Scammer Chrissy Mitchell 8% HA BJ strategy

[The Boz]

Dan and the crew over on Dan’s other forum do a great job exposing this idiot but I thought I would post this here for those who don’t visit that forum.

This scammer is now pushing such a bad BJ strategy that would make anyone laugh. Except it shows from the comments how many idiots are out there. While he is behind some of the comments, most are from people who fall for this garbage.

This would be a good pastime for KJ if he is not playing right now to help expose this guy.

Check out the thread at Dan’s if interested.

https://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sh...nal-Gambler%94

[jbjb]

Guys like him just prove how stupid and gullible gamblers are.

[MaxPen]

Dan will afford Mitchell the same protections as soon as he scrambles down to the local RV dealer and snaps a few pics in a Newell.

[jbjb]

Rob needs his own YouTube channel. That would be great entertainment.

[The Boz]

Who could argue with this strategy. Add a Marty in and you can’t lose!

[kewlJ]

Who could argue with this strategy. Add a Marty in and you can’t lose!

Boz, I have a question for you. It is really a question for absentee owner Dan Druff, but in his continuing absence I will ask you, since you seem to be following along with this story on Druff's poker forum.

So this guy Christopher Mitchell and our own Rob Singer seem very similar claiming to defy mathematics using progressive wagering for "magical" wins that well like I said, defy math. They even both have "special plays", which are sub-optimal plays that while increasing negative expectation (as non-optimal plays do) somehow in their case makes everything click. As if combining several -EV or losing strategies makes a +EV or winning strategy.

Ok, so the question is, on Druff's Poker forum, he is one of the leading critics of this Mitchell guy. Critical of his claims that defy math, which is fine. I expect that from someone who believes and understands in the math. But it has been a little more than that. Dan Druff has spent time digging dirt on this Mitchel fellow, coming up with his past Gay Porn career. Druff has gone as far as attack the guys wife and hoping for or proposing a divorce.

Like I said, the claim appears to be on the same scope and level as Rob Singers claims here, of which Dan Druff has had very little to say. Occasionally a very mild comment by Druff, but not the involvement of trying to bring down this Mitchell guy. Here Druff has more or less sat back and allowed Singer the platform, in the name of free speech. Why the difference? Is there some personal connection or vendetta between the two?

[The Boz]

Who could argue with this strategy. Add a Marty in and you can’t lose!

Boz, I have a question for you. It is really a question for absentee owner Dan Druff, but in his continuing absence I will ask you, since you seem to be following along with this story on Druff's poker forum.

So this guy Christopher Mitchell and our own Rob Singer seem very similar claiming to defy mathematics using progressive wagering for "magical" wins that well like I said, defy math. They even both have "special plays", which are sub-optimal plays that while increasing negative expectation (as non-optimal plays do) somehow in their case makes everything click. As if combining several -EV or losing strategies makes a +EV or winning strategy.

Ok, so the question is, on Druff's Poker forum, he is one of the leading critics of this Mitchell guy. Critical of his claims that defy math, which is fine. I expect that from someone who believes and understands in the math. But it has been a little more than that. Dan Druff has spent time digging dirt on this Mitchel fellow, coming up with his past Gay Porn career. Druff has gone as far as attack the guys wife and hoping for or proposing a divorce.

Like I said, the claim appears to be on the same scope and level as Rob Singers claims here, of which Dan Druff has had very little to say. Occasionally a very mild comment by Druff, but not the involvement of trying to bring down this Mitchell guy. Here Druff has more or less sat back and allowed Singer the platform, in the name of free speech. Why the difference? Is there some personal connection or vendetta between the two?

My history posting here from the start was calling Rob out on his claims of special plays and consistently beating VP year after year using them. As you said, the math doesn’t lie and no one can consistently beat a negative game straight up without other factors such as rebates, FP etc. I don’t think there are many on these forums who disagree with that other than the crazies that usually don’t last long and are selling something. And most of them are Baccarat players with crazy claims of systems, monkeys and reading the shoe.

As for Rob I believe he later claimed to have made up much of his former stories to cover for his claims of exploiting the Double Up bug. There has been much debate about that claim and only Rob knows for sure. But that is not a anti math claim. We know it was done by some.

