Targ Confirms ARV casino winnings by Ed Dames students in his book


New Member
You know that I am on your side Jon.

It is funny to look at some of Daz's old posts, which are very optimistic about ARV. Now he is one of the most outspoken critics I have seen, eluding to it being nothing more than "smoke and mirrors". He can certainly have his own opinions on the matter, but he should not be so hypocritical. No one jumped down his throat asking for proof to his claims that he makes $500 for a two hour RV session. I personally don't care, but just because he says he does, does he? Does it really come from RV, or some other type of consulting? Same line of inquiry, but applied to his claims. I have no real doubts his claims are true, and am not looking for such proof.

Think what you want. 60% is the holy grail for sports betting. Many bets applied to that edge has virtually limitless potential. At the end of the day, I could care less about someone else's claims, just like they could care less about mine. The only person I need to show proof to , is myself.

Regards, and Happy Hollidays



New Member
I am not exerienced enough to "take sides" nor would i wish too!, however i would like to think that if applied in the correct manner there will come a time when what is being debated here will be insignificant due to more understanding about how this all works, and when these "keys" are found i feel sure they will unlock different pathways for success.
In other words...yes it appears there is an edge at 60% but shouldnt we be saying "twist" not "stick"
i would like to see 70-80-90% then maybe it all wouldnt matter anymore because the world may just be a better place for it -not just for you and i but for everyone


Staff member
It has appeared to me over time that ARV is a (misleadingly[1]) good example of the decline effect.
New groups, new projects, empirically from casual reporting anyway, tend to do better initially than eventually.
The point where 'eventually' falls varies.

Perhaps this can be used to advantage, if one at least knows that's the likelihood.
It almost gets into a 'pool' effect, in terms of how the people involved are thinking about it;
the moment multiple projects are part of 'one' effort, it's as if the efforts blend...
and eventually is ready to occur.

But that's where you get into the 'misleadingly' part.
It isn't (probably) psi that is declining.
If we could get a clue about what IS, we'd be better placed to address the problem.

The 'new' factor creating a difference is probably a clue that it something in psychology.
And DAT. But viewer/judge/manager psychology, which is related to DAT of course.

(IMO psi is not entirely what is being tested in ARV: much like in science, we are testing judge's-guess-against-chance, not the probability of a viewer pulling detail-X out of the "universe" of probabilities. There is a relationship, but one is not literally the other. So there is more involved here than 'mere' psi, and those other elements may make or break the effort.)

10% over chance is actually a major thing -- I'll take it! Even in science, that's way beyond merely 'significant'.

Re: RV claims: you know, it's just old, is all. If someone says, "Here's what we bet, here's the sessions, here's the paperwork, here's the judging, look we won X," that would be a great project to share. Anything else is fine for general conversation, and most people don't want to be so public it's true. But it's been what, 17 years RV has been public now, and grand claims are just eye-rolling for most viewers at this point.

Those making the claims (for themselves or others) should really quit taking this personally -- show the trail of breadcrumbs, or accept that it's just a personal account that only people who know the viewers personally are likely to believe. Anybody who's making a point to be 'private' about the details, shouldn't have any reason to be offended that the public aren't believers without it. After all, if they WANTED them to be believers, they'd make the effort to share the details, to convince people. So that's a situation that is being created from the source to begin with!

Don't let that stuff cause reaction that leads to tribal online warfare. This whole field, of which on bad days I have a very long list of descriptive words about, none of which are nice, is really just a bunch of people, and some of them care about and/or perform legit RV, and more of them care about their egos, and some of them are just lunatics, and everyone else just sits there like a stone and doesn't do jack to contribute in any fashion anyway. The categories of those who are into legit RV and those are into ego actually overlap about half-way over, and sometimes it's hard to be sure which category someone is in, and sometimes people cycle in and out of both. There's a lot of patience and tolerance that is required or eventually it makes you crazy and slightly homicidal... let it go. Who cares what people claim. Who cares who believes them. In another 2, 5, 10 years, we will all be wherever we are with this, and the only thing getting pissed off about each other and RV does is demoralize everybody.

I don't disbelieve or believe such things; much like RV data on feedback-less targets, I just take it all with a grain of salt; it is whatever it is, and honestly, it is not particularly relevant to me. If I am not giving money to those individuals, what difference does it make? Other than there being yet-another source of grandiose claims I'm probably going to hear on late-night radio any moment now...

It's just another day.



