
comments they received since Tues. It's also for Melly so he can
wallow in his misery even more up in homo/Obama heaven...and the
pschyo-babbler will get a ton out of this too!
Too many projections here. Chuckle, chuckle. However, I think "wallow
in misery" tells us exactly where Robbie has been the past few days.
---------------------------------------------------------
Relax ..Mathematics hasn't changed at all.
(March 25, 2008 8:00 AM)
Great! A chance to point out more of Robbie's amazing BS.
The Undeniable Truth by Rob Singer |
I've heard it come my way hundreds of times over the years: "Rob
Singer must have re-written the math books, because what he says he
does and how he says he does it just doesn't add up."
LMAO. What a great start to the BS.
So what we have here are people who say they know what they
themselves are doing, but have no idea what it is I do which, of
course, is clearly evident. Yet they continue to criticize.
We know EXACTLY what you're doing. You PROJECT it in all your posts.
Let's take a look at what's going on here. I win approximately 85
percent of all my sessions and I've played 330 in about 10 years
time. I employ five separate Play Strategies (single-play/multi-
strike/five-play/Romp-Thru-Town, and an advanced version of RTT
called ARTT). I play the latter two of them most of the time these
days.Yes, when I lose it's usually a large amount, but I've won a net
profit of just over $855,000 since I began playing them.
wink, wink.
Almost all of my play is on what the video poker "experts" call
negative expectation (-EV) games, i.e., theoretically less than 100
percent payback even when played perfectly and into infinity.
What
the critics don't understand is how EV games can turn a profit,
because on paper and into the theoretical "long-term" (whatever
that
may be) they can't get it to add up.
No theory involved. Simple mathematics. Like I've said before, my
simulation shows a 3 in 10,000 chance of achieving these results.
Possible ... yes. But certainly not an approach that any sane person
would take. Having won EVERY year since I moved out Las Vegas using
mathematically proven techniques I think I'll stick with them as
should anyone who REALLY wants to win.
To further confuse the issue, while others label the games I play
as
negative ones, they play the same ones. Only this time, they claim
they're positive for them.
You're the one who claims to play negative games. If they are not
then that is your problem for claiming they are negative. I played a
game today that returns less than 100% by itself but with 1% CB is
well over 100% overall. As I've said many times. Cash is cash. I
don't care if it comes out on a TITO or is handed to me by a slot
club employee. My bank seems to treat them the same.
How's that done? Because the expert-play crowd chooses to toss in
all
the slot club benefits in order to "create" something they believe
is
positive. Not so with me. What cash I win from the machines is the
only measure of my success, as it should be for everyone. All the
other fluff is welcome, but meaningless.
This is almost too funny for words. Robbie, do you really believe
anyone cares where the cash comes from? I know you can't help making
a fool out of yourself, but do you have to make it so easy?
Understandable? Certainly. Remember, I spent over six years as an
optimal video poker player. At the time, I too was blinded by what
was going on. Optimal play dictates making very few if any errors
in
holds, and that just doesn't happen. In fact, play even 30 minutes
straight and your mistakes start to climb. So what do you think
happens as these players sit and pound away at their machines for
hour after hour after hour?
They make a few mistakes. However, if they are playing with a
reasonably good edge they will still win. Good players should be able
to keep the error cost down to .2% or less. If they can't then they
are not good players and should practice more.
We all heard about your 6 years of drinking and chasing skirts while
claiming to be an AP. I think the real reason for your failure is
pretty obvious to anyone who has drank a little too much at least
once in their lives.
At the end of the day, optimal play is simply only a state of mind
rather than a reality to those with an open mind. And its theory is
based on beating the casinos at their own game the math. How many
local and Strip resorts have you seen close their doors because
of "optimal play"?
More importantly is how many 100% games have been removed over the
last few years. In fact, many 99+% games are now being downgraded.
So, why to you think the casinos have taken this action? Easy,
players are getting better and better. The math works perfectly and
Robbie's ridiculous claims that math doesn't work makes it pretty
obvious he must be up to something.
Better yet, how many actual & verifiable optimal video poker player
barrings have you read about? Further, have you seen a reduction
or
increase in slot club promotions over the years?
I think you get the point by now. The casinos live by the math,
while
optimal players live and die by the math. Most of them die a slow
death. I knew that and completely understood that back when I was
losing all the time as an expert math player. Yet, I just didn't
want
it to be so. Funny how being so compelled to play all the time does
that.
ROTFLAMO. Maybe you should have tried drinking a little less and
concentrating on the task at hand.
Luckily, however, I woke up, and in 1997 my personally developed
single-play strategy that encompassed the essence of what
successful
gambling is really all about, was put to the test in the casinos.
Proper bankroll, iron clad discipline, a structured pre-set/goal-
oriented game plan before going in, strong determination to see it
all through and what others don't want to believe a solid (but
not
complete) baseline in the math.
This is where the other shoe drops. Cons always start out by
dismissing the proven techniques (aka the establishment). How else
can Robbie's snake oil be better for you. It's so obvious a cave man
can see through it.
Although I've had thousands of players come to me for advice on
what
it takes to do well in video poker, there remains those who just
can't accept it as being so. One recent detractor said "Rob wants
us
to believe he somehow changes a EV game to a +EV game, and
mathematically that can't be done".
Where are all these "thousands" of 885K-naires now? Where is just
one? Robbie only claims to play a few hours each year but we'd expect
others making these huge sums of money to be playing a lot. So where
are they? Nowhere to be found.
My response? He's absolutely right I change nothing. What I do,
however, is measure my game EV not by the theory of it all before
playing, but against how I actually did on the game once my session
is over. After all, someone who sits at a 98 or 102 percent game is
only there for so long. They're never going to even come to within
a
fraction of a percent of the play necessary for those figures to
become valid for their session.
More smoke and mirrors. No one will come close at any one session,
but over time they will approach the payback of the games they play
at the accuracy they utilize. It's all in the math.
So is 98 percent truly a "negative" game? Hardly, and logically,
there can be no other conclusion. Similarly, about 5 percent of my
holds are what I call "special plays that deviate from optimal
strategy." This is done in order to take maximum advantage of those
opportunities that present themselves and to achieve good fortune
from multi-option deals, which underwent in-depth risk analysis for
short-term play years ago.
This is more snake oil. Now, first of all Robbie tells us the math
doesn't work and then tries to impress everyone with "in-depth risk
analysis" which is simply a form of applied mathematics. So, which
Robbie should we believe, the one who claims math doesn't work or the
one that claims HIS special math works. I think all the cave men out
there should be rolling on the floor about this time.
