Royal Buster Strategy on Progressives

[Joe_Schober]

Rob Singer wrote:

No. Most critics forget that I agree with the math behind optimal-play.
It's just impossible to duplicate a robot's results throughout
infinity, and the casinos know that.

Then, if I might ask, why do we not find more casinos offering +EV games at high stakes? They seem willing to offer high-stakes games up to 9/6 JOB (99.5%) or even NSUD (99.8%), but not games that are positive with long-term optimal play, e.g. 10/7 DB or FPDW. If in reality human players were unable to beat these games, you would think the casinos would be delighted to offer these games, if only to have a single $100 FPDW machine with a "Reserved for Bob Dancer" sign on it, in order to sap away his apparently large bankroll, along with the bragging/marketing rights of having such tempting games. But unfortunately casinos are unwilling to offer these games. This would seem to suggest that the casinos (who have the ultimate tally of which games are profitable for them and which aren't) realize that these games aren't actually profitable for them -- which means they're profitable for the (non-robot) players.

--Joe

[Mickey]

Rob Singer wrote:

> No. Most critics forget that I agree with the math behind optimal-

> play.
> It's just impossible to duplicate a robot's results throughout
> infinity, and the casinos know that.

Then, if I might ask, why do we not find more casinos offering +EV
games at high stakes? They seem willing to offer high-stakes games

up

to 9/6 JOB (99.5%) or even NSUD (99.8%), but not games that are
positive with long-term optimal play, e.g. 10/7 DB or FPDW. If in
reality human players were unable to beat these games, you would

think

the casinos would be delighted to offer these games, if only to

have a

single $100 FPDW machine with a "Reserved for Bob Dancer" sign on

it,

in order to sap away his apparently large bankroll, along with the
bragging/marketing rights of having such tempting games. But
unfortunately casinos are unwilling to offer these games. This

would

seem to suggest that the casinos (who have the ultimate tally of

which

games are profitable for them and which aren't) realize that these
games aren't actually profitable for them -- which means they're
profitable for the (non-robot) players.

--Joe

Caesar's actually made a mistake here a while back and put up a 3-
coin $100 denom FPDW. The player who found it kicked their ass and
got 86'ed off of all Harrah's properties for his transgression.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Joe Schober <afljoeys@...> wrote:

[Rob_Singer2]

Joe:

You seem to have become involved in the artificial methods those who
sell strategy want you to believe rather than in the reality of the
business you support, i.e., the gambling business.

FP JoB will NEVER go away because it's a loser's game where one has
no chance of winning without a royal or a very inordinate amount of
quads. NSUD is one of those gimmick games that's making money hand
over foot for the casinos because so many of the so-called "advantage
players" are drawn to it. Why? Because they can "create" a >100%
theoretical game out of guru-thin air.

Why no 10/7DB or FPDW or 10/6DDB in the higher limits? Maybe the
question should ask why so many 25c FPDW or up-to-$2 of the others?
But the answer is very easy if you know and keep up with the casino
business. These machines all used to be available up thru the $100
limits but most have now gone away. The misnomer as delineated by the
strategy-for-sale crowd is that these games lose money because the so-
called "pros" hammer them to death.

But because I never accepted such nonsense I took it upon myself,
thru my relationship with Gaming Today as a writer, to interview many
casino execs over the years, and as recently as last month. In every
instance but one (and that exec wouldn't comment for some reason)
there has NEVER been a machine that has lost money due to paying out
too much over the long-term. (there are losers removed obviously, but
it's only because of hitting too many wins/jackpots thereby putting
that machine over the allowed threshhold, and they are removed).
The "positive EV" machines, however, many times are the first to go
simply because in times of the suits screaming for more profit
margin, an operations manager need only lower the pay tables and his
effort for the quarter is acknowledged--thereby keeping his or her
job. And since casinos are in business solely for making profit on a
growing basis, belt-tightening will always be a part of the solution.
It is quite simply nothing more than that.

Then, if I might ask, why do we not find more casinos offering +EV
games at high stakes? They seem willing to offer high-stakes games

up

to 9/6 JOB (99.5%) or even NSUD (99.8%), but not games that are
positive with long-term optimal play, e.g. 10/7 DB or FPDW. If in
reality human players were unable to beat these games, you would

think

the casinos would be delighted to offer these games, if only to

have a

single $100 FPDW machine with a "Reserved for Bob Dancer" sign on

it,

in order to sap away his apparently large bankroll, along with the
bragging/marketing rights of having such tempting games. But
unfortunately casinos are unwilling to offer these games. This

would

seem to suggest that the casinos (who have the ultimate tally of

which

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Joe Schober <afljoeys@...> wrote:

games are profitable for them and which aren't) realize that these
games aren't actually profitable for them -- which means they're
profitable for the (non-robot) players.

