Legal Opinion Request for MrV --

[mickeycrimm]

What if the AP's actions were part of the process that led to his doxxing?

That shouldn't matter.

Fact is, there is always going to a reason, or some "actions" by the victim which pissed off the doxxer and which led to the doxxer doxxing him.

That action in this case was me stating that what Mdog claims can't be because it defies both the math and the reality of how Las Vegas works. THAT is the action, that his claims defy reality.

From day 1, when this guy chose his title of "adventures of" it has been a fiction fantasy. You will note that he posts the identical accounts on a forum for aspiring writers, writing "stories". He also tracks, is obsessed with and comments on how many views his posts and thread receives, as well as checks the ratings and rankings of forums when he is posting vs when he is not posting. Who does that?

All his movie clips also confirms he is having a hard time distinguishing between the real world and fantasy. He desperately wants to be and likely thinks he is, some character from a movie. referring to himself in the third person (Mdawg does this or Mdawg says that) is another clear indication of someone detached from reality.

But I don't really care about his mental issue. I care that he is on a gambling forum, that is supposed to be grounded in math, run by a guy supposed to be one of the gambling math experts and this person makes claims that defy the math and reality. And I and every other person based in math, and knowledgeable about gambling and how the gambling industry works, has every right to call him out saying that is not how things work and that is not how the math works. And if he is going to repeat his BS claims over and over, we have a right to call him out over and over.

That is the action we are talking about. And doxxing someone, knowing it can cause financial harm to them and their career, is not a reasonable nor acceptable response.

And before anyone says I doxxed him first, he is NOT an AP. Not trying to remain anonymous from casinos so he can play (he claims the opposite). His name being out there has cause him NO financial issues or loss of income or future income. The ONLY harm he has incurred is people can look for themselves, so his fantasy claims are shot. THAT is the extent of his damages. His feelings are hurt.

You are saying you have the right to doxx someone because you have decided they are not an AP. Thats a pretty lame excuse. Whether they are an AP or not is most likely irrelevant.

[kewlJ]

You are saying you have the right to doxx someone because you have decided they are not an AP. Thats a pretty lame excuse. Whether they are an AP or not is most likely irrelevant.

Well...maybe not Mickey. But I don't regret it. There has to be some accountability for posting BS claims on an almost daily basis. I mean even poor Alan gets bitched slapped around on multiple forums for his claims that mathematically can't be and he isn't really trying to mislead or harm anyone with his claim, like Mdawg is.

My point is, we all know why AP's can't use their real names. The casinos and casino industry (including databases) are actively trying to identify us so they can stop us from playing. So why isn't someone like Mdawg using his real name? He isn't hiding from the casinos. According to him, they all welcome him and top casino personnel slaps him on the back telling him he is the greatest. So then why is he not using his real name? Exactly who IS he hiding from? And the answer to that is that he is hiding from the members of the forum that he is lying to, and pushing this BS fictional fantasy on a daily basis.

Now again, right or wrong, what damages did I do him. I didn't post an address where people that have an issue with him can show up and harass or harm him did I? But he did. Posting his name doesn't effect his income or ability to earn a living. He is still a sleezy personal injury attorney. But his posting my name has effected my ability to continue to earn a living. How much remains to be seen. So, there is a big difference.

The truth of the matter is I shouldn't have had to post his name so others could look into it. Shackleford SHOULD have called him out or at least allowed others to. Instead Shackleford likely took a payoff to protect him and allow this BS. And again, we aren't talking about someone who occasionally makes these BS claims. This is a guy who does so daily, intentionally misleading players and potentially harming them with false information about winning claims.

[Rob.Singer]

You are saying you have the right to doxx someone because you have decided they are not an AP. Thats a pretty lame excuse. Whether they are an AP or not is most likely irrelevant.

Well...maybe not Mickey. But I don't regret it. There has to be some accountability for posting BS claims on an almost daily basis. I mean even poor Alan gets bitched slapped around on multiple forums for his claims that mathematically can't be and he isn't really trying to mislead or harm anyone with his claim, like Mdawg is.