Critics say "Those special plays only make the game more negative."
Yeah, that's because it's true.
Yet what they fail to accept is that anything can happen at any
time,
and I assure you, it does. The math play may be the only play to
make
if you were to see that particular deal a million times in a
session,
but once or twice or even a dozen times today is reality. And,
reality requires one be able to adjust. That's exactly what my play
strategies have accomplished.
More of the con. This is akin to saying that all of the statistical
techniques utilized around the world don't work. Tooooooo funny. The
problem with Robbie's "once or twice" is that over his 8 years of
play he's only going to hit those special plays at the same rate as
anyone else. They will cost him money and anyone else who buys into
this con.
So in summary, does consistent winning at video poker over the
years
require only 100 percent games? Never, and that's only a myth
created
by those who want a reason to validate the fact that they play far
more than they should. Are we lost if we don't play every hand
perfectly? Ha! You don't want to play every hand perfectly.
If you want to win then, you do. There's no way around the math for
anyone wanting to take the BEST approach to playing VP. If someone
simply wants to "hope" for the best then just about any technique
will work as well as Robbie's techniques.
And what about all those slot club and marketing extras? Are they
really needed in order to manufacture a sure-fire winner? Let's say
this: Advantage players do. I don't.Who ya gonna call?
Good question. Robbie just stated that I shouldn't have collected
that $7000 in CB/BB as they are "not really needed". Really? Who do
you think is going to fall for this kind of BS?
Robbie does it again. Chalk up another idiotic statement. So, I
guess I should have just ignored the $7000 in CB/BB I've received
already this year. LMAO.
What's that got to do with chasing stupid point multipliers? Please
stay on the same page. I've easily earned waaay more than that in
CB/BB/FP/Comps&Gifts and I don't have to pimp my soul to the casinos
to get it.
> My friend Dick: Are you losing your touch---or are you still
shaking
> off the effects of my VERY STINGING post recently.Projection #1: Robbie clearly has been stung by the way his posts
are so easily interpreted.
Maybe you didn't get the fact that originality doesn't really seem to
be your strong suit.
As I stated ALL along ... You are more than welcome to view my tax
returns before I seal the envelope and mail them. I just started
doing my taxes so I should have them done soon. However, you will
have to come to my place to see them. It's only 3-4 miles from
Southpoint. I will post when they are complete.
You're waffling again. Tax returns alone prove nothing and if you
said that to the IRS's request for documentation they'd laugh in your
face. I want financial traceability from start to finish, and since
you keep claiming you win and you could easily support an IRS audit
then that should be a non-issue if you want to prove your numbers to
me. Everytime I pin you down you always come up with some BS about
how you can't do this or you won't do that. I stated where and when
I'd be and since I'm the visitor it's up to you to comply with my
simple request: midnight at SP on the 4th....and to be there with the
goods. You have a chance to make history here so don't blow it. You
can even invite Meldrone and that pschyo to back you up as always if
you're scared--I'll just look for two insecure, out-of-shape goofy-
looking individuals who aren't used to coming out from the safety of
being behind their computers, as they stare in awe of Singer with his
healthy, very capable un-casino-like appearance and his minimum
$20,000 in cash. Tick...tick...tick...Time will tell.
Too many projections here. Chuckle, chuckle. However, I
think "wallow in misery" tells us exactly where Robbie has been the
past few days.
Think about it. Melly's an obvious Obama supporter because he'll
support anyone who's policy is to cut and run scared from Iraq with
no goal other than to leave the Muslims alone, and who are the 2 fool
Democrats who are ripping their party and each other apart while the
next President--John McCain--sits back and relaxes along with all his
fellow Arizonans? It's been a rather enjoyable past few days---doing
that and watching my grandchildren who were home from daycare with
colds. Now compare that to you and your habit of going to a dump like
Sam's Town every day to play around all those idiotic addict smokers
and gamblers all the time. Tell us more about your misery again...
Ha! Just as I expected and actually summoned you to do, you again
show your anal side by neurotically making believe your categorical
responses to each of my direct-hit points in my article below are
anything more than proof-positive how twisted AP's think as well as
why they're so jealous of everything Rob Singer---and they do so only
in their constant attempts to give credence to the known fact that
they're all pathological gamblers looking desperately for reasons to
justify playing far more than they know they should. And just
think.....nearly 300,000 informed readers saw the article this week.
Not many read this stuff and even fewer block your fantasyland
comments out. So....WHO ya gonna call?? Your PUPPETMASTER, of course!
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Relax ..Mathematics hasn't changed at all.
> (March 25, 2008 8:00 AM)Great! A chance to point out more of Robbie's amazing BS.
>
> The Undeniable Truth by Rob Singer |
>
> I've heard it come my way hundreds of times over the years: "Rob
> Singer must have re-written the math books, because what he says
he
> does and how he says he does it just doesn't add up."
LMAO. What a great start to the BS.
>
> So what we have here are people who say they know what they
> themselves are doing, but have no idea what it is I do which,
of
> course, is clearly evident. Yet they continue to criticize.
We know EXACTLY what you're doing. You PROJECT it in all your posts.
>
> Let's take a look at what's going on here. I win approximately 85
> percent of all my sessions and I've played 330 in about 10 years
> time. I employ five separate Play Strategies (single-play/multi-
> strike/five-play/Romp-Thru-Town, and an advanced version of RTT
> called ARTT). I play the latter two of them most of the time
these
> days.
>
> Yes, when I lose it's usually a large amount, but I've won a net
> profit of just over $855,000 since I began playing them.wink, wink.
>
> Almost all of my play is on what the video poker "experts" call
> negative expectation (-EV) games, i.e., theoretically less than
100
> percent payback even when played perfectly and into infinity.
What
> the critics don't understand is how EV games can turn a profit,
> because on paper and into the theoretical "long-term" (whatever
that
> may be) they can't get it to add up.No theory involved. Simple mathematics. Like I've said before, my
simulation shows a 3 in 10,000 chance of achieving these results.
Possible ... yes. But certainly not an approach that any sane
person
would take. Having won EVERY year since I moved out Las Vegas using
mathematically proven techniques I think I'll stick with them as
should anyone who REALLY wants to win.>
> To further confuse the issue, while others label the games I play
as
> negative ones, they play the same ones. Only this time, they
claim
> they're positive for them.
You're the one who claims to play negative games. If they are not
then that is your problem for claiming they are negative. I played
a
game today that returns less than 100% by itself but with 1% CB is
well over 100% overall. As I've said many times. Cash is cash. I
don't care if it comes out on a TITO or is handed to me by a slot
club employee. My bank seems to treat them the same.>
> How's that done? Because the expert-play crowd chooses to toss in
all
> the slot club benefits in order to "create" something they
believe
is
> positive. Not so with me. What cash I win from the machines is
the
> only measure of my success, as it should be for everyone. All the
> other fluff is welcome, but meaningless.This is almost too funny for words. Robbie, do you really believe
anyone cares where the cash comes from? I know you can't help
making
a fool out of yourself, but do you have to make it so easy?
>
> Understandable? Certainly. Remember, I spent over six years as an
> optimal video poker player. At the time, I too was blinded by
what
> was going on. Optimal play dictates making very few if any errors
in
> holds, and that just doesn't happen. In fact, play even 30
minutes
> straight and your mistakes start to climb. So what do you think
> happens as these players sit and pound away at their machines for
> hour after hour after hour?They make a few mistakes. However, if they are playing with a
reasonably good edge they will still win. Good players should be
able
to keep the error cost down to .2% or less. If they can't then they
are not good players and should practice more.We all heard about your 6 years of drinking and chasing skirts
while
claiming to be an AP. I think the real reason for your failure is
pretty obvious to anyone who has drank a little too much at least
once in their lives.>
> At the end of the day, optimal play is simply only a state of
mind
> rather than a reality to those with an open mind. And its theory
is
> based on beating the casinos at their own game the math. How
many
> local and Strip resorts have you seen close their doors because
> of "optimal play"?More importantly is how many 100% games have been removed over the
last few years. In fact, many 99+% games are now being downgraded.
So, why to you think the casinos have taken this action? Easy,
players are getting better and better. The math works perfectly and
Robbie's ridiculous claims that math doesn't work makes it pretty
obvious he must be up to something.>
> Better yet, how many actual & verifiable optimal video poker
player
> barrings have you read about? Further, have you seen a reduction
or
> increase in slot club promotions over the years?
>
> I think you get the point by now. The casinos live by the math,
while
> optimal players live and die by the math. Most of them die a slow
> death. I knew that and completely understood that back when I was
> losing all the time as an expert math player. Yet, I just didn't
want
> it to be so. Funny how being so compelled to play all the time
does
> that.
ROTFLAMO. Maybe you should have tried drinking a little less and
concentrating on the task at hand.>
> Luckily, however, I woke up, and in 1997 my personally developed
> single-play strategy that encompassed the essence of what
successful
> gambling is really all about, was put to the test in the casinos.
> Proper bankroll, iron clad discipline, a structured pre-set/goal-
> oriented game plan before going in, strong determination to see
it
> all through and what others don't want to believe a solid (but
not
> complete) baseline in the math.This is where the other shoe drops. Cons always start out by
dismissing the proven techniques (aka the establishment). How else
can Robbie's snake oil be better for you. It's so obvious a cave
man
can see through it.
>
> Although I've had thousands of players come to me for advice on
what
> it takes to do well in video poker, there remains those who just
> can't accept it as being so. One recent detractor said "Rob wants
us
> to believe he somehow changes a EV game to a +EV game, and
> mathematically that can't be done".Where are all these "thousands" of 885K-naires now? Where is just
one? Robbie only claims to play a few hours each year but we'd
expect
others making these huge sums of money to be playing a lot. So
where
are they? Nowhere to be found.
>
> My response? He's absolutely right I change nothing. What I do,
> however, is measure my game EV not by the theory of it all before
> playing, but against how I actually did on the game once my
session
> is over. After all, someone who sits at a 98 or 102 percent game
is
> only there for so long. They're never going to even come to
within
a
> fraction of a percent of the play necessary for those figures to
> become valid for their session.More smoke and mirrors. No one will come close at any one session,
but over time they will approach the payback of the games they play
at the accuracy they utilize. It's all in the math.>
> So is 98 percent truly a "negative" game? Hardly, and logically,
> there can be no other conclusion. Similarly, about 5 percent of
my
> holds are what I call "special plays that deviate from optimal
> strategy." This is done in order to take maximum advantage of
those
> opportunities that present themselves and to achieve good fortune
> from multi-option deals, which underwent in-depth risk analysis
for
> short-term play years ago.
This is more snake oil. Now, first of all Robbie tells us the math
doesn't work and then tries to impress everyone with "in-depth risk
analysis" which is simply a form of applied mathematics. So, which
Robbie should we believe, the one who claims math doesn't work or
the
one that claims HIS special math works. I think all the cave men
out
there should be rolling on the floor about this time.
>
> Critics say "Those special plays only make the game more
negative."
Yeah, that's because it's true.
> Yet what they fail to accept is that anything can happen at any
time,
> and I assure you, it does. The math play may be the only play to
make
> if you were to see that particular deal a million times in a
session,
> but once or twice or even a dozen times today is reality. And,
> reality requires one be able to adjust. That's exactly what my
play
> strategies have accomplished.
More of the con. This is akin to saying that all of the statistical
techniques utilized around the world don't work. Tooooooo funny.
The
problem with Robbie's "once or twice" is that over his 8 years of
play he's only going to hit those special plays at the same rate as
anyone else. They will cost him money and anyone else who buys into
this con.>
> So in summary, does consistent winning at video poker over the
years
> require only 100 percent games? Never, and that's only a myth
created
> by those who want a reason to validate the fact that they play
far
> more than they should. Are we lost if we don't play every hand
> perfectly? Ha! You don't want to play every hand perfectly.If you want to win then, you do. There's no way around the math for
anyone wanting to take the BEST approach to playing VP. If someone
simply wants to "hope" for the best then just about any technique
will work as well as Robbie's techniques.>
> And what about all those slot club and marketing extras? Are they
> really needed in order to manufacture a sure-fire winner? Let's
say
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@...> wrote:
> this: Advantage players do. I don't.
>
> Who ya gonna call?
>Good question. Robbie just stated that I shouldn't have collected
that $7000 in CB/BB as they are "not really needed". Really? Who do
you think is going to fall for this kind of BS?
