Quote:
Originally Posted by
jdaewoo
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Everyone on this forum understands this except 18 yo man and coach cunt.
THIS!! I was just about to post something along these lines, although more detailed (surprise, surprise), and think I still will
On gambling forums and in the gambling community there are basically two kinds of claims. Those supported by math and those that defy math. Advantage play, no matter what it is, machine right down to lowly card counting is about finding some advantage, something that makes the
long-term return greater than 100% and then putting in enough trials (and money) to overcome any short-term variance and realize that expected return. Anyone doing this need not prove anything.
The math proves it. If you put in enough trial and put through enough money and don't win, that is what would need an explanation. Winning with an advantage need no explanation. It is routine and supported by the math.
Now the second type claim is your 18 y.o in a row, or this claim by Rob of dealt 3's with a kicker on a 10 play machine with a multiplier, or the claim by Mdog of 50 consecutive blackjack wins in a row, which shown the math he later retracted. These claims are not only not supported by the math, they
DEFY the math. Now that doesn't mean they are impossible. By they are outcomes that are 1 in billions, sometimes 1 in trillion chances.
Now Rob is using a loophole that someone like me, has said, routine claims, supported by math need not be proven. The math supporting these claims is proof enough. Well Rob's latest claim and 18 y.o.'s imn a row, is not routine. Again, these claims defy routine, defy the math and need some sort of verification, if you expect anyone to believe them.
Especially coming from the boy who cried wolf dozens of times. :D
For further confirmation of what I am saying, look to the two forum owners, here and at WoV. Both math guys, one a professional or former professional (I am not sure) Poker player and Poker is ALL about math and the other Shackleford, a generally accepted, not necessarily liked, but accepted as a gambling math expert. So have you seen either of these guys ask a card counter or any machine player that the advantage is evident to prove anything? No of course not. The math is the proof. But Rob Singer and his claims that
defy math, both asked for some kind of proof or documentation. THAT is what we are talking about.
Now Rob got around this with the double up bug claim, his previous outlandish claim, by claiming he threw away all tax documents and casino paperwork. Pretty unbelievable. :rolleyes: But this time his claim occured just last week, according to him, and being it is a math defying type claim or what Jdaewoo refers to as an "extrordinary" claim, if he wants people to believe, he should provide the W-2's along with some documentation from a bank that a deposit in the amount of the check received 1.6 million was made. And with his history of faking (and rather badly) such documentaion in the past, the originals should be examined by someone acceptable that we all trust.
If this seems contradictory to my statement that no one is on trial and need not prove anything, he is not on trial and need not prove anything. But with such an extrordinary claim, that defies math, don't expect anyone except those playing games (Crimm and Alan) to beleive.
One more quick example: A guy says I planted grass seed on my front yard, watered, it, the sun came out and a month later a nice new lawn had grown.
No proof necessary. But a guy says, I planted grass seed, watered it and 3 weeks later, I had grass 100 feet high reaching up to the clouds, well he is going to have to show a little proof. :cool:
Now I personally really don't care. Rob Singer has proven to me time and time again, that he is a very jealous old man, full of hate and bitterness. Jealous to the point that he is literally angry at any player who plays with an advanatge, plays with the math at his back and makes money from the casinos where Singer failed to do so. Not a single one of his many math-defying extraordinary type claims, have had anything to back them up. He is in fact the boy who cried wolf.