Dan Druff Retires From Gambling

[Rob.Singer]

mickey what's the big deal about giving your real name out? I've had it for years but I never would make it public, just like I'm not outing kew. It serves no purpose. People only post anonymous people's real names whenever they get upset or agitated by them. I don't do that. Besides, what do you have to lose anyway....a thousand dollars?

Well, Robbie boy, you know how us lowlife's are. I'm on the lam. I'm wanted in 7 states for creating a nuisance. I don't have any kids I know of.. Ahem....but I'm probably responsible for 4 or five welfare checks a month. And I don't want to catch a bigamy charge. There's those fines I didn't pay. Don't want to tell the rest.

While I have no doubt you have some problems with the law in a place or two, you're hardly the bad-boy or tough brute you make yourself out to be on the forums. You don't file fed tax returns, which if you really do have any income from gambling, you're breaking the law but like me, nobody cares. And if you don't, then all you're doing is lying to a bunch of meaningless forum clowns.

Repeat: someone in your position has zero to lose should you put out your real name. And NO ONE would ever try and check out what level of "bum" you really are. It doesn't matter.

[Rob.Singer]

The trick is that I'm allowed to take any teams I like. That means (drum roll please): I am allowed to take opposite sides of the same game.

I asked this question 2 hours ago.

Any limit on how many plays you can make per game?

You're nutty as a fruitcake, ditz.

Coach, you will never pin down redietz for a clear answer to anything. You've just seen again how he wavers and diverts anything he can to try and not look so much like the phony you know he is. He even gets so frustrated with your direct requests that he has to bring me into his excuses for dodging your challenge to him.

Sportsbetting weasels like him who earn funds thru begging other people for money because they can't count on their own picks are a dime a dozen in that sleazy business. You're seeing him prove his ineffectiveness here in real time.

[redietz]

I asked this question 2 hours ago.

Any limit on how many plays you can make per game?

You're nutty as a fruitcake, ditz.

Coach, you will never pin down redietz for a clear answer to anything. You've just seen again how he wavers and diverts anything he can to try and not look so much like the phony you know he is. He even gets so frustrated with your direct requests that he has to bring me into his excuses for dodging your challenge to him.

Sportsbetting weasels like him who earn funds thru begging other people for money because they can't count on their own picks are a dime a dozen in that sleazy business. You're seeing him prove his ineffectiveness here in real time.

For people wondering if I can "count on my own picks," I suggest going to www.playbook.com and checking out last season's Wise Guys Contest. Or this season's Wise Guys Contest. Or previous Wise Guys Contests. The Wise Guys is invitation only. Or the standings pages from "Tipsters or Gypsters?" posted in the Retro Road Trip thread, which I will once again bump thanks to my fan base.

I do not solicit business or partners via phone or text or email. If someone emails me first, I will respond. If Argentino has any evidence that I solicit business in these ways, I will give him a grand AND host a party at next year's G2E where he can head his roundtable discussion that he claimed last year (I notice Mr. Mendelson must not have been invited).

I saved coach money. He should be thanking me. Some people are not happy I did not take his money. My point was that he is out of his depth offering wagers if he doesn't automatically see the pitfalls. All of the Las Vegas sports contests had to insert caveats into their rules regarding taking both sides of the same game after it became an issue during the final weeks of contests. Most did not initially have rules in place to deal with that strategy. Anybody with any experience knows that.

Finally, Argentino misses the basic point of "selling picks" for people who do so. Most of the honorable people I know who do this, do not charge if the selections lose. They charge if they win. It's the classic advantage play for the handicapper, and I'm sure monet and mickey and Mission understand how flipping the house odds in one's favor has nothing to do with not being able to bet enough.

Me? I'm still waiting for the youtube of Argentino's G2E roundtable discussion so I can learn how to gamble.

[Alan Mendelson]

I'm sure Redietz knows no one who does this, but this is the classic betting con that he mentioned:

"Most of the honorable people I know who do this, do not charge if the selections lose. They charge if they win. It's the classic advantage play for the handicapper...."

The con man starts with two lists. One list gets A and one list gets B. Next time the winning list is divided in half with A and B picks again. And the next winning list gets A or B again. Finally there is a small group who thinks "this picker is 100% so here's my $10,000."

I've covered their trials.
"

[redietz]

I'm sure Redietz knows no one who does this, but this is the classic betting con that he mentioned:

"Most of the honorable people I know who do this, do not charge if the selections lose. They charge if they win. It's the classic advantage play for the handicapper...."