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "robsinger1111"
<robsinger1111@...> wrote:
> Robbie does it again. Chalk up another idiotic statement. So, I
guess I should have just ignored the $7000 in CB/BB I've received
already this year. LMAO.What's that got to do with chasing stupid point multipliers? Please
stay on the same page. I've easily earned waaay more than that in
CB/BB/FP/Comps&Gifts and I don't have to pimp my soul to the
casinos
to get it.
A 10 times multiplier gets me 10 times the CB. If you can't figure
out this simple calculation it doesn't take much to know the rest of
your thoughts are pretty worthless.
Now, tell us exactly how you have "pimped (your) soul" to the casinos
as you projected so nicely.
> > My friend Dick: Are you losing your touch---or are you still
> shaking
> > off the effects of my VERY STINGING post recently.
>
> Projection #1: Robbie clearly has been stung by the way his posts
are so easily interpreted.Maybe you didn't get the fact that originality doesn't really seem
to
be your strong suit.
Still stings doesn't it.
> As I stated ALL along ... You are more than welcome to view my
tax
> returns before I seal the envelope and mail them. I just started
> doing my taxes so I should have them done soon. However, you will
> have to come to my place to see them. It's only 3-4 miles from
> Southpoint. I will post when they are complete.You're waffling again. Tax returns alone prove nothing and if you
said that to the IRS's request for documentation they'd laugh in
your
face. I want financial traceability from start to finish, and since
you keep claiming you win and you could easily support an IRS audit
then that should be a non-issue if you want to prove your numbers
to
me. Everytime I pin you down you always come up with some BS about
how you can't do this or you won't do that. I stated where and when
I'd be and since I'm the visitor it's up to you to comply with my
simple request: midnight at SP on the 4th....and to be there with
the
goods. You have a chance to make history here so don't blow it. You
can even invite Meldrone and that pschyo to back you up as always
if
you're scared--I'll just look for two insecure, out-of-shape goofy-
looking individuals who aren't used to coming out from the safety
of
being behind their computers, as they stare in awe of Singer with
his
healthy, very capable un-casino-like appearance and his minimum
$20,000 in cash. Tick...tick...tick...Time will tell.
ROTFLMAO. How many words does it take Robbie to back out? A LOT. I
made the original offer, you agreed, now you're backing out. If you
want to stick with MY original offer it still stands. If not, tuck
your little tail between your legs AGAIN and admit you don't want to
see PROOF that I won.
> Too many projections here. Chuckle, chuckle. However, I
think "wallow in misery" tells us exactly where Robbie has been the
past few days.Think about it. Melly's an obvious Obama supporter because he'll
support anyone who's policy is to cut and run scared from Iraq with
no goal other than to leave the Muslims alone, and who are the 2
fool
Democrats who are ripping their party and each other apart while
the
next President--John McCain--sits back and relaxes along with all
his
fellow Arizonans? It's been a rather enjoyable past few days---
doing
that and watching my grandchildren who were home from daycare with
colds. Now compare that to you and your habit of going to a dump
like
Sam's Town every day to play around all those idiotic addict
smokers
and gamblers all the time. Tell us more about your misery again...
Your "misery" is being torn between posting here and projecting all
your problems or not posting and being depressed.
Ha! Just as I expected and actually summoned you to do, you again
show your anal side by neurotically making believe your categorical
responses to each of my direct-hit points in my article below are
anything more than proof-positive how twisted AP's think as well as
why they're so jealous of everything Rob Singer---and they do so
only
in their constant attempts to give credence to the known fact that
they're all pathological gamblers looking desperately for reasons
to
justify playing far more than they know they should. And just
think.....nearly 300,000 informed readers saw the article this
week.
Not many read this stuff and even fewer block your fantasyland
comments out. So....WHO ya gonna call?? Your PUPPETMASTER, of
course!
More humorous projections. First, Robbie thinks my points are pretty
much "proof-positive" that his system is worthless. Add to that
Robbie is "looking desperately" for any reason to post his lies.
Finally, he admits "not many read" his "articles" (which we already
knew). It really doesn't get any better than this.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@> wrote:
A 10 times multiplier gets me 10 times the CB.
Big whoop! And makes you feel 10 times stupider for being roped in by
the casino manager to lose 10 times the cash.
Now, tell us exactly how you have "pimped (your) soul" to the
casinos as you projected so nicely.
Pee Wee Herman never saw this either....how a continuing response
of "I KNOW YOU ARE" depicted his inability to respond to anyone who
hit the nail on the head when referring to his inadequacies & bad
habits, while making fun of his overall rather low IQ.
> You're waffling again. Tax returns alone prove nothing and if you
> said that to the IRS's request for documentation they'd laugh in
your
> face. I want financial traceability from start to finish, and
since
> you keep claiming you win and you could easily support an IRS
audit
> then that should be a non-issue if you want to prove your numbers
to
> me. Everytime I pin you down you always come up with some BS
about
> how you can't do this or you won't do that. I stated where and
when
> I'd be and since I'm the visitor it's up to you to comply with my
> simple request: midnight at SP on the 4th....and to be there with
the
> goods. You have a chance to make history here so don't blow it.
You
> can even invite Meldrone and that pschyo to back you up as always
if
> you're scared--I'll just look for two insecure, out-of-shape
goofy-
> looking individuals who aren't used to coming out from the safety
of
> being behind their computers, as they stare in awe of Singer with
his
> healthy, very capable un-casino-like appearance and his minimum
> $20,000 in cash. Tick...tick...tick...Time will tell.ROTFLMAO. How many words does it take Robbie to back out? A LOT. I
made the original offer, you agreed, now you're backing out. If you
want to stick with MY original offer it still stands. If not, tuck
your little tail between your legs AGAIN and admit you don't want
to see PROOF that I won.
Lie. I agreed if you showed me financial traceability and I was to
mail your return (I know, the facts do make you red-faced don't
they....) and ever since you've shown how anything other than how you
want to weasel around it hits a nerve. Remember my friend, it's I who
will be at the South Point at midnight April 4th waiting for YOU--
exactly as identified and agreed to up front. Nothing's changed about
that, and I'll be there. You already look stupid here, but don't show
and I'll light you up even worse than if you show without the proof
I've asked for multiple times. It's decision time....or will you
fold, waffle, and ultimately back down yet again. It's black & white,
and not even Pee Wee can help you get out of this one.
