Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
Originally Posted by coach belly View Post

In light of that information, I'm even more surprised about how little Shack knew about the Double-Up...he seemed pretty clueless in the interview.
I think you misunderstood what Mike said. I took it, as an AP Mike saw no value in doubling up any win, so he never pressed yes when offered. AP stands for advantage player. That means +EV plays. a 50/50 bet is not +EV. all it does is increase variance.


I also wouldn't count on the fact that Mike knew so little about this play. I suspect he knew a lot more than he let on. Mike was playing the part of the interviewer. His job, as he saw it, was to act as though he knew nothing about the play to get Rob to explain it in as much detail as possible so people could decide forthemselves whether Rob was credible or not. And he did that.

But now that the interview is over, I would like to hear the interviewer's opinion on the subject. But that's just me.
I would say there's almost zero chance Mike gives his opinion on whether or not he thinks that Rob played this, unless Rob insists on it. And even then, I don't think we would get a yes or no answer.
Mike has been more than fair to me on this, seeing that I'm a banned member on his forum. I can't see him rendering an opinion without feeling he's offending someone so I don't expect we'd see a firm answer.

But I believe he, like yourself and others, are sitting on the toilet seat pushing REALLY hard trying to get a piece of information to come out, whether from me or elsewhere, that can be used to discredit what I did. That's where mickey's been different about how and why he sees things. He's able to add up all the things I've said and compare them to my history in order to come to his best conclusion. It's also why I would look forward to my answering your questions in another interview in a face-to-face setting. Tougher questions = tougher answers. I'm also much more comfortable in person.