Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 50

Thread: Scammer Chrissy Mitchell 8% HA BJ strategy

  1. #21
    Originally Posted by The Boz View Post
    Who could argue with this strategy. Add a Marty in and you can’t lose!

    Name:  
Views: 
Size:
    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?
    Last edited by kewlJ; 10-26-2020 at 10:24 AM.

  2. #22
    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.

  3. #23
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by The Boz View Post
    Who could argue with this strategy. Add a Marty in and you can’t lose!

    Name:  
Views: 
Size:
    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.

  4. #24
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by The Boz View Post
    Who could argue with this strategy. Add a Marty in and you can’t lose!

    Name:  
Views: 
Size:
    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.
    "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

  5. #25
    Originally Posted by MaxPen View Post
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post

    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.
    His son-in-law works for the IRS, not his nephew.
    "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

  6. #26

  7. #27
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by The Boz View Post
    Who could argue with this strategy. Add a Marty in and you can’t lose!

    Name:  
Views: 
Size:
    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.
    Keep your friends close, keep your drinks closer...

  8. #28
    Originally Posted by The Boz View Post
    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.



    Originally Posted by jpfromla View Post

    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.
    Last edited by kewlJ; 10-26-2020 at 03:11 PM.

  9. #29
    KJ, you certainly know the troll playbook well. I thought your troll bullshit was over here. I guess not. Rob's claim over 4 years is much more credible than the 10 year claim. You keep saying it's impossible but it's not. Anyone who knows the math knows it's possible. Even when Singer and I were at odds I knew that he believed his system works. That was the one thing that always came through about him. He believed in it. If you believe in something you might be wrong but you are not a fraud.

    I tried for years to get someone to come forward and say they payed Rob for lessons. I tried to find people that lost their ass using his system. Couldn't find anyone. How about you give it a try? Find someone. Anyone.

    And we got these assholes, MDawg and Wynnpleasure making outrageous claims of beating bac. Why don't you climb their asses?
    Last edited by mickeycrimm; 10-26-2020 at 03:21 PM.
    "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

  10. #30
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    KJ, you certainly know the troll playbook well. I thought your troll bullshit was over here. I guess not. Rob's claim over 4 years is much more credible than the 10 year claim. You keep saying it's impossible but it's not. Anyone who knows the math knows it's possible. Even when Singer and I were at odds I knew that he believed his system works. That was the one thing that always came through about him. He believed in it. If you believe in something you might be wrong but you are not a fraud.
    Come on Mickey. Really! If he believes it...it is not a lie. I don't know if you are a fan of Seinfeld, but that is the George Costanza defense.

    I believe I can run a 3 minute mile. That doesn't make it true and if I repeatedly state that I can, it is a lie, falsehood, untruth....pick your term.

    What that says is the person is detached from reality. They are existing in an alternative reality.

  11. #31
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    KJ, you certainly know the troll playbook well. I thought your troll bullshit was over here. I guess not. Rob's claim over 4 years is much more credible than the 10 year claim. You keep saying it's impossible but it's not. Anyone who knows the math knows it's possible. Even when Singer and I were at odds I knew that he believed his system works. That was the one thing that always came through about him. He believed in it. If you believe in something you might be wrong but you are not a fraud.
    Come on Mickey. Really! If he believes it...it is not a lie. I don't know if you are a fan of Seinfeld, but that is the George Costanza defense.

    I believe I can run a 3 minute mile. That doesn't make it true and if I repeatedly state that I can, it is a lie, falsehood, untruth....pick your term.

    What that says is the person is detached from reality. They are existing in an alternative reality.
    That is so lame. You don't believe you can run a 3 minute mile. You know fucking well you can't do it. Saying you believe you can do it does not mean you know you can do it.

    So what if they are living in alternative reality. You live in an alternative reality too. But you can't grasp even elementary facts. A fraud knowingly pushes information that is not true. Rob believes his system works. Thats not fraud no matter how much you want it to be.
    "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. #32
    If you take a thousand people and they all put down Rob's system for 200 plays (4 years), then the sample space is small enough that there are going to be winners plain and simple.
    "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. #33


    Like every good scammer, this guy changes his strategy daily and tries to get your back when you lose.