> Ha! Just as I expected and actually summoned you to do, you again
> show your anal side by neurotically making believe your
categorical
> responses to each of my direct-hit points in my article below are
> anything more than proof-positive how twisted AP's think as well
as
> why they're so jealous of everything Rob Singer---and they do so
only
> in their constant attempts to give credence to the known fact
that
> they're all pathological gamblers looking desperately for reasons
to
> justify playing far more than they know they should. And just
> think.....nearly 300,000 informed readers saw the article this
week.
> Not many read this stuff and even fewer block your fantasyland
> comments out. So....WHO ya gonna call?? Your PUPPETMASTER, of
course!More humorous projections. First, Robbie thinks my points are
pretty
much "proof-positive" that his system is worthless. Add to that
Robbie is "looking desperately" for any reason to post his lies.
Finally, he admits "not many read" his "articles" (which we already
knew). It really doesn't get any better than this.
Now does that really make any sense....
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "robsinger1111"
<robsinger1111@...> wrote:
> A 10 times multiplier gets me 10 times the CB.
Big whoop! And makes you feel 10 times stupider for being roped in
by
the casino manager to lose 10 times the cash.
Projection: Robbie feels "10 times stupider" for making a complete
fool out of himself with his initial assertion. Only a complete moron
would not welcome 10 times MORE cashback than they would otherwise
earn.
> Now, tell us exactly how you have "pimped (your) soul" to the
casinos as you projected so nicely.Pee Wee Herman never saw this either....how a continuing response
of "I KNOW YOU ARE" depicted his inability to respond to anyone who
hit the nail on the head when referring to his inadequacies & bad
habits, while making fun of his overall rather low IQ.
I guess that's a no. However, the additional projections are
PRICELESS.
> > You're waffling again. Tax returns alone prove nothing and if
you
> > said that to the IRS's request for documentation they'd laugh
in
> your
> > face. I want financial traceability from start to finish, and
since
> > you keep claiming you win and you could easily support an IRS
audit
> > then that should be a non-issue if you want to prove your
numbers
> to
> > me. Everytime I pin you down you always come up with some BS
about
> > how you can't do this or you won't do that. I stated where and
when
> > I'd be and since I'm the visitor it's up to you to comply with
my
> > simple request: midnight at SP on the 4th....and to be there
with
> the
> > goods. You have a chance to make history here so don't blow it.
You
> > can even invite Meldrone and that pschyo to back you up as
always
> if
> > you're scared--I'll just look for two insecure, out-of-shape
goofy-
> > looking individuals who aren't used to coming out from the
safety
> of
> > being behind their computers, as they stare in awe of Singer
with
> his
> > healthy, very capable un-casino-like appearance and his minimum
> > $20,000 in cash. Tick...tick...tick...Time will tell.
>
> ROTFLMAO. How many words does it take Robbie to back out? A LOT.
I
> made the original offer, you agreed, now you're backing out. If
you
> want to stick with MY original offer it still stands. If not,
tuck
> your little tail between your legs AGAIN and admit you don't want
to see PROOF that I won.Lie. I agreed if you showed me financial traceability and I was to
mail your return (I know, the facts do make you red-faced don't
they....) and ever since you've shown how anything other than how
you
want to weasel around it hits a nerve.
From post #4901 you stated: "If you were to go over your gambling
entries on your return with me then I'd believe you and I'd finally
have a pretty solid point of reference to put into my overall opinion
on AP's that I always write about."
Now, tell me Robbie where you said anything about "financial
traceability"?
In addition, in #4898 you stated "if you're still offering that then
I would be happy to review yours--either prior to of just after
submitting it."
OK, let's see Robbie scramble some more.
Remember my friend, it's I who
will be at the South Point at midnight April 4th waiting for YOU--
exactly as identified and agreed to up front. Nothing's changed
about
that, and I'll be there.
Is that why you previously stated "I'll let you set the time to do
that.", I guess you should have realized I know how to access the
archives before you stuck your foot in your mouth yet again.
You already look stupid here, but don't show
and I'll light you up even worse than if you show without the proof
I've asked for multiple times. It's decision time....or will you
fold, waffle, and ultimately back down yet again. It's black &
white,
and not even Pee Wee can help you get out of this one.
Once again the projections here are priceless. Yes, you "look stupid"
and there's no doubt that you are trying to "fold, waffle, and
ultimately back down". That's alright with me. I expected it anyway
so all you are doing is verifying my initial thoughts when this issue
was first discussed. I mean, how could it have gone down any other
way, this is consistent with everything you do.
> > Ha! Just as I expected and actually summoned you to do, you
again
> > show your anal side by neurotically making believe your
categorical
> > responses to each of my direct-hit points in my article below
are
> > anything more than proof-positive how twisted AP's think as
well
as
> > why they're so jealous of everything Rob Singer---and they do
so
> only
> > in their constant attempts to give credence to the known fact
that
> > they're all pathological gamblers looking desperately for
reasons
> to
> > justify playing far more than they know they should. And just
> > think.....nearly 300,000 informed readers saw the article this
> week.
> > Not many read this stuff and even fewer block your fantasyland
> > comments out. So....WHO ya gonna call?? Your PUPPETMASTER, of
> course!
>
> More humorous projections. First, Robbie thinks my points are
pretty
> much "proof-positive" that his system is worthless. Add to that
> Robbie is "looking desperately" for any reason to post his lies.
> Finally, he admits "not many read" his "articles" (which we
already
> knew). It really doesn't get any better than this.
Now does that really make any sense....
Chuckle, chuckle.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@> wrote:
Projection: Robbie feels "10 times stupider" for making a complete
fool out of himself with his initial assertion. Only a complete
moron would not welcome 10 times MORE cashback than they would
otherwise earn.
Or....only a complete gambling addict would be roped in to play for
the points instead of the money....after moving to LV just to be
closer to the machines, that is.....
> Pee Wee Herman never saw this either....how a continuing response
> of "I KNOW YOU ARE" depicted his inability to respond to anyone
who hit the nail on the head when referring to his inadequacies & bad
> habits, while making fun of his overall rather low IQ.
That, I'll leave there, as it obviously churned up your stomach acid
level quite nicely.
From post #4901 you stated: "If you were to go over your gambling
entries on your return with me then I'd believe you and I'd finally
have a pretty solid point of reference to put into my overall
opinion on AP's that I always write about."
Now, tell me Robbie where you said anything about "financial
traceability"?
In several later posts, you know, like where the details are worked
out?? You said you'd "prove" you won. A tax return alone doesn't do
that, and you thought you'd weasel out of that part. Exactly why I
said whenever you're pinned down you desperately look for the back
door.
