I must have missed something. If the machines have been fixed and you can't test it how could you know Robs detailed account of how to exploit the double up bug is correct? Mickey?
Printable View
I must have missed something. If the machines have been fixed and you can't test it how could you know Robs detailed account of how to exploit the double up bug is correct? Mickey?
You are not really allowed to ask that quahaug. Mickey has decided that he NOW finds Rob Singer credible and the rest of us are supposed to fall in line, ignoring a long history that says otherwise and not asking questions of aspects that don't make sense to us.Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaug
You just can't help yourself, can you? It's Not even 7 am and your up poking bears. Again, I will ask. WTF is wrong with you? Let it go man, let it go.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJYou are not really allowed to ask that quahaug. Mickey has decided that he NOW finds Rob Singer credible and the rest of us are supposed to fall in line, ignoring a long history that says otherwise and not asking questions of aspects that don't make sense to us.Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaug
10am here on the east coast and that is time enough for a little truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfYou just can't help yourself, can you? It's Not even 7 am and your up poking bears. Again, I will ask. WTF is wrong with you? Let it go man, let it go.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJYou are not really allowed to ask that quahaug. Mickey has decided that he NOW finds Rob Singer credible and the rest of us are supposed to fall in line, ignoring a long history that says otherwise and not asking questions of aspects that don't make sense to us.Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaug
And the truth is that whether or not you, me or anyone else finds the double up claim credible, Rob returned to promoting his Singer System claim which continues to be impossible.
I took some satisfaction in that unable to answer the mathematical challenges to the claim, Singer conceded that maybe his results were just on the unlikely end of the "Bell curve".
But then he double down yet again, sending Alan what to publish word for word, including this now revised but still impossible claim of his system. And Alan, once again showing a complete lack of journalistic integrity publishes and promotes Rob's claim. :mad:
Yeah it does piss me off. This claim of the singer system, separate from the double up bug claim continues to be mathematically impossible and I am going to continue to speak against it. And this is not personal against Rob...this is about impossible claims and misleading players.
And funny thing about our old friend Alan. He publishes what Singer sent him, word for word and then adds a little disclaimer that 'some' on the forums challenge Rob's claims.
That is like promoting the 'ice cream and cake diet' and offering the disclaimer that 'some' nutritionalists disagree with this diet. :rolleyes:
I'll offer something on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaug
I believe it is factual to anyone who can use their heads, that the individual machine fixes sent out by IGT were not 100% implemented in every affected machine by every worldwide casino, cruise ship, or corner bar. In fact, in my infrequent research I've found two machines right here in Az. I've committed to axel that if I come across another when I get back to it, I won't exploit it but will inform him and he can do as he wishes. Maybe then or later he could let folks know that the detailed account I released was exact.
Aside from this and aside from anything else about this event, has anyone been able to adequately dispute, question, or even comment on the sequence I've explained? No they haven't, and I expect that is a function of once a person is told how to operate this play, they cannot see any other method of how to do it.
I've pointed out the flaws in how the sequence was reported in the Wired article, in which the sequence there seemed to combine playing for your own winning hand and what to do, with using an existing hand already paid out for and what to do. I know of no other source for this, other than kew desperately looking for it. I know axel mentioned the double up flaw was discussed at WoV in the past or with a friend who went over to Mesquite to help correct machines or something to that effect, but there has never been a precise sequence posted or published anywhere until I did that. If there has been, let's see it and I'll understand some of the skepticism.
Until that time, may I suggest the arguing and accusations and name calling over this stop? If you're uneasy over any of it you're probably not going to be able to ever be comfortable. The best way forward is to just drop it and wait to see if any new info ever comes forth. Kew can have his conspiracy theories and dramas torture him if he wants--its just more of the same for him, which he needs. But I think we're done if and until something else pops up. I'm hoping really hard somebody else locates one or more of these machines. There's no way to explain the absolute feelings span you experience....from surreal to ecstatic to euphoric.
Good luck.
AxelWolf, if you aren’t interested in this topic anymore, then don’t open (or read) the thread. There are obviously quite a few people still interested in it, since these threads have a lot of views and different people continue posting on it, including Rob continuing to support his claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfYou just can't help yourself, can you? It's Not even 7 am and your up poking bears. Again, I will ask. WTF is wrong with you? Let it go man, let it go.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJYou are not really allowed to ask that quahaug. Mickey has decided that he NOW finds Rob Singer credible and the rest of us are supposed to fall in line, ignoring a long history that says otherwise and not asking questions of aspects that don't make sense to us.Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaug
Isn’t this partly what forums are for? To debate topics that various members find interesting. I’ve never understood the mindset of some members who get tired of a topic or thread and then try to shut it down. No one is making anyone read these threads. If you don’t want to read them, quite reading them. It’s that simple! But you shouldn’t try to shut them down.
Btw, this is a common practice for many members/APs. It’s not just something that AxelWolf does. It seems like APs as a group are more into censorship than the mainstream public. Whenever an AP doesn’t agree with something or someone, they usually want that member banned or the thread shut down. I’ve had this happen to me many times. I’m glad Dan doesn’t think like this, and he believes in freedom of speech.
To summarize: If people don’t like a thread or a member just block him (like Mickey does) or don’t read the thread. But please stop trying to impose your values on the rest of us.
Quote:
Bob21:
"I’m glad Dan doesn’t think like this, and he believes in freedom of speech."
1. this is not the spoken word. this is the written word. the reference you are stating refers to freedom of the press
2. Constitutional freedom of the press and/or speech was never intended to serve as a mandate for private businesses or forums such as this
3. its' intention is to prevent the Government from shutting down a newspaper that is voicing opposition or requiring a newspaper to print favorable articles - there are other relevant examples
4. saying that words on this forum refer to freedom of the press and/or speech is like saying that if you wrote an editorial favoring Communism and sent it to Fox news online and they refuse to publish it that they have violated your freedom of speech and/or press
5. if you feel somebody should be free to voice their opinion to continue a discussion on a thread on a forum such as this then a person should also be free to voice his opinion that a thread should be closed
to summarize: what is or isn't allowed on a private forum such as this has nothing at all to do with the Constitutional principles of freedom of the press and/or speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Smoke
/thread
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/...uL._SS500_.jpg
Valid point. I’ve said many times a forum owner/moderator has the right to censor and bar people for any reason. It’s their site...they can do what the want to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Smoke
I’ve been banned from Blackjack Apprenticeship for no other reason than because Colin said I wasn’t a good fit. I’ve said many time Colin had a right to do this. I never broke any rules, I didn’t call anybody names or threaten anybody and I still got banned. He owns the site...he has a right to ban me. I’m okay with that. For the record, the main reason Colin banned me is because I talked about tipping and defended casinos when APs made their normal stupid attacks against them.
Norm has not banned me but he has deleated several of my posts and some had nothing to do with name calling between me or Freightman. Lol. He deleated one of my posts where I defended a casinos. Look that’s his right....it’s his forum. I get it.
I complimented Dan because he has let me voice my opinion here. I have never had a post deleted here. I know he’s got pressure from Mickey and the Mickey camp to ban me, but he hasn’t done that. I’ve said many times it’s within his right to ban me if he wants to. And if he did, I would not come back as a sock puppet.
To your point about someone trying to shut down a thread, you’re right they have that right. And the other side has a right to try keep it open. The ultimate right goes to the moderator who can do whatever they want to since they own the site.
With all this said, I have been surprised at how many APs believe in censorship and banning members for no other reason than because they don’t agree with them.
The good news is if a totalitarian government ever takes over America, the AP community will get in line and be okay with it, since so many already believe in censorship. Lol
Rob: you believe your martingale variation combined with your stop loss and stop wins accounted for your video poker play being a long term winner
so do you believe that the same type of methods can make a player a long term winner at other games such as baccarat where there is a very low house edge on the bet on Banker or Player?
