Million Dollar Blackjack

[mickeycrimm]

Actually they were. But you failed to read them. You might have looked at the videos but you didn't read the report on my website which went with the videos.

If you had read the reports it was clearly spelled out what the purpose was. They were totally objective.

What YOU wanted was a lopsided report condemning Rob. It's also what redietz wants.

Sorry.

I read everything. But what I didnt get to read were any quotes from gaming authorities/experts as to the viability of Rob's video poker tactics. I thought thats what objective journalists are supposed to do, get opinions from both sides.

[Rob.Singer]

mickey, these so-called experts would only make guesses like you people do, because they just aren't smart enuf to comprehend the advanced methodology I use to win at vp. Who needs opinions from a bunch of uneducated dropouts when it's clear redietz' group of university math professors would all side with me?

[slingshot]

It's not a reporter's job to decide if it's horseshit or not. If reporters made those judgment calls our press would cover one side of most issues.

I use the abortion issue as my example because no other issue in America is as definitive as the abortion debate. Do you think for a minute that the mainstream media would cover Right To Life fairly if reporters judged the issue?

Look at the presidential election. The media did get caught with its pants down because too many reporters and editors used their own bias to cover the campaign.

I begged all of you to read the article on my website where I clearly defined why I gave Rob a fair hearing to present his case. Not one of you read it because you kept telling me the same crap redietz told me: ask a math professor. And just as I told redietz over and over again and as I'm going to tell you again for the umpteenth time, there was no need to talk to any math professors because Rob even admitted himself that his plays were at a disadvantage.

Still you ignored the reason I presented Rob's special plays: it was to provide a record of what he said and what they were because his own website no longer existed.

That's what honest reporters do. Period.

The bottom line is none of you wanted to let Rob have a fair hearing and probably some of you didn't want Trump to have a fair hearing or Hillary to have a fair hearing either, depending on your views. Well, those of you who are one sided will never be good or honest reporters. And today we know many mainstream reporters aren't good or fair after what happened during the election.

I'm going to explain why I think what Mr. Mendelson wrote above is dead wrong.

My mentor, which may be too strong a word, but my only advisor and coach in college, was Robert Gannon, the adventure editor for Popular Science at the time. Gannon became famous for checking himself into a hospital, taking LSD, and reporting on it before anybody really knew what LSD was. He visited erupting volcanoes, learned to fly gliders, and took experimental aquatic cars for test drives in flood conditions, among his various writing projects.

Gannon's preparation was voluminous and organized. He had large ring binders of research materials for each assignment. He spoke to experts before his adventures, then did his research, did the adventure, and wrote about it.

But here's the thing -- when he had finished his writing assignment and had it ready for publishing -- HE ALWAYS LOOKED UP TWO EXPERTS IN THE FIELD AND HAD THEM REVIEW WHAT HE HAD WRITTEN. He did this so that he was never caught assuming something that was laughably incorrect to any expert. He knew that, no matter his civilian preparation, there was always a chance he misinterpreted something and was out of his depth of understanding. It was only after the experts had cleared his writing that Gannon would say it was public-ready.

That is how things should be done.

So you don't remember the part where Rob teamed up with other mathematicians to check the accuracy of his strategy? And of course, win goals sometimes change the "correct" math.

[redietz]

It's not a reporter's job to decide if it's horseshit or not. If reporters made those judgment calls our press would cover one side of most issues.

I use the abortion issue as my example because no other issue in America is as definitive as the abortion debate. Do you think for a minute that the mainstream media would cover Right To Life fairly if reporters judged the issue?

Look at the presidential election. The media did get caught with its pants down because too many reporters and editors used their own bias to cover the campaign.

I begged all of you to read the article on my website where I clearly defined why I gave Rob a fair hearing to present his case. Not one of you read it because you kept telling me the same crap redietz told me: ask a math professor. And just as I told redietz over and over again and as I'm going to tell you again for the umpteenth time, there was no need to talk to any math professors because Rob even admitted himself that his plays were at a disadvantage.

Still you ignored the reason I presented Rob's special plays: it was to provide a record of what he said and what they were because his own website no longer existed.