My point is, we all know why AP's can't use their real names. The casinos and casino industry (including databases) are actively trying to identify us so they can stop us from playing. So why isn't someone like Mdawg using his real name? He isn't hiding from the casinos. According to him, they all welcome him and top casino personnel slaps him on the back telling him he is the greatest. So then why is he not using his real name? Exactly who IS he hiding from? And the answer to that is that he is hiding from the members of the forum that he is lying to, and pushing this BS fictional fantasy on a daily basis.

Now again, right or wrong, what damages did I do him. I didn't post an address where people that have an issue with him can show up and harass or harm him did I? But he did. Posting his name doesn't effect his income or ability to earn a living. He is still a sleezy personal injury attorney. But his posting my name has effected my ability to continue to earn a living. How much remains to be seen. So, there is a big difference.

The truth of the matter is I shouldn't have had to post his name so others could look into it. Shackleford SHOULD have called him out or at least allowed others to. Instead Shackleford likely took a payoff to protect him and allow this BS. And again, we aren't talking about someone who occasionally makes these BS claims. This is a guy who does so daily, intentionally misleading players and potentially harming them with false information about winning claims.

Kew, only an enormously insecure person would say the things that you do. And you only confirm my statements that you have only an online forum life in this world, whereby nearly everyone else on forums has a real life.

For instance: what difference does it make to you or anyone else if someone makes claim A or claim B? Does it affect anyone else's life? You keep harping how "these BS (in your opinion only....remember) claims supposedly "harm others". How dense ARE you? Nobody's going to do what MDawg does because nobody KNOWS how he does it, and most don't have his resources anyway. And NO ONE BUT YOU CARES! Do you see what an asshat you are over this?

Further, you two "doxing" each other over this is just plain stupid. Name one person besides you who cares about that also. And all it's gotten you is more heartache. You found he has wealth you'll never attain, so you can add envy to your frustrations. How do you cope? You go into your typical kew feel-good safe-space mode by claiming he's using "family money" instead of his own, without any actual knowledge of the truth at all.

Has any of this enhanced your miserable little meaningless existence, or improved your all-important online forum perception in the least? No. You just keep digging larger holes for yourself, which for such an undisciplined, weak and sensitive person like you could mean actually TAKING your life this time around instead of FAKING it.

Doxing and being eternally bothered by what others claim or say about people on internet forums is such a non-issue for those who have meaningful real lives. This guy's successes or claims of success have turned your online life into a freak show watch for the rest of us. And how many people have stepped up to the plate announcing they've changed their opinion about all that you claim about yourself, moving strongly into the negative? You're only hurting yourself with your deep obsession over him. And just as he's done by teaming up with wizard, he has defeated you at every turn, every single time.

IE....you are a bigger loser now than you've ever been. You are the only fool who thinks it was worth it.

[Rob.Singer]

Kew, I'm feeling generous today and because we're on an extended stop I'll give you some free education that you seem to have missed out on.

You're always crying wolf over those of us that say we've been gambling winners playing in mostly or 100% -EV situations. You also pretend that if there's any beginners or vulnerable people out there reading this that it may hurt them because winning on negative games just isn't possible.

Here's where and why you're wrong. First, the bell curve exists for a reason. Your limited knowledge tells you "if it's positive you win and if it's negative you lose". But in advanced mathematics class you learn that is not true, because it isn't ALWAYS true. That "other side" of the curve does in fact get populated at times. Otherwise, it would not exist.

In a strictly mathematical world your above hypothesis is absolutely always true. But there is much more to this world we live in than a "strictly mathematical" environment. Follow this example and it will lead to your enlightenment, which in turn should put your very troubled mind at ease.

I'll provide an example from MY working world prior to my gambling career began. In the Aerospace industry, issues such as systems tolerances and material stress levels are precisely mathematically calculated in order to safely operate manufactured equipment at the highest performances known. But does every similar piece of equipment (ie, machines, tools, fighter jets, radios etc.) operate the same? You would think so and expect them to, right?

But that would be the wrong assumption. Why? Because as important as disciplines like software programming, developmental processes, and quality control are, every manufactured item or system is equally subject to the ramifications of Human Factors Engineering. And while a great majority of the time operational specs fall within the range of expectations, there infrequently are times that they don't, even as they are in the hands of seemingly similar experts.