The amount of house edge such as in baccarat or any other game (I assume we're talking about a very small edge) would make that a tough question to answer. I know very little about any other casino game outside of video poker. I put in a lot of work in shaping my vp strategy to succeed not because of the small disadvantage that had to be overcome, but because I did not want it to be a grind-in-out proposition. And it wasn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Smoke
That's where win goal vs. bankroll came into play (5%), as were the many special plays that were utilized in order to experience as much good luck as possible. Table games are a grind-it-out thing and grind-it-out requires a close relationship with the math, while vp offers a vast variety of small to medium to huge winning sessions that can and have proven to render that tiny house edge on -EV games irrelevant.
Along with that I'd like to add that, had I only played +EV games with my strategy assuming they were available which they weren't, my winnings would have been insignificantly different from what they actually were. This notion that you just cannot win on -EV games over the long term does not apply to everyone or every strategy. Some people are just too capable in that they can use their head in order to solve seemingly unsolvable problems. I did the same type of thing when I solved the double up anomaly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerThe amount of house edge such as in baccarat or any other game (I assume we're talking about a very small edge) would make that a tough question to answer. I know very little about any other casino game outside of video poker. I put in a lot of work in shaping my vp strategy to succeed not because of the small disadvantage that had to be overcome, but because I did not want it to be a grind-in-out proposition. And it wasn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Smoke
That's where win goal vs. bankroll came into play (5%), as were the many special plays that were utilized in order to experience as much good luck as possible. Table games are a grind-it-out thing and grind-it-out requires a close relationship with the math, while vp offers a vast variety of small to medium to huge winning sessions that can and have proven to render that tiny house edge on -EV games irrelevant.
Along with that I'd like to add that, had I only played +EV games with my strategy assuming they were available which they weren't, my winnings would have been insignificantly different from what they actually were. This notion that you just cannot win on -EV games over the long term does not apply to everyone or every strategy. Some people are just too capable in that they can use their head in order to solve seemingly unsolvable problems. I did the same type of thing when I solved the double up anomaly.
C'mon dude, you're embarrassing yourself.
Half Smoke, for the record, this question has been asked many times of him, all resulting in similar non-answers to what you received. The other question that generally goes unanswered is at what percentage return do his systems fail? All systems have a fail point, presumably. Those fail points should be able to be precisely established, if one is actually using math. For example, does AARP (for seniors) fail at 95.7% return or 94.1% return, or 92.2% return, given a particular game? What about a different game? What about a different system? There are no answers to these questions, because there is no established math.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Smoke
It's all about "luck."
This has all been gone through many, many times, to the point of banality and always with the same results. If you want, ask the forum owner what he thinks of the voodoo in a PM. Seriously, if you could sort through all of the thousands of posts going back to arci, these aspects of the voodoo have been brought up again and again and again...and again.
Putting a veneer of "it's as brilliant as my finding the glitch" on everything is just silly. I may as well suggest, "My IQ tests demonstrate that I know what I'm doing at limit hold 'em and betting hockey." I don't.
I give "Singer" credit, though. He doesn't get bored pushing the same gobbledygook for decades. Think about that. Decades without a whit of math. Some people would give it up. He's either indefatigable or desperate or mentally ill or thinks people are getting dumber as the years go by. I salute him. He's probably right about people getting dumber. Eventually his systems may catch on. He just has to live long enough.
So you overcame the math because it didn't really apply to you or your strategy? That's fantastic! In the distant future when the world finally catches on to your odds bending techniques, the mathematicians may need to invent a new type of probability analysis to truly understand your play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerThis notion that you just cannot win on -EV games over the long term does not apply to everyone or every strategy. Some people are just too capable in that they can use their head in order to solve seemingly unsolvable problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Smoke
Quote:
Originally Posted by unowmeSo you overcame the math because it didn't really apply to you or your strategy? That's fantastic! In the distant future when the world finally catches on to your odds bending techniques, the mathematicians may need to invent a new type of probability analysis to truly understand your play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerThis notion that you just cannot win on -EV games over the long term does not apply to everyone or every strategy. Some people are just too capable in that they can use their head in order to solve seemingly unsolvable problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Smoke
"Singer" is like Marvel's Scarlet Witch. He controls probability fields near him. It's a mutant ability.
Many times, I suggested to "Singer" that he should take a crack at the James Randi Foundation's million-dollar test of paranormal abilities. Unfortunately, I believe that challenge has ended. Now he'll have to earn the money by finding another glitch.
Thank God this has become a WoV West Coast or something. For the longest time, it was just arci taking "Singer" on. Then it was mainly arci and me. Not many logic enthusiasts on the old Best Buys forum. Now, thankfully, there are plenty of people to ask the obvious questions. I feel a stop loss/win goal debate on the horizon. Like a darkening storm. LOL. Have fun with it.
Weird. Just plain weird....and obsessed.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by unowmeSo you overcame the math because it didn't really apply to you or your strategy? That's fantastic! In the distant future when the world finally catches on to your odds bending techniques, the mathematicians may need to invent a new type of probability analysis to truly understand your play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
"Singer" is like Marvel's Scarlet Witch. He controls probability fields near him. It's a mutant ability.
Many times, I suggested to "Singer" that he should take a crack at the James Randi Foundation's million-dollar test of paranormal abilities. Unfortunately, I believe that challenge has ended. Now he'll have to earn the money by finding another glitch.
Thank God this has become a WoV West Coast or something. For the longest time, it was just arci taking "Singer" on. Then it was mainly arci and me. Not many logic enthusiasts on the old Best Buys forum. Now, thankfully, there are plenty of people to ask the obvious questions. I feel a stop loss/win goal debate on the horizon. Like a darkening storm. LOL. Have fun with it.
If anyone has any specific, valid questions, I'll answer them.
I'm not sure I can top the weirdness of trying to solve math problems with a rabbit's foot. It's unfortunate that the new, improved "Singer" has the same old schtick.
For God's sake, man, tell them you found a glitch in probability theory that allows you to double up. That's the ticket.
Weird. Just plain weird.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I know you don't want it to stop because you love and live for all fighting and trolling aspects. You probably love the fact that everyone is shitting on each other, and its putting everyone including AP's at odds with each other over all this. I know exactly what your game is and how you like to operate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21AxelWolf, if you aren’t interested in this topic anymore, then don’t open (or read) the thread. There are obviously quite a few people still interested in it, since these threads have a lot of views and different people continue posting on it, including Rob continuing to support his claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfYou just can't help yourself, can you? It's Not even 7 am and your up poking bears. Again, I will ask. WTF is wrong with you? Let it go man, let it go.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Isn’t this partly what forums are for? To debate topics that various members find interesting. I’ve never understood the mindset of some members who get tired of a topic or thread and then try to shut it down. No one is making anyone read these threads. If you don’t want to read them, quite reading them. It’s that simple! But you shouldn’t try to shut them down.
Btw, this is a common practice for many members/APs. It’s not just something that AxelWolf does. It seems like APs as a group are more into censorship than the mainstream public. Whenever an AP doesn’t agree with something or someone, they usually want that member banned or the thread shut down. I’ve had this happen to me many times. I’m glad Dan doesn’t think like this, and he believes in freedom of speech.
To summarize: If people don’t like a thread or a member just block him (like Mickey does) or don’t read the thread. But please stop trying to impose your values on the rest of us.
Anyways, this has nothing to do with ME wanting t or not to read or talk about this. This has to do with me telling KJ he should let it go, its not healthy for him. I guess I could have just PMed him.
Rob, I’ve got a question for you. Why did it take you so long to find this double up bug? You said you looked for it for 4 years. That’s a long time to be looking for computer bugs without any assurance it was present.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I’m also unclear why you would think a bug was in the Game King since most games don’t have bugs, but taking you at your word, why did I take you 4 years to find it?
