Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 277

Thread: Request For Mickeycrimm

  1. #101
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    I did the same type of thing when I solved the double up anomaly.
    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.

    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!
    Last edited by Bob21; 06-24-2019 at 05:27 PM.

  2. #102
    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.

  3. #103
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by unowme View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    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.
    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.

    "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.
    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'.

    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.

  4. #104
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    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.
    Okay, here’s another question I know you’ve answered before, but not to most people’s satisfaction, except that is Mickey.

    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.

  5. #105
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    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.
    I am sure I will be the bad guy for asking, but I really want to understand.

    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??

    It just sounds like a lot of baloney to me. This isn't me hating on you Rob. This is just twilight zone stuff.

  6. #106
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    It just sounds like a lot of baloney to me.
    The baloney is stacked so high, even Nick Wallenda won't go up there!

    Sad that people keep falling for Argentinos bullshit.

  7. #107
    Originally Posted by unowme View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by unowme View Post
    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.

    "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.
    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'.

    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.
    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.

    People, it seems, prefer to not have their mental apple carts upset by experts.

  8. #108
    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
    Last edited by Half Smoke; 06-25-2019 at 03:17 AM.
    please don't feed the trolls

  9. #109
    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.

  10. #110
    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?

    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.

  11. #111
    Originally Posted by quahaug View Post
    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?
    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.

    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.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  12. #112
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    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.
    Get lost.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  13. #113
    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....

  14. #114
    Originally Posted by Half Smoke View Post
    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
    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.

  15. #115
    Originally Posted by unowme View Post
    Originally Posted by Half Smoke View Post
    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
    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.

    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.

  16. #116
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    God bless you if you believe what's written on Mendelson's site.


    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.

  17. #117
    Originally Posted by unowme View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    God bless you if you believe what's written on Mendelson's site.


    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.

    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.

  18. #118
    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.

  19. #119
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by quahaug View Post
    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?
    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.

    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.
    So the bottom line is it's the correct sequence because Singer say's it's the correct sequence.....Uh.... OK, I guess.
    Take off that stupid mask you big baby.

  20. #120
    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.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. A Request For Axel
    By Rob.Singer in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 208
    Last Post: 05-17-2019, 11:26 AM
  2. Request to Dan regarding $100K Singer Challenge
    By The Boz in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 89
    Last Post: 01-15-2019, 12:55 AM
  3. mickeycrimm, move over....
    By Rob.Singer in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-17-2018, 09:13 AM
  4. Roadtrip Question for MickeyCrimm
    By redietz in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-27-2018, 11:42 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •