Objective proof?

[Rob.Singer]

To keep you folks "rolling in the deep" over the DU glitch, while I have a break I'll say this about that:

--kew seems to HAVE to believe I somehow discovered the true play sequence FROM SOMEONE ELSE some time after the play ended. If that were true, why didn't this secret "mouth" tell anyone else along the way. And why did he or she tell ME? Grade: F-

--The most popular misguided opinion I've seen here since I revealed what I did and how I did it, is "playing for taxable winners is bad; playing for smaller winners is good". Once again I'll say, only those who have never played the sequence would say such a thing. Put down the play once per casino per visit, and one big hit doesn't mean a thing. But play it a dozen time at a sitting and it is more likely than not that someone somewhere will catch on to what you're doing with all those herky-jerk motions--whether it be an employee, upstairs or a random knowledgeable VP player. And the falacy about how "the eyes upstairs" could easily spot what you did after hitting the big signer" doesn't hold water. "Upstairs " doesn't review one big hit unless requested and based on suspicious activity. Those who want to believe they look at everything: Kane used the same dead hand of four 9's multiple times at Wynn. (I never used pre-existing winners). No problem. When he got caught at Silverton, he hit multiple taxable prior to using the same winner a second time. No problem until then. BUT EVEN AFTER USING THE "I GOT CAUGHT" HAND A SECOND TIME, SURVEILLANCE STILL WASNT ABLE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT HE DID TO TRIGGER THE SAME EXACT PRE-EXISTING WINNER AGAIN. Do it once per casino visit and you will remain under the radar. Use the play a dozen times or more on every visit and you wouldn't last 3 months. Grade: F

--Yes this bug could have been installed knowingly and played by that employee secretly for years as I did. Nobody may ever know. But I'm going with programmer oversight and a lapse in Quality Control. Grade: B

--The argument that the play is morally or ethically wrong (or illegal) is stupid. I once opined it was illegal, but that was during my cover-up period. No one who played it did anything wrong unless an IGT employee intentionally played it. Pushing buttons and inserting bills is all part of normal VP play. In any sequence(s) you choose. Grade: D

--Your fascination with the Newell and conspiracy theories about it, my DU play and big winners posted are admirable, but ask yourselves this: who's constantly traveling around the country to their multiple homes enjoying life, and who's stuck in their LV ruts, always worrying about what Rob Singer says, what he has, what his big hits are, how you can concoct even more lies about him and blah blah blah? Grade: Incomplete

Then think about what you people will be doing at my age, if you even make it that far. Grade: Hahahahaha!

Carry on. Grade: You're being held back.

[redietz]

I don't recommend anyone abide by the opinions listed above. Pushing buttons and extracting money is what happens when you use an ATM. Claiming that you are unaware of the amount the ATM should dispense is no defense when the ATM gifts you with additional funds. Ignorance of the law and all that.

[MisterV]

You are at a pop vending machine and put in your money and request a Coke.

Out comes your Coke, and another, and another...all the Cokes in the machine are dispensed yet you only ordered one.

Do you keep the extra Cokes?

If not, why not, and how does this scenario differ from the DUB?

[kewlJ]

You are at a pop vending machine and put in your money and request a Coke.

Out comes your Coke, and another, and another...all the Cokes in the machine are dispensed yet you only ordered one.

Do you keep the extra Cokes?

If not, why not, and how does this scenario differ from the DUB?

You really want to beat a dead horse don't you, V?

So did you press E3 for coke and all the extra cokes came out or did you press some sequence designed to make the machine malfunction and give you extra cokes?

After reading some opinions here yesterday, I acknowledge that a good part of my arguments is based on morality, rather than law. But right is right and wrong is wrong regardless.

If a player sits down at a bonus poker machine, puts his money in and selects say the 25 cent denomination, he is entitled to the payouts for the 25 cent game, nothing more. Manipulating the machine to pay more is wrong. No two ways about it.