In the wire.com article, it said John Laskusky (a 25 year old USC graduate) found it “within a few days”. With no prior knowledge of how this bug worked, he sat down at one of the Game Kings and “began experimenting” and was able to “reliably reproduce” the bug in “a few days”. Yes, he was looking for it, but so were you. He found it in a couple days, while you took 4 years.
I get why most people didn’t find it. They weren’t looking for it. But you were actively looking for it...I mean you spent 4 long years looking for it. I give you a lot of credit for not giving up. Most people would given up after looking for bugs after one year, or two years or three years. But not Rob. Going on four years and not finding any bugs, you were still looking for it.
Here’s my other question: How many hours a day did you spend looking for this bug during these four long years? This is what I find most fascinating about your story. That you would spend FOUR years looking for a bug (or something that looks like bugs) without any assurance a bug was even present. Wow! What perseverance!
First, you're incorrect about the 25-year old. He had video of what Kane was doing. That's why he found it so quickly. If he was a vp player he'd have found the sequence much sooner.
I already responded to your issue about why I looked for four years. I'd still be looking today if I hadn't found anything back then....if I were still playing regularly. Its how I am--I don't give up even if I fail. And why did I originally suspect there was something to find? My work experience. There's been many glitches found in commercial and military coding. That means there could be in the vp business also.
I spent maybe 30 minutes to an hour per week after my session was over.
The thing is, I'm not so sure Singer's VP Martingale ever had enough play to push it into the long run losing proposition that it must be. How many 'sessions' does Rob claim he actually played? That all gets back to the risk of losing your bankroll before hitting your 'session goals'.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by unowmeSo you overcame the math because it didn't really apply to you or your strategy? That's fantastic! In the distant future when the world finally catches on to your odds bending techniques, the mathematicians may need to invent a new type of probability analysis to truly understand your play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
"Singer" is like Marvel's Scarlet Witch. He controls probability fields near him. It's a mutant ability.
Many times, I suggested to "Singer" that he should take a crack at the James Randi Foundation's million-dollar test of paranormal abilities. Unfortunately, I believe that challenge has ended. Now he'll have to earn the money by finding another glitch.
Thank God this has become a WoV West Coast or something. For the longest time, it was just arci taking "Singer" on. Then it was mainly arci and me. Not many logic enthusiasts on the old Best Buys forum. Now, thankfully, there are plenty of people to ask the obvious questions. I feel a stop loss/win goal debate on the horizon. Like a darkening storm. LOL. Have fun with it.
No one ever really showed me the math for that in this bet increasing scenario. Some claimed it was 5% which was clearly wrong. I think it is not impossible Singer won what he claims using his system. Some here say it is impossible. It may just be unlikely...It may even be likely that some will be big winners. I also think that if 1000 people were playing the strategy, it may be possible that the majority could come out winners with a few very big winners....but a certain percent would lose more than all the winners combined.
I'd love to do a Bayesian analysis on the actual results to see how closely it approaches the realm of the possible, but I imagine Rob didn't keep any detailed statistics on each session he played and the results of each trial. I think there may be other applications for Bayesian analysis in the casinos where probability theory may not be the right tool because you have missing information.
Okay, here’s another question I know you’ve answered before, but not to most people’s satisfaction, except that is Mickey.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
It’s about how little you made with this incredibly strong play. It home to me again how strong this play was when I read the wire.com article again. Quoting from that article:
“You had complete control” Nester said “You could win $500,000 in a day.” A did a quick calculation and this means using the out-of-control Nester style of play, you could have won 182.5 million in a year, or close to a billion in 5 years. That’s a lot of money and a far cry from the little you earned from this play.
Now I get this approach wouldn’t have worked because casinos aren’t that dumb. They aren’t going to let it happen. But the discrepancy between what you made per year and what was possible seems like such a huge gulf it’s hard to believe that you wouldn’t have tried harder to make at least a million a year. That would have still kept you under their radar.
Anyway, I’m still struggling with why you made so little with such a strong play. It doesn’t take much intelligence to see how someone could have easily made 5 to 10 fold more than you claimed to have made and still stayed under the casino’s radar.
I am sure I will be the bad guy for asking, but I really want to understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
You played the "super duper Rob Singer progression system" for 4 years, winning roughly 100k a year, going against mathematical principals. And at the end of each session, you would spend 30 minutes searching for a computer "glitch" that there was no reason to believe even existed. And low and behold...miraculosly YOU found the exact 'glitch' you were looking for??:confused:
It just sounds like a lot of baloney to me. This isn't me hating on you Rob. This is just twilight zone stuff.
The baloney is stacked so high, even Nick Wallenda won't go up there!Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Sad that people keep falling for Argentinos bullshit.
The sad thing is, I'm not a math guy. The only math I know comes from a couple of "Great Courses" in Probability I review each summer, and from playing on the Penn State math department intramural basketball team. I hand off any serious math I do to professionals. Fortunately, I know a couple guys who teach probability at ETSU, and the guy down the block allegedly actually understands relativity, so professionals are available. That's what I recommended -- over and over and over -- for years when Alan Mendelson owned the forum. When it comes to "Singer," go and consult some professional mathematicians. It fell on deaf ears.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowmeThe thing is, I'm not so sure Singer's VP Martingale ever had enough play to push it into the long run losing proposition that it must be. How many 'sessions' does Rob claim he actually played? That all gets back to the risk of losing your bankroll before hitting your 'session goals'.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by unowme
"Singer" is like Marvel's Scarlet Witch. He controls probability fields near him. It's a mutant ability.
Many times, I suggested to "Singer" that he should take a crack at the James Randi Foundation's million-dollar test of paranormal abilities. Unfortunately, I believe that challenge has ended. Now he'll have to earn the money by finding another glitch.
Thank God this has become a WoV West Coast or something. For the longest time, it was just arci taking "Singer" on. Then it was mainly arci and me. Not many logic enthusiasts on the old Best Buys forum. Now, thankfully, there are plenty of people to ask the obvious questions. I feel a stop loss/win goal debate on the horizon. Like a darkening storm. LOL. Have fun with it.
No one ever really showed me the math for that in this bet increasing scenario. Some claimed it was 5% which was clearly wrong. I think it is not impossible Singer won what he claims using his system. Some here say it is impossible. It may just be unlikely...It may even be likely that some will be big winners. I also think that if 1000 people were playing the strategy, it may be possible that the majority could come out winners with a few very big winners....but a certain percent would lose more than all the winners combined.
I'd love to do a Bayesian analysis on the actual results to see how closely it approaches the realm of the possible, but I imagine Rob didn't keep any detailed statistics on each session he played and the results of each trial. I think there may be other applications for Bayesian analysis in the casinos where probability theory may not be the right tool because you have missing information.
People, it seems, prefer to not have their mental apple carts upset by experts.
Quote:
Unowme:
"The thing is, I'm not so sure Singer's VP Martingale ever had enough play to push it into the long run losing proposition that it must be."
that's a very good point. if you are an AP at blackjack, after playing 10,000 hands you are probably about 95% (please, just an estimate) of the time close to what your true actual expectation is
but if you make a betting proposition that requires a large hit about one out of four thousand times you would need about four million trials to have the same likelihood of the results being close to the true expectation
and even after 4 million trials there is a still a small chance that the results do not reflect true expectations
but, anyway, the big issue is not whether the reporting of the winnings is accurate
the big issue is the claim that his methodology caused the winnings and that his methodology is very likely to make others big winners
Half Smoke wrote:
but if you make a betting proposition that requires a large hit about one out of four thousand times you would need about four million trials to have the same likelihood of the results being close to the true expectation
and even after 4 million trials there is a still a small chance that the results do not reflect true expectations
However, if you are a shady individual whose main objective is already showing favorable results that would make for good articles and books there is no need to delve into it any further. Terms like true expectations are not the realities that dreamers are looking for, and do not fit their blinding narrative.
Players interested in really winning (advantage players and such) look for a way to play at a longterm advantage. Period!
