Fa La La La La.... La la la la Groupies

[rascal]

Forget the papers, forget the documents, forget the meetings, forget the b.s.
 
Did you respond to my request to allow one of us to observe you play one of your sessions to prove whether or not you really win, or is that also a request to which you will offer plenty of bun but no beef?

[rascal]

Really, there's no documentation that Rob can present that will quiet all of his critics. If he presents copies of W2G's, there is nothing to show what the total amount of coin-in was to result in the winnings. If he presents income tax returns with personal info blacked out, it would be impossible to prove if these were the actual copies filed with the IRS or simply dummy copies. If he presents bank deposit records there is no way to prove the source of the deposits.
The only way Rob can realistically prove his system is by allowing someone to follow him and personally witness his winnings over a two or three day period. In the past he has refused to allow this.
 
If his system works and he truly believes in it, then he would allow a one-time observer to witness him playing for two or three days with no strings attached and no further conditions. I do not expect this to happen.
This is what I posted earlier today. Are you going to allow an observer or not? Yes or no? Deal or no deal?

[babybubba]

Really, there's no documentation that Rob can present that will quiet all of his critics. If he presents copies of W2G's, there is nothing to show what the total amount of coin-in was to result in the winnings. If he presents income tax returns with personal info blacked out, it would be impossible to prove if these were the actual copies filed with the IRS or simply dummy copies. If he presents bank deposit records there is no way to prove the source of the deposits.
The only way Rob can realistically prove his system is by allowing someone to follow him and personally witness his winnings over a two or three day period. In the past he has refused to allow this.
 
If his system works and he truly believes in it, then he would allow a one-time observer to witness him playing for two or three days with no strings attached and no further conditions. I do not expect this to happen.
This is what I posted earlier today. Are you going to allow an observer or not? Yes or no? Deal or no deal?


I posted a very comprehensive reply to your post that categorically proved your assumptions wrong on whether or not I can prove my career's winnings with documentation. But webman removed it so what else is new. 
 
I'm surprised your shadow hasn't responded to the 2nd part as yet. I'll be very glad to risk a session while being bothered by an observer, but there's gonna be a bet that I can't do it involved. Your shadow knows that would be a very bad bet because he knows I have a high percentage chance of winning it. I offered Fezzik that same bet, he accepted, then he quickly walked away with his tail tucked firmly between his legs when it was just about time. Who here is brave enough to take this challenge? And no, I'd never do it for free because it's not your money I'd be risking while being distracted for the first time ever during a session--unless you WANT to use your money?

[rascal]

Forget the bets, forget the b.s., prove your system really works. Yes or no, deal or no deal? Quit coming up with obstacles and circular statements. Observer, yes or no? Simple one word answer. Yes or no?

[babybubba]

Forget the bets, forget the b.s., prove your system really works. Yes or no, deal or no deal? Quit coming up with obstacles and circular statements. Observer, yes or no? Simple one word answer. Yes or no?
 
Are you an idiot or what? You want to watch you either A. do it with your money or B. we put money on whether I win or not. It's that simple. You can't lose. If you think I win then I'll play with your money. If you think I'm full of it then bet me as I play with mine. Your choice--and you can even rope in as many fish as you like to help you out financially.
 
Now ask yourself this: If you're stupid enough to go either way with this then I'll oblige. However, will you then announce "Fa La La La La.... La la la la's strategy really works!" and always be a supporter of this waaay better method of playing....or will you succumb to the silent math people reading this right now and say "but gee Rob, it was only one session and you had a good chance of winning it anyway so it's not fair"?
 
Let's have it. A or B.

[Webman]

I posted a very comprehensive reply to your post that categorically proved your assumptions wrong on whether or not I can prove my career's winnings with documentation. But webman removed it so what else is new. 
 
I have not removed any such message today or any message at all.  Are you referring to this post?
Exactly, and rascal is of course wrong in his assumption. And my way of proving my winning is also exactly why Fezzik & shadow found escape routes to the bet and why my public challenge to any math guru-doubter or guru-wannabee has never been accepted. Rascal, don't be saying there's no way to prove it because if there wasn't then at least one of these big mouths would have stepped up to the plate instead od cowering away hiding behind their computers. What's most telling? That I included the point that if there were still any doubts after reviewing the documentation, I would pay for an argitrator to step in and make a decision--which would be FINAL & BINDING. Seems to me anyone who REALLY doesn't believe me would jump on this.
 