That's what honest reporters do. Period.

The bottom line is none of you wanted to let Rob have a fair hearing and probably some of you didn't want Trump to have a fair hearing or Hillary to have a fair hearing either, depending on your views. Well, those of you who are one sided will never be good or honest reporters. And today we know many mainstream reporters aren't good or fair after what happened during the election.

I'm going to explain why I think what Mr. Mendelson wrote above is dead wrong.

My mentor, which may be too strong a word, but my only advisor and coach in college, was Robert Gannon, the adventure editor for Popular Science at the time. Gannon became famous for checking himself into a hospital, taking LSD, and reporting on it before anybody really knew what LSD was. He visited erupting volcanoes, learned to fly gliders, and took experimental aquatic cars for test drives in flood conditions, among his various writing projects.

Gannon's preparation was voluminous and organized. He had large ring binders of research materials for each assignment. He spoke to experts before his adventures, then did his research, did the adventure, and wrote about it.

But here's the thing -- when he had finished his writing assignment and had it ready for publishing -- HE ALWAYS LOOKED UP TWO EXPERTS IN THE FIELD AND HAD THEM REVIEW WHAT HE HAD WRITTEN. He did this so that he was never caught assuming something that was laughably incorrect to any expert. He knew that, no matter his civilian preparation, there was always a chance he misinterpreted something and was out of his depth of understanding. It was only after the experts had cleared his writing that Gannon would say it was public-ready.

That is how things should be done.

So you don't remember the part where Rob teamed up with other mathematicians to check the accuracy of his strategy? And of course, win goals sometimes change the "correct" math.

I met some of those mathematicians when we went on break during Rob's roundtable at the last G2E. Rob hadn't ever, in thousands of posts, mentioned any of their names, but I recognized them because they were wearing "I [heart] Rob Singer" shirts. We went out into the hall so I could get their take on the systems, but none of them spoke English. Damn shame. I had made arrangements to do a guest column in Gaming Today about the mathematical basis of Rob's systems. Now I'm out of luck. Hey, maybe Mr. Mendelson has a copy of the systems somewhere. He's known for his accuracy and objectivity, so I'm sure he wouldn't foist a system on the public that he hadn't carefully read or at least gotten a complete transcript of the system on tape. Maybe he could help Gaming Today out and share his info.

[Rob.Singer]

It's not a reporter's job to decide if it's horseshit or not. If reporters made those judgment calls our press would cover one side of most issues.

I use the abortion issue as my example because no other issue in America is as definitive as the abortion debate. Do you think for a minute that the mainstream media would cover Right To Life fairly if reporters judged the issue?

Look at the presidential election. The media did get caught with its pants down because too many reporters and editors used their own bias to cover the campaign.

I begged all of you to read the article on my website where I clearly defined why I gave Rob a fair hearing to present his case. Not one of you read it because you kept telling me the same crap redietz told me: ask a math professor. And just as I told redietz over and over again and as I'm going to tell you again for the umpteenth time, there was no need to talk to any math professors because Rob even admitted himself that his plays were at a disadvantage.

Still you ignored the reason I presented Rob's special plays: it was to provide a record of what he said and what they were because his own website no longer existed.

That's what honest reporters do. Period.

The bottom line is none of you wanted to let Rob have a fair hearing and probably some of you didn't want Trump to have a fair hearing or Hillary to have a fair hearing either, depending on your views. Well, those of you who are one sided will never be good or honest reporters. And today we know many mainstream reporters aren't good or fair after what happened during the election.

I'm going to explain why I think what Mr. Mendelson wrote above is dead wrong.

My mentor, which may be too strong a word, but my only advisor and coach in college, was Robert Gannon, the adventure editor for Popular Science at the time. Gannon became famous for checking himself into a hospital, taking LSD, and reporting on it before anybody really knew what LSD was. He visited erupting volcanoes, learned to fly gliders, and took experimental aquatic cars for test drives in flood conditions, among his various writing projects.

Gannon's preparation was voluminous and organized. He had large ring binders of research materials for each assignment. He spoke to experts before his adventures, then did his research, did the adventure, and wrote about it.