When I lived in Philly, I remember a story about a man prosecuted for putting a 1.50 in the newpaper vending box and taking 10 Sunday Inquires to sell on the corner. He was entitled to take 1. If that was against the law how can manipulating a slot machine to pay you 5, 10 times the amount you actually played and won, not be theft?

[mickeycrimm]

No different than sitting on a hole card game or playing something that the house edge was calculated wrong. Would you not sit on a progressive with a miss set meter until they shut the machine down?

Come on Maxpen, manipulating a computer glitch to pay much more than the player won and is entitled to is far different than these examples you are giving. What it is much more in line with is a computer glitch at an ATM that dispenses much more money than the people intended to withdraw and in every case I have seen of this kind of thing, the people receiving "the extra" money have had to repay the money a few cases went as far as prosecution

Alan's reference to the DU story not being a crime is because the case was eventually dropped, or initially lost and they decided not to re-prosecute. That doesn't mean it wasn't a crime, it means the prosecution screwed up the case. If I remember correctly, Kane and Nester were charged with something like "violation of the computer fraud and abuse act". While you can see how that could apply, those charges are usually reserved for computer hackers hacking into different financial or government systems for financial gain. Kane and Nestor should have been charged with theft which they never were.

Didn't the first prosecutor even step down or was removed or something? It was a case of a prosecutor trying to make a name and over-charging in a jurisdiction (PA) still new to gambling. And while it benefited Kane and Nestor and they were able to make whatever deal they made at the end, it does not mean it wasn't a crime as Alan suggested.

That I am even on this forum having to explain that hitting a jackpot for let's say $100 and manipulating the machine to pay $1000 is illegal, is kind of scary.

According to the article Kane and Nestor did not have an agreement with prosecutors. The last offer by prosecutors was whoever gave evidence against the other first would go free. You can ask Mr. V about this but anytime there are two defendents they are automatically ordered not to contact or in any way communicate with each other. Kane was in Nevada, Nestor was in Pennsylvania. Neither Kane nor Nestor would agree to testify against the other. They each did it on faith that the other would do the same. It was only after prosecutors seen that neither would go for the deal that they decided not to prosecute. They pretty much knew their case was shot.

[smurgerburger]

My guess is vending machine transactions are covered by contract law and gambling on machines is covered by gaming law.

[mickeycrimm]

I dont know who played or didn't play the DUB first, second or never. But I'm going to agree with something I believe jbjb posted first:

I would never have used it on a handpay. I'd use it to double up on full houses or straights... make a few hundred dollars before lunch, then a few hundred after lunch and call it a day.

Was it ever verified that the double up would work on less than a handpay?

[Alan Mendelson]

I dont know who played or didn't play the DUB first, second or never. But I'm going to agree with something I believe jbjb posted first:

I would never have used it on a handpay. I'd use it to double up on full houses or straights... make a few hundred dollars before lunch, then a few hundred after lunch and call it a day.

Was it ever verified that the double up would work on less than a handpay?

Why wouldn't it work on less than a handpay?

Was that another mystery condition of the DUB that it only worked on handpays?

[MisterV]

According to the article Kane and Nestor did not have an agreement with prosecutors. The last offer by prosecutors was whoever gave evidence against the other first would go free. You can ask Mr. V about this but anytime there are two defendents they are automatically ordered not to contact or in any way communicate with each other. Kane was in Nevada, Nestor was in Pennsylvania. Neither Kane nor Nestor would agree to testify against the other. They each did it on faith that the other would do the same. It was only after prosecutors seen that neither would go for the deal that they decided not to prosecute. They pretty much knew their case was shot.

The two defendants may have been prohibited from talking to each other while the case was pending but their lawyers most likely communicated back and forth on their behalf discussing this very issue.

I used the words "most likely" because I am not certain about this as I have had very limited criminal law experience, and I could be wrong.

[mickeycrimm]

Oh there is one other thing. Rob announced that he was doing that interview with Shackleford several days before the interview occurred. So there was a couple days of discussion prior to that interview. I believe it was first Axelwolf, followed by Dan Druff that said if Rob had really done the double up play, there should be something he could produce to prove it. Documentation or something.

So in the interview Shackleford asked for some kind of proof. Rob gave the standard excuse that he disposed of all tax records after 3 years, but finally what he offered up as proof, was that he used that money to buy a Newell RV for 1.5 million dollars. That was his proof. And we all know how that went in the days that followed with pictures of an RV on the showroom floor that did not belong to him. Doesn't that count for anything? Rob himself, offered the Newell up as his proof.

In reference to the timeframe, I believe Mickey's take on things because I find him to be very truthful in what he says and if he would happen to be wrong it is very unlikely to be intentional.

You on the other hand are not that believable but are like 10x the Singer historian.

So between the 2 I have no clue about timeframes and won't care enough to research. I waste enough time as it is on this forum.

I forget these things - Newell brought up as proof. I barely read any other gambling forum. lol. Best case for Singer would be it is true and he only had cash payments.

I don't think Rob saying what they did was illegal really matters much TBH.

Anyway, it is all fun. I get a lot of lolz. Rob does some intentionally and others are headscratchers but he delivers regardless.

The whole thing to me is so bizarre. I still remember him posting in that Newell which was clearly at a dealership. Hamming it up in the pics but never could produce normal pictures like 100% of other RV owners would have. He seemed like just a troll who didn't care if he was believed.. but.. who the fuck knows about Singer.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread. Hopefully.

I don't think KJ knows more of Rob's history than me. And it's not even close. I remember things going back to 2005 when Rob and I were both posting on freeVPfree. And I went over all his posts on that site going back to about 2002.

It was me that remembered Singer announcing his retirement from professional video poker in 2009. He announced it on this site. None of us (except Rob) knew about Kane and Nestor in 2009. Singer was talking about retiring his progressive system. He said he would continue to play video poker occasionally, just wouldn't be using the progressive system.

There are others that should remember Singer making the announcement here, like Alan and Redietz but no one brought it up before me.

So when the debate on the DUB came along I remembered Singer announcing his retirement in July 2009 which turned out to be shortly after Kane and Nestor were busted. Rob made some excuse about not finishing out the year.

When going over the evidence I wondered why Rob would abruptly announce his retirement in 2009. There was no lead up like "I'm thinking about retiring" or "I may be calling it quits." He just abruptly announced he was retiring from professional play. My thought was "that's what someone would do if they suddenly wanted to make theirself scarse in the casinos." I don't know if you picked up on it but Rob was working the same places as Kane in Las Vegas. For Kane to get busted right under his nose probably scared Rob.



That was just one part of all the evidence I looked at. Looking at all the evidence available i decided that it was likely Rob worked the DUB.

[kewlJ]

It was me that remembered Singer announcing his retirement from professional video poker in 2009. He announced it on this site. None of us (except Rob) knew about Kane and Nestor in 2009.

Can you link to that Mickeycrimm. I can't seem to find anything on this site earlier than 2010. When did Alan start this forum? Maybe my search is limited for some reason, and I can't get to anything earlier than 2010.

[accountinquestion]

You are at a pop vending machine and put in your money and request a Coke.

Out comes your Coke, and another, and another...all the Cokes in the machine are dispensed yet you only ordered one.

Do you keep the extra Cokes?

If not, why not, and how does this scenario differ from the DUB?

You really want to beat a dead horse don't you, V?

So did you press E3 for coke and all the extra cokes came out or did you press some sequence designed to make the machine malfunction and give you extra cokes?

After reading some opinions here yesterday, I acknowledge that a good part of my arguments is based on morality, rather than law. But right is right and wrong is wrong regardless.