Sure variance may work against them in the short-term, especially players that aren't playing frequently. But you STILL start off with something that makes the game and your play a long-term winner rather than a long-term loser. Step 2 is to play enough trials to make it matter.
Starting off with a -EV play and looking for positive variance to make it a winner is nonsensical. I keep coming back to what I think is the perfect analogy. Roulette. You can easily walk up to a table, play black, hit 2 out of 3 and win for the day. But try doing that every day for a year? :rolleyes:
And Rob writing about his short-term negative EV play which depends on positive variance (far positive end of the bell curve) as if it is a long-term winning strategy is just wrong. It is fraudulent. And that is what he has apparently done for 20 year...on forums....writing books....writing a column in a gambling publication. AND he is continuing to do so, still posting about his Singer progression system here and within the last few days sending Alan an article.
I mean if Rob's new claim is this double-up bug thing and we are all supposed to forget all his past untruthfulness and give him the benefit of doubt on, why is he back to this Singer progression claim that continues to be very problematic mathematically. I won't stop challenging these claims because they go against the math. They are false and intentionally misleading and I don't like it.
It is nothing personal with Rob even after several years of bad behavior and name calling. I appreciate that he Is behaving better and we can have more civilized discussions but that doesn't change the fact that what he continues to claim concerning the Singer VP progression system is bullcrap. This is simply not a winning system. No more so that the better known Martindale. For the umpteenth time: Wagering systems simply cannot turn negative EV play into a long-term winner.
Alan pointed out on twitter that Rob's double up sequence has not been verified. But no one has disputed it either. That is true either way. But so far he's the only one that has put up what he says is the actual sequence of events to get to the big jackpot. What I have done is contacted the author of the Wired article, Kevin Paulson, and made him aware of Rob's claim plus also giving him the link to Rob's explanation of it on Alan's site. Let's see what he has to say about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaug
I've also put the story up on twitter and it's getting activity. The more the story spreads, the more people know about it, the bigger the chance, if there is any, of someone coming forward and saying they taught Rob the strategy. I'll be getting around to posting up the 1K reward on twitter. Right now I'm busier than shit between vulturing, genealogy and dealing with this story so everything is not going to get done all at once. But I'm doing my part to spread the story.
Get lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
In a way that search for someone that may have taught or shared the info with Rob, is not fair to Rob, in that finding someone could disprove his claim, but not finding someone does not prove his claim.
Only Rob can prove his claim or offer supporting evidence/documentation and he chose not to do that even though he admits he knew there would be skeptics.
Personally I don't think someone taught or showed Rob the sequence. I think he figured it out on his own, probably after the story broke, by locating machines that had not yet been 'fixed' and trying different sequences until one worked. He plays a lot of smaller venues in Arizona, rural Nevada and other places that might have been slow to fix the "bug".
But these are both just two possibilities other than Rob's "he searched for and found a bug or defect that there was no reason to believe existed".
It just comes back to numerous possibilities. And with Rob offering no proof or supporting evidence....
Hey! Someone who gets it. Although whether that is 'The Big Issue' is up for debate. There's plenty of issues here. Whether the system is a loser in the 'long run' isn't even a question for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Smoke
Quote:
Originally Posted by unowmeHey! Someone who gets it. Although whether that is 'The Big Issue' is up for debate. There's plenty of issues here. Whether the system is a loser in the 'long run' isn't even a question for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Smoke
What you have to watch out for with "Singer" are the tricky tense changes and language designed to not be pinned down. The story used to go that he lost 250K or 300K or something APing, then found his systems and won 900K or something like that. Now the story is that he lost 250k or 300K APing, then won 350K or something with his systems, then won the rest via his glitches. Well, based on how he plays, it's very possible, in the latter tale, that a 250K or 300K loss could be followed by a 350K win. If he's blasting high stakes martingale sessions, that could happen. The trick is that he arbitrarily assigns the 250K or 300K loss to APing, and then arbitrarily assigns the 350K win to his "systems." Then we get assurances that because he assigned his wins to his systems, that the systems were responsible for the winning.
I've always tried to pin him down regarding, "So, are you saying that your systems will come out monetarily ahead from this point on going forward?" The reason language precision is necessary with him is that he emphasizes "session wins." So when you ask if he "wins," he can answer "yes," but he technically can be referencing having more "session wins" than "session losses." Obviously, with a martingale-type strategy, you can win 80% or more of your sessions. Or, conversely, if you ask if he "wins," the answer is referencing the fact that he has won, therefore (technically) he "wins" -- past results providing a way to answer in present tense.
Yeah, I was a journalism major for awhile.
In summary, the argument you'll get is that he came out ahead, therefore it was due to his systems, and you should use his systems going forward. No math gets attached, other than his offers to make bets on his winning eight of 10 sessions or something like that. No fail points are given for his systems. This stuff wouldn't pass muster with a high school math teacher.
As to the glitch story, I am rooting for it to be true, strangely enough, because it paints "Singer" in a worse light than ever. But I finally got around to reading Singer's article on Alan Mendelson's site, and I'm thinking it's odds against (by a fair margin) that the story is true. Now I don't know what "Singer" said privately to mickey or Axel or Alan, but I hope it was more convincing than that summary on Mendelson's site. God bless you if you believe what's written on Mendelson's site.
https://pics.me.me/its-on-the-intern...it-9256355.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by redietz
You don't have to tell me about Singer. I've known him since he posted on the LVA Forums. Alan Mendelson (MoneyLA) too. I always thought Rob was an asshole. And a crackpot. And his system was a long term loser. But that doesn't mean he couldn't have won what he claimed.
The problem isn't that he claims he won, playing a long-term losing (-EV) system.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowmehttps://pics.me.me/its-on-the-intern...it-9256355.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by redietz
You don't have to tell me about Singer. I've known him since he posted on the LVA Forums. Alan Mendelson (MoneyLA) too. I always thought Rob was an asshole. And a crackpot. And his system was a long term loser. But that doesn't mean he couldn't have won what he claimed.
The problem is that he claims it is a "winning" system and promotes and encourages other to play it...on forums, books and a gambling advice column. And continues to do so even today as evident of what he had Alan post.
When someone does this...intentionally misleading players and members, I believe it is the responsibility of others to call out and challenge such claims.
If Rob's claim had been that he played a short-term losing progression system and managed to win over relatively small sample size, due to positive variance, I would have had no issue with his claim. But that's not what he said and when I and others tried to get him to concede that he insisted it was a long-term winner!
And you have to remember that up until this claim was recently changed, the claim was about 10 years and a million to a million and a half dollars won. Those are NOT any kind of small sample size numbers.
So the bottom line is it's the correct sequence because Singer say's it's the correct sequence.....Uh.... OK, I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmAlan pointed out on twitter that Rob's double up sequence has not been verified. But no one has disputed it either. That is true either way. But so far he's the only one that has put up what he says is the actual sequence of events to get to the big jackpot. What I have done is contacted the author of the Wired article, Kevin Paulson, and made him aware of Rob's claim plus also giving him the link to Rob's explanation of it on Alan's site. Let's see what he has to say about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaug
I've also put the story up on twitter and it's getting activity. The more the story spreads, the more people know about it, the bigger the chance, if there is any, of someone coming forward and saying they taught Rob the strategy. I'll be getting around to posting up the 1K reward on twitter. Right now I'm busier than shit between vulturing, genealogy and dealing with this story so everything is not going to get done all at once. But I'm doing my part to spread the story.
Everyone’s premise is that Rob doesn’t believe in his system but teaches it anyway. Before Rob and I called a truce I said I thought Rob really believes in his system. If he believes in it he can be correct or incorrect but not a fraud.