But here's the thing -- when he had finished his writing assignment and had it ready for publishing -- HE ALWAYS LOOKED UP TWO EXPERTS IN THE FIELD AND HAD THEM REVIEW WHAT HE HAD WRITTEN. He did this so that he was never caught assuming something that was laughably incorrect to any expert. He knew that, no matter his civilian preparation, there was always a chance he misinterpreted something and was out of his depth of understanding. It was only after the experts had cleared his writing that Gannon would say it was public-ready.

That is how things should be done.

So you don't remember the part where Rob teamed up with other mathematicians to check the accuracy of his strategy? And of course, win goals sometimes change the "correct" math.

He ignores that sling, and instead keeps writing his imaginary corn that nobody reads.

[jbjb]

It's not a reporter's job to decide if it's horseshit or not. If reporters made those judgment calls our press would cover one side of most issues.

I use the abortion issue as my example because no other issue in America is as definitive as the abortion debate. Do you think for a minute that the mainstream media would cover Right To Life fairly if reporters judged the issue?

Look at the presidential election. The media did get caught with its pants down because too many reporters and editors used their own bias to cover the campaign.

I begged all of you to read the article on my website where I clearly defined why I gave Rob a fair hearing to present his case. Not one of you read it because you kept telling me the same crap redietz told me: ask a math professor. And just as I told redietz over and over again and as I'm going to tell you again for the umpteenth time, there was no need to talk to any math professors because Rob even admitted himself that his plays were at a disadvantage.

Still you ignored the reason I presented Rob's special plays: it was to provide a record of what he said and what they were because his own website no longer existed.

That's what honest reporters do. Period.

The bottom line is none of you wanted to let Rob have a fair hearing and probably some of you didn't want Trump to have a fair hearing or Hillary to have a fair hearing either, depending on your views. Well, those of you who are one sided will never be good or honest reporters. And today we know many mainstream reporters aren't good or fair after what happened during the election.

I'm going to explain why I think what Mr. Mendelson wrote above is dead wrong.

My mentor, which may be too strong a word, but my only advisor and coach in college, was Robert Gannon, the adventure editor for Popular Science at the time. Gannon became famous for checking himself into a hospital, taking LSD, and reporting on it before anybody really knew what LSD was. He visited erupting volcanoes, learned to fly gliders, and took experimental aquatic cars for test drives in flood conditions, among his various writing projects.

Gannon's preparation was voluminous and organized. He had large ring binders of research materials for each assignment. He spoke to experts before his adventures, then did his research, did the adventure, and wrote about it.

But here's the thing -- when he had finished his writing assignment and had it ready for publishing -- HE ALWAYS LOOKED UP TWO EXPERTS IN THE FIELD AND HAD THEM REVIEW WHAT HE HAD WRITTEN. He did this so that he was never caught assuming something that was laughably incorrect to any expert. He knew that, no matter his civilian preparation, there was always a chance he misinterpreted something and was out of his depth of understanding. It was only after the experts had cleared his writing that Gannon would say it was public-ready.

That is how things should be done.

So you don't remember the part where Rob teamed up with other mathematicians to check the accuracy of his strategy? And of course, win goals sometimes change the "correct" math.

Name them and I'm certain they'll be discredited.

[mickeycrimm]

It's not a reporter's job to decide if it's horseshit or not. If reporters made those judgment calls our press would cover one side of most issues.

I use the abortion issue as my example because no other issue in America is as definitive as the abortion debate. Do you think for a minute that the mainstream media would cover Right To Life fairly if reporters judged the issue?

Look at the presidential election. The media did get caught with its pants down because too many reporters and editors used their own bias to cover the campaign.

I begged all of you to read the article on my website where I clearly defined why I gave Rob a fair hearing to present his case. Not one of you read it because you kept telling me the same crap redietz told me: ask a math professor. And just as I told redietz over and over again and as I'm going to tell you again for the umpteenth time, there was no need to talk to any math professors because Rob even admitted himself that his plays were at a disadvantage.

Still you ignored the reason I presented Rob's special plays: it was to provide a record of what he said and what they were because his own website no longer existed.

That's what honest reporters do. Period.