In case you're interested, here's the proper line-up of documentation I'm fully prepared to present--not what you mentioned.
 
1. Every time I've went to Nv. to play (single-play strategy) I've gone to my bank and withdrew $17,200--and a few times another $40,000 if I needed to play the $100 machines. There's an irrefutable record of that. Upon completion of the session, I either immediately went to the LV branch (if it was open) or the one in Phx. the next day and re-deposited my initial withdrawal plus winnings--or minus losses.
 
2. Alone #1 means a lot but is not all-telling. That's why I'll submit my contemporaneous IRS-required gaming records from each trip that exactly correspond to my withdrawal/re-deposit records at the bank.
 
3. Still in doubt? I've had 3 IRS audits since 1999, and the findings (in writing) in each of those (one a multi-year audit) meticulously correspond to both my contemporaneous gaming records and my bank withdrawal/re-deposit records. This review will include my entire tax returns for each year, and nothing will be "blacked out". My wife's info is in there too, which is a reason for the hefty amount of the bets plus the reason I'll have an NDA signed by anyone who looks at my personal information.
 
4. Not enough? Then take a chance on the Fa La La La La.... La la la la-paid, court-appointed arbitrator. I've contacted channel 3 in LV in the past to see if they'd be interested in following/filming this unprecedented proof-or-gambling winning, and they wanted it. So I imagine if you want to be famous, they still are interested.
 
So is anyone interested? How about 10 or 12 big mouths here pool their resources?? I'll even write another Gaming today article on it but be careful--already in the past Fezzik and shadow showed bravery until it came time to officially accept, then they ran like children after getting scolded. Both episodes were published. And you wonder why shadow is obsessed (i.e., angered) with me? 
 
It's on page 2 of this thread.

[Eduardo]

He comes across as incapable & undereducated, and I wouldn't waste my time with that type personality.You are the only mean person that has ever come on here. Sorry for wanting to learn.You who could not even use the "quote" button right for so long.You are trying to make yourself look good but you end up only making yourself look bad. Go talk on your own web site and stop just trying to prove things without showing any proof. I wouldn't waste my time with that type personality. 

[pokeherguy]

{"Fa La La La La.... La la la la's strategy really works!"}
 
Why does everyone find it hard to believe that Rob's strategy works for him? I play like a drunk monkey and still win money. If I had any discipline at all I might even do better but my go for broke attitude has'nt left me in financial ruin. I can see how a more disciplined player that is willing to bet money at the larger denominations might do well. Do I think they can win 87% of the time? I personally don't see how thats possible but I can only judge from my knowledge of the game. I saw an earlier post where "special plays" are mentioned. Not sure what a "special play" is unless you are refering to the right thing to do. Theres always a right play to make and should only be considered "special" if it works and there are odds in place that will insure its only "special" sometimes. By the way "special" can also mean retarded. I do believe Rob when he says he wins a lot of money I just think he might be leaving the part out about how much he loses also.

[Webman]

Are you an idiot or what?
 
....
 
Now ask yourself this: If you're stupid enough to go either way with this...
 
Rob, you are pushing it here.

[babybubba]

webman: my apologies--I could not locate it before.
Eduardo: My point was you haven't come across as someone who would understand anything I'd put forth from my strategy development. You've also said you play with two or three hundred dollars and it just isn't enough bankroll for any strategy I know of. So WHY would you want to see my info??
 

{"Fa La La La La.... La la la la's strategy really works!"} I do believe Rob when he says he wins a lot of money I just think he might be leaving the part out about how much he loses also.
 
My entire won/loss figures are on my site. I leave nothing at all out from my for-profit play. What you won't see is anything to do with comps, cash back, free-play, gifts, or smiles from casino hosts because I'm in no need to include them with my play results. The others overvalue everything they get just to create a winning year but to me that's just a double load of BS.