As for Dan, no clue why he does what he does here. On his poker forum, which is his livelihood and his passion, he goes after scammers all the time. His radio show spends most of its time on things that hurt poker players. There is a recent good example of a scammer ripping off players in a poker tournament by short paying winners in silver. He does incredible work for the poker community in this regard. My personal guess is he probably regrets buying this forum, but that’s only a guess.

I personally see Mitchell as a clown and I think others over there have exposed him but I wonder if it matters. The people who send him money and follow him don’t believe in math. They are dreamers and while I hate to see people ripped off, you can’t protect people from themselves having a lack of common sense.

[mickeycrimm]

Who could argue with this strategy. Add a Marty in and you can’t lose!

Boz, I have a question for you. It is really a question for absentee owner Dan Druff, but in his continuing absence I will ask you, since you seem to be following along with this story on Druff's poker forum.

So this guy Christopher Mitchell and our own Rob Singer seem very similar claiming to defy mathematics using progressive wagering for "magical" wins that well like I said, defy math. They even both have "special plays", which are sub-optimal plays that while increasing negative expectation (as non-optimal plays do) somehow in their case makes everything click. As if combining several -EV or losing strategies makes a +EV or winning strategy.

Ok, so the question is, on Druff's Poker forum, he is one of the leading critics of this Mitchell guy. Critical of his claims that defy math, which is fine. I expect that from someone who believes and understands in the math. But it has been a little more than that. Dan Druff has spent time digging dirt on this Mitchel fellow, coming up with his past Gay Porn career. Druff has gone as far as attack the guys wife and hoping for or proposing a divorce.

Like I said, the claim appears to be on the same scope and level as Rob Singers claims here, of which Dan Druff has had very little to say. Occasionally a very mild comment by Druff, but not the involvement of trying to bring down this Mitchell guy. Here Druff has more or less sat back and allowed Singer the platform, in the name of free speech. Why the difference? Is there some personal connection or vendetta between the two?

Hey, KJochio. Mike's forum, Mike's rules, right? Well guess what, Dan's forum, Dan's rules. You don't like it don't fucking post here. Just go the fuck away.

You need to get your head out of your ass for a change. Singer is not on the internet selling pie in the sky for hundreds of dollars a pop. Nothing even close. Sure, he had a couple books a couple of decades ago that sold for chump change.
What you can't get though your thick head is Singer believes in his system. Whether it works or not is irrelevant. He believes it works. And he's not selling it for anything. YOU GOT THAT????? HE AIN'T SELLING IT FOR ANYTHING!!!!

You are one sad pathetic figure. Go back to WoV and suck Mike's dick.

[jpfromla]

Who could argue with this strategy. Add a Marty in and you can’t lose!

Boz, I have a question for you. It is really a question for absentee owner Dan Druff, but in his continuing absence I will ask you, since you seem to be following along with this story on Druff's poker forum.

So this guy Christopher Mitchell and our own Rob Singer seem very similar claiming to defy mathematics using progressive wagering for "magical" wins that well like I said, defy math. They even both have "special plays", which are sub-optimal plays that while increasing negative expectation (as non-optimal plays do) somehow in their case makes everything click. As if combining several -EV or losing strategies makes a +EV or winning strategy.

Ok, so the question is, on Druff's Poker forum, he is one of the leading critics of this Mitchell guy. Critical of his claims that defy math, which is fine. I expect that from someone who believes and understands in the math. But it has been a little more than that. Dan Druff has spent time digging dirt on this Mitchel fellow, coming up with his past Gay Porn career. Druff has gone as far as attack the guys wife and hoping for or proposing a divorce.

Like I said, the claim appears to be on the same scope and level as Rob Singers claims here, of which Dan Druff has had very little to say. Occasionally a very mild comment by Druff, but not the involvement of trying to bring down this Mitchell guy. Here Druff has more or less sat back and allowed Singer the platform, in the name of free speech. Why the difference? Is there some personal connection or vendetta between the two?

One difference is that this Mitchell guy is trying to make a buck off his strategy/claims from unsuspecting followers. Rob doesn’t fall into that category.