The bottom line is none of you wanted to let Rob have a fair hearing and probably some of you didn't want Trump to have a fair hearing or Hillary to have a fair hearing either, depending on your views. Well, those of you who are one sided will never be good or honest reporters. And today we know many mainstream reporters aren't good or fair after what happened during the election.

I'm going to explain why I think what Mr. Mendelson wrote above is dead wrong.

My mentor, which may be too strong a word, but my only advisor and coach in college, was Robert Gannon, the adventure editor for Popular Science at the time. Gannon became famous for checking himself into a hospital, taking LSD, and reporting on it before anybody really knew what LSD was. He visited erupting volcanoes, learned to fly gliders, and took experimental aquatic cars for test drives in flood conditions, among his various writing projects.

Gannon's preparation was voluminous and organized. He had large ring binders of research materials for each assignment. He spoke to experts before his adventures, then did his research, did the adventure, and wrote about it.

But here's the thing -- when he had finished his writing assignment and had it ready for publishing -- HE ALWAYS LOOKED UP TWO EXPERTS IN THE FIELD AND HAD THEM REVIEW WHAT HE HAD WRITTEN. He did this so that he was never caught assuming something that was laughably incorrect to any expert. He knew that, no matter his civilian preparation, there was always a chance he misinterpreted something and was out of his depth of understanding. It was only after the experts had cleared his writing that Gannon would say it was public-ready.

That is how things should be done.

So you don't remember the part where Rob teamed up with other mathematicians to check the accuracy of his strategy? And of course, win goals sometimes change the "correct" math.

Sling, can you name those "mathematicians?"

[mickeycrimm]

And this of course has given rise to the newest of terms on VCT, "phantom mathematicians."

[mickeycrimm]

It's not a reporter's job to decide if it's horseshit or not. If reporters made those judgment calls our press would cover one side of most issues.

I use the abortion issue as my example because no other issue in America is as definitive as the abortion debate. Do you think for a minute that the mainstream media would cover Right To Life fairly if reporters judged the issue?

Look at the presidential election. The media did get caught with its pants down because too many reporters and editors used their own bias to cover the campaign.

I begged all of you to read the article on my website where I clearly defined why I gave Rob a fair hearing to present his case. Not one of you read it because you kept telling me the same crap redietz told me: ask a math professor. And just as I told redietz over and over again and as I'm going to tell you again for the umpteenth time, there was no need to talk to any math professors because Rob even admitted himself that his plays were at a disadvantage.

Still you ignored the reason I presented Rob's special plays: it was to provide a record of what he said and what they were because his own website no longer existed.

That's what honest reporters do. Period.

The bottom line is none of you wanted to let Rob have a fair hearing and probably some of you didn't want Trump to have a fair hearing or Hillary to have a fair hearing either, depending on your views. Well, those of you who are one sided will never be good or honest reporters. And today we know many mainstream reporters aren't good or fair after what happened during the election.

I'm going to explain why I think what Mr. Mendelson wrote above is dead wrong.

My mentor, which may be too strong a word, but my only advisor and coach in college, was Robert Gannon, the adventure editor for Popular Science at the time. Gannon became famous for checking himself into a hospital, taking LSD, and reporting on it before anybody really knew what LSD was. He visited erupting volcanoes, learned to fly gliders, and took experimental aquatic cars for test drives in flood conditions, among his various writing projects.

Gannon's preparation was voluminous and organized. He had large ring binders of research materials for each assignment. He spoke to experts before his adventures, then did his research, did the adventure, and wrote about it.

But here's the thing -- when he had finished his writing assignment and had it ready for publishing -- HE ALWAYS LOOKED UP TWO EXPERTS IN THE FIELD AND HAD THEM REVIEW WHAT HE HAD WRITTEN. He did this so that he was never caught assuming something that was laughably incorrect to any expert. He knew that, no matter his civilian preparation, there was always a chance he misinterpreted something and was out of his depth of understanding. It was only after the experts had cleared his writing that Gannon would say it was public-ready.

That is how things should be done.

So you don't remember the part where Rob teamed up with other mathematicians to check the accuracy of his strategy? And of course, win goals sometimes change the "correct" math.