--Joe

[Rob_Singer2]

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

Caesar's actually made a mistake here a while back and put up a 3-
coin $100 denom FPDW. The player who found it kicked their ass and
got 86'ed off of all Harrah's properties for his transgression.

Au contrere, my friend. That incident was of interest so rather than
just read thru all the vpFREE blather and drooling over all the
rumors about the what, why, and how of it, I went into Caesar's exec
offices for a meet on it.

First, they were embarrassed that they put in such a machine. The
player certainly did win a bundle on it (no amounts were disclosed of
course) but it was only due to the fact that he was lucky to hit 2
RF's within less than one cycle of play before they recognized their
error. Had the machine been what he really asked for (I believe it
was NSUD or something like it) he still would have "kicked their ass"
with hits like those.

This player--and I think we all remember who it was--played regularly
at Caesar's, and he wasn't given the machine he asked for because he
was beating them over time. It's very easy to figure out why they
catered to his request. And yes, he was 86'ed after the episode, but
not because he was taking all their money -- as was offered by
many "AP's" in order to give themselves continued justification for
playing far more and far more often than they know they should. He
was banished because of his arrogant blog, in which he mocked
Caesar's and their personnel for what they did and how they reacted
to everything. I personally thinked Caesar's deserved it.

I'm kind of on his side over this. Anytime a player can outsmart the
casinos and take their money then he's playing the game right.

[Mickey]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "robsinger1111"
<robsinger1111@...> wrote:

But because I never accepted such nonsense I took it upon myself,
thru my relationship with Gaming Today as a writer, to interview

many

casino execs over the years, and as recently as last month. In

every

instance but one (and that exec wouldn't comment for some reason)
there has NEVER been a machine that has lost money due to paying

out

too much over the long-term.

To end the vulture activity the Pioneer/Laughlin unlinked their bank
of ten flush attack machines. This was sometime about 98 or 99.
This was right up the alley of a lot of us flush attackers as the
payscale was of the 101.8% theoretical variety playing straight
through. Throw in their endless promotions, CB, comp, COD, etc. It
lasted until 2002 which surprised a lot of us.

There was a regular crew of pros pounding on these machines
everyday. But there was also alot of recreational ploppie type
players too. The pros were all playing flush 50 strategy, optimal.
And we all made good money on the game.

Every so often, slot techs working on the machines would punch up
the "actual payback" screen. Over the 3 year peiod we got a look at
every machine for payback many times. They all showed actual
paybacks above 100%. Anywhere from 100.8% to 103%.

The "positive EV" machines, however, many times are the first to go
simply because in times of the suits screaming for more profit
margin, an operations manager need only lower the pay tables and

his

effort for the quarter is acknowledged--thereby keeping his or her
job. And since casinos are in business solely for making profit on

a

growing basis, belt-tightening will always be a part of the

solution.

It is quite simply nothing more than that.

It's my experience that when a bank of positive EV machines gets
changed to negative EV it kills the action on that bank. The
machines go from getting lots of action to getting no action.
Nothing from nothing leaves nothing. It justs seems to me that execs
would pick up on this after a few changes.

[Rob_Singer2]

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

Every so often, slot techs working on the machines would punch up
the "actual payback" screen. Over the 3 year peiod we got a look

at every machine for payback many times. They all showed actual

paybacks above 100%. Anywhere from 100.8% to 103%.

I'm not familiar with that game other than what you've told me about
in the past, but if the machines were regularly paying out >100% up
to 103% for 3 years, they should/would have been removed far earlier.
This appears more like a casino error--and poor follow on management--
than being removed because any group was beating them.
  

It's my experience that when a bank of positive EV machines gets
changed to negative EV it kills the action on that bank. The
machines go from getting lots of action to getting no action.
Nothing from nothing leaves nothing. It justs seems to me that

execs would pick up on this after a few changes.