[kewlJ]

As for Rob I believe he later claimed to have made up much of his former stories to cover for his claims of exploiting the Double Up bug. There has been much debate about that claim and only Rob knows for sure. But that is not a anti math claim. We know it was done by some.

Not to my knowledge has Rob admitted to have made up the former math defying stories or claims. And I tried to give him that opportunity after he came up with the DU bug claim. Had he admitted that, I would have had no choice but to cut him some slack regarding these math defying claims. But he didn't do that. Quite the contrary, I would say he doubled down still insisting he played the Singer progression stuff successfully until he discovered the DU bug. As a matter of fact, he clearly stated this in the interview with Wizard done earlier THIS YEAR.

I mean if he now wants to admit this, I guess better late than never.

One difference is that this Mitchell guy is trying to make a buck off his strategy/claims from unsuspecting followers. Rob doesn’t fall into that category.

Well Rob did self publish at least 2 books about his Singer progression systems, so he was trying to make a buck off these claims. My guess is he wasn't very successful. I mean nothing illegal about publishing books full of phony claims. If their was John Patrick would have spent half his life in jail.

Also Rob has talked about personally training a number of people to play his system. Do you think he did this out of the goodness of his heart (we have all witnessed how his heart works). I strongly suspect there was a charge if this even occurred. What I will give Rob credit for, is I saw no solicitation of people on any public forum. Now what happened in PM's and private conversations...who knows. Rob frequently accuses others (like Redietz) of soliciting members of forums when there is no evidence of it and most of Robs accusations, attacks and thought turn out to be projections of his own behavior.


I also want to comment about this new revelations of Rob's nephew in the FBI (supposedly providing info to him) and before that the similar revaluation of a son-in-law at the IRS. Anyone who has spent any time on forums has seen this crap. This is TROLL 101. A relative or friend in some official capacity to give credibility to made up claims. People like Rob are exposed as long time trolls and have no credibility so they invent sockpuppets (Rob is king of) and make up family members in high places to try to provide the credibility they are lacking. There is nothing new about this and absolutely nothing new about Rob and his trolling. It is all from the Troll playbook.

[jbjb]

Joel Osteen is no different. Only he uses religion to scam millions of stupid suckers.

[kewlJ]

This would be a good pastime for KJ if he is not playing right now to help expose this guy.

There is like a zillion of these kinds of guys now isn't there? They don't make their money from whatever nonsensical system or strategy they promote. They make their money from viewership on the you tube channel. I don't even know how that crap works.

Before we even get into his ridiculous rules and strategy, I did a quick search just to get a little background. Free search.....I didn't even pay the $3.

A couple of interesting things. Real estate records show Mr. Mitchell purchased a new home in the Aliante Section of Las Vegas in December 2019 in a gated community purchase price $400k. That certainly was unexpected. So he has some money. BUT, just glancing at his blackjack rules and strategy which looks to be a progressive system....that is why there is no splitting or doubling, any money this gentleman has didn't come from blackjack advantage play....at least not what he is describing.

Second interesting thing is he is listed as an owner or co owners of C and H automotive. I am guessing he is the "C" of C & H. But I don't see a C &H automotive listed in Las Vegas (there is one in North Carolina). My guess is maybe some sort of side business without a permanent business address. I am thinking some sort of buying and re-selling vehicles. Sort of a flipping cars version of "flipping houses". Just a guess.

Still doesn't explain where the money for the recent real estate purchase came from, but, it sure as hell wasn't from blackjack play. Maybe he makes that kind of money from these youtube channel and videos. Like I said, I don't know how that works.

One final thing I found interesting and that is that Dan Druff discovered and posted that this person used to be in male Porn back in 2010. No, Boz, that doesn't interest me. But it is interesting that Druff knew that.

add on: oh yeah, one more thing. This guy is flashing 10, count em, 10 Benjamin's. That is suppose to be impressive? Gotta love these guys.

[MaxPen]

I stand corrected.....

[Dan Druff]

This would be a good pastime for KJ if he is not playing right now to help expose this guy.