"correct math" is not in Rob's vocabulary.

[slingshot]

I'm going to explain why I think what Mr. Mendelson wrote above is dead wrong.

My mentor, which may be too strong a word, but my only advisor and coach in college, was Robert Gannon, the adventure editor for Popular Science at the time. Gannon became famous for checking himself into a hospital, taking LSD, and reporting on it before anybody really knew what LSD was. He visited erupting volcanoes, learned to fly gliders, and took experimental aquatic cars for test drives in flood conditions, among his various writing projects.

Gannon's preparation was voluminous and organized. He had large ring binders of research materials for each assignment. He spoke to experts before his adventures, then did his research, did the adventure, and wrote about it.

But here's the thing -- when he had finished his writing assignment and had it ready for publishing -- HE ALWAYS LOOKED UP TWO EXPERTS IN THE FIELD AND HAD THEM REVIEW WHAT HE HAD WRITTEN. He did this so that he was never caught assuming something that was laughably incorrect to any expert. He knew that, no matter his civilian preparation, there was always a chance he misinterpreted something and was out of his depth of understanding. It was only after the experts had cleared his writing that Gannon would say it was public-ready.

That is how things should be done.

So you don't remember the part where Rob teamed up with other mathematicians to check the accuracy of his strategy? And of course, win goals sometimes change the "correct" math.

Sling, can you name those "mathematicians?"

Would it matter? The original Singer challenge should settle everything. But I don't blame anyone for taking the coward's way out.

[Alan Mendelson]

Actually they were. But you failed to read them. You might have looked at the videos but you didn't read the report on my website which went with the videos.

If you had read the reports it was clearly spelled out what the purpose was. They were totally objective.

What YOU wanted was a lopsided report condemning Rob. It's also what redietz wants.

Sorry.

I read everything. But what I didnt get to read were any quotes from gaming authorities/experts as to the viability of Rob's video poker tactics. I thought thats what objective journalists are supposed to do, get opinions from both sides.

You didn't read my articles. If you had read them then you would have clearly seen the purpose behind the interviews. Again you are not looking for an objective presentation. You are looking for condemnation. Give it up. I understand what you want. I didn't give it to you. I gave an objective presentation INCLUDING ROB'S OWN ADMISSION THAT HIS SPECIALS PLAYS ARE AT A MATHEMATICAL DISADVANTAGE.

[mickeycrimm]

So you don't remember the part where Rob teamed up with other mathematicians to check the accuracy of his strategy? And of course, win goals sometimes change the "correct" math.

Sling, can you name those "mathematicians?"

Would it matter? The original Singer challenge should settle everything. But I don't blame anyone for taking the coward's way out.

Sling, you just took the coward's way out with "what would it matter?" instead of naming the mathematicians.

[mickeycrimm]

Actually they were. But you failed to read them. You might have looked at the videos but you didn't read the report on my website which went with the videos.

If you had read the reports it was clearly spelled out what the purpose was. They were totally objective.

What YOU wanted was a lopsided report condemning Rob. It's also what redietz wants.

Sorry.

I read everything. But what I didnt get to read were any quotes from gaming authorities/experts as to the viability of Rob's video poker tactics. I thought thats what objective journalists are supposed to do, get opinions from both sides.

You didn't read my articles. If you had read them then you would have clearly seen the purpose behind the interviews. Again you are not looking for an objective presentation. You are looking for condemnation. Give it up. I understand what you want. I didn't give it to you. I gave an objective presentation INCLUDING ROB'S OWN ADMISSION THAT HIS SPECIALS PLAYS ARE AT A MATHEMATICAL DISADVANTAGE.

You are lying. Your presentation was not objective.

[Alan Mendelson]

Mickeycrimm see my new post with my challenge to Redietz. You can also consider that to be a challenge to you as well.

[The Boz]

Actually they were. But you failed to read them. You might have looked at the videos but you didn't read the report on my website which went with the videos.

If you had read the reports it was clearly spelled out what the purpose was. They were totally objective.

What YOU wanted was a lopsided report condemning Rob. It's also what redietz wants.