It kills the action FOR A WHILE. No machine gets no action, because
of the varying types of players who come in. Eventually the pull of
the machines always win out over daily-type players. I continually
write about how the games "gurus" from the late '90's always said
they'd never play a machine that wasn't at least 100% on its own, yet
they've adapted by creating their own 100% games by throwing in all
the extras--something they previously said they'd never do. They
actually play the same machines I do only I call them -EV and they
call them +EV. And the reason for the adaptation? Their very serious
addiction to vp machines. All the execs I interviewed understood this
about the AP's, and that's why you NEVER see a reduction in the
amount of promotions anywhere.

[Mickey]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "robsinger1111" wrote:

  
It kills the action FOR A WHILE. No machine gets no action, because
of the varying types of players who come in. Eventually the pull of
the machines always win out over daily-type players. I continually
write about how the games "gurus" from the late '90's always said
they'd never play a machine that wasn't at least 100% on its own, yet
they've adapted by creating their own 100% games by throwing in all
the extras--something they previously said they'd never do. They
actually play the same machines I do only I call them -EV and they
call them +EV. And the reason for the adaptation? Their very serious
addiction to vp machines. All the execs I interviewed understood this
about the AP's, and that's why you NEVER see a reduction in the
amount of promotions anywhere.

I've seen major reduction in the value of promotions over the years.
It's why Las Vegas doesn't much interest me as far as video poker goes.
And if you will recall 9/6 Jacks was the game Bob Dancer used to
destroy the Mirage and MGM. And that all happened in the nineties.
And, if you will recall, Bob Dancer and his wife got their cashback cut
by MGM, effectively ending the play for them.

If MGM had a huge WHALE on the hook, why would they cut his cashback.
Remember, this guy was a MASSIVE WHALE. They cut his cashback and he
hasn't played there since. Remember, they didn't cut everybody's
cashback at that time, just his and his wife's. All they had to do was
reinstate this guy's cashback and he would have returned. How stupid
was MGM, Rob? Don't you think they ought to fire the guy that did
that?

[Rob_Singer2]

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

I've seen major reduction in the value of promotions over the years.

What you're talking about is the 102% and above I take it. Although
those never interest me, I chat and talk with lots of AP's in LV who
regularly go after the promos, and they continually tell me about the

102%ers all the time and how they did playing them. Most of them I'd

never have known about without their input. In that regard, I'd say
there's still plenty to be had if you are constantly on the lookout
and take the time to do the math on each.

And if you will recall 9/6 Jacks was the game Bob Dancer used to
destroy the Mirage and MGM. And that all happened in the

nineties. And, if you will recall, Bob Dancer and his wife got their
cashback cut by MGM, effectively ending the play for them. If MGM
had a huge WHALE on the hook, why would they cut his cashback.

Remember, this guy was a MASSIVE WHALE. They cut his cashback and

he hasn't played there since. Remember, they didn't cut everybody's

cashback at that time, just his and his wife's. All they had to do

was reinstate this guy's cashback and he would have returned. How
stupid was MGM, Rob? Don't you think they ought to fire the guy that
did that?

Here's where you are somewhat confused about the rumors vs. the
actual facts. Yes Bob (& Shirley of course--don't forget that he
successfully inflicted his new wife at the time with the same
disease) was a massive whale - because of the $500k in royal money
they won in a few moment's time there.

Once I heard about this "cutback" I went in to check out just what
was going on...and low & behold, there was Bob still banging away at
the high limit machines. I was also told that the cutback was not
specifically applied to individuals, but to certain machines like 9/6
JoB. Now of course it's lowered on everything for everyone. This is
what was told to me as a Gaming Today writer by the management of the
casino, and although I never mention a player's name unless they give
me permission, I wrote it up exactly that way with the facts I
obtained. Besides, don't you ever wonder why his book on winning
$1million has a 6-month window? What happened before and after
anyway? Can you take a guess? Then explain why he still works more
than full time when you add all his jobs up. I believe my story's
more impressive--or at least it will be in a year or so. I've won
$855k over 9+ years with a steady increase since day one, and
$1million isn't that far off. A 6-month window says zilch about
anything, esp. someone who plays non-stop as much as possible. And I
don't use one penny of the "extra fluff" that's variable in value
depending on the need - which all you guys do in order to create a
winner out of a loser.

[Mickey]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "robsinger1111"
<robsinger1111@...> wrote:

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mickeycrimm" <mickeycrimm@>
wrote:
> I've seen major reduction in the value of promotions over the

years.