There is like a zillion of these kinds of guys now isn't there? They don't make their money from whatever nonsensical system or strategy they promote. They make their money from viewership on the you tube channel. I don't even know how that crap works.

Before we even get into his ridiculous rules and strategy, I did a quick search just to get a little background. Free search.....I didn't even pay the $3.

A couple of interesting things. Real estate records show Mr. Mitchell purchased a new home in the Aliante Section of Las Vegas in December 2019 in a gated community purchase price $400k. That certainly was unexpected. So he has some money. BUT, just glancing at his blackjack rules and strategy which looks to be a progressive system....that is why there is no splitting or doubling, any money this gentleman has didn't come from blackjack advantage play....at least not what he is describing.

Second interesting thing is he is listed as an owner or co owners of C and H automotive. I am guessing he is the "C" of C & H. But I don't see a C &H automotive listed in Las Vegas (there is one in North Carolina). My guess is maybe some sort of side business without a permanent business address. I am thinking some sort of buying and re-selling vehicles. Sort of a flipping cars version of "flipping houses". Just a guess.

Still doesn't explain where the money for the recent real estate purchase came from, but, it sure as hell wasn't from blackjack play. Maybe he makes that kind of money from these youtube channel and videos. Like I said, I don't know how that works.

One final thing I found interesting and that is that Dan Druff discovered and posted that this person used to be in male Porn back in 2010. No, Boz, that doesn't interest me. But it is interesting that Druff knew that.

add on: oh yeah, one more thing. This guy is flashing 10, count em, 10 Benjamin's. That is suppose to be impressive? Gotta love these guys.

I didn't discover the gay porn thing. That was known long before I got involved in following this guy's antics.

I doubt he bought anything in Vegas for $400k. By his own admission, he lives in a rented condo which he got for a "good deal" from an elderly couple from California who barely come to Vegas anymore.

Christopher Mitchell is a common name. I don't think he has a pot to piss in, aside from a few K he gets here and there which he gambles away.

[kewlJ]

Ok, Boz, I watched a few minutes of the video. FUCK YOU BOZ, for making me do that. Somebody owes me those minutes back.

So I don't have to guess that it is a progressive (martingale system). Half way through he tells you that it is. You bet $25, then $50, then $100, then $200, then $400.

That is why he only plays double deck. Double deck has 6, 7 rounds before the shuffle depending on number of players and Christopher has decided that he can't lose 6 or 7 rounds in a row. Anybody that thinks that hasn't played much blackjack, because it happens all the time.

Nothing much more to say, these guys continue to want to rewrite history AND MATH, thinking that a "marty" or any progressive wagering can overcome -EV. Ridiculous! And blackjack is actually about the worst application of a marty, because a player doesn't win anywhere close to 50% of hands. A good player playing a good basic strategy wins 42%. And if you start doing the crap Christopher says, standing on 14 and above, no doubling, no splitting, that percentage is likely down in the 30's. Blackjack is just a horrible game for a marty.

Anyway, continue on with you politics, and general sewer discussions.

[Rob.Singer]

Predictable. Boz asks for an opinion about the guy's goofy BJ strategy because kew tries so hard to be the forum poster boy expert on the game, and we instead get just another jealous rant about someone who is far more successful in life than him who actually made/makes money from something called a JOB.

Must be from the all the stress of having to wait for another stimulus check.

[kewlJ]

Predictable. Boz asks for an opinion about the guy's goofy BJ strategy because kew tries so hard to be the forum poster boy expert on the game, and we instead get just another jealous rant about someone who is far more successful in life than him who actually made/makes money from something called a JOB.

Must be from the all the stress of having to wait for another stimulus check.

As usual Rob Chiming in when he hasn't a clue what he is talking about.

If there is another stimulus check right now, I wouldn't qualify. I did receive a check earlier this year back in March because that was based on my 2018 income, which was a bit below my average and allowed me to qualify. A second check now would be based on 2019, which was significantly better for me and I wouldn't qualify. Now if the second check gets pushed back past the first of the year or there is a third check next spring based on 2020 taxes, I will qualify and will be sure to do my taxes early so I do qualify. And I don't feel the slightest bit guilty about it.