Wow, Mickey better zip Rob back up before he gets lock jawQuote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Yeah...OK I get it. I think this is much ado about absolutely nothing and it's now just a pissing and trolling contest. Does Rob still train people? I thought he retired. So this is all about his past claims...but not reallyQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJThe problem isn't that he claims he won, playing a long-term losing (-EV) system.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowmehttps://pics.me.me/its-on-the-intern...it-9256355.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by redietz
You don't have to tell me about Singer. I've known him since he posted on the LVA Forums. Alan Mendelson (MoneyLA) too. I always thought Rob was an asshole. And a crackpot. And his system was a long term loser. But that doesn't mean he couldn't have won what he claimed.
The problem is that he claims it is a "winning" system and promotes and encourages other to play it...on forums, books and a gambling advice column. And continues to do so even today as evident of what he had Alan post.
When someone does this...intentionally misleading players and members, I believe it is the responsibility of others to call out and challenge such claims.
How many people do you honestly think ever really tried Rob's system in all these years? How many use it today? I doubt anyone ever really used Robs system with the 6 figure bankroll except maybe Rob himself and he probably makes it up as he goes along. It's all self-puffery. And his detractors just give him a platform to troll them...but hell what do I know. You still think I'm that Coach Belly guy anyway. So carry on. I'm sure you'll find it a rewarding life's work to debunk Rob Singer's System that no one uses or perhaps has ever used....as he continues to troll you to infinity.
Your problem Bob is that you're giving too much credence to the words of Nestor--not exactly citizen of the year. "You had complete control" was 100% false. "You could win $500,000 in a day" was just as false. He said that nonsense to get attention, and he got yours. If this play was capable of netting $500k a day you can bet an undisciplined bozo such as him would have been doing that. To have even the slightest chance it would require multi-denominational $100 top-limit machines, and there are very few of those. And even then, they all start at $25, and you do not bother with this play at a 4:1 ratio.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21Okay, here’s another question I know you’ve answered before, but not to most people’s satisfaction, except that is Mickey.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
It’s about how little you made with this incredibly strong play. It home to me again how strong this play was when I read the wire.com article again. Quoting from that article:
“You had complete control” Nester said “You could win $500,000 in a day.” A did a quick calculation and this means using the out-of-control Nester style of play, you could have won 182.5 million in a year, or close to a billion in 5 years. That’s a lot of money and a far cry from the little you earned from this play.
Now I get this approach wouldn’t have worked because casinos aren’t that dumb. They aren’t going to let it happen. But the discrepancy between what you made per year and what was possible seems like such a huge gulf it’s hard to believe that you wouldn’t have tried harder to make at least a million a year. That would have still kept you under their radar.
Anyway, I’m still struggling with why you made so little with such a strong play. It doesn’t take much intelligence to see how someone could have easily made 5 to 10 fold more than you claimed to have made and still stayed under the casino’s radar.
Complete control? Not in the least....and BOTH these clowns found that truth out the hard way. Yes I probably could have safely doubled my take from the play, but I chose a very conservative approach to minimize the Kane/Nestor errors you seem to be so enamored with. And I'm not somebody who didn't already provide for our financial future.
Singer, be honest, you've been full of complete shit for decades on end.
Piggy Banker, I was just about to publicly give you the benefit of the doubt when Posters were calling you a Troll, but with posts like these it really makes me wonder if you aren't a Troll and not as innocent as you seemed at first.Quote:
Originally Posted by PIGGY BANKER
Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaugSo the bottom line is it's the correct sequence because Singer say's it's the correct sequence.....Uh.... OK, I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmAlan pointed out on twitter that Rob's double up sequence has not been verified. But no one has disputed it either. That is true either way. But so far he's the only one that has put up what he says is the actual sequence of events to get to the big jackpot. What I have done is contacted the author of the Wired article, Kevin Paulson, and made him aware of Rob's claim plus also giving him the link to Rob's explanation of it on Alan's site. Let's see what he has to say about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaug
I've also put the story up on twitter and it's getting activity. The more the story spreads, the more people know about it, the bigger the chance, if there is any, of someone coming forward and saying they taught Rob the strategy. I'll be getting around to posting up the 1K reward on twitter. Right now I'm busier than shit between vulturing, genealogy and dealing with this story so everything is not going to get done all at once. But I'm doing my part to spread the story.
I find Rob's version of the DU bug very believable and I believe Axel has verified that it's correct.
I think if you read his description with an open mind you'll conclude it's either correct (though he still may have learned it from a third party), or it's a very ingenious invention. Was it even publicly known that the WIRED story was inaccurate? If not, why wouldn't Rob just repeat the version from the story?
Quote Unowme referring to KJ:
"I'm sure you'll find it a rewarding life's work to debunk Rob Singer's System that no one uses or perhaps has ever used....as he continues to troll you to infinity."
it's kind of like Detective Javert spending his entire career chasing the criminal Jean Valjean for stealing a loaf of bread and 40 francs in Victor Hugo's classic "Les Miserables"
-:) -:)
I think Rob might be holding back a little bit of info. My sources tell me that on Thursday through Sunday you must be wearing your Patriots cap, the rest of the time a Celtics or Red Sox cap will do fine. It's your call.Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburgerQuote:
Originally Posted by quahaugSo the bottom line is it's the correct sequence because Singer say's it's the correct sequence.....Uh.... OK, I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
I find Rob's version of the DU bug very believable and I believe Axel has verified that it's correct.
I think if you read his description with an open mind you'll conclude it's either correct (though he still may have learned it from a third party), or it's a very ingenious invention. Was it even publicly known that the WIRED story was inaccurate? If not, why wouldn't Rob just repeat the version from the story?
Smurgerbuger, regardless if you believe Rob or not, the answer to your question is pretty obvious. If the wired article was correct and Rob repeated it, but said he found it first, then I think most people wouldn’t believe him. This wouldn’t have evolved into much of a story. Rob is smarter than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburgerQuote:
Originally Posted by quahaugSo the bottom line is it's the correct sequence because Singer say's it's the correct sequence.....Uh.... OK, I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
I find Rob's version of the DU bug very believable and I believe Axel has verified that it's correct.
I think if you read his description with an open mind you'll conclude it's either correct (though he still may have learned it from a third party), or it's a very ingenious invention. Was it even publicly known that the WIRED story was inaccurate? If not, why wouldn't Rob just repeat the version from the story?
The only way this story has any legs is because the wired article is incorrect, and Rob knows the correct play. Since there were so many people who knew this play in several states it’s not difficult to come up with a scenario where Rob learned about the correct play. I mean everybody agrees Nestor and Kane were idiots with lose lips, so why would anybody think the correct play was kept a secret?
That is a pretty rediculous statement. I probably would have only played quarter to dollars and I would have made over 3 million the first year with very few taxables.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
And you may have a better way by doing that. I think that's how axel said he would approach something like this. It's a little easier to strategize over when you're not right smack in the middle of the unknown and find a dream-come-true play. I looked at the opportunity as a weekly visitor to casinos who wanted as little exposure as possible. Maybe that wasn't the best way, I don't know. But I did well enough for my purposes.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPenThat is a pretty rediculous statement. I probably would have only played quarter to dollars and I would have made over 3 million the first year with very few taxables.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Who are these "people in several states" that know this play?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21Smurgerbuger, regardless if you believe Rob or not, the answer to your question is pretty obvious. If the wired article was correct and Rob repeated it, but said he found it first, then I think most people wouldn’t believe him. This wouldn’t have evolved into much of a story. Rob is smarter than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburgerQuote:
Originally Posted by quahaug
I find Rob's version of the DU bug very believable and I believe Axel has verified that it's correct.
I think if you read his description with an open mind you'll conclude it's either correct (though he still may have learned it from a third party), or it's a very ingenious invention. Was it even publicly known that the WIRED story was inaccurate? If not, why wouldn't Rob just repeat the version from the story?
The only way this story has any legs is because the wired article is incorrect, and Rob knows the correct play. Since there were so many people who knew this play in several states it’s not difficult to come up with a scenario where Rob learned about the correct play. I mean everybody agrees Nestor and Kane were idiots with lose lips, so why would anybody think the correct play was kept a secret?