If a player sits down at a bonus poker machine, puts his money in and selects say the 25 cent denomination, he is entitled to the payouts for the 25 cent game, nothing more. Manipulating the machine to pay more is wrong. No two ways about it.

When I lived in Philly, I remember a story about a man prosecuted for putting a 1.50 in the newpaper vending box and taking 10 Sunday Inquires to sell on the corner. He was entitled to take 1. If that was against the law how can manipulating a slot machine to pay you 5, 10 times the amount you actually played and won, not be theft?

I know a guy who hit a 200k+ lick at an indian casino (total degen). He is an older guy. They start coming up with reasons why they can't pay him. (I wish I could give details but it narrows things down.) Regardless, trust me, it was bullshit. Indians gave up on that angle. So then in the fine print somewhere of the machine (don't know details) they pay him out over 20 years!!! Dude will be dead by then. Is that not theft, Kewl? Who goes to jail? Is this a case of having to "read the fine print" somewhere on the machine? I promise you they're not good guys who will pay interest on that forced loan you give them.

It is a joke. Why you're trying to push this screwy morality I have no clue except you're always on some dumbfucking crusade.

It isn't necessarily illegal AFAIK. It is one thing when you gaff a machine or use some tool like the old days It is quite different when you just press buttons. Especially if you're not somehow getting into some weird admin mode that could somehow give you an edge. You haven't broken into the machine. It isn't clear. Perhaps it is illegal but if the situation is worth it, you should take advantage of it. It is not particularly immoral or unethical except for some weird circumstance where you might bankrupt some small joint. Not sure if that has ever happened .. lol

right is right and wrong is wrong says kewl. People like you are a big why the world is fucked up. You do not owe a corporation any sort of morality. It is not a real person. It is designed to fuck you amongst other things. Literally, thats what corporations do. There are exceptions but it ain't casinos.

[Alan Mendelson]

It was me that remembered Singer announcing his retirement from professional video poker in 2009. He announced it on this site. None of us (except Rob) knew about Kane and Nestor in 2009.

Can you link to that Mickeycrimm. I can't seem to find anything on this site earlier than 2010. When did Alan start this forum? Maybe my search is limited for some reason, and I can't get to anything earlier than 2010.

I think I started the forum in 2010. I may be wrong.

[mickeycrimm]

It was me that remembered Singer announcing his retirement from professional video poker in 2009. He announced it on this site. None of us (except Rob) knew about Kane and Nestor in 2009.

Can you link to that Mickeycrimm. I can't seem to find anything on this site earlier than 2010. When did Alan start this forum? Maybe my search is limited for some reason, and I can't get to anything earlier than 2010.

I could be wrong about it being in a thread on this site. Rob may have made the announcement on his own site. I think 2009 was the year he shut his website down. Then his retirement subsequently got discussed here.

[MaxPen]

You are at a pop vending machine and put in your money and request a Coke.

Out comes your Coke, and another, and another...all the Cokes in the machine are dispensed yet you only ordered one.

Do you keep the extra Cokes?

If not, why not, and how does this scenario differ from the DUB?

You really want to beat a dead horse don't you, V?

So did you press E3 for coke and all the extra cokes came out or did you press some sequence designed to make the machine malfunction and give you extra cokes?

After reading some opinions here yesterday, I acknowledge that a good part of my arguments is based on morality, rather than law. But right is right and wrong is wrong regardless.

If a player sits down at a bonus poker machine, puts his money in and selects say the 25 cent denomination, he is entitled to the payouts for the 25 cent game, nothing more. Manipulating the machine to pay more is wrong. No two ways about it.

When I lived in Philly, I remember a story about a man prosecuted for putting a 1.50 in the newpaper vending box and taking 10 Sunday Inquires to sell on the corner. He was entitled to take 1. If that was against the law how can manipulating a slot machine to pay you 5, 10 times the amount you actually played and won, not be theft?

Simple,,,, the machine authorized the payout. Same as a .2 meter being set at 20% instead.