Active Member
I agree with PJ that it is very likely psychological. Some of my best ARV results have been when things are going well for me and a rough patch generated a month long losing streak. I have wondered if it would be a good idea to split a group into parts and only bet on the other group's ARVs. That would lessen the amount of direct psychological interference on each ARV, for you wouldn't be betting on your own ARVs.


"Keep Moving Forward"
I think ultimately ARVers have to step up and demonstrate consistently
an ability to make large profits. Its all very well doing it for fun we can all do that long term without the use of ARV. A work colleague of mine was introduced to Horse racing last year and within 12 months has amassed over £12,000 in online winnings. He knew nothing about horses but still came out on top.

Surely if a total newbie can win that much i would expect at least 70% accuracy
using ARV in the right way and with proven viewers/psychics just as Targ did with the silvers market. Sure you will make losses but in the long run you should come out tops. I think part of the problem may be psychological as PJ and tbone mentioned.

I've seen viewers hit the panic button during long term projects, change systems and methods midway through a bad patch turning a bad run into a nightmare. Soon confidence drops, doubt sets in and the whole project is terminated or re invented without understanding the mistakes of the previous blow out.

Another factor may be a lack of understanding of the markets/sport and knowing when to bet and when not to bet. You must have sound knowledge of the market you intend to target.

Hopefully Alex will pop over here one day and maybe share the protocol they used for the casino winnings and an update on their current projects 8)


Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
It is funny to look at some of Daz's old posts, which are very optimistic about ARV. Now he is one of the most outspoken critics I have seen, eluding to it being nothing more than "smoke and mirrors". He can certainly have his own opinions on the matter, but he should not be so hypocritical. No one jumped down his throat asking for proof to his claims that he makes $500 for a two hour RV session
just ask any of the people who provide me projects and you will get your answers on look here for some testimonials:
A descent Rver can easily make 2-500 a normal Rv session and many regularly do.
but when I see claims of massive casino wins with no proof Rv was even involved other than word of mouth - I have to be objective and say show me - its what I would expect form all remote viewers - all rv and claims should be provable and trackable - its why we even bother to try to elevate Rv from the pit where all psychic claims reside. Becasue with Rv I cna prove that ONLY PSI was involved and I can show how and why.

Look, Id love to see ARV work consistently and be applied - but so far this hasn't been the case.
I, like many others have managed to use ARV in ad hoc basis to win and make money - but it hasn't been consistent enough to be long term and this seems to be across the board, no matter on what viewer, method or application.
yet normal Rv work can and does appear to be fairly consistent.

I dont believe the figures quoted in previous comments merit a 'substantial' and useable merit in everyday use as it stands. I can and do get better results from everyday use or normal RV practices or so I'm told. And at the moment as a viewer providing my time for payment to clients $500 per session is a better reward for me and accuracy over 60% is better for them. So I cnat agrere that these figure are substantial.

All I know is this - Ive seen many claims or ARV riches and nearly every teacher out there now claims to be able to teach this ARV skill and for money. look on the internet they all do it from Marty to Paul Smith, and each claim theirs is the better way to do it.

- yet there are hardly any 'verifiable' projects that have successfully used and demonstrated this skill - this is my problem with ARV and my only problem. When I hear people claim - we made XXX at the casino - then For me to believe this I have to see the projects setup, the session, and the results. I cant just take things by word of mouth - Rv has taught me to demand more, rv as an art and science is about providing more. Every project displayed as bonafide proof of rv or ARV has to be backed-up with demonstrated projects showing if and how.

An an example (truthfully) Ive won the uk lottery for the last 5 weeks straight - I could claim this as an rv triumph - I can even show winning slips from the UK lottery if this helped. But without documentation of my process, the project setup and so on - how do we know if Rv was actually involved. And in my case it wasn't it was just pure luck - but you aren't to know this - which is why with every ARV claim like the casino one I have to say - I need more evidence than winning slips - these alone are not evidence of Rv being in effect.

All I'm saying is wheres the beef?
Make a claim then fine - show the beef.
No one should be paying to learn ARV from anyone when no one can successfully and repeatably use the techniques.

You all know me, I run 8 martinis, and yes im a critic of ARV - i believe its a case of philosophers stone - it doesnt exist. But i still give ARV a voice - I published Martys last article on the subject, I live in hope, but at the same time and back to the origin of this thread - to me all claims need proper proof and proper evidence and to date I have seen scant evidence that ARV works in a manner that is usable in the real world and I'm sorry but for me Rv is nothing if it cant be used in the real world on real problems and needs.

But, by all means if you have the evidence its useful and makes money then someone please show me.