Or perhaps KJ is the Obsessed Captain Ahab and Singer is none other than Moby Dick. Kind of seems appropriate since there's so much Dick talk around here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Smoke
"to the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee".
Also about this: it would probably be far safer and less noticeable constantly upping a 25c winning hand into a dollars winning hand than moving $25 winners into $100 taxables.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPenThat is a pretty rediculous statement. I probably would have only played quarter to dollars and I would have made over 3 million the first year with very few taxables.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Maybe a good way of staying under the radar just dealing with accumulated credits but I don't know about 3 mil in a year. That would be a lot of play.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPenThat is a pretty rediculous statement. I probably would have only played quarter to dollars and I would have made over 3 million the first year with very few taxables.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
My understanding is you are not limited to one collection. Get a 4oak on quarter BPD. Switch to $1 and collect a few times and move on to another place. I could do 10k+ a day and still wonder what to do with all my spare time.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmMaybe a good way of staying under the radar just dealing with accumulated credits but I don't know about 3 mil in a year. That would be a lot of play.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPenThat is a pretty rediculous statement. I probably would have only played quarter to dollars and I would have made over 3 million the first year with very few taxables.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
With .25-$1 I would never even hit a taxable. I'd much prefer .50-$2 though.
What you're meaning is collecting on the same winner more than once, which is possible and which I didn't consider because I chose not to do that. But there are a LOT of 25c-$2 machines that would require fewer wins to reach your goal and then still be able to watch the fools on CNN make even bigger idiots of themselves. 50c-$2 isn't common out here.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPenMy understanding is you are not limited to one collection. Get a 4oak on quarter BPD. Switch to $1 and collect a few times and move on to another place. I could do 10k+ a day and still wonder what to do with all my spare time.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmMaybe a good way of staying under the radar just dealing with accumulated credits but I don't know about 3 mil in a year. That would be a lot of play.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPen
With .25-$1 I would never even hit a taxable. I'd much prefer .50-$2 though.
I'm not saying this happen or I think it happen, but one could find and old machine for sale that never had the update. IIRC Rob has claimed to have bought machines before. If I was really looking for the bug and wanted to peruse this, that's exactly what I would do. The bug has appeared in casinos in the last few years or so, and not just in some small obscure location.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Here's a question for those on the negative side of this ledger:
Why would an "anti-AP" vp expert (and yes, I am an all-around expert at the game whether I choose to strictly follow the math or not) who had already made as many enemies in the gambling world as possible by being a world-class online insulter--and who had established a 10-year or more story of winning with a strategy few if any understand or believe--wait TEN WHOLE YEARS to unleash a made-up story such as this, when I could have been making hay with it years ago since I would have known I'd never get in legal trouble because it was fake news anyway?
Because I wanted the proof of my tax returns to disappear? Hogwash. Who shows ANYBODY their tax returns anyway?
Kew, you're good at fabricating all kinds of stories about me. Help us out here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfI'm not saying this happen or I think it happen, but one could find and old machine for sale that never had the update. IIRC Rob has claimed to have bought machines before. If I was really looking for the bug and wanted to peruse this, that's exactly what I would do. The bug has appeared in casinos in the last few years or so, and not just in some small obscure location.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Both of these possibilities are much more plausible than what the doubters have expressed so far.
Has KJ or anyone else specified what supporting evidence should or could exist, the absence of which weakens Rob's claims?
I HAVE NEVER PLAYED THIS GLITCH MYSELF!!!! There was more than one article about this and one had a detailed explanation of the steps it took to exploit the bug. I was told by someone that has knowledge about this(they didnt play them they know how to fix them) the article was correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburgerQuote:
Originally Posted by quahaugSo the bottom line is it's the correct sequence because Singer say's it's the correct sequence.....Uh.... OK, I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
I find Rob's version of the DU bug very believable and I believe Axel has verified that it's correct.
I think if you read his description with an open mind you'll conclude it's either correct (though he still may have learned it from a third party), or it's a very ingenious invention. Was it even publicly known that the WIRED story was inaccurate? If not, why wouldn't Rob just repeat the version from the story?
I havent found anything online explaining the bill validator thing and how and why all that has an affect. When im not lazy I will look it up, but as I said before I have no doubt KJ and some others have been frantically searching online.
When I talked to Rob on the phone he seemed to be sincere. His story flowed in a natural manor. Perhaps Rob is a master at deception, I havent talked to him or know him well enough to know. I think I would want more evidence either way before I was willing take a side on the yes or no.
Rob, Mike does a youtube live stream now and he posts them on WOV. If he were to offer to interview you live regarding this, would you be willing to? I would defiantly try my best to convince him this would be an interesting show. Not that I would be able to move the needle on his decision but i can at least bring it up and I know lots of people will watch and it would be interesting. He might have an issue with the fact that he banned you and his normal policy is that once banned he doesn't want to hear from those members. Also, you have said a lot of nasty stuff about him and from anything I have ever heard he never disparaged you and actually said good things about how you were and acted in person.
I come from the commercial and military industry where people are well-paid to search for and find bugs in equipment they have no reason to believe exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburgerQuote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfI'm not saying this happen or I think it happen, but one could find and old machine for sale that never had the update. IIRC Rob has claimed to have bought machines before. If I was really looking for the bug and wanted to peruse this, that's exactly what I would do. The bug has appeared in casinos in the last few years or so, and not just in some small obscure location.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Both of these possibilities are much more plausible than what the doubters have expressed so far.
Has KJ or anyone else specified what supporting evidence should or could exist, the absence of which weakens Rob's claims?
I do not play in Az. casinos. I train in them and I search for the glitch in them, but infrequently.
I sounded sincere because I was. I did not make a snap decision on who to release this to. I spent a few months reading your posts on WoV and reviewing some here. I went to you because based on my overall assessment I expected pure interest and decency and that's exactly what I got. Believe me, it was not easy.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfI HAVE NEVER PLAYED THIS GLITCH MYSELF!!!! There was more than one article about this and one had a detailed explanation of the steps it took to exploit the bug. I was told by someone that has knowledge about this(they didnt play them they know how to fix them) the article was correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburgerQuote:
Originally Posted by quahaug
I find Rob's version of the DU bug very believable and I believe Axel has verified that it's correct.
I think if you read his description with an open mind you'll conclude it's either correct (though he still may have learned it from a third party), or it's a very ingenious invention. Was it even publicly known that the WIRED story was inaccurate? If not, why wouldn't Rob just repeat the version from the story?
I havent found anything online explaining the bill validator thing and how and why all that has an affect. When im not lazy I will look it up, but as I said before I have no doubt KJ and some others have been frantically searching online.
When I talked to Rob on the phone he seemed to be sincere. His story flowed in a natural manor. Perhaps Rob is a master at deception, I havent talked to him or know him well enough to know. I think I would want more evidence either way before I was willing take a side on the yes or no.
Rob, Mike does a youtube live stream now and he posts them on WOV. If he were to offer to interview you live regarding this, would you be willing to? I would defiantly try my best to convince him this would be an interesting show. Not that I would be able to move the needle on his decision but i can at least bring it up and I know lots of people will watch and it would be interesting. He might have an issue with the fact that he banned you and his normal policy is that once banned he doesn't want to hear from those members. Also, you have said a lot of nasty stuff about him and from anything I have ever heard he never disparaged you and actually said good things about how you were and acted in person.
I am open to talking to Mike about this story. It would still have to be by phone because I can't travel for at least two months unless he would want to come over here. If he did then he could stay in our other house.
You're right--I don't believe he's ever said anything bad about me. All I can say is he was just one of many targets of my poorly placed insults while I was dealing with my "secret" via personal diversion. I do believe this discussion would generate lots of viewers and interest. As worthy a topic to talk about as anything. Up to him.
