Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 456789 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 168

Thread: The Complete Sequence

  1. #141
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post

    Dude, you need to put YOUR bias away. You don’t get to pick and choose when someone is telling the truth.

    My bias is to believe "Singer" did the glitch thing because it makes him a monstrous public liar, misleading people about the source of his alleged winnings. But despite that being my preferred belief, I have a tough time with the posts where he's waiting for a statute of limitations to supposedly expire and he publicly states that others doing what he has done are engaged in an illegal activity.

    Hard to make lemonade out of those posts.
    I'll let up on kew for a bit since he's having such a difficult time with everybody, it seems. Just like on EVERY forum.

    Red, you like to pop into threads with some of what you probably consider "deep thinking". So why not do some here.

    Yes I misled my readers Big Time, but what was I supposed to do--say I was winning over $500k/yr. instead of $90k? You saw how much controversy and commotion/disbelief it caused. I thought it would be best to continue the historicals experienced during my first 4 years. I had no clue how long my writing or the play would last.

    Now fast-forward to the double up discussion here in 2013. No one has any idea what I did or what I was going thru as the Kane/Nestor case was winding it's way thru the courts. And I didn't bring the subject up either. Would it have been better for me to say what I did recently--that I thought it was OK to do it but then say I didn't think using existing hands or the same hand more than once wasn't? I was extremely careful with everything about this play, especially when I nor anyone else had any idea of anything past or future related to it.

    My intention between 2009-2019 was not to slip up or give away any hint of anything. So saying I "believed these guys broke the law" made me feel as if I were keeping eyes and suspicion away, as very small a chance as there was of anything happening. I didn't have to comment on the thread but, well, where would this place have been without me?

    Nobody (well, almost nobody) is gonna buy that. I'm bending over backwards to believe it, because from a journalistic perspective, it makes you look like scum, but I'm not sure I can stay conscious long enough given the alcohol intake necessary to buy into your story. And the account on the Mendelson site -- LOL. Sorry, man. I suggest you get hold of a police detective or somebody who actually evaluates written statements for fact-checking, and take their advice regarding it, and rewrite it.

  2. #142
    I had to lie for 10 years so I wouldn't get caught stealing LOL.
    I love it.
    And they call me the monster

    It is so fun reading how different things are online compared to real life.
    Online you would think AxelWolf is the best, nicest, most honest AP Manager in human history.
    In real life he is losing tickets, lying about how much free play he pulled off of someone else's cards and claiming four of a kinds over and over for the extra 25 dollars.

    Whatever.

  3. #143
    Rob Singer: how do we know you're telling the truth now?

    How do we know that the sequence you described is the actual sequence used to trigger the bug?

    This forum has zero credibility. Shouldn't the owner and moderator make an attempt to keep his forum honest?

    Instead he allows unproven claims (yes Mr Kewl your claims are also unproven whether you follow the math of gambling or not) and the forum even permits someone who admits to a dozen or more phoney identities to keep posting here.

    Sorry, but there is no reason to believe anything here.

    The bottom line will be Mr. Shackleford laughing his ass off at this forum and everyone connected to it and I predict Mr. Witteles will shut it down after realizing the forum did nothing but tarnish his reputation.

    By the way, does anyone even read his sports picks?

  4. #144
    Originally Posted by AndrewG View Post
    Rob Singer: how do we know you're telling the truth now?

    How do we know that the sequence you described is the actual sequence used to trigger the bug?

    This forum has zero credibility. Shouldn't the owner and moderator make an attempt to keep his forum honest?

    Instead he allows unproven claims (yes Mr Kewl your claims are also unproven whether you follow the math of gambling or not) and the forum even permits someone who admits to a dozen or more phoney identities to keep posting here.

    Sorry, but there is no reason to believe anything here.

    The bottom line will be Mr. Shackleford laughing his ass off at this forum and everyone connected to it and I predict Mr. Witteles will shut it down after realizing the forum did nothing but tarnish his reputation.

    By the way, does anyone even read his sports picks?

    If you're familiar with VP the sequence he described is either correct or an exceptionally clever fabrication. It actually makes a lot more sense than what was described in the Wired article, and I think Axel said he believes it is the correct sequence.