What you're talking about is the 102% and above I take it. Although
those never interest me, I chat and talk with lots of AP's in LV

who

regularly go after the promos, and they continually tell me about

the

>102%ers all the time and how they did playing them. Most of them

I'd

never have known about without their input. In that regard, I'd say
there's still plenty to be had if you are constantly on the lookout
and take the time to do the math on each.

> And if you will recall 9/6 Jacks was the game Bob Dancer used to
> destroy the Mirage and MGM. And that all happened in the
nineties. And, if you will recall, Bob Dancer and his wife got

their

cashback cut by MGM, effectively ending the play for them. If MGM
had a huge WHALE on the hook, why would they cut his cashback.
> Remember, this guy was a MASSIVE WHALE. They cut his cashback

and

he hasn't played there since. Remember, they didn't cut

everybody's

> cashback at that time, just his and his wife's. All they had to

do

was reinstate this guy's cashback and he would have returned. How
stupid was MGM, Rob? Don't you think they ought to fire the guy

that

did that?

Here's where you are somewhat confused about the rumors vs. the
actual facts. Yes Bob (& Shirley of course--don't forget that he
successfully inflicted his new wife at the time with the same
disease) was a massive whale - because of the $500k in royal money
they won in a few moment's time there.

Once I heard about this "cutback" I went in to check out just what
was going on...and low & behold, there was Bob still banging away

at

the high limit machines. I was also told that the cutback was not
specifically applied to individuals, but to certain machines like

9/6

JoB. Now of course it's lowered on everything for everyone. This is
what was told to me as a Gaming Today writer by the management of

the

casino, and although I never mention a player's name unless they

give

me permission, I wrote it up exactly that way with the facts I
obtained. Besides, don't you ever wonder why his book on winning
$1million has a 6-month window? What happened before and after
anyway? Can you take a guess? Then explain why he still works more
than full time when you add all his jobs up. I believe my story's
more impressive--or at least it will be in a year or so. I've won
$855k over 9+ years with a steady increase since day one, and
$1million isn't that far off. A 6-month window says zilch about
anything, esp. someone who plays non-stop as much as possible. And

I

···

don't use one penny of the "extra fluff" that's variable in value
depending on the need - which all you guys do in order to create a
winner out of a loser.

[Mickey]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "robsinger1111"
<robsinger1111@...> wrote:

Here's where you are somewhat confused about the rumors vs. the
actual facts. Yes Bob (& Shirley of course--don't forget that he
successfully inflicted his new wife at the time with the same
disease) was a massive whale - because of the $500k in royal money
they won in a few moment's time there.

Once I heard about this "cutback" I went in to check out just what
was going on...and low & behold, there was Bob still banging away

at

the high limit machines. I was also told that the cutback was not
specifically applied to individuals, but to certain machines like
9/6 JoB. This is what was told to me as a Gaming Today writer by
the management of the casino,

Yes, my memory is being jogged now. I haven't read the book in years
and gave it away when I finished it. I beleive it WAS the higher
limit 9/6 JOB machines that got the cashback cut. But didn't Bob
state in his book that he found one machine that they mistakenly
didn't cut. They even asked him why he was still playing and he made
excuses about Shirley being in Africa or someplace and he was lonely
and had nothing to do. Then they busted him out on that machine too.

Then explain why he still works more
than full time when you add all his jobs up.

Yeah, it makes you wonder where he gets the time to feed his
habit.

A 6-month window says zilch about anything, esp. someone who plays
non-stop as much as possible.

Yeah, makes you wonder where he gets the time for all those jobs he
has-writing, teaching, analyzing, developing, consulting,
contributing to forums, etc.

But I got a plan you can use, Rob. With your contacts with casino
execs it's a no brainer. Get one of the casinos to send him an offer
in the mail. He's a massive whale, you know, so you'll have to treat
him well to get the money.

Have them offer him $25 single-line 9/6 Jacks or Better with 1%
cashback. Yeah, one percent. The offer should be exclusive to just
Bob and Shirley.

Now, Bob might think it's a trick and they could pull the play on him
at any time. But, here's the clincher, Rob. The offer must
stipulate that they must make a deposit at the cage of up to any
amount they want. Maybe they could put a cap on it, like $2,000,000
or something. That will be the Dancers playing bankroll. Bob and
Shirley can take turns playing on one machine. They can play as many
or as few hours a day as they want. They can deposit their cashback
back into their casino account everyday. And they have to play until
their account is depleted or they have $1,000,000 more in their
account than they started with.