The con man starts with two lists. One list gets A and one list gets B. Next time the winning list is divided in half with A and B picks again. And the next winning list gets A or B again. Finally there is a small group who thinks "this picker is 100% so here's my $10,000."

I've covered their trials.
"

Mr. Mendelson, you're talking about the classic boiler room operations from 50 years ago. I have neither the time nor inclination to take you on a historical tour of all ripoffs and trickerations of tout services through the ages. I'll have articles detailing those ancient histories on my own sites. Boz knows his stuff -- he could spell them out for you. Old "Tipsters or Gypsters?" would have been a useful read, as reporter Mike McCusker exposed many of the usual scamming styles. The honorable people I mention are charging $10 to $50 for individual plays, for the most part, and only if they win. There is no scamming fortune to be made that way.

When I say "honorable people," I know whereof I speak. I'm not speculating. Now if you had bothered to read any of the material I sent you, you would understand what "Tipsters or Gypsters?" was about. And how the modern highest profile sports handicappers for the most part don't engage in the high pressure, semi-scam stuff any longer, although to be sure, there are still boiler rooms run by the unscrupulous.

If you bothered to go to www.playbook.com and familiarized yourself with the style and substance of what goes on there, you'd see it's not a boiler room. The Playbook national magazines are on the newsstands now, if you head to Barnes and Noble. I am not part of the Playbook crew. I'm an independent who they invite to participate in the Wise Guys. But Playbook is one example of above board sports handicapping.

The whole "32/16/8/4/2/1 -- somebody is a genius" scam is not what people are doing when they don't charge unless plays win. What they are doing is flipping the odds from the house to themselves. Suggesting they are running the "32/16/8/4/2/1 -- somebody is a genius" scam is actually libelous. If you don't automatically grasp how charging for winning selections flips the house advantage to a player advantage, you should not be writing about sports gambling, even a little.

It is the simplest of advantage plays.

[Alan Mendelson]

Thanks for the additional info redietz. But gee, all I did was mention that I covered some trials of con artists who used A/B lists and didn't charge until they got their marks hooked. Oh, and it wasn't 50 years ago either.

The other cons I covered were as simple as forged cashier's checks used for deposits -- from banks in the Bahamas that did not exist.

And then there were those mortgage brokers I helped to put in federal prison who said investors would get big returns on their money but it was a ponzi scheme.

And I see you can't let go of the package that I didn't have to read unless your plane crashed.

[redietz]

Thanks for the additional info redietz. But gee, all I did was mention that I covered some trials of con artists who used A/B lists and didn't charge until they got their marks hooked. Oh, and it wasn't 50 years ago either.

The other cons I covered were as simple as forged cashier's checks used for deposits -- from banks in the Bahamas that did not exist.

And then there were those mortgage brokers I helped to put in federal prison who said investors would get big returns on their money but it was a ponzi scheme.

And I see you can't let go of the package that I didn't have to read unless your plane crashed.

I'm going to correct you again. I never said you shouldn't read it unless my plane crashed. I expected you to read it. What I expected was for you to have read it and, if my plane crashed, to report to the forum that I was me and that Argentino was completely incorrect. I always expected you to read it. My having sent it, without you bothering to read it, was quite the insult.

You wriggle and manipulate and misstate things, but you will never find a quote from PMs or elsewhere saying I didn't expect you to read it. I presumed you would, being that you are a journalist and all, and presumably interested in the truth. I didn't expect you to report the contents unless (1) you felt it was appropriate to do so (2) in the forum's best interests to do so or (3) my plane crashed. But I always expected you to have read it.

Bringing up your coverage of the old 32/16/8/4/2/1 scams after I mentioned people only charging for selections if they win served what purpose? Were you implying something? If you weren't, why post it? Are you saying handicappers only charging if they win is somehow connected to the 32/16/8/4/2/1 scams? What, if anything, was your point?

Now, how about that G2E roundtable with your buddy, Argentino, chairing the discussion? Care to report on that?

[Alan Mendelson]

You never asked me or told me to read it. At best you said to blow through the 50+ pages and that's what I did with Tony on the phone. Do you really need me to fight your battles with Singer.

Once again I'm posting your messages to me. Now leave me alone.

[Alan Mendelson]

I just love the line by redietz "I'll just send it along and won't mention the fact that I sent it on the forum again."

Do you remember writing that redietz? Did you read that keystone?

[coach belly]

I saved coach money. He should be thanking me. Some people are not happy I did not take his money. My point was that he is out of his depth offering wagers if he doesn't automatically see the pitfalls.

OK flakey...I immediately asked if there was a limit on how many plays per game.

09-03-2018, 06:40 PM

I can take any teams I like. Minimum of 200 plays. No maximum (kind of like Rob).
Any problems with that?

09-03-2018, 06:48 PM

Not yet.

Any limit on how many plays you can make per game?

[Dan Druff]

I have banned Elaine M, who is a troll and a fake account.

[Rob.Singer]

Thanks for the additional info redietz. But gee, all I did was mention that I covered some trials of con artists who used A/B lists and didn't charge until they got their marks hooked. Oh, and it wasn't 50 years ago either.

The other cons I covered were as simple as forged cashier's checks used for deposits -- from banks in the Bahamas that did not exist.

And then there were those mortgage brokers I helped to put in federal prison who said investors would get big returns on their money but it was a ponzi scheme.

And I see you can't let go of the package that I didn't have to read unless your plane crashed.

Notice the increasing length of redietz' replies. It's as if he knows he's in a pickle but he just can't find the selection of wordsmithing that will make him feel better about his being a sportsbetting scoundrel.

I wouldn't expect your posting any of the past factual documentation will have any effect on the redietz lies. It's as if we have our out version of a Hillary Clinton clone right here!

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob I think it's time to bury the hatchet on "packagegate" and I hope this will be the end of it for EVERYONE.

Now, have you any updates on advertising your OFFICIALLY WORDED challenge in TWO Las Vegas papers?

And I hope your advertised challenge will include the escrow terms so once and for all THAT can be resolved as well.

[mickeycrimm]

Since you think it's standard for the person proposing the wager
to put his money into escrow first, is that what you'll do before
anyone accepts your challenge?

Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. Where did you come up with me thinking it's standard for the person proposing the wager to put his money into escrow first? Let's go over the facts:

1. Rob proposes a bet.
2. Kim Lee accepts the bet.
3. Rob says that Kim Lee proposed the bet so should put money in escrow first.
4. I tell Rob he is conveniently forgetting that he is the one that proposed the bet and that since he thinks the one that proposes the bet should put money in escrow first....then Rob should own up to it put money in escrow first.

Then you take that, Coach, and say I'm the one that thinks it's standard for the one proposing the bet putting money in escrow first. Tsk. tsk. tsk. Can't let ya get away with that one, Coach.

[Alan Mendelson]

Actually I don't think there's a true bet proposal until Rob publishes it in two Vegas newspapers.

So, are you going to do it?

For the record, it won't be cheap for Rob to do this. His bet will require details and newspaper ads in Vegas are pricey.

[redietz]

I just love the line by redietz "I'll just send it along and won't mention the fact that I sent it on the forum again."

Do you remember writing that redietz? Did you read that keystone?

Mr. Mendelson, while you're verifying this and that, why don't you verify that you saw the splash panel verifying that I won the Heritage Sports Race to the Super Bowl, which Argentino somehow fails to believe. As an honest journalist, I'm sure you'd like to set the record straight regarding you seeing it, suggesting I post it, and my declining to do so. It's in your PMs, after all.

How about some honest reporting?

[Alan Mendelson]

Redietz I don't know what a "splash panel" is. Also I've never been to any of those sites you mentioned and frankly I set foot in a sports book only twice in my life, and both times to make free bets that the casino gave me and I had to ask my girlfriend what to do.

Why don't you post the links or take a screen shot?

Why don't you ask Dan to do it?

Why don't you ask Mickeycrimm to do it?

Leave me alone. I'm not here to fight your battles nor am I your investigative reporter.

And what is a splash panel?

[coach belly]

Then you take that, Coach, and say I'm the one that thinks it's standard for the one proposing the bet putting money in escrow first.

That's what you wrote right here...

Until Rob places money in escrow that shows he is serious there's not much that can be said about HIS challenge

[mickeycrimm]

Then you take that, Coach, and say I'm the one that thinks it's standard for the one proposing the bet putting money in escrow first.

That's what you wrote right here...

Until Rob places money in escrow that shows he is serious there's not much that can be said about HIS challenge

Sorry, coach, but you ain't got a gotcha. My statement is absolutely true. Rob is the one that said whoever makes the challenge should put money in escrow first. He didn't put any money in escrow so his challenge was not serious.

[mickeycrimm]

Actually I don't think there's a true bet proposal until Rob publishes it in two Vegas newspapers.

Not true. Rob challenged everyone here to a bet in the Interview with an AP thread. Then he went chickenshit as usual.