I think Mike would like to live stream it. I get the impression he wants to get more into that aspect since its all the rage nowadays. Ill let him know about your invitation. If not, theres no reason this can't wait a few months(other than the fact that KJ might have a breakdown within that time frame (-;).Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerI sounded sincere because I was. I did not make a snap decision on who to release this to. I spent a few months reading your posts on WoV and reviewing some here. I went to you because based on my overall assessment I expected pure interest and decency and that's exactly what I got. Believe me, it was not easy.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfI HAVE NEVER PLAYED THIS GLITCH MYSELF!!!! There was more than one article about this and one had a detailed explanation of the steps it took to exploit the bug. I was told by someone that has knowledge about this(they didnt play them they know how to fix them) the article was correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburger
I havent found anything online explaining the bill validator thing and how and why all that has an affect. When im not lazy I will look it up, but as I said before I have no doubt KJ and some others have been frantically searching online.
When I talked to Rob on the phone he seemed to be sincere. His story flowed in a natural manor. Perhaps Rob is a master at deception, I havent talked to him or know him well enough to know. I think I would want more evidence either way before I was willing take a side on the yes or no.
Rob, Mike does a youtube live stream now and he posts them on WOV. If he were to offer to interview you live regarding this, would you be willing to? I would defiantly try my best to convince him this would be an interesting show. Not that I would be able to move the needle on his decision but i can at least bring it up and I know lots of people will watch and it would be interesting. He might have an issue with the fact that he banned you and his normal policy is that once banned he doesn't want to hear from those members. Also, you have said a lot of nasty stuff about him and from anything I have ever heard he never disparaged you and actually said good things about how you were and acted in person.
I am open to talking to Mike about this story. It would still have to be by phone because I can't travel for at least two months unless he would want to come over here. If he did then he could stay in our other house.
You're right--I don't believe he's ever said anything bad about me. All I can say is he was just one of many targets of my poorly placed insults while I was dealing with my "secret" via personal diversion. I do believe this discussion would generate lots of viewers and interest. As worthy a topic to talk about as anything. Up to him.
If we can put this together I think I might like to attend and help propose some questions and whatnot. I too would like to do some online streaming myself but I dont know how one can do that without showing their face (and it be good) Perhaps I can get DarkOz to loan me one of his Freddy Kruger masks. Better yet, ill get a wolf mask.
Well, you've got all your bases covered for sure. You know full well no one is going to come forward saying they taught Rob the double up bug. Except for jackoff idiots that think they can lie their way into the $1000 reward I'm offering.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
All the way back to 2005 and my first interactions with Rob he has strictly been anti-Indian casinos. He has always said he doesn't play them.
Yes, it's not a question of inventory IMHO - the posting caution was for the statute of limitations and was not caused by the waiting for the play to be dead IMHO. Pandora's box was opened, good luck trying to eradicate all unpatched GK5.Xs. It's like trying to recall ibuprofen/Advil. Yes it raises the risk of a heart attack (like all NSAIDs) and yes fractures never heal if they are taken regularly (clinically proven actually), but it's too widespread and too much of a cash cow to withdraw this medication from the market.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Terminator II pinball from Williams was made in 1991 if I remember correctly. The game stayed out on location for years and years after its release because it was a money maker and relatively easy to maintain for operators. Anything that makes a lot of money and has a cheap footprint stays out there (on the floor at the casino in the case of very successful games or at 7-11s,bars,bowling alleys,laudromats,pizza parlors etc. in the case of certain pinballs) IMHO.
One aside here, the live stream will probably have to wait until Ron's foot heals unless some sort of Skype shit can be set up.
I'm confused as to why somebody would have or even wanted to supposedly have "taught" me the play, or how I would've gone about searching for such a personality. Is that even possible?
If there's one thing about this situation that straightens anything out, it's how kew really does talk out of both sides of his mouth. He goes on and on and on about how firmly he believes in what people claim on forums does not require proof, and if you ask for it from him then you're automatically a hater, an idiot and a bigot. Yet at the same time he keeps requesting I provide some kind of proof about my play strategy as well as my double up find--and his reasoning is apparently because of the "20 years of lies" that he made up about me.
I find him guilty on all counts. His sentence? Take away his meds permanently.
Odd that there's been very little said about this glitch by IGT over the years. They MUST have been aware that individual machine fixes like this required would undoubtedly get bungled up in some places and likely ignored in others. There certainly was not a lot of press on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplayYes, it's not a question of inventory IMHO - the posting caution was for the statute of limitations and was not caused by the waiting for the play to be dead IMHO. Pandora's box was opened, good luck trying to eradicate all unpatched GK5.Xs. It's like trying to recall ibuprofen/Advil. Yes it raises the risk of a heart attack (like all NSAIDs) and yes fractures never heal if they are taken regularly (clinically proven actually), but it's too widespread and too much of a cash cow to withdraw this medication from the market.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Terminator II pinball from Williams was made in 1991 if I remember correctly. The game stayed out on location for years and years after its release because it was a money maker and relatively easy to maintain for operators. Anything that makes a lot of money and has a cheap footprint stays out there (on the floor at the casino in the case of very successful games or at 7-11s,bars,bowling alleys,laudromats,pizza parlors etc. in the case of certain pinballs) IMHO.
One aside here, the live stream will probably have to wait until Ron's foot heals unless some sort of Skype shit can be set up.
If Shack chooses to have me on I'll do everything I can to accommodate. I'm told my bones are old, and regardless of my being in decent shape with no other medical problems, old bones can take longer to heal. I just tried to upload a photo of my foot in a cast here in bed so kew won't accuse me of "fabricating another whopper" but it gives me an error message.
I'm not surprised by this. The reason I'm not surprised is because IGT is a publicly traded company. If IGT was privately held things might be different IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I wonder if there's a log kept by the machine that could easily identify casino losses due to the the flaw.
I wonder if IGT just quietly paid off some of the casino losses.
It was their defective program that allowed this to happen.
I'm sure they didn't want any publicity. They sure didn't want to get sued by the casinos.
Maybe that's why the Nevada Casinos didn't try to hang Nestor et al. They already got their money back and maybe even signed an NDA as part of the payoff.
Just a thought.
I've developed a lot of software over the years. There are often design flaws and coding flaws in programs above a certain complexity level. Most of them are innocuous, but not always. This isn't the first software error that cost the casinos money and it won't be the last.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I sometimes try to break programs just because I enjoy it and it's in my DNA. You can bet that I'm always looking for anomalies in gaming machines. Always have been.
One of the problems I see would be the sheer number of requests for them to activate the double up feature. Rob visited once a week. But someone doing it everyday is bound to become very familiar to casino personnel and they could notice you are cashing out a winner everyday. Many casinos didnt have the cashout kiosks back then and I remember having to give the cashiers my slot card when cashing out accumulated credits over about 1K.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPenMy understanding is you are not limited to one collection. Get a 4oak on quarter BPD. Switch to $1 and collect a few times and move on to another place. I could do 10k+ a day and still wonder what to do with all my spare time.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmMaybe a good way of staying under the radar just dealing with accumulated credits but I don't know about 3 mil in a year. That would be a lot of play.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPen
With .25-$1 I would never even hit a taxable. I'd much prefer .50-$2 though.
Like most players I wouldn't play a machine that had the double up feature turned on. It slowed me down. I would switch to a different machine. So many machines with the double ups turned on could lead to complaints by players.
Unowme, that’s the difference between you and Rob. You are “always looking for anomalies in gaming machines”, while Rob only looked for them for a specific period of time, in this case four years. If you believe Rob’s narrative, it was losing a couple 100,000 that prompted him to start looking for “bugs”. Btw, you call it “anomalies” and Rob calls it “bugs” or things that look like bugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowmeI've developed a lot of software over the years. There are often design flaws and coding flaws in programs above a certain complexity level. Most of them are innocuous, but not always. This isn't the first software error that cost the casinos money and it won't be the last.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I sometimes try to break programs just because I enjoy it and it's in my DNA. You can bet that I'm always looking for anomalies in gaming machines. Always have been.