Thus, you have what's called "deviation from the norm" ie, the "other side" of that bell curve. Sometimes the results are far better than expected/sometimes they are far worse. But this area of mathematics does exist. And it could not be better exemplified than in gambling.

You claim over and over again the very simple and safe statement that "+ means win and - means lose". Most people who gamble do fall within those parameters. But not all. Very few have been able to utilize something very unique to them via the mighty computer attached to their necks, called a human factor, that others may never begin to comprehend. So assuming no one's punking anyone--and I know I havent--then if a person says they win on negative games over time then it is entirely possible. Not likely, but possible. So your assertion that such claims "hurt" others is blatantly out of line.

[MaxPen]

Kew, I'm feeling generous today and because we're on an extended stop I'll give you some free education that you seem to have missed out on.

You're always crying wolf over those of us that say we've been gambling winners playing in mostly or 100% -EV situations. You also pretend that if there's any beginners or vulnerable people out there reading this that it may hurt them because winning on negative games just isn't possible.

Here's where and why you're wrong. First, the bell curve exists for a reason. Your limited knowledge tells you "if it's positive you win and if it's negative you lose". But in advanced mathematics class you learn that is not true, because it isn't ALWAYS true. That "other side" of the curve does in fact get populated at times. Otherwise, it would not exist.

In a strictly mathematical world your above hypothesis is absolutely always true. But there is much more to this world we live in than a "strictly mathematical" environment. Follow this example and it will lead to your enlightenment, which in turn should put your very troubled mind at ease.

I'll provide an example from MY working world prior to my gambling career began. In the Aerospace industry, issues such as systems tolerances and material stress levels are precisely mathematically calculated in order to safely operate manufactured equipment at the highest performances known. But does every similar piece of equipment (ie, machines, tools, fighter jets, radios etc.) operate the same? You would think so and expect them to, right?

But that would be the wrong assumption. Why? Because as important as disciplines like software programming, developmental processes, and quality control are, every manufactured item or system is equally subject to the ramifications of Human Factors Engineering. And while a great majority of the time operational specs fall within the range of expectations, there infrequently are times that they don't, even as they are in the hands of seemingly similar experts.

Thus, you have what's called "deviation from the norm" ie, the "other side" of that bell curve. Sometimes the results are far better than expected/sometimes they are far worse. But this area of mathematics does exist. And it could not be better exemplified than in gambling.

You claim over and over again the very simple and safe statement that "+ means win and - means lose". Most people who gamble do fall within those parameters. But not all. Very few have been able to utilize something very unique to them via the mighty computer attached to their necks, called a human factor, that others may never begin to comprehend. So assuming no one's punking anyone--and I know I havent--then if a person says they win on negative games over time then it is entirely possible. Not likely, but possible. So your assertion that such claims "hurt" others is blatantly out of line.

You also have limited number of occurrences where you can remain outside the range of expected results.

[kewlJ]

Oh PLEASE, Singer! Is that what you are now claiming...that you were on the extreme end of the bell curve?

Look first you told us that for 10 years you played a negative EV game and won millions of dollars. Then when you attempted to steal the double-up bug claim from news stories, you shortened your progression system claim to 4 years, 375k, to make room for this new double-up claim you were stealing. So both when you were claiming 10 years and later shortened to 4 years, you repeatedly told us you were able to win and over come negative expectation because of progression wagering combined with "special plays" and I guess the machines telepathing you information. Now all of the sudden, all that phantom winning was just because you got lucky? Because you were on the extreme end of the bell curve? Give me a break old man.

Now let's look at this Mdawg. Basically the same situation. Beginning last March thru current he claims has basically lived in Las Vegas for a solid year, playing everyday. I guess there were a couple short breaks that he says he returned to California for a couple days, but basically a solid year of playing everyday and winning everyday playing negative expectation games. Now if he had said "I don't know why I am ahead after 300 days of play when the math says I should be behind. I must be lucky and on the extreme end of the bell curve", People might have given him the benefit of doubt.