[redietz]

I didn't realize until these last few posts from mickey and Alan that I was the resident Argentino expert. Who knew? I've probably read more of his material than anyone here. And I certainly have more experience in Las Vegas during the time he was writing for Gaming Today than anyone here. Since his column often made the front page of GT, and everybody in race and sports books read GT, pretty much everyone had an opinion on him.

I was there a hundred days a year while he was writing for GT (pre-internet, really). I hadn't actually framed things that way before. Until that last book was published ("We Were Wise Guys and Didn't Know It"), I probably knew as much about the folks who gave Argentino his LV break than anyone on these forums.

Huh. So I guess if anyone has a sense of his story over time and the likelihood that he was "covering up the bug" by writing for GT, it's probably me. I'm likely the best qualified to have an opinion. I read his columns in real time and interacted with the people he was interacting with at the time. In fact, as I was cleaning out the garage last week, I stumbled on a couple of GT's with his column.

LOL. Now the big question. Is anyone interested in my opinion? And does anyone want to read some of the old columns to see if those columns suggest a man covering up the double up bug?

[coach belly]

does anyone want to read some of the old columns

Post up the dates and titles of the columns that you have.

[MaxPen]

Only a hobo would need to read that stuff to know Singer didn't play the DUB

Then after understanding that Singer didn't the tramp would still stomp around and fling shit like a monkey at the zoo saying that he did.......RIP

[kewlJ]

I didn't realize until these last few posts from mickey and Alan that I was the resident Argentino expert. Who knew? I've probably read more of his material than anyone here. And I certainly have more experience in Las Vegas during the time he was writing for Gaming Today than anyone here. Since his column often made the front page of GT, and everybody in race and sports books read GT, pretty much everyone had an opinion on him.

I was there a hundred days a year while he was writing for GT (pre-internet, really). I hadn't actually framed things that way before. Until that last book was published ("We Were Wise Guys and Didn't Know It"), I probably knew as much about the folks who gave Argentino his LV break than anyone on these forums.

Huh. So I guess if anyone has a sense of his story over time and the likelihood that he was "covering up the bug" by writing for GT, it's probably me. I'm likely the best qualified to have an opinion. I read his columns in real time and interacted with the people he was interacting with at the time. In fact, as I was cleaning out the garage last week, I stumbled on a couple of GT's with his column.

LOL. Now the big question. Is anyone interested in my opinion? And does anyone want to read some of the old columns to see if those columns suggest a man covering up the double up bug?

I will read your opinion if you care to write it, although I am quite certain I know what it is.

There was a time, sometime in the past few years that I went looking online for some of Singer's columns at Gambling Today. Couldn't find anything. It was just a curiosity thing since that was really before my time and I had never read one. But I am over that now so no need.

I did spend an hour this morning, looking through this forum for that thread discussing Kane and Nestor, but couldn't find it. I know Rob's first post in that threat was something along the lines that what they did was illegal and they should go to jail. That is a very damming thing for someone who now claims to have done that same play to have posted on a public forum at the time. And I don't accept any crap about him attempting to mislead anyone. Who the fuck on this forum with a handful of members did he need to mislead. Anyone that had been involved with that play would have kept their damn mouth shut during any kind of discussion about it.

Besides that first reply by Rob, which I remember pretty clearly, I think there were numerous other replies that anyone looking back would conclude that Singer knew nothing of that play before that discussion.

But again, I couldn't find it and gave up after an hour. But whenever you are looking through the archived threads, you find some interesting reading and thus was the case today. Singer's games and trolling are the exact same games and trolling he was doing 10 years ago, just different people he was attacking and calling names. But the exact same names calling and insults. It like watching a re-run. His whole schtick is re-cycled.

[coach belly]

I don't accept any crap about him attempting to mislead anyone. Who the fuck on this forum with a handful of members did he need to mislead.

On that basis, are you excusing what Rob has written about the ditz's reputation, etc?