In addition, in #4898 you stated "if you're still offering that then
I would be happy to review yours--either prior to of just after
submitting it."
OK, let's see Robbie scramble some more.
Do you have any idea what "gambling entries on a return" mean? You
could put anything on it and say it's real--as long as you don't have
to support it. That's exactly why I've been telling you to provide
that support all along.
> Remember my friend, it's I who
> will be at the South Point at midnight April 4th waiting for YOU--
> exactly as identified and agreed to up front. Nothing's changed
about
> that, and I'll be there.
Is that why you previously stated "I'll let you set the time to do
that.", I guess you should have realized I know how to access the
archives before you stuck your foot in your mouth yet again.
But my anal friend....you DIDN'T set the time now, did you, and I
took the initiative as I always have to with a pretend-artist like
you! You seem to be getting scared. And since I'm the one with the
travel plans, one would clearly think if you weren't such a chicken
and waffler that you'd be open to fitting in with my schedule since
you tried to let it all slide away thru one of your loopholes that I
always catch you by the tail trying to sneak out through! BTW, it's
3.51 miles from your little shack to SP, and at 11:30 at night it'll
be a snap for you.
Once again, you're free to bring whatever you want that you believe
absolutely proves you've won what was it--$7500? (snicker
snicker...). I will be there at South Point to the right of the
cashier as you're looking at it at midnight on Friday night April
4th. If you bring support then fine, I'll write it up as such. If
not, you'll get the same truthful treatment in my article. Not
showing is the worst you can do. How about being a man about it and
maybe you'll garner back some respect you've tossed away with your
tirades against the vpFREE administrator? Oh I forgot---everyone's
out to get you! (Yes, we all saw how you deleted that truthful tidbit
so you wouldn't have to get upset ovver it again. But THANK GOODNESS
FOR SINGER, HEY!?).
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "robsinger1111"
<robsinger1111@...> wrote:
> Projection: Robbie feels "10 times stupider" for making a
complete
> fool out of himself with his initial assertion. Only a complete
moron would not welcome 10 times MORE cashback than they would
otherwise earn.Or....only a complete gambling addict would be roped in to play for
the points instead of the money....after moving to LV just to be
closer to the machines, that is.....
Points are money. That's why you will continue to look foolish when
you make idiotic statments like this one and the one about Jean
Scott. You can scramble around all you want claiming they are losing
but the reality is points can be VERY lucrative. I wish I got 10x
points always (1%), but I probably only average out to 4-5x overall.
If it were 10x overall I would be looking at over $14K CB instead of
the $7K I already mentioned. Like I already stated, the bank doesn't
seem to care where the money comes from.
> > Pee Wee Herman never saw this either....how a continuing
response
> > of "I KNOW YOU ARE" depicted his inability to respond to anyone
who hit the nail on the head when referring to his inadequacies &
bad
> > habits, while making fun of his overall rather low IQ.
That, I'll leave there, as it obviously churned up your stomach
acid
level quite nicely.
So, you want everyone to continue to see your projections. If
your "bad habits" and "inadequcies" bother you so much you should do
something about them instead of letting them "churn up your stomach".
> From post #4901 you stated: "If you were to go over your gambling
> entries on your return with me then I'd believe you and I'd
finally
> have a pretty solid point of reference to put into my overall
opinion on AP's that I always write about."> Now, tell me Robbie where you said anything about "financial
> traceability"?In several later posts, you know, like where the details are worked
out?? You said you'd "prove" you won. A tax return alone doesn't do
that, and you thought you'd weasel out of that part. Exactly why I
said whenever you're pinned down you desperately look for the back
door.
In everyone one of the later posts I stated you had my offer (which
you obviously accepted), either take it or leave it. Instead you have
continued to back down. I have nothing to hide which obviously must
bother you tremendously. I've already stated I don't go to a bank
each and every day I gamble. If my tax returns are not sufficent to
convince you of my winnings then it would be waste of time to show
them to you. As I've said all along, I don't really care one way or
the other.
> In addition, in #4898 you stated "if you're still offering that
then
> I would be happy to review yours--either prior to of just after
> submitting it."> OK, let's see Robbie scramble some more.
Do you have any idea what "gambling entries on a return" mean? You
could put anything on it and say it's real--as long as you don't
have
to support it. That's exactly why I've been telling you to provide
that support all along.
If you just want to see my W2Gs, that is not a problem. I can have
them out as well. As I mentioned earlier that is all I put in the
gambling wins box since that appears to be what the IRS accepts. I
also realize they are not proof in and of themselves. However, like I
also said previously, I would never claim I won money and pay taxes
on it for no reason.
PS. I can show you my returns for the previous 3 years as well if you
want to see more winnings.
> > Remember my friend, it's I who
> > will be at the South Point at midnight April 4th waiting for
YOU--
> > exactly as identified and agreed to up front. Nothing's changed
> about
> > that, and I'll be there.> Is that why you previously stated "I'll let you set the time to
do
> that.", I guess you should have realized I know how to access the
> archives before you stuck your foot in your mouth yet again.But my anal friend....you DIDN'T set the time now, did you, and I
took the initiative as I always have to with a pretend-artist like
you! You seem to be getting scared. And since I'm the one with the
travel plans, one would clearly think if you weren't such a chicken
and waffler that you'd be open to fitting in with my schedule since
you tried to let it all slide away thru one of your loopholes that
I
always catch you by the tail trying to sneak out through! BTW, it's
3.51 miles from your little shack to SP, and at 11:30 at night
it'll
be a snap for you.
Looks like Robbie's own words got him a little aggitated. Look at all
the projections that jumped out. However, sticking to the subject, I
could not set a time until I knew when I'd have my taxes done and
when you'd be in town. Unlike you, I was trying to be somewhat
accomodating and set a time that would be reasaonable for both of us
(however, those days are past). Your time was clearly an attempt to
avoid the meeting altogether.
Once again, you're free to bring whatever you want that you believe
absolutely proves you've won what was it--$7500? (snicker
snicker...). I will be there at South Point to the right of the
cashier as you're looking at it at midnight on Friday night April
4th. If you bring support then fine, I'll write it up as such. If
not, you'll get the same truthful treatment in my article. Not
showing is the worst you can do. How about being a man about it and
maybe you'll garner back some respect you've tossed away with your
tirades against the vpFREE administrator? Oh I forgot---everyone's
out to get you! (Yes, we all saw how you deleted that truthful
tidbit
so you wouldn't have to get upset ovver it again. But THANK
GOODNESS
FOR SINGER, HEY!?).