Now as for Christopher Mitchell having a JOB. Nowhere does it say that. Since you seem to want to support him, when you know nothing of this situation, please tell us all what his job is? He lists himself as an entrepreneur and a "principal" in a company that doesn't seem to legally exist. What we do know is that he makes money from his youtube videos and previously made money from gay porn. Are these the JOBS and income sources you are rushing to endorse?

The youtube thing, as I have stated, I have no idea how that works. I don't begrudge anyone making money legally. I am not thrilled if they are pushing disinformation or mis-information that may harm others to do so, which appears to be the case here, but I am not going to make it a crusade.

I am not a expert at blackjack....never claimed to be. Believe it or not I like to think I am still a student and learning the game. Not how to play the game, but how to successfully win at the game. I learn from new experiences each and every year, including this very "trying" year.

But let me leave you with 2 thoughts.

1.) progressive wagering cannot turn a losing (-EV) game into a winning (+EV).....period!!! Can't do it in blackjack as Christopher is proposing. Can't do it with your claims in video poker! It is a mathematical impossibility.

and 2.) Blackjack is about the worst game to even try a Martingale or any progression system because the player does not win anywhere close to 50% of outcomes. It is 42% for a player playing an optimal, but still losing basic strategy. And what Christopher Mitchell is describing is far from optimal. As he describes it, he is probably playing at a 10% or more disadvantage. Progressive wagering can't overcome a 1/2 percent disadvantage (blackjack basic strategy or common video poker payouts), it sure as hell can't overcome 10% disadvantage. Christopher's "special plays", just like your "special plays" don't change the math.....Progressive wagering cannot overcome -EV! Math Rob....MATH!

jbjb said you should have a youtube channel. He is right, you would fit right in with these guys. What you do is exactly the same thing. Might as well get paid for your ridiculous and impossible claims. Go for it Rob.

[Rob.Singer]

Predictable. Boz asks for an opinion about the guy's goofy BJ strategy because kew tries so hard to be the forum poster boy expert on the game, and we instead get just another jealous rant about someone who is far more successful in life than him who actually made/makes money from something called a JOB.

Must be from the all the stress of having to wait for another stimulus check.

As usual Rob Chiming in when he hasn't a clue what he is talking about.

If there is another stimulus check right now, I wouldn't qualify. I did receive a check earlier this year back in March because that was based on my 2018 income, which was a bit below my average and allowed me to qualify. A second check now would be based on 2019, which was significantly better for me and I wouldn't qualify. Now if the second check gets pushed back past the first of the year or there is a third check next spring based on 2020 taxes, I will qualify and will be sure to do my taxes early so I do qualify. And I don't feel the slightest bit guilty about it.

Now as for Christopher Mitchell having a JOB. Nowhere does it say that. Since you seem to want to support him, when you know nothing of this situation, please tell us all what his job is? He lists himself as an entrepreneur and a "principal" in a company that doesn't seem to legally exist. What we do know is that he makes money from his youtube videos and previously made money from gay porn. Are these the JOBS and income sources you are rushing to endorse?

The youtube thing, as I have stated, I have no idea how that works. I don't begrudge anyone making money legally. I am not thrilled if they are pushing disinformation or mis-information that may harm others to do so, which appears to be the case here, but I am not going to make it a crusade.

I am not a expert at blackjack....never claimed to be. Believe it or not I like to think I am still a student and learning the game. Not how to play the game, but how to successfully win at the game. I learn from new experiences each and every year, including this very "trying" year.

But let me leave you with 2 thoughts.

1.) progressive wagering cannot turn a losing (-EV) game into a winning (+EV).....period!!! Can't do it in blackjack as Christopher is proposing. Can't do it with your claims in video poker! It is a mathematical impossibility.

and 2.) Blackjack is about the worst game to even try a Martingale or any progression system because the player does not win anywhere close to 50% of outcomes. It is 42% for a player playing an optimal, but still losing basic strategy. And what Christopher Mitchell is describing is far from optimal. As he describes it, he is probably playing at a 10% or more disadvantage. Progressive wagering can't overcome a 1/2 percent disadvantage (blackjack basic strategy or common video poker payouts), it sure as hell can't overcome 10% disadvantage. Christopher's "special plays", just like your "special plays" don't change the math.....Progressive wagering cannot overcome -EV! Math Rob....MATH!

jbjb said you should have a youtube channel. He is right, you would fit right in with these guys. What you do is exactly the same thing. Might as well get paid for your ridiculous and impossible claims. Go for it Rob.