BUT that is not what he said or claimed. What he claims is that he has a way to win. He calls it betting up into streaks. Whatever you want to call it, it is progression wagering and it changes nothing long-term. It simply can NOT overcome negative expectation. Furthermore, had he given that "bell curve" explanation for why he is ahead when he should be behind, you can use that for an excuse for over-all results that defy expectation, but it in no way explains the winning every day or 98% of days.

So Fuck You Singer to your "bell curve" revisionist crap! Doesn't fly. It is you pissing on people's legs and telling them it is raining.

[redietz]

KewlJ, while Rob.Singer's post #124 superficially appears to be an appeal to his purported results being possibly explained by "the far end of the bell curve," that's not really what a careful read suggests.

The key line is, "Very few have been able to utilize something very unique to them via the mighty computer attached to their necks, called a human factor, that others may never be able to comprehend."

That line is clearly implying that by somehow using human thought processes, those thought processes have some direct impact on results. Otherwise, what does the line mean? And why include the line? So somehow "the human factor," which is not at all defined, is supposed to DO something.

This kind of writing is both common and classic when one investigates the paranormal. The entirety of post #124 can be read as an argument that people can wind up at the far end of a bell curve. I mean, no kidding, people win lotteries, for example. Who doesn't know that? However, the paranormal claimants seem to always slip in a couple of public lines that imply something quite different, that there is some "human factor" that transcends mathematics somehow. Usually that "human factor" mention is an appeal to some kind of wish-fulfillment that there is more to it than math.

On one hand, post #124 argues for recognition of bell curves, but then slips in the line suggesting a transcendent mental ability. Also implied, but not clearly stated, is whether the author of post #124 himself thinks that he has such abilities.

So the proper response is to ask the author of post #124 if he believes he can, in advance of events, place himself at the far end of a bell curve through his "human factor." Simply ask him if he can do that.

If he answers "yes," then ask if he's willing to be tested. I notice that an author at The Skeptic has started his own fund for people who think they can do such things via their "human factor." I think the prize is $250,000. I will look up the author and post his contact info here later today.

[Ozzy]

KewlJ, while Rob.Singer's post #124 superficially appears to be an appeal to his purported results being possibly explained by "the far end of the bell curve," that's not really what a careful read suggests.

The key line is, "Very few have been able to utilize something very unique to them via the mighty computer attached to their necks, called a human factor, that others may never be able to comprehend."

That line is clearly implying that by somehow using human thought processes, those thought processes have some direct impact on results. Otherwise, what does the line mean? And why include the line? So somehow "the human factor," which is not at all defined, is supposed to DO something.

This kind of writing is both common and classic when one investigates the paranormal. The entirety of post #124 can be read as an argument that people can wind up at the far end of a bell curve. I mean, no kidding, people win lotteries, for example. Who doesn't know that? However, the paranormal claimants seem to always slip in a couple of public lines that imply something quite different, that there is some "human factor" that transcends mathematics somehow. Usually that "human factor" mention is an appeal to some kind of wish-fulfillment that there is more to it than math.

On one hand, post #124 argues for recognition of bell curves, but then slips in the line suggesting a transcendent mental ability. Also implied, but not clearly stated, is whether the author of post #124 himself thinks that he has such abilities.

So the proper response is to ask the author of post #124 if he believes he can, in advance of events, place himself at the far end of a bell curve through his "human factor." Simply ask him if he can do that.

If he answers "yes," then ask if he's willing to be tested. I notice that an author at The Skeptic has started his own fund for people who think they can do such things via their "human factor." I think the prize is $250,000. I will look up the author and post his contact info here later today.

Tell us how you really feel about getting overtaken by the UNKOOL1 ? This must really decimate your ego

[Ozzy]

I mean who wants to be beaten at anything except for maybe BJ, by the UNKOOL1.

[Rob.Singer]

Kew, I'm feeling generous today and because we're on an extended stop I'll give you some free education that you seem to have missed out on.

You're always crying wolf over those of us that say we've been gambling winners playing in mostly or 100% -EV situations. You also pretend that if there's any beginners or vulnerable people out there reading this that it may hurt them because winning on negative games just isn't possible.

Here's where and why