    In my opinion it's credible enough that it outweighs the weak points of Rob's story. I don't see how a neutral observer can confidently dismiss his claim without coming up with an explanation for how Rob might know about the bug.

  5. #145
    Originally Posted by smurgerburger View Post
    Originally Posted by AndrewG View Post
    Rob Singer: how do we know you're telling the truth now?

    How do we know that the sequence you described is the actual sequence used to trigger the bug?

    This forum has zero credibility. Shouldn't the owner and moderator make an attempt to keep his forum honest?

    Instead he allows unproven claims (yes Mr Kewl your claims are also unproven whether you follow the math of gambling or not) and the forum even permits someone who admits to a dozen or more phoney identities to keep posting here.

    Sorry, but there is no reason to believe anything here.

    The bottom line will be Mr. Shackleford laughing his ass off at this forum and everyone connected to it and I predict Mr. Witteles will shut it down after realizing the forum did nothing but tarnish his reputation.

    By the way, does anyone even read his sports picks?

    If you're familiar with VP the sequence he described is either correct or an exceptionally clever fabrication. It actually makes a lot more sense than what was described in the Wired article, and I think Axel said he believes it is the correct sequence.

    In my opinion it's credible enough that it outweighs the weak points of Rob's story. I don't see how a neutral observer can confidently dismiss his claim without coming up with an explanation for how Rob might know about the bug.
    Oh please. No one knows if his sequence is correct without testing it. He may have missed pushing the hold button on the first card... or maybe he had to push and release the hold button on the fifth card. No one knows.

    This entire website is nothing but unsubstantiated claims.

    You'd be foolish to believe anything. And after reading about deliberate lies in the past how can you possibly believe anything now without actual proof? I can't. I have no idea what is a lie and what is the truth.

  6. #146
    Originally Posted by AndrewG View Post
    Originally Posted by smurgerburger View Post
    Originally Posted by AndrewG View Post
    Rob Singer: how do we know you're telling the truth now?

    How do we know that the sequence you described is the actual sequence used to trigger the bug?

    This forum has zero credibility. Shouldn't the owner and moderator make an attempt to keep his forum honest?

    Instead he allows unproven claims (yes Mr Kewl your claims are also unproven whether you follow the math of gambling or not) and the forum even permits someone who admits to a dozen or more phoney identities to keep posting here.

    Sorry, but there is no reason to believe anything here.

    The bottom line will be Mr. Shackleford laughing his ass off at this forum and everyone connected to it and I predict Mr. Witteles will shut it down after realizing the forum did nothing but tarnish his reputation.

    By the way, does anyone even read his sports picks?

    If you're familiar with VP the sequence he described is either correct or an exceptionally clever fabrication. It actually makes a lot more sense than what was described in the Wired article, and I think Axel said he believes it is the correct sequence.

    In my opinion it's credible enough that it outweighs the weak points of Rob's story. I don't see how a neutral observer can confidently dismiss his claim without coming up with an explanation for how Rob might know about the bug.
    Oh please. No one knows if his sequence is correct without testing it. He may have missed pushing the hold button on the first card... or maybe he had to push and release the hold button on the fifth card. No one knows.

    This entire website is nothing but unsubstantiated claims.

    You'd be foolish to believe anything. And after reading about deliberate lies in the past how can you possibly believe anything now without actual proof? I can't. I have no idea what is a lie and what is the truth.

    I didn't say any of us knows whether it's correct. In fact I specifically named the possibility that it's a fabrication.

    However there is a plausibility to Rob's version that I think is quite persuasive, that I think other people familiar with the subject matter agree upon. It's not as easy as you are suggesting to make up a believable story like that.

    Look at your stab at it - some random sequence of hold buttons like the Konami code. Does it make any sense at a systems level that any sequence of hold buttons would ever interfere with the machine's payout routine? But after reading the Wired article I was left with the impression that the bug really was a sequence of random inputs like that. Once you read Rob's description you realize that it all makes a lot more sense than that.

  7. #147
    Originally Posted by smurgerburger View Post
    Originally Posted by AndrewG View Post
    Rob Singer: how do we know you're telling the truth now?

    How do we know that the sequence you described is the actual sequence used to trigger the bug?

    This forum has zero credibility. Shouldn't the owner and moderator make an attempt to keep his forum honest?

    Instead he allows unproven claims (yes Mr Kewl your claims are also unproven whether you follow the math of gambling or not) and the forum even permits someone who admits to a dozen or more phoney identities to keep posting here.

    Sorry, but there is no reason to believe anything here.

    The bottom line will be Mr. Shackleford laughing his ass off at this forum and everyone connected to it and I predict Mr. Witteles will shut it down after realizing the forum did nothing but tarnish his reputation.

    By the way, does anyone even read his sports picks?

    If you're familiar with VP the sequence he described is either correct or an exceptionally clever fabrication. It actually makes a lot more sense than what was described in the Wired article, and I think Axel said he believes it is the correct sequence.

    In my opinion it's credible enough that it outweighs the weak points of Rob's story. I don't see how a neutral observer can confidently dismiss his claim without coming up with an explanation for how Rob might know about the bug.

    God, smurger, take a moment and think. I want to believe "Singer" and all, but it doesn't take much cogitatin' (to quote Jed Clampett) to come up with other storylines. "Singer" may have, for example, played the glitch but just been an errand boy following instructions. Those instructions could have come from someone who not-so-innocently set the glitch loose on the world. Or they may have come from people who employed the individual who set the glitch upon the world. Singer had connections in Las Vegas with certain, shall we say, entrepreneurs. It may be how he got and kept the Gaming Today gig for awhile. His ethnicity may have played as big a role as his sparkling personality.

    Those scenarios don't take much imagination. And let's say "Singer" was an errand boy. Now, three million isn't enormous, but it's a fair amount. Hard to explain no property in one's name, or people suing for not paying rent and all that. But if one is an errand boy and earns one's keep executing the glitch, then it would explain a fairly modest personal history while also explaining how he knows about the glitch.

    These alternative explanations make at least as much sense as the idea that somebody purposefully experimented on machines, or bought one and played with it for hours every day in his private lab, seeking great truths -- LOL. Personally, I find the errand boy explanation at least as credible as the "I found it" explanation.

    Smurger, maybe you were just trying to see if anyone applied a little cogitatin' to alternative explanations, or if "Singer" was safe with his "I found it" rap. If that's the case, I can tell you that I'm sure half a dozen folks on this forum came up with the same alternative explanations. It doesn't take a Mensan.

  8. #148
    Originally Posted by AndrewG View Post
    Rob Singer: how do we know you're telling the truth now?

    How do we know that the sequence you described is the actual sequence used to trigger the bug?

    This forum has zero credibility. Shouldn't the owner and moderator make an attempt to keep his forum honest?

    Instead he allows unproven claims (yes Mr Kewl your claims are also unproven whether you follow the math of gambling or not) and the forum even permits someone who admits to a dozen or more phoney identities to keep posting here.

    Sorry, but there is no reason to believe anything here.

    The bottom line will be Mr. Shackleford laughing his ass off at this forum and everyone connected to it and I predict Mr. Witteles will shut it down after realizing the forum did nothing but tarnish his reputation.

    By the way, does anyone even read his sports picks?
    Welcome to the forum, AndrewG. I am absolutely fine if you or anyone else don't find me credible and chooses not to believe my claims.

    But the situation isn't as simple as everyone verifying any claim they make. I don't know your situation, gambler or advantage players at some level, or just someone interested in gambling discussion....all are fine and welcome. But many of us are advantage players, some professional and some recreational and have known each other for many years on many forums. Some even know each other outside the forums. So as active advantage players, we have to be anonymous on these forums and are unable to provide any kind of proof of claims, like bank statements ect, as that would be the end of our career. So two other factors play a big role, 1). is the claim not only mathematically possible but likely based on other players experiences and 2.) the credibility the person has built up over the years.

    So in my case, I am a professional blackjack player in my 16th year, 12th year sharing my experiences on forums. My claims easily clear the mathematically possible hurdle, and the amounts I have shared are well with line of most other full-time blackjack players. Some playing higher stakes average more per year and some playing lower stakes or less rounds earn less. But there is nothing extraordinary or fantastic about my claims. It is well know I live in Las Vegas, moved here 10 years ago. I am fine with any forum moderator confirming or denying that is where I post from, sometimes even right from the casinos, using casino wifi. And whether people like me or not, there aren't many people who don't think I know what I am talking about when it comes to card counting.

    Now compare that to Rob Singer. First, most of his claims of his system play don't even clear the mathematically possible hurdle. Mathematics says a player simply can't do what he claims. Now this claim in question the, double up bug, does clear that mathematical hurdle. But it is an extraordinary claim. 2.8 million over 5 years. It is a claim by number and exactly what he is claiming that has no equal. So is it unreasonable to ask for some kind of supporting evidence of such a claim.

    Now additionally, Rob Singer gave up his anonymity on these forums over 15 years ago. Everyone knows who he is and his real name. The casinos know his real name. And he is retired from play, having announced his retirement 10 years ago, in 2009. So there is nothing stopping him from providing some kind of evidence to support such a grand and unheard of, unequaled claim. I mean the guy is claiming over half a million dollars a year for 5 years. That is 10 thousand dollars a week. There should be paperwork from casinos for all the hand paid jackpots, or tax returns showing such earnings, or even deposits slips showing periodic deposits into a bank account. As Axelwolf, a well know AP said on another site, there has to be some way for Rob to prove such an extraordinary claim.

    Here is an analogy for you. Suppose this was a runners forum. You wouldn't expect the members that were making claims that they are able to run a 6 or 7 minute mile to provide proof of that claim. That is well within the norm. But a guy comes along claiming to have run a 3 minute mile, when the world record is just under 4, well, hell yeah, I think everyone would expect some kind of verification.

  9. #149
    If he was playing the glitch under someone else's instruction that would make his story true, or at least the important part (namely that he was playing the glitch).

    Do you think all this controversy is not about whether he played the glitch but whether he discovered it on his own? That's not my impression, and not what I have been discussing.

  10. #150
    SmurgerBurger, Redietz scenario of how Rob came to have the knowledge that he may well now have is unlikely. As are some of the possibilities that I speculated about, like he contacted Nestor or Kane. But they are possibilities and there are a number more. Perhaps he spoke to someone that had this knowledge after the story broke. Rob would now have that knowledge but wouldn't have had it at the time he would have been able to play the play and make 2.8 million.

    Other possibilities are that Rob figured out the sequence after the fact, after the story broke. I have raised the possibility that he found machines, after the story broke, probably at some out of the way place that hadn't yet "fixed" the bug and was able to figure out the sequence and play the play for some smaller profit before those machines were updated.

    Here is a variation of that that I have never raised before. Rob claims he owned several of these very machines from that time period. So after the story broke, he starts playing around with his own machine and figures out the correct sequence. So he would know it now, but not have known it when he would have been able to make the play.

    As a matter of fact, this seems like the most likely scenario (This one is it isn't it Rob?) , but the point is there are a number of possibilities as to how he came to have this information now after the fact, and none of them would guarantee that he had this information in 2004.
    Last edited by kewlJ; 09-22-2019 at 08:53 PM.

  11. #151
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Here is a variation of that that I have never raised before. Rob claims he owned several of these very machines from that time period. So after the story broke, he starts playing around with his own machine and figures out the correct sequence. So he would know it now, but not have known it when he would have been able to make the play.
    Yeah, it took a little while, but this is the one isn't it Rob? If I were a betting man.... You had a good run Rob old boy! Almost pulled off the big one....scam not play.

  12. #152
    kewlJ that's actually a good explanation. It would also make sense of Rob's claim that he spent two years looking for a glitch. If he already owned a machine and had heard about the Nestor and Kane story, sure he might spend two years off and on in his basement trying to figure out the glitch.

  13. #153
    Thank you smurgerburger.

    It all seems so simple now.

    If Rob had really found and made this play to the tune of 2.8 million, and was sitting on it for 10 years waiting for statute of limitations to expire, he wouldn't have needed mickey or Axelwolf. He would have known he was going to need to show prove and would have had that proof ready and he would have gone directly to a Michael Shackleford or a Richard Munchkin or someone that had the platform he desired, told them his claim, showed the proof and gotten the platform and attention he desired.

    But because Rob didn't make this play and only came into the information after the fact, he had no proof, so his only path was to convince a couple of the better known and respected AP's that his knowledge of the sequence now, meant he knew it in 2004 and executed the play. And this is no reflection on either mickey or Axelwolf. They came to the logical conclusion or at least possibility, which is what Rob needed. That was his only path forward.

    this also explains Rob's flip flop on his opinion of the play being legal between 2013 and now. Forget that gobbely gook explanation he gave earlier for the flip flop. This explains it. It explains so many things doesn't it?

  14. #154
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Here is a variation of that that I have never raised before. Rob claims he owned several of these very machines from that time period. So after the story broke, he starts playing around with his own machine and figures out the correct sequence. So he would know it now, but not have known it when he would have been able to make the play.
    Yeah, it took a little while, but this is the one isn't it Rob? If I were a betting man.... You had a good run Rob old boy! Almost pulled off the big one....scam not play.
    This might be right. Rob Singer may have figured out the bug after all the other articles came out and when it was no longer available to play.

    BUT WE WILL NEVER KNOW, WILL WE? So what's the point? And what is Singer going to tell Shackleford?

    Frankly, Rob should have just written another book using his research, taken credit for his research, and enjoyed the book sales. I would have bought such a book.

    But no... Rob took another road and claimed he had the bug info first but now can't prove anything.

    Wrong choice, Rob Singer. The book would have been a winner, and instead you chose the path for more controversy.

    By the way, kewlj, I respect card counting. But you should have some respect for Rob's system. Rob never claimed anything that violated the math of the game. You keep bringing up the same charge that he does violate the math. He doesn't.

    Rob is saying two things: special plays give him a better chance at secondary wins. And when your bankroll is big enough you can keep playing trying to hit a big winner at a higher denomination. Where does he violate the math with that?

    A better discussion on the forum would be this: what could Shackleford possibly conclude about Rob's claims without real proof?

  15. #155
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by smurgerburger View Post
    Originally Posted by AndrewG View Post
    Rob Singer: how do we know you're telling the truth now?

    How do we know that the sequence you described is the actual sequence used to trigger the bug?

    This forum has zero credibility. Shouldn't the owner and moderator make an attempt to keep his forum honest?

    Instead he allows unproven claims (yes Mr Kewl your claims are also unproven whether you follow the math of gambling or not) and the forum even permits someone who admits to a dozen or more phoney identities to keep posting here.

    Sorry, but there is no reason to believe anything here.

    The bottom line will be Mr. Shackleford laughing his ass off at this forum and everyone connected to it and I predict Mr. Witteles will shut it down after realizing the forum did nothing but tarnish his reputation.

    By the way, does anyone even read his sports picks?

    If you're familiar with VP the sequence he described is either correct or an exceptionally clever fabrication. It actually makes a lot more sense than what was described in the Wired article, and I think Axel said he believes it is the correct sequence.

    In my opinion it's credible enough that it outweighs the weak points of Rob's story. I don't see how a neutral observer can confidently dismiss his claim without coming up with an explanation for how Rob might know about the bug.

    God, smurger, take a moment and think. I want to believe "Singer" and all, but it doesn't take much cogitatin' (to quote Jed Clampett) to come up with other storylines. "Singer" may have, for example, played the glitch but just been an errand boy following instructions. Those instructions could have come from someone who not-so-innocently set the glitch loose on the world. Or they may have come from people who employed the individual who set the glitch upon the world. Singer had connections in Las Vegas with certain, shall we say, entrepreneurs. It may be how he got and kept the Gaming Today gig for awhile. His ethnicity may have played as big a role as his sparkling personality.

    Those scenarios don't take much imagination. And let's say "Singer" was an errand boy. Now, three million isn't enormous, but it's a fair amount. Hard to explain no property in one's name, or people suing for not paying rent and all that. But if one is an errand boy and earns one's keep executing the glitch, then it would explain a fairly modest personal history while also explaining how he knows about the glitch.

    These alternative explanations make at least as much sense as the idea that somebody purposefully experimented on machines, or bought one and played with it for hours every day in his private lab, seeking great truths -- LOL. Personally, I find the errand boy explanation at least as credible as the "I found it" explanation.

    Smurger, maybe you were just trying to see if anyone applied a little cogitatin' to alternative explanations, or if "Singer" was safe with his "I found it" rap. If that's the case, I can tell you that I'm sure half a dozen folks on this forum came up with the same alternative explanations. It doesn't take a Mensan.
    I've had a 1K reward out for at least a few months now. There hasn't even been a "I know someone that knows someone that says they know someone." And what would be the need for an "errand boy?" I can't think of anything. If anything you don't want others, even an errand boy to know what you are doing.

    But for the sake of argument let's say I was offered a job as an errand boy on this play. Do you know how long that would last? It would last long enough for me to find out the sequence then go off on my own. You don't even need bankroll. You can start out on nickels and snowball it from there.

    Your idea here is far-fetched, Redietz. Why would someone make up such an elaborate lie when there are others out there that could easily shoot the story down? Doesn't make sense. Why would you consent to interviews by those prominent in the gambling world that insures the story gets spread further when there are people out there that, if they got wind of the story, could easily prove you a liar?
    "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

  16. #156
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Thank you smurgerburger.

    It all seems so simple now.

    If Rob had really found and made this play to the tune of 2.8 million, and was sitting on it for 10 years waiting for statute of limitations to expire, he wouldn't have needed mickey or Axelwolf. He would have known he was going to need to show prove and would have had that proof ready and he would have gone directly to a Michael Shackleford or a Richard Munchkin or someone that had the platform he desired, told them his claim, showed the proof and gotten the platform and attention he desired.

    But because Rob didn't make this play and only came into the information after the fact, he had no proof, so his only path was to convince a couple of the better known and respected AP's that his knowledge of the sequence now, meant he knew it in 2004 and executed the play. And this is no reflection on either mickey or Axelwolf. They came to the logical conclusion or at least possibility, which is what Rob needed. That was his only path forward.

    this also explains Rob's flip flop on his opinion of the play being legal between 2013 and now. Forget that gobbely gook explanation he gave earlier for the flip flop. This explains it. It explains so many things doesn't it?
    KJ, I just have to tell you how much I respect your investigative skills. You are really on the ball. When Monet talked about a "well-respected AP that gets falling down drunk and passes out on Captain Morgan" you jumped right in and defended me from the attack. Thank you so much. The only problem is, Inspector Clouseau, er, Inspector KJ, is Monet wasn't talking about me. He was talking about Axel. Now get back to work solving mysteries. You're, ahem, good at it. LOLOL!
    "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

  17. #157
    KJ, since far-fetched is your forte, have you looked into Rob being abducted by aliens and they implanted the play and the sequence in his brain. Of course, it would have happened after 2009, right?

    The Rob Singer Redux thread continues to get views even though no one has made a post in a day or two. The count yesterday was 2221. Today it is 2282.

    Something tells me Shack's posting of Rob's claim might be all he does with it. He said he hates giving Rob any publicity.
    Last edited by mickeycrimm; 09-23-2019 at 05:59 AM.
    "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

  18. #158
    Very True Mickeycrimm.
    I don't bash MC, MaxPen, Tableplay, Quahaug and a few others.
    I don't really bash anyone.
    I post true stories or true information.
    Truth Hurts.

  19. #159
    monet wrote:

    However, the point to all this garbage I have read or skimmed through isn't what everyone is posting about.
    The point is that AP is nothing but the underworld or underbelly of society.



    Whatever! As I have said before the whole Gambling Industry or as you honest folks like to call it... AP, is nothing but lie, cheat and steal.


    Sounds like you are having second regrets about how you spent your time in your own AP career. Ap's by definition does not only apply to the game but all facets of life. Survival of the fittest, no different than the weaker, slower animials that get slaughtered in the jungle. There is no lie in any of this it all boils down to eat or be eaten!

  20. #160
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by smurgerburger View Post


    If you're familiar with VP the sequence he described is either correct or an exceptionally clever fabrication. It actually makes a lot more sense than what was described in the Wired article, and I think Axel said he believes it is the correct sequence.

    In my opinion it's credible enough that it outweighs the weak points of Rob's story. I don't see how a neutral observer can confidently dismiss his claim without coming up with an explanation for how Rob might know about the bug.

    God, smurger, take a moment and think. I want to believe "Singer" and all, but it doesn't take much cogitatin' (to quote Jed Clampett) to come up with other storylines. "Singer" may have, for example, played the glitch but just been an errand boy following instructions. Those instructions could have come from someone who not-so-innocently set the glitch loose on the world. Or they may have come from people who employed the individual who set the glitch upon the world. Singer had connections in Las Vegas with certain, shall we say, entrepreneurs. It may be how he got and kept the Gaming Today gig for awhile. His ethnicity may have played as big a role as his sparkling personality.

    Those scenarios don't take much imagination. And let's say "Singer" was an errand boy. Now, three million isn't enormous, but it's a fair amount. Hard to explain no property in one's name, or people suing for not paying rent and all that. But if one is an errand boy and earns one's keep executing the glitch, then it would explain a fairly modest personal history while also explaining how he knows about the glitch.

    These alternative explanations make at least as much sense as the idea that somebody purposefully experimented on machines, or bought one and played with it for hours every day in his private lab, seeking great truths -- LOL. Personally, I find the errand boy explanation at least as credible as the "I found it" explanation.

    Smurger, maybe you were just trying to see if anyone applied a little cogitatin' to alternative explanations, or if "Singer" was safe with his "I found it" rap. If that's the case, I can tell you that I'm sure half a dozen folks on this forum came up with the same alternative explanations. It doesn't take a Mensan.
    I've had a 1K reward out for at least a few months now. There hasn't even been a "I know someone that knows someone that says they know someone." And what would be the need for an "errand boy?" I can't think of anything. If anything you don't want others, even an errand boy to know what you are doing.

    But for the sake of argument let's say I was offered a job as an errand boy on this play. Do you know how long that would last? It would last long enough for me to find out the sequence then go off on my own. You don't even need bankroll. You can start out on nickels and snowball it from there.

    Your idea here is far-fetched, Redietz. Why would someone make up such an elaborate lie when there are others out there that could easily shoot the story down? Doesn't make sense. Why would you consent to interviews by those prominent in the gambling world that insures the story gets spread further when there are people out there that, if they got wind of the story, could easily prove you a liar?
    I didn't say it was likely, mickey. I said it seemed about as likely as somebody playing with machines before knowing about the glitch and "discovering" it. As for why people would prefer to use an errand boy, if you can't figure it out, okay. Not everybody would want to run around every God forsaken casino in the state(s) to make a couple million, because they already have more than a couple million. Or put themselves on the front line in case you got flagged. That's what errand boys are for. Some of you guys who actually hung out in LV during the 80's and 90's surprise me. You buy into the myth that, as it says at the end of the movie Casino, everything became Disney at some magic point.

    As for the whole "somebody could easily prove him a liar" bit. C'mon, man. Nobody who sponsored something like this would bother to do that. Why would they? For 1K? Think a little bigger, mickey. There could be half a dozen errand boys. Nobody is going to out them for any reason, and they're not going to out themselves. I mean, what would be their motive? They might possibly have done something illegal that would piss off casino ownership across the country. Why claim any involvement? For 1K? For 10K? To demonstrate or argue that you're a "top notch" AP? What's the value in that, balanced against who you might piss off? So "Singer" was motivated to do it as he approaches the end of the line. He is, shall we say, unique regarding motivation.

    Yeah, it's far fetched, but your reasons for why it wouldn't have happened that way are silly.
    Last edited by redietz; 09-23-2019 at 08:12 AM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 90
    Last Post: 04-03-2020, 10:45 PM

Posting Permissions

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