Kew, you're no different than any of the other anonymous cowards on forums who claim to "win every year because they're AP's" or "live in 'gated' communities"' or "have it made in the shade". You people claim anything you want while you know your constant denials and anonymity will protect you from anyone getting at least some information on any of you. But I HAVE info on you. Remember you threatened me and I had my nephew in the FBI do a background check on you and your slug family? THAT'S why you despise me so, even though you know I'm prohibited from publicly exposing any of your embarrassing details--details that were NOT obtained from unverifiable two-bit online snoop sites that some loser like you would count on as being gospel.

And therein lies why you are so addicted to forums, and why you get so unnerved whenever anybody calls you for your bullshit. In any virtual existence, fools who crave attention and desperately need relevance have no choice but to continue their ruse. Even when clowns like your useless family having to leave your sugar daddy's home and seek low income housing elsewhere.

As is ALWAYS the case with you clowns, it'll all come around and bite you in the ass, eventually. And don't come crying to me when it does.

BTW, thank you for allowing me to force you into talking about the guy's supposed winning system.

[kewlJ]

Kew, you're no different than any of the other anonymous cowards on forums who claim to "win every year because they're AP's" or "live in 'gated' communities"' or "have it made in the shade". You people claim anything you want while you know your constant denials and anonymity will protect you from anyone getting at least some information on any of you. But I HAVE info on you. Remember you threatened me and I had my nephew in the FBI do a background check on you and your slug family? THAT'S why you despise me so, even though you know I'm prohibited from publicly exposing any of your embarrassing details--details that were NOT obtained from unverifiable two-bit online snoop sites that some loser like you would count on as being gospel.

And therein lies why you are so addicted to forums, and why you get so unnerved whenever anybody calls you for your bullshit. In any virtual existence, fools who crave attention and desperately need relevance have no choice but to continue their ruse. Even when events like your useless family having to leave your sugar daddy's home and seek low income housing elsewhere.

As is ALWAYS the case with you clowns, it'll all come around and bite you in the ass, eventually. And don't come crying to me when it does.

More lies from the king of liars. You have been claiming this for years. Rob you have nothing on me I can assure you. But you have my full permission to publicly disclose anything you think you have. More than permission...I encourage you to do so.

I mean I gotta tell ya, since you made this claim years ago, saying something about you know where I work, I have been kind of anxious to find out what kind of work I do for a living.

[MaxPen]

Kew, you're no different than any of the other anonymous cowards on forums who claim to "win every year because they're AP's" or "live in 'gated' communities"' or "have it made in the shade". You people claim anything you want while you know your constant denials and anonymity will protect you from anyone getting at least some information on any of you. But I HAVE info on you. Remember you threatened me and I had my nephew in the FBI do a background check on you and your slug family? THAT'S why you despise me so, even though you know I'm prohibited from publicly exposing any of your embarrassing details--details that were NOT obtained from unverifiable two-bit online snoop sites that some loser like you would count on as being gospel.

And therein lies why you are so addicted to forums, and why you get so unnerved whenever anybody calls you for your bullshit. In any virtual existence, fools who crave attention and desperately need relevance have no choice but to continue their ruse. Even when events like your useless family having to leave your sugar daddy's home and seek low income housing elsewhere.

As is ALWAYS the case with you clowns, it'll all come around and bite you in the ass, eventually. And don't come crying to me when it does.

More lies from the king of liars. You have been claiming this for years. Rob you have nothing on me I can assure you. But you have my full permission to publicly disclose anything you think you have. More than permission...I encourage you to do so.

I mean I gotta tell ya, since you made this claim years ago, saying something about you know where I work, I have been kind of anxious to find out what kind of work I do for a living.

I like how he went from working at the IRS to working at the FBI. Next he'll be driving a Newell.