It's a no brainer, Rob. They'll get killed. But if you are right
that they are addicts, they wouldn't possibly turn the offer dowm.

Just think of all the Gaming Today articles you could get out of it.
You'll be vindicated forever. You'll be the King of Video Poker.
You need to get right on this one, Rob.

[Rob_Singer2]

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

Yes, my memory is being jogged now. I haven't read the book in

years

and gave it away when I finished it. I beleive it WAS the higher
limit 9/6 JOB machines that got the cashback cut. But didn't Bob
state in his book that he found one machine that they mistakenly
didn't cut. They even asked him why he was still playing and he

made excuses about Shirley being in Africa or someplace and he was
lonely and had nothing to do. Then they busted him out on that
machine too.

I don't remember the exact details, but if that's the case then they
fixed the computer and t made Bob go away.

Yeah, it makes you wonder where he gets the time to feed his
habit.

You should relate: Players hooked on vp will ALWAYS find both the
time and the money from any source, to play.

Yeah, makes you wonder where he gets the time for all those jobs he
has-writing, teaching, analyzing, developing, consulting,
contributing to forums, etc.

It's relatively simple. His life is built around and totally
controlled by video poker. I don't have any problem with the fact
that he works hard and makes a tremendous contribution to the vp
world--and that he obviously makes a lot of money in his work. Good
for him, he deserves it. My beef's with the vp-playing portrayal end
of it.

But I got a plan you can use, Rob. With your contacts with casino
execs it's a no brainer.

That's fairly inaccurate. I have no true on-going contacts as you
call them. But I do get into seeing them as required to support what
I say about the industry before I write about it.

  Get one of the casinos to send him an offer

in the mail. He's a massive whale, you know, so you'll have to

treat him well to get the money. Have them offer him $25 single-line
9/6 Jacks or Better with 1% cashback. Yeah, one percent. The offer
should be exclusive to just Bob and Shirley.

If I ran a casino I'd have done that long ago.

Now, Bob might think it's a trick and they could pull the play on

him

at any time. But, here's the clincher, Rob. The offer must
stipulate that they must make a deposit at the cage of up to any
amount they want. Maybe they could put a cap on it, like

$2,000,000

or something. That will be the Dancers playing bankroll. Bob and
Shirley can take turns playing on one machine. They can play as

many

or as few hours a day as they want. They can deposit their

cashback

back into their casino account everyday. And they have to play

until

their account is depleted or they have $1,000,000 more in their
account than they started with.

It's a no brainer, Rob. They'll get killed. But if you are right
that they are addicts, they wouldn't possibly turn the offer dowm.

Just think of all the Gaming Today articles you could get out of

it.

You'll be vindicated forever. You'll be the King of Video Poker.
You need to get right on this one, Rob.

But Mickey...I already AM the King of Video Poker!

[someone-else]

[Rob_Singer2]

I'm guessing this fellow's just a little upset at how foolish I've been
making his protege' Dick look over the years--before his getting
permanently banned, that is! So he's taken over his position as lying
about RS as often as he posts.

My site has explained my association with the Phoenix co. several
times, I've written an article about it as far as the Gov't. allowed me
to, and the truth has zero to do with your assertion. Don't like it?
Then bet me on it, and I'll produce Pentagon documentation on what I
signed up to do on infrequent trips to the middle east after 9-11 for
about 30 months, that tapped into my experience & contacts from former
Gov't. employment. Please, bet me on it!

It IS good to see that I'm still irritating others besides a disgraced
Dick. And I will continue to do so!

Mickey,
  Let me explain why Rob spent most of the last 10 years at home with

his

family.

Rob has stated many times that he quit his job to play video poker

full

time 10 years ago. 5 years ago someone told his boss at Phoenix

Logistics

about the Rob Singer charter and in 2002 he lost his job. What a

shock! The

exploits of Rob Singer was written from the desk of his 9 to 5 job.

He has

···

not found a job in 5 years.

[someone-else]

Let me understand this bet. You want to prove to me that you were lying
all these years when you repeatedly said that quit your job in 1997 and have
been a FULL TIME gambler ever since.

···

_____

From: FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FREEvpF…@…com] On
Behalf Of robsinger1111
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 7:17 PM
To: FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FREEvpFREE] Re: To Mickey about Rob

I'm guessing this fellow's just a little upset at how foolish I've been
making his protege' Dick look over the years--before his getting
permanently banned, that is! So he's taken over his position as lying
about RS as often as he posts.

