Poll

16 votes (39.02%)
3 votes (7.31%)
13 votes (31.7%)
10 votes (24.39%)
1 vote (2.43%)
3 votes (7.31%)

41 members have voted

mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
October 1st, 2010 at 4:57:59 PM permalink
Quote: nope27

I do not think you are sorry.
All I require is just 1 "piece of drivel" NOT EVERY PIECE!

In a court of law one must provide evidence, you have only provided your words.

"he used to"???
come on now. where is your proof?

I have read his articles at his website and the one he wrote for other publications over the past years and have not seen what you claim.

So, now you are calling me a "Liar" without any proof that would hold up in a court of law in your country.

Your posts for the most parts here at WoV are very good and entertaining to read. Your math you present is excellent.

You need to learn how to lower your personal attacks towards people,
but I know that you are perfect.
Good Luck!



1. This forum is not a court of law.
2. You are not a liar for disagreeing with me about Singer; you may not have read his more outrageous claims. You also may not remember reading them, or may be engaging in the process of selective memory.
3. I am not perfect. I do not feel, however, that I need to be in order to criticize Rob Singer.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
October 1st, 2010 at 5:04:53 PM permalink
Quote: JerryLogan

I'm hardly naive. He made it clear in his article that his withdrawal/deposit account was ONLY used for his vp activity for the sole purpose of having valid records for any future IRS audits. Sure he could have multiple accounts to withdraw from, but then we're right back to the same critic-busting rationale that this account was said to have been set up for in the first place: the possible IRS audit trail. I went through one of those audits as I said, and the IRS comes into it with full knowledge of all your bank accounts.

On the contrary, he details his entire strategies on his site, and as I've said, if you want to know more he's said all it takes is a meeting! How simple is that? Are you afraid to have to face him after calling him a liar here? But since you've never asked before then what are the chances of THAT happening?



I HAVE asked to meet with him, on one of the realtively few occasions when it would have been physically possible, i.e., we were both in the same city at the same time. He has avoided doing so. In any case, I don't need to see him face-to-face to refute his strategies. I am certainly not "afraid" to do so (neener neener neener!), but there definitely are a couple of million things I would RATHER do.

His having been audited by the IRS, even if you assume he is telling the truth about that, doesn't mean his bank account records are accurate reflections of his play results. I won't bother to state why not, since a child could figure that out.

I'm rather tired of discussing this charlatan, so I'll stop now. You can believe in him if you wish.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
guido111
guido111
Joined: Sep 16, 2010
  • Threads: 10
  • Posts: 707
October 1st, 2010 at 6:03:54 PM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

1. This forum is not a court of law.
2. You are not a liar for disagreeing with me about Singer; you may not have read his more outrageous claims. You also may not remember reading them, or may be engaging in the process of selective memory.
3. I am not perfect. I do not feel, however, that I need to be in order to criticize Rob Singer.



Yeah, Rob Singer in the past seems to say one thing then a bit later says another.
I do not know your definition of "outrageous claims" but Singer has made statements in the past that are very hard to believe. And why would he want us to believe him?
It would be easy just to prove one's claim at the time it is made. Singer has , as far as I know, never done that.

But, my world has never been any different because of him.
BigTip
BigTip
Joined: May 25, 2010
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 67
October 1st, 2010 at 6:54:43 PM permalink
How would a Martingale work for VP? Someone please explain that to me.

I agree with the point that having a winning session does not mean you have beaten a game. Read somewhere once that you can't say you won a session because everyone's "session" is in reality the entirety of their life. Say you play for two hours and are ahead, but keep playing for two more hours, and end up in the hole. Why not call that first two hours a session and declare that you had a winning one? Silly right?

One life time session. That's the math of it. Of course we as gamblers will denote arbitrary periods of time where we are ahead because we like to feel like winners at least some of the gawd damn time!
guido111
guido111
Joined: Sep 16, 2010
  • Threads: 10
  • Posts: 707
October 1st, 2010 at 7:30:54 PM permalink
Quote: BigTip

How would a Martingale work for VP? Someone please explain that to me.



an example can be found at Singers site
http://www.vptruth.com/stratsingleplay.cfm

It is not a martingale as so many people claim.

I have actually played it and found it way to much effort for how much you win.
One must play at a multi-denomination machine. Play starts at say, $1 level for x hands, then if no wins to show a profit, play continues to $2 level for x hands, if no win to show a profit, then continue to $5 level (all on the same machine) continue for x hands and so on.

You still play normal strategies but he then changes some of them, and then it starts to get even more complicated.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1383
  • Posts: 23117
October 1st, 2010 at 10:39:15 PM permalink
It seems Martingale like to me. Not exactly, of course, but the way he progresses up through the denominations from $1 to $100.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
JerryLogan
JerryLogan
Joined: Jun 28, 2010
  • Threads: 26
  • Posts: 1344
October 1st, 2010 at 10:56:18 PM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

Don't be an asshole, Jerry. I doubt that you or anyone else could resurrect postings from an internet discussion board from six months ago, let alone several years, unless you had owned the site.



Then what was the point of bringing up something that turned out to be nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion?
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
October 1st, 2010 at 11:08:19 PM permalink
Quote: JerryLogan

Then what was the point of bringing up something that turned out to be nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion?



The "point"? I mentioned it because I wanted to. I have also mentioned quite a few other things that have occured in my life for which I have no documentation. So have you. So has everyone else here. No one is tasked with providing proof that everything that they say happened to them is actually true. It is therefore an act of assholery, when someone says, "I did such and such", to say, "WELL, PROVE IT". In the first place, you are calling that person a liar; in the second place, you are demanding something that that person is unlikely to have. "I've been to Alaska." "THEN SHOW ME SOME PICTURES." "I ate at the Wynn buffet." "SHOW SOME PROOF OF THAT." Et cetera.

Some people, including myself, ask others for evidence of claims that they make, especially when those claims are "out there", but asking someone to show proof of their personal experiences is unwarranted. All I am willing to do is assure you that I did, in fact, converse with Singer on the subjects I mentioned, as I described. You're going to have to take my word for it, and if your rather creepy love for Singer prevents you from doing that, well, all I can say is: 1. It's your right to disbelieve me 2. Piss off--I don't like being called a liar.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
JerryLogan
JerryLogan
Joined: Jun 28, 2010
  • Threads: 26
  • Posts: 1344
October 1st, 2010 at 11:09:59 PM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

His "method", as far as he's explained it, seems to be to keep on increasing and increasing your bets, moving up in number of coins and in denomination, until you win enough to put you back ahead. He then, apparently, stops his play dead, considering it to be a "session" (even if it was only one hand), and crows about how he "won" that session and "always wins, every session" (a claim which he has since modified to some extent).

And yes, I did try to set up a meeting several times with Singer when he was in Las Vegas, in conjuction with my challenge to him. He was always "busy" (winning huge sums at VP, no doubt, preferring that money to the ten grand I was offering him).



I guess I'm not reading the strategy like you are. I understand it as some complex format of increasing denomination while using some combination of semi-volatile & volatile games until he hits a pre-set win goal, where that goal is first to be able to go back down in denomination for continued play starting at Bonus Poker, but only if some kind of what's called a "soft profit" is made. It's only when all these soft profits equal or surpass his session win goal that he stops his play dead for the trip or session. I do believe as you pointed out, that if he hits a Royal Flush on his very first hand at dollars, he will stop dead there too.

I think your "wins every session" claim is born out of frustration with the guy, because I've followed his site for years and it's always shown a win rate % of being in the 80's.

It would be interesting if you told us who you are so in case Singer does join this group we can hear both sides of the story about that LV meet up you're saying you & he never had. Also, could it be because you're in LV or only go certain times, and his schedule didn't match yours? As an outsider I'd have to say that since he gambles (or gambled) for a living then it would have been up to you to meet HIS schedule, no?
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
October 1st, 2010 at 11:11:28 PM permalink
Quote: BigTip

How would a Martingale work for VP? Someone please explain that to me.

I agree with the point that having a winning session does not mean you have beaten a game. Read somewhere once that you can't say you won a session because everyone's "session" is in reality the entirety of their life. Say you play for two hours and are ahead, but keep playing for two more hours, and end up in the hole. Why not call that first two hours a session and declare that you had a winning one? Silly right?

One life time session. That's the math of it. Of course we as gamblers will denote arbitrary periods of time where we are ahead because we like to feel like winners at least some of the gawd damn time!



Well, of course, that's true. Breaking off play at any arbitrary point and calling the session a "winner" is utterly meaningless. But doing that is exactly what constitutes Singer's modus operandi. I don't believe that he is even ahead lifetime, let alone believe that he has a winning system. He's a giant stinking pile of fraud.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw

  • Jump to: