Originally Posted by
mickeycrimm
Another thing in Rob's favor, he's not shying away from the coming scrutiny. There are going to be a lot of sharpsters trying to tear his argument apart. He doesn't look like he is backing down to me. Shack's investigation will lead to more publicity....and more scrutiny as we go forward.
I look forward to following the story as events unfold.
Of course Rob isn't shying away from the coming scrutiny. Rob is a narcissist to the 10th degree. He loves the attention and scrutiny. More than loves he
needs the attention and scrutiny.
Mickey has repeatedly made the point that one of the things that he finds credible about Rob's story is that Rob announced his retirement in 2009. Mickey says "he remembers Rob announced his retirement in 2009". I have no idea if that is true. Can someone show me where he posted that? And if it is true, proves absolutely nothing. 2009 would be the year Rob turned 60. Perhaps that was a point in his life he decided to stop throwing so much money away at the casinos.
What I will concede is that at some point this story 'peeked' Rob's interest. And when that occurs the person wants to find out all they can about the story that they find so intriguing. And I suspect that is what happened here. Everyone is focusing on the Wired story, because that pops up with any kind of search, but there are or were a number of different articles out there about the double up bug. I know because I have read at least one other article, maybe two, in the past. So who knows where Rob got some information from that he is trying to parlay into credibility.
I also think it is possible that after the story broke and peaked Rob's intertest, that he was able to locate a few machines that had not yet been "fixed" with a software upgrade. This likely would be at some sort of smaller out of the way casino, just the kind of place Rob seems to like to hit. So he could have found it that way and even played it some, for a profit, just no where near the time or numbers of his claim. There are just a number of possibilities as to how Rob could have come into some information.....
AFTER THE FACT.
Of course there is also the possibility that Rob's claim is exactly as he says. Not likely based on the fact that Rob has a long history of lying and untruthfulness on these forums and throughout the gambling community and that history of lying dates back
before this claim, so the lying is not a diversion cover-up as Rob claims.
Like mickey, I too am looking forward to Mr. Shackleford weighing in with his opinion. I see 3 ways that could go. Shack could say he believes Rob played this play for 5.5 years earning 3 million dollars. I think this unlikely but he could opine that. Of course there would be no argument from Rob. There would be discussion as there would be arguments from some other members of WoV as mickey said. And Rob would love that He would claim victory from Shack's opinion and revel in the attention of discussion.
2nd possibility is that Shack says he doesn't believe Rob played the play and 3rd possible is that he doesn't offer an opinion, saying he has seen nothing that would prove Rob played the play, but that he could have. In Both cases, I suspect we will see the old Singer playbook in that Rob will attack Shack's credibility, saying things like he just doesn't have the knowledge understand the play or that he went into it with a bias. Almost anything to undermine the credibility. Seen it a hundred times. BUT, there would still be quite a bit of discussion, maybe even more in this instance, and that is really what a narcissist like Rob is after. So it is all a win/win for Rob. A 70 year old ultra narcissist, completely irrelevant in the gambling community, back in the spotlight that he seeks. And isn't that what it is all about Rob?