So if Rob had been winning consistently, it doesn’t sound like he would have ever looked for bugs. It was due to his losing that prompted the bug search. And bugs don’t just appear due to someone losing.
And from the sounds of it, it doesn’t appear the casinos lost too much money due to this bug. I mean Nestor had to give most of it back, Kane only made a couple hundred thousand and even Rob said he only made about 3 million in 5 years, if I remember his story right. That’s not a lot. And he did this at various casinos; he didn’t just target one. There are blackjack players using Hilo that claim to have made that much.
,Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPenMy understanding is you are not limited to one collection. Get a 4oak on quarter BPD. Switch to $1 and collect a few times and move on to another place. I could do 10k+ a day and still wonder what to do with all my spare time. With .25-$1 I would never even hit a taxable. I'd much prefer .50-$2 though.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmMaybe a good way of staying under the radar just dealing with accumulated credits but I don't know about 3 mil in a year. That would be a lot of play.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPen
After giving it some thought, if I wanted to avoid W2-G's, I would play 9/6 Jacks on a machine that had a denom spread from $1 to $10. At $1 denom the straight pays $20, flush $30, full house $45. I would activate the bug on these three hands making them pay, $200, $300, $450. All three of these hands have a frequency of about 90. So it would take just a short period of time to rack up a reasonable amount of money with no W2-G's. Percentagewise you would be at 364%. I wouldn't activate the double up bug on 4 of a Kind or the Straight Flush and the only W2-G I would get would be for a royal. Would I activate the double up bug on that royal? That would sure as hell be tempting.
I say anomalies because it's a little broader than 'bugs'. It could be like the progressive that you play for quarters but the jackpot is set for dollars. Not necessarily a bug, but an anomaly nonetheless. Really looking for anything that doesn't fit a normal pattern. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there aren't plenty of other issues out there....from weak RNGs to just plain coding errors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21
See, that requires you to get into Rob Singer's head....a place that I wouldn't want to go. I've always thought he was an odd duck. You have no idea how he thinks or what he might do, so this is just your idle speculation based on how you might behave.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21
How do we know the identified individuals are really the only ones to have found this? How do we know the publicly identified casinos are really the only ones they took advantage of?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21
My reason for deciding to look for a machine anomaly or anomalies ("bug" or "glitch" is used only out of popularity) was not entirely or even the the #1 reason related to the fact that I lost $250k over 6 years. Remember, I spent 1996-2000 developing my strategy, and while doing so I sometimes brought up what I was doing with a few of the software engineers who were working on my programs. Those discussions were what gave me the idea to begin searching for a VP machine anomaly. If an airport ALS (automatic landing system) or an aircraft CAS (collision avoidance system) could have these things embedded then immediately corrected, then why not a far less important VP machine? This is where and how it started.
I wouldn't even bother with good pay-tables. Finding places that ad a good spread with double up enabled would have been one of your biggest obstacles. The only reason I would want to avoid w2g's is the fact that some places have surveillance verify stuff. Also, I think the last thing you want is for employees to remember you. If you tip well they will remember you, and if you stiff them they will remember you. Obviously it's much better having them remember you as a good tipper but, not too good of a tipper, because they will be more likely to chat with you when they see you playing.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm,Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPenMy understanding is you are not limited to one collection. Get a 4oak on quarter BPD. Switch to $1 and collect a few times and move on to another place. I could do 10k+ a day and still wonder what to do with all my spare time. With .25-$1 I would never even hit a taxable. I'd much prefer .50-$2 though.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
After giving it some thought, if I wanted to avoid W2-G's, I would play 9/6 Jacks on a machine that had a denom spread from $1 to $10. At $1 denom the straight pays $20, flush $30, full house $45. I would activate the bug on these three hands making them pay, $200, $300, $450. All three of these hands have a frequency of about 90. So it would take just a short period of time to rack up a reasonable amount of money with no W2-G's. Percentagewise you would be at 364%. I wouldn't activate the double up bug on 4 of a Kind or the Straight Flush and the only W2-G I would get would be for a royal. Would I activate the double up bug on that royal? That would sure as hell be tempting.
I have known a few smart floor people who knew exactly what was going on whenever there were non-resetting meters and over-payers. They magically stopped getting shut down when the tips got much bigger. Of course, theres always management that eventually notices theres a problem, but all the extra days it lasts make a big difference.
Rob, if Mike(and perhaps me) decides to come to you and do an interview, where will you hide the double up bug machine you bought?;) Ill
need full assess to all 10 of your properties and 2 million dollar RV's, I'll be bringing a slot machine detector.
Is there a device made for easy electronic machines detection like this?
No, no. I dont think the double up bug was on the machines version that had the pop up double up feature. I am almost certain it was the ones that had the small yellow tab on the bottom next to the other screen control tabs. you could just ignore the double up enable and play as if it wasn't there. I always assumed this was the case. There are multiple diffrent double up variations and configurations(4 that I can remember off the top of my head. I did ask Rob about this Via PM and I think he confirm this was the case, however I will have to refer back just to make sure. The ones were the double up auto engaged the yes or no feature were mostly all on non multi games. One particular formats caused casinos problems because one could accidentally hit double up on big hands such as royals. It happend to someone I know on a dealt royal. A 7 came up (-; They didnt want to take the risk and had the casino pay them before they drew. They asked me for my advice. I said, mathematically you should go for it, but its a lot of money, so do whatever. They would have won.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmOne of the problems I see would be the sheer number of requests for them to activate the double up feature. Rob visited once a week. But someone doing it everyday is bound to become very familiar to casino personnel and they could notice you are cashing out a winner everyday. Many casinos didnt have the cashout kiosks back then and I remember having to give the cashiers my slot card when cashing out accumulated credits over about 1K.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPenMy understanding is you are not limited to one collection. Get a 4oak on quarter BPD. Switch to $1 and collect a few times and move on to another place. I could do 10k+ a day and still wonder what to do with all my spare time.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
With .25-$1 I would never even hit a taxable. I'd much prefer .50-$2 though.
Like most players I wouldn't play a machine that had the double up feature turned on. It slowed me down. I would switch to a different machine. So many machines with the double ups turned on could lead to complaints by players.
There were two types that worked. There WERE the ones that annoyingly asked the question in the middle of the screen on every win, but these were not common in the multi's. Far more available were the ones axel's talking about, where after a win the yellow tab lit up at the bottom.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfNo, no. I dont think the double up bug was on the machines version that had the pop up double up feature. I am almost certain it was the ones that had the small yellow tab on the bottom next to the other screen control tabs. you could just ignore the double up enable and play as if it wasn't there. I always assumed this was the case. There are multiple diffrent double up variations and configurations(4 that I can remember off the top of my head. I did ask Rob about this Via PM and I think he confirm this was the case, however I will have to refer back just to make sure. The ones were the double up auto engaged the yes or no feature were mostly all on non multi games. One particular formats caused casinos problems because one could accidentally hit double up on big hands such as royals. It happend to someone I know on a dealt royal. A 7 came up (-; They didnt want to take the risk and had the casino pay them before they drew. They asked me for my advice. I said, mathematically you should go for it, but its a lot of money, so do whatever. They would have won.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmOne of the problems I see would be the sheer number of requests for them to activate the double up feature. Rob visited once a week. But someone doing it everyday is bound to become very familiar to casino personnel and they could notice you are cashing out a winner everyday. Many casinos didnt have the cashout kiosks back then and I remember having to give the cashiers my slot card when cashing out accumulated credits over about 1K.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPen
Like most players I wouldn't play a machine that had the double up feature turned on. It slowed me down. I would switch to a different machine. So many machines with the double ups turned on could lead to complaints by players.
I've turned the double up machine here into a lie detector machine. But it has a bug in it.