Sorry.

I read everything. But what I didnt get to read were any quotes from gaming authorities/experts as to the viability of Rob's video poker tactics. I thought thats what objective journalists are supposed to do, get opinions from both sides.

You didn't read my articles. If you had read them then you would have clearly seen the purpose behind the interviews. Again you are not looking for an objective presentation. You are looking for condemnation. Give it up. I understand what you want. I didn't give it to you. I gave an objective presentation INCLUDING ROB'S OWN ADMISSION THAT HIS SPECIALS PLAYS ARE AT A MATHEMATICAL DISADVANTAGE.

Off topic, but did you pay your son yet? And are his kids suffering for it? Just trying to make sure they are not having to get subsidized meals at school because of your choices Alan.

While I and other members who pay taxes don’t want to support them, it’s more about the embarrassment they face from peers. We will be fine but don’t want to see the little Mendelson’s suffering because of your addiction.

And yea, I know you will send this to Dano, because blame and deflection is what addicts do. I’ll be fine no matter what. I hope you prove me wrong and Slappy can post here you paid him back 100%, quit gambling and have become a productive member of society.

Classes daily Alan, classes daily.

[slingshot]

Sling, can you name those "mathematicians?"

Would it matter? The original Singer challenge should settle everything. But I don't blame anyone for taking the coward's way out.

Sling, you just took the coward's way out with "what would it matter?" instead of naming the mathematicians.

Just avoiding arguing in circles-prevalent here. Cowboys suck! Time to watch Patriots.

[Rob.Singer]

I'm going to explain why I think what Mr. Mendelson wrote above is dead wrong.

My mentor, which may be too strong a word, but my only advisor and coach in college, was Robert Gannon, the adventure editor for Popular Science at the time. Gannon became famous for checking himself into a hospital, taking LSD, and reporting on it before anybody really knew what LSD was. He visited erupting volcanoes, learned to fly gliders, and took experimental aquatic cars for test drives in flood conditions, among his various writing projects.

Gannon's preparation was voluminous and organized. He had large ring binders of research materials for each assignment. He spoke to experts before his adventures, then did his research, did the adventure, and wrote about it.

But here's the thing -- when he had finished his writing assignment and had it ready for publishing -- HE ALWAYS LOOKED UP TWO EXPERTS IN THE FIELD AND HAD THEM REVIEW WHAT HE HAD WRITTEN. He did this so that he was never caught assuming something that was laughably incorrect to any expert. He knew that, no matter his civilian preparation, there was always a chance he misinterpreted something and was out of his depth of understanding. It was only after the experts had cleared his writing that Gannon would say it was public-ready.

That is how things should be done.

So you don't remember the part where Rob teamed up with other mathematicians to check the accuracy of his strategy? And of course, win goals sometimes change the "correct" math.

"correct math" is not in Rob's vocabulary.

mickey, your silly bias makes you look so dumb. After I developed my play strategy following receiving two degrees grounded in advanced math and working in a technical fields for 25 years, I indeed did have 3 hard math guys review my approach. And as I've said many times, Franz Schaeffler (engineer from Rhode & Schwarz in Munich), another engineer friend of mine from the UAE, and a math professor friend in China all gave me their favourable opinions after they reviewed the strategy, for a healthy fee.

I know you think you know all "correct math" because you understand how to calculate gambling percentages. But people like me and the colleagues I've had throughout my career laugh at impersonators like you, and you probably can't even figure out why.

Next time wise up, and listen to sling.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob's math is not wrong. It's how he plays that's different. The math is not different.

Is that too hard to understand?

Also, Rob never guaranteed it would work. But ya know what? You APs seem to guarantee wins of $6 or $8 an hour with your constant play.

[mickeycrimm]

Rob's math is not wrong. It's how he plays that's different. The math is not different.

Is that too hard to understand?

Also, Rob never guaranteed it would work. But ya know what? You APs seem to guarantee wins of $6 or $8 an hour with your constant play.

You betcha, Dunce.

[Alan Mendelson]

There you go with insults, mickeycrimm, when you have nothing worthwhile to say. I used to think insults were beneath you.