I can tell you right now I won't be anywhere at midnight (or 4:00AM).
I am in bed most nights by 10PM and get up between 5-6 in the
morning. In fact, I will now set a time as you asked previously. How
about Sunday, April 13th from 2:00PM - 4:00 PM at my townhome. Since
I now know I owe quite a bit this year I don't plan on mailing the
check any earlier than necessary.
If you want to get together before then and just view my return I am
usually around after 1:00PM almost any day if you give me a days
advance warning or, I'm at SouthPoint on Sunday mornings to pick up
my BB. If you just want to see a copy of my return I can bring it
along. Probably around 8AM but you will have to let me know in
advance so I bring it with me.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@> wrote:
Points are money. That's why you will continue to look foolish when
you make idiotic statments like this one and the one about Jean
Scott. You can scramble around all you want claiming they are
losing but the reality is points can be VERY lucrative. I wish I got
10x points always (1%), but I probably only average out to 4-5x
overall. If it were 10x overall I would be looking at over $14K CB
instead of the $7K I already mentioned. Like I already stated, the
bank doesn't seem to care where the money comes from.
And you and Jean and everyone else overwhelmed by multiple-points
promos will continue to look like idiotic, out-of-control addicts by
being continually roped in to play for the points instead of the
money. All you fools do is use it to create +EV games out of thin air
that really aren't. You actually require that type of set-up to allow
yourself to feel good about your serious gambling problems and the
accompanying mounting losses.
In everyone one of the later posts I stated you had my offer (which
you obviously accepted), either take it or leave it. Instead you
have
continued to back down. I have nothing to hide which obviously must
bother you tremendously. I've already stated I don't go to a bank
each and every day I gamble. If my tax returns are not sufficent to
convince you of my winnings then it would be waste of time to show
them to you. As I've said all along, I don't really care one way or
the other.
You obviously do care and very much so--or else you wouldn't be
contradicting yourself at record pace. I've told you many times here
that you'd never convince an auditor that you won X amount just
because Dick says so, only you choose to make believe it's untrue and
has never been mentioned. If you have nothing to hide then bring the
financial transaction records with you instead of whining about "I
don't go to the bank every day" and I'll have all the proof I need to
verify that you've won. Show me monthly info or even weekly.
If you just want to see my W2Gs, that is not a problem. I can have
them out as well. As I mentioned earlier that is all I put in the
gambling wins box since that appears to be what the IRS accepts. I
also realize they are not proof in and of themselves. However, like
I also said previously, I would never claim I won money and pay taxes
on it for no reason. PS. I can show you my returns for the previous
3 years as well if you want to see more winnings.
Just think of what you're saying. What if I responded to that idiot
Elliot Fromm and said "I'll prove to you I've won by showing you my
W2G's and tax returns"? Do you believe he'd write a column saying I
win and he's been a fool all along for saying otherwise? That's why
in my published challenges I always include financial transaction
records that any reasonable person would conclude meticulously match
my gambling log and win claims--which go over and above W2G's BTW,
exactly as the IRS auditors that I've met with require. It's also why
those whom I challenge to back up their assertions always run away
from me.
I could not set a time until I knew when I'd have my taxes done and
when you'd be in town. Unlike you, I was trying to be somewhat
accomodating and set a time that would be reasaonable for both of
us (however, those days are past). Your time was clearly an attempt
to avoid the meeting altogether.
So now that the time has been set and you know how easy it will be to
get to SP, what's the problem? I'll be with my daughter and her
friends all day Friday and Sat. and it's the only time I have to do
this. You live there, I don't. And how is midnight such a bad time
anyway? Does it cut into your plan to get up early to be at the
machines Sat.? Take a day off and enjoy life for a change.
I can tell you right now I won't be anywhere at midnight (or
4:00AM).
I guess that says it all and I can ignore the rest of your scrambling
around trying to weasel out of it. Unlike you, I make committments
with those I'm with--family or not--and I keep them. I also realize
your family doesn't want to be anywhere around you to see your
continued gambling degeneration, so they're not a factor for you. But
my family is built on respect--which is why I've said midnight on the
4th a dozen times now. We are going home early Sunday. Midnight isn't
convenient for me either, but I do whatever it takes to get it done.
You want to be a baby and sleep thru it then so be it. but I will be
there until 12:30 just in case you get the courage to show.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "robsinger1111"
<robsinger1111@...> wrote:
> Points are money. That's why you will continue to look foolish
when
> you make idiotic statments like this one and the one about Jean
> Scott. You can scramble around all you want claiming they are
losing but the reality is points can be VERY lucrative. I wish I
got
10x points always (1%), but I probably only average out to 4-5x
overall. If it were 10x overall I would be looking at over $14K CB
instead of the $7K I already mentioned. Like I already stated, the
bank doesn't seem to care where the money comes from.And you and Jean and everyone else overwhelmed by multiple-points
promos will continue to look like idiotic, out-of-control addicts
by
being continually roped in to play for the points instead of the
money.
And, it still IS money. ROTFLMAO. Are you really this dense?
All you fools do is use it to create +EV games out of thin air
that really aren't. You actually require that type of set-up to
allow
yourself to feel good about your serious gambling problems and the
accompanying mounting losses.
Let's see ... 99.7% + 1% cashback = 100.7% the last time I checked.
Of course, we know your math skills are little weak. This is how REAL
VP pros determine whether to play or not, but then we already know
you don't fall into that category.
> In everyone one of the later posts I stated you had my offer
(which
> you obviously accepted), either take it or leave it. Instead you
have
> continued to back down. I have nothing to hide which obviously
must
> bother you tremendously. I've already stated I don't go to a bank
> each and every day I gamble. If my tax returns are not sufficent
to
> convince you of my winnings then it would be waste of time to
show
> them to you. As I've said all along, I don't really care one way
or
> the other.
You obviously do care and very much so--or else you wouldn't be
contradicting yourself at record pace. I've told you many times
here
that you'd never convince an auditor that you won X amount just
because Dick says so, only you choose to make believe it's untrue
and
has never been mentioned. If you have nothing to hide then bring
the
financial transaction records with you instead of whining about "I
don't go to the bank every day" and I'll have all the proof I need
to
verify that you've won. Show me monthly info or even weekly.
I could show you our bank statements, but as you already know, that
would not prove anything either. It was after discussing the problems
with bank accounts that I offered my taxes. Like I've already stated
several times (and you agreed at least once), you can look at them or
not, I really don't care.
> If you just want to see my W2Gs, that is not a problem. I can
have
> them out as well. As I mentioned earlier that is all I put in the
> gambling wins box since that appears to be what the IRS accepts.
I
> also realize they are not proof in and of themselves. However,
like
I also said previously, I would never claim I won money and pay
taxes
> on it for no reason. PS. I can show you my returns for the
previous
3 years as well if you want to see more winnings.
Just think of what you're saying. What if I responded to that idiot
Elliot Fromm and said "I'll prove to you I've won by showing you my
W2G's and tax returns"? Do you believe he'd write a column saying I
win and he's been a fool all along for saying otherwise? That's why
in my published challenges I always include financial transaction
records that any reasonable person would conclude meticulously
match
my gambling log and win claims--which go over and above W2G's BTW,
exactly as the IRS auditors that I've met with require. It's also
why
those whom I challenge to back up their assertions always run away
from me.
Yawn, I guess you have officially backed out of the December
agreement. Like I've already stated, I expected no less.
I deleted the rest of your scrambling around trying to avoid looking
silly even though you failed miserably. The TRUTH will always win
out. The archives have everything that PROVEs I am right. Your
whimpering rhetoric only serves to make you look weak and impotent.
You gotta love it ...
robsinger1111 wrote:
And you and Jean and everyone else overwhelmed by multiple-points
promos will continue to look like idiotic, out-of-control addicts by
being continually roped in to play for the points instead of the
money. All you fools do is use it to create +EV games out of thin air
that really aren't. You actually require that type of set-up to allow
yourself to feel good about your serious gambling problems and the
accompanying mounting losses.
To suggest that promotions such as point multipliers and the like lead
some players to obsessively go after plays in an unwarranted manner is
one thing.
However, to categorically deny that a large point multiplier is an
attractive enhancement to ANY play is to bury your head in the sand
(to put it politely).
- Harry
> All you fools do is use it to create +EV games out of thin air
> that really aren't. You actually require that type of set-up to
allow yourself to feel good about your serious gambling problems
and the accompanying mounting losses.
Let's see ... 99.7% + 1% cashback = 100.7% the last time I checked.
Of course, we know your math skills are little weak. This is how
REAL VP pros determine whether to play or not, but then we already
know you don't fall into that category.
So now let's look at that thing you just did a little closer, shall
we? Of course, we already know you would never do that for fear of
falling off the edge....
You wake up, Skippy Hughes calls you on his cell phone that he can
barely afford and says "Dick, the full-pay SDBP games at Ellis Island
are paying double for four fours, they're giving 3X points, and if
you're lucky enough that your bankroll holds out to get 25,000
points, they'll give you a beanie with a propeller on it that Jean
Scott says is worth $45! You run to your calculator and come up with
a 100.7% play---TODAY. So how many hands will it take to attain that
theoretical 100.7%?? You'll say it doesn't matter, I say the truth--
that you need to play it 10's of millions of hands flawlessly for the
100.7% to mean anything at all. So out of thin gugu-air we magically
have a negative Ev machine turned into a positive one---and the best
part? None of you bozos will ever LOSE on it because you're all
winners!! hahahahahaha!! Now do you see why I'm the most popular,
respected, and truthful gaming writer in history? No one else has
ever had the balls to make people like you AP's look like the fools
they truly are!
I could show you our bank statements, but as you already know, that
would not prove anything either. It was after discussing the
problems with bank accounts that I offered my taxes. Like I've
already stated several times (and you agreed at least once), you can
look at them or not, I really don't care.
Let's do this theoretically--which should send a tingle up your
spine. You send in your return showing a win of $7500 in '07. You get
chosen for audit. They'll look at every financial account in your &
your wife's names during that audit--that's a given. They'll require
traceability for every deposit going in, and they'll attempt to
reconcile your withdrawals to your gaming record in some manner. If
things don't line up then they'll ask for explanations, and the
further you take them the more they'll ask for. That's their nature.
If you get stuck they'll simply claim "you can't support that
deposit, and your withdrawals don't seem to coincide with when you
say you gambled". Then they'll assess more liability at their
disgression, and it will be up to you to prove them wrong. If you
can't you either pay or go to tax court.
My question: How do you expect me to believe what you say when you
say here you have no way to prove it? And proving it isn't Dick
saying so--only supporting documentation does that. What do you have??
Yawn, I guess you have officially backed out of the December
agreement. Like I've already stated, I expected no less.
I deleted the rest of your scrambling around trying to avoid
looking silly even though you failed miserably.
You deleted everything because you know I'll be there at midnight
waiting for you and you're afraid to show and fail the test. You
think the bozos on the forum are too stupid to see that don't you.
Well i'm the only one who counts and I'm the only one who can soothe
your soul or make you more miserable. I suggest you show---or once
again get lit up. READ MY LIPS: MIDNIGHT AT THE SOUTH POINT, IN FRONT
OF THE CASHIER TO THE LEFT AS YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT. Here's your
chance at infamy--don't blow it for the other AP's out there.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
wrote:
To suggest that promotions such as point multipliers and the like lead
some players to obsessively go after plays in an unwarranted manner is
one thing.
However, to categorically deny that a large point multiplier is an
attractive enhancement to ANY play is to bury your head in the sand
(to put it politely).
Hi Harry! My sister says Chester's taking a lot of business from AC.
What do you think? She sends me clippings from the Philly paper every
few months on the place, and aside from anyone with white skin and/or a
vehicle newer than 1998 being somewhat afraid to go down there, it
seems it's doing fairly well.
Both your points above are noted, however, my main point is that if you
always allow yourself to get led around by casino managers and their
marketing/slot club promotions, then all you're doing is playing into
the slimy hands of the casino and their long-term math advantage over
all players. There's nothing inherently wrong with 'falling into' a
play that showers you with all kinds of extras--and I do that all the
time--but to be purposely led into it depicts a weakness not generally
associated with success in any field. And, if players who appear to
have heads on their shoulders can't see the continued extra revenue for
the casinos associated with such promotions, it further confirms the
grasp the casinos have on them. It's all tied into AP-hypocrisy and
their contradictory approach to what it is I do. They claim I "lways
play -EV games" so no way can i be winning. Yet they play the exact
games, and because they do this two-step calculation between the slot
club to the machine--suddenly it's a positive play! I'll bet no one in
chester plays such a pretend game.....