    And the saps keep feeding him money to keep losing like the degen he is.

  14. #34
    How could a sane person sit through that video?
    Take off that stupid mask you big baby.

  15. #35
    Originally Posted by quahaug View Post
    How could a sane person sit through that video?
    Most casino goers aren't sane to begin with.

  16. #36
    True, rhetorical question I guess.
    Take off that stupid mask you big baby.

  17. #37
    There's a similar thread over there about YouTube slot vloggers. Most of them get suckers to send them money so they can get their fix of slot addiction. Sure they are selling a losing strategy, but the concept is the same. Get somebody else to pay for your gambling problems.

  18. #38
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by The Boz View Post

    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.
    Check out my poker forum, and weekly internet radio show at http://pokerfraudalert.com

  19. #39
    Originally Posted by The Boz View Post
    Originally Posted by jbjb View Post
    I'd be more interested in the fact if he's actually committing any federal crimes running these scams over the internet.
    The problem is these fools keep sending him money. The only issue I see is if he is not reporting all the money.

    It’s really no different than any handicapper selling sports picks. Of course it is a scam, but is it illegal?

    That said, you bring up a good question. And is YouTube complacent in allowing these scammers to use their site to facilitate the scans.
    Yes, what Christopher Mitchell is doing is illegal.

    If he were simply selling a bad system, it could be legally defensible (at least criminally), in that he could claim he didn't realize it was a bunk system. The fact that he plays it himself (amazingly, he really does) would back that.

    However, he constantly lies about his win rate and personal wealth, in order to entice victims.

    "I'm a millionaire" (and credits his systems for getting that money)

    "I win 99% of my gambling sessions" (lol)

    "I support myself as a professional gambler"


    None of these are true. So while he could claim ignorance regarding his system being -EV, he could not claim ignorance regarding grossly lying about his results in order to sell coaching/subscriptions.

    I'm fairly certain a good case could be made against this guy for fraud, but authorities don't seem interested in him (yet), so he's been able to dodge it thus far.

    He's definitely got some civil liability here (to those who bought his systems and/or lost money with it), but as far as I know he hasn't been sued yet, which is actually surprising. Might be hard to collect from him, though.
    Check out my poker forum, and weekly internet radio show at http://pokerfraudalert.com

  20. #40
    To answer kewlJ (and I really don't want this to continue along the lines of another Rob Singer fight), there's a huge difference between Rob Singer and Christopher Mitchell.

    Rob is just a forum troll. As far as I know, he doesn't sell his system to anyone. He definitely isn't putting out open solicitations to buy his system for $500-$2500.

    Christopher Mitchell IS selling his system, and his victims suffer two ways. First, they pay him for a crappy -EV system (in some cases VERY -EV). Second, they attempt to use the system in the casino, and lose a fortune, believing themselves to be +EV.

    No such thing happens with Rob. I keep hearing the criticism that "someone might take Rob seriously and lose a lot of money", but I find it unlikely, because every one of Rob's strategy posts here gets attacked by multiple people.

    With Christopher, he censors his YouTube channel comments, so the critics don't get to call him out for his BS.

    There's a tremendous difference here.

    I'm not blind to Rob's flaws and outrageous claims. But he's like an old piece of furniture on this forum which you don't want to throw away, so you let him stay, as long as he doesn't smell too bad.
    Check out my poker forum, and weekly internet radio show at http://pokerfraudalert.com

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 41
    Last Post: 02-05-2022, 08:31 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-16-2018, 09:57 PM
  3. VP Strategy
    By rymetymeuk in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 10-07-2014, 04:20 AM
  4. Vp Strategy
    By Vpnewbie in forum California/Western US Casinos
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-16-2014, 07:30 PM
  5. What is your craps strategy?
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-11-2012, 08:23 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
  •