My site has explained my association with the Phoenix co. several
times, I've written an article about it as far as the Gov't. allowed me
to, and the truth has zero to do with your assertion. Don't like it?
Then bet me on it, and I'll produce Pentagon documentation on what I
signed up to do on infrequent trips to the middle east after 9-11 for
about 30 months, that tapped into my experience & contacts from former
Gov't. employment. Please, bet me on it!

It IS good to see that I'm still irritating others besides a disgraced
Dick. And I will continue to do so!

.

<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=11381292/grpspId=1705065732/msgI
d=5406/stime=1209255436/nc1=4767085/nc2=4507179/nc3=4763762>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Rob_Singer2]

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

  Let me understand this bet. You want to prove to me that you were

lyingall these years when you repeatedly said that quit your job in
1997 and havebeen a FULL TIME gambler ever since.

Let's get the parametrs correct first--which you're having trouble
with out of frustration with my success. I quit my job in 1999, not
1997, and have been a full-time gambler ever since. My association
with Phx. Log. ended in 2004, not 2002 as you previously asserted--
again out of frustration.

The bet is, I can prove to you that YOU are lying about me (big
surprise, right) by presenting documentation on my involvement with
that co. as directed thru my temporary contract with the US Gov't.
during those 30 months. And to further bother you, as part of that
deal the Gov't. also provided me with a fully expensed home at a
covert address north of Phx. that ended one month ago tomorrow.

How's your understanding going...or is it too much for you to get?
What's your $$ bet?

[someone-else]

OK, I think I we're getting closer. You want to bet that you quit your job
in 1999 (I checked it was Oct. 1999) and did not work at PLI or anywhere in
2000.

You were a full time gambler, right?

According to your last post you gave up being a full time gambler in 2001.

I know that PLI took your name off the employee list in 2002.

Did you become a "Secret Agent Man"?

Since 1999 (my mistake, not 1997) you have claimed to be a full time
gambler. Now you want to bet that you have been working and not a full time
gambler.

···

_____

From: FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FREEvpF…@…com] On
Behalf Of robsinger1111
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 9:07 PM
To: FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FREEvpFREE] Re: To Mickey about Rob

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogro <mailto:FREEvpFREE%40yahoogroups.com> ups.com,
"someone-else" <someone-else@...>
wrote:

Let me understand this bet. You want to prove to me that you were

lyingall these years when you repeatedly said that quit your job in
1997 and havebeen a FULL TIME gambler ever since.

Let's get the parametrs correct first--which you're having trouble
with out of frustration with my success. I quit my job in 1999, not
1997, and have been a full-time gambler ever since. My association
with Phx. Log. ended in 2004, not 2002 as you previously asserted--
again out of frustration.

The bet is, I can prove to you that YOU are lying about me (big
surprise, right) by presenting documentation on my involvement with
that co. as directed thru my temporary contract with the US Gov't.
during those 30 months. And to further bother you, as part of that
deal the Gov't. also provided me with a fully expensed home at a
covert address north of Phx. that ended one month ago tomorrow.

How's your understanding going...or is it too much for you to get?
What's your $$ bet?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Rob_Singer2]

You're sweating over nothing. Keep reading and show some confidence.

OK, I think I we're getting closer. You want to bet that you quit

your job in 1999 (I checked it was Oct. 1999) and did not work at PLI
or anywhere in 2000.

Correct, and my association with PLI began in late 2001.

You were a full time gambler, right?

Correct.

According to your last post you gave up being a full time gambler

in 2001.

Incorrect.

I know that PLI took your name off the employee list in 2002.
Did you become a "Secret Agent Man"?

I have no idea when they took my name off the "employee list" since
it was only my vehicle for what I was doing, but my "relationship"
with them ended in 2004 when my part-time special services contract
ended with the Gov't. Secret Agent Man? Probably to you, just as in
my 1st 10 years of work after college. To me I was serving our
country.

Since 1999 (my mistake, not 1997) you have claimed to be a full time
gambler. Now you want to bet that you have been working and not a

full time gambler.

Incorrect. I want you to bet me that I am lying about never working
full-time since 1999 - which my Gov't. contract will prove - and that
I've been a full-time professional gambler since then, which each of
my tax returns will show under schedule C. Let's bet on the house
too, since I can now disclose a good amount more than previously. How
much??