New Member
Daz said:
just ask any of the people who provide me projects and you will get your answers on look here for some testimonials:

No sweat, and for the record, the selective cut and paste of yours edited out the part I said I had no doubts of your claims. I have recently been reminded by an acquaintance of the achievements you have had in the field, with 8 Martinis, pushing IRVA, and the fact that you are an accomplished viewer. That was never a doubt for me. Accolades where they are due.

I personally suck as a viewer, and draw like a 5 year old. Yet for me, it has been productive. My focus has been completely different, solely on ARV, and sports wagering. I was a punter long before a RVer, not the other way around. I could really care less about proving anything to anyone. You approach it from the scientific viewpoint of wanting proof. I get that. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I think the thing I really could not understand, from an obviously intelligent individual, is that you contend a 60% hit rate is not valuable for ARV, or for that matter sports wagering in general. First, the hit rate can be even better (my "belief", no proof offered). However, If someone was to bet 30 games per month at $3000 each, at a 60% hit rate (assuming -110 odds) he would garner a nice 27 k per month. That's good beer money no matter who you are. That is 54 or your 2 hour sessions at $500 each. You may be a very good viewer, but I have a hard time imagining you get that many clients per month. If you do, more power to you, and get on with your bad self. No, I do not bet 3k per game yet, but this is the basis of one of my earlier claims that ARV holds more "potential". But alas, I guess it brings the whole thing full circle, as 60% even is largely an unsubstantiated claim.

I guess we can just agree to disagree, and leave it at that. I respect you for the work you have done, and will crawl back in my hole to do my thing. You want proof, I could care less about it. Just do me a favor, and think for a minute on 60% being unusable, "if" 60% were even true.

Best wishes for a great 2013



New Member
Ok, it is late and my math was based on a 66% hit rate. One would only make $20,400 per month in the above scenario.

Nice comments by PJ, tbone,and Tunde. IMO, it is ALL in your mind, and less than perfection should be no reason to abandon the pursuit.


So you have $40,000 ready to invest?? :eek:

I would like to do ARV to quit my job and invest more time into RV or other acitivites.
So my numbers are quite lower than yours (my minimum).

Hit rate: 60%
Income per month: $1,500
Investment per Bet: $xx
Bet-Days per month: 20
Odds: -140

How do you calculate that? Formula?
How much money I need to invest each bet to win $1,500 per month? Whats with the losing streaks?
Of course I need to get back what I lose with the other bets (40%).


New Member
LOL, not yet Katz. I am a big believer in starting small, and rolling winnings in to increasing the bet size. A modified Kelly Criterion goes a long way in money management. I'll shoot you a PM later when I have a little more time. Off to the sports book.



New Member
It would be remiss not stating the true difficulty of speculating, whether on sports of financials, when that is money that you need to live on. This is true whether using ARV, or just mad handicapping skills. I don't think I could, nor want to, ever be in that position. For now, it is a fun hobby, that most months pays for itself. Do I dream big....sure. But I never bet more than I can stand to lose, and am not needing that money for anything else. I would recommend the same for everyone else. The end of the day, betting 3k a game would likely be something I could not stomach. But who knows, building up betting levels through winning may desensitize the amount of the bet, and certainly would increase confidence in what you are doing. I am way off from this now.

I will say that betting size does seem to play an important psychological factor for me. When I bet too low, I don't have the same energy as when betting a tad higher, and results seem to reflect this.

Having fun, and hoping you are too.


Also, that two margarita dinner, and it being way late, had the math in my example incorrect twice.

$3300 bet per game at --110 with 60% hit rate would yield:

18 wins of $3000 = $54000
12 losses of $3300 = -$39,600

So a tenth of that Katz, betting 330 per game at 30 days per month would yield $1440 per month. I agree with the 20 picks per month though. As you know, there are ups and downs, and every month is not exactly 60%.


True Power resides in a free Mind!

Hi All,

I have to agree with Daz ... there is no absolute proof that the guys who sent him the receipts for $100,000 actually won it on RV.
You need absolute proof with strict scientific, double-blind, experiments that are recorded and fully verified.
As in Targ's 9week ARV trial where he got 9 hits in a row.

I read Targ's new book. It is excellent and very eloquently written.
I think the whole RV research that he and Hal Puthoff and Ingo Swann did in the 70s is a great contribution to the development of mankind.
It is very sad to think that the current media/press/film industry still ridicule and denigrate the vast potential of the human mind.

Based on your post, you should doubt Targ's claim until you yourself see the double blind scientific studies (if that's what they were) that netted the gains with silver futures. (Were there printouts? are they original??) And don't forget the computer data that shows trades were made and were successful - have you seen it? how will you know it wasn't fabricated??

