Originally Posted by
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?
Reply With Quote