Contributing to Forum ??

[mickeycrimm]

Below is Rob's interview with Shackleford. At the 19:40 mark Wizard asks Rob what proof he has that he made 2.8 million from the double up bug. Shackleford suggests Tax returns and Rob gives the same answer he has given us for several years that he threw out all the tax returns. Rob then volunteers that he "saved all the money won in a safe until he bought the Newell RV in 2011 for 1.6 Million." That is Rob offering up this Newell as proof of the double up bug! He is the one that tied the two together.

I don't know whether Wizard planned it and thought it out ahead of time or it just fell into place, but Wizard set the trap and Rob jumped in when he volunteered, he used the double up money to purchase the Newell.

You can say it doesn't matter and the two have nothing to do with each other, but it does. It became part of the equation when Rob volunteered that info. There are several answers that could have tripped Rob up. Buying Real Estate, depositing the money in a bank account or making a large purchase (like the Newell). All of these would have resulted in some documentation. I think Rob realized that the first two would have been a problem, but didn't seem to realize that a large purchase like 1.6 million dollars would. Shackleford laid the trap and Rob jumped right in.

What a pathetic interview by Rusty, total disgrace. He should be ashamed of himself. Other then Rob looking 25 years older then his GOAT Alan interview, he was his usual comedic self. Alan absolutely decimates Rusty as an interviewer, no contest whatsoever !

Shackleford did fine if this was an Entertainment Tonight interview, or Jimmy Fallon, and nobody's feelings were supposed to be hurt. On the other hand, since this was somebody claiming to have steamrollered casinos for a million and a half with the double up bug, there were a couple gaps. Like, "Where did you first play it?" comes to mind. That is an obvious starting point question, and there is no real reason for Rob to not answer that question if he's confessing to having used the bug.

If you'll notice, Rob's origin of the DU claim that Alan published on his site lacked any (and I mean ANY) specific details. It was noticeable by its lack of detail. Here's one of many good books that discusses the problem with lack of specificity, especially when information is "volunteered."

https://www.amazon.com/Practical-Int...9322259&sr=8-1


So, a few questions that Shackleford missed. Now bear in mind that someone conducting an interview that will potentially be seen by thousands of people should, in term of any journalism training, at least survey a couple of past interviews with the person for salient points, especially when there ARE ONLY A FEW PAST INTERVIEWS. If you don't do that as an interviewer, you're being lazy. No worse than Jimmy Fallon, but lazy nonetheless.

Here's a couple of obvious questions.

1) Where were the first couple of places you played the DU bug? What did it feel like? How much did you win? (These are really obvious starting points)
2) Was your claim of "machine telepathy" from the Alan interview just nonsense to cover your double up claim, or do you believe that? (The telepathy comment stands out so badly, it has to be addressed, especially by a math/science guy). That question easily leads to the next question.
3) Did you mislead Mendelson with those original interviews? If so, how can we verify that you're not misleading me and the audience in the current interview? What reasons to we have to believe you?
4) Where was the final place you played the DU bug? How much did you win? How did it feel to stop? Did you know that was your final time playing it as you played it?

And finally, the idea that Rob never told his family members, but then just magically made $1.6 million appear to buy a Newell -- well, that deserves some follow up questions or comments. Like, (5) "How did you explain the sudden million and a half available for luxury items to your family?" The problem with this follow-up (for Rob) is that he'd have to answer with something suggesting it wasn't surprising to his family. That likely means Rob would have to offer further details like these chunks of money appeared to his family before for other reasons. The problem with that answer is that you can then ask, "Like when?" and Rob would have to provide a detail of when and where a million showed up out of the blue previously.

Rob would have to report that he never told his family about the DU until the end. The question would then be why he didn't tell them. That makes it seem as if (A) Rob didn't trust his family to keep a lid on it or (B) Rob was concerned with legal ramifications. If he was concerned with legal ramifications, then you get into Rob having to be the only person with access to the safe. Otherwise the family is also on the hook legally. It's a real slippery slope, that money-in-the-safe bit.

And, finally, since Rob reported before his DU bug claim that the DU was illegal (on this very forum, I believe), Shackleford could have asked (6) why would you publicly state that you felt the DU was illegal when you were doing it? What sense does that make? Doesn't that undermine your whole story?

These are pretty straightforward and obvious questions most interviewers with a journalism background of any kind would have asked. I think most halfway interested people would have asked them. So it's striking that they didn't get asked.

Now, as far as mickey believing Rob did the DU bug, the easy way to clean that whole bit up would be for mickey to interview Rob on camera and ask the questions just listed above. Rob would have a non-adversarial interviewer, and I would pick up the tab for that interview, which would then be put on YouTube.

I find it hilarious that redietz is talking about "lack of information" to a bunch of AP's who always provide a lack of information about themselves. LOL!

redietz premise that the family didn't know about the money is also faulty. I think Singer already told us that his wife thought he was a video poker god because of all the money rolling in. IIRC, they thought he was working his progression the whole time. Then he confessed to them that he made the money a different way after the statute of limitations ran out. I think he wrote that here.

Also, I can't remember where it's at but Singer progression strategy was published in full. It's around here somewhere but I can't remember where. And as for details on the double up he provided plenty of details. For starters, he knew the published sequence was wrong and even published the correct sequence. He had specific knowledge of which machines it worked on and the various denoms that could be found on those machines. I think he knew the exact years the machines had to be manufactured.

I've been in the same forums with Singer longer than anyone here. I think it goes back to about 2005 or 2006. I remembered that he announced his retirement from "professional video poker" in 2009 just after the two dumbos got busted working the DU. I think its more than coincidence. Singer's retirement in that time frame, along with the details he put up about the play, is what tilted me to thinking he probably did work it. Who would want to go back to the progression play after the easy money DU? And with someone getting busted for it, if it were me, I would want to bug out. I'm not 100% positive he worked it because I wasn't there. None of us know 100% if he worked it or not. But I think it likely that he did.

I voiced my opinion and thought that would be it. I never expected the vicious attacks by maxpen and KJ, both of whom I was pretty much allied with up until that time. Their continued attacks/brow beating hasn't worked for them and won't. I still hold the same opinion. It's a sad commentary that they chose to make an enemy out of me over an opinion that was no skin off of either of their backs.

PS: It's redietz idea for an "interrogation" of Singer so its probably best that he conducts it.