Surely you don't believe Russ Targ simply because it's in his book? Not if you want "absolute proof". What is absolute proof, anyway?

Excuse my being so pointed, but all of us firmly believe all kinds of things without having first hand evidence, nor anything close to it. And in this instance I looked into it in person and there was quite enough evidence to convince me that this is how that money was won. You and Daz haven't been in a position to do this, so you have reason to have some or a lot of doubt. I don't. And I wouldn't be in a position to be absolutely sure unless I had been there with them in Vegas. But wait, even then there could be a tiny sliver of doubt. So in fact I can't be absolutely sure. But I don't need "absolute proof". There is no such thing, at least in this instance - and probably in everything but proofs in math and logic.


P.s. I agree about Targ's book - I think it's one of his best, sums up a lot of the sci research.


True Power resides in a free Mind!

I think the best 'sure-fire proof,' is when you proove it to yourself.
As - I assume - most of us have in this forum.

I am only at the basic level of RV and it is only now that I am practising regularly.
However, I have proven to myself that there is most definately something big to RV.

I have done basic RV sessions on totally blind targets and got some great 'wow' results, so to speak.

One memorable target I remember...

... I was planning to RV a blind target. So, I did my RV session and all I got was what looked like a mug and a small stick thing together ... very weird I thought and I figured it might be AOL.

Then ... between one thing and another, I completely forgot to look at my target Feedback at the appointed time of 10pm.
At 10pm, I suddenly realised this ... as I was holding a mug of coffee in one hand and a pen in the other.


New Member
I posted copies of a few checks made out the same day from several casinos.. Just happened to have made copies. These were requested checks, because my brief case couldn't hold any more cash.

I have posted a dozen or more sessions of winning RV work over the last few months, some in advance.

No one comments, no questions..... nothing> So I'm getting bored. I was hoping viewer (like Daz) would try it for themselves and they would have their proof. Alex


Alex, I imagine the reason nobody seems to be interested is your personality style to post here on the forum... and bad memories last time of your appearance here... ;)

No pun intended - only observation!


New Member
Katz Man Do: You are likely right... but AT LEAST one person is interested and I can see several hundred viewed that open the post every few days.

Gene Smith Wrote:

Hi Alex,

I can assure you there is at least one person here (And most likely many, many others) that are reading and following every single post with great interest. I think that provably and consistently making money with this is the holy grail that everyone has been seeking for a long time. For some yes it's the money for others it is the undeniable proof even the scoffers would have to accept.

Seriously this IS a big deal you are doing and is much appreciated.

Gene Smith


New Member
Went to Russell Targ's Lecture in Sausalito last Friday night. (I happen to live in Sausalito)

It was great to see and hear him present his new book.

About 30-35 people showed. Listen to Russell's presentation for an hour or so and then Russell lead the group thru a simple RV session to view what was in his back pack...

I RV differently than the way Russell presented it Friday night. He does more of a "free style" approach. With "quieting the mind" and letting images pot in. I think one person in the group did acquired the target and could name it.

There are differences RV techniques. I guess it's whatever work for each viewer.

p.s. I did acquire the target successfully.


Staff member
Alex, my favorite flower, how are you. I hope you become wildly rich.

AlexDiC said:
Russell lead the group thru a simple RV session to view what was in his back pack...

I RV differently than the way Russell presented it Friday night.
So do I, by which I mean, if the person who knows the target is standing there leading you through it, it's a process exercise, not Remote Viewing. There may be useful purposes to process exercises, but the unfortunate thing is people tend to learn by example, and then go home and become absolutely expert at cold-reading their wife.
So do I, by which I mean, if the person who knows the target is standing there leading you through it, it's a process exercise, not Remote Viewing. There may be useful purposes to process exercises, but the unfortunate thing is people tend to learn by example, and then go home and become absolutely expert at cold-reading their wife.
Well, yes and no. I can't speak for Targ's lecture in Sausalito, since I wasn't there. I have attended his multi-day RV workshop at the Omega Institute twice, and feel that his exercises are good, informal introductions to remote viewing. Although the person leading you through the exercises knows the targets, he really doesn't act as a session monitor. For instance, he always leads off his workshops with an exercise in which he simply states, "I have an object which requires a description." And then he basically shuts up for the 20 - 30 minutes of the exercise. He is not "interviewing" or conversing with anybody, so there is nothing to "cold read". Joe McMoneagle does the same thing at his workshops. These instructors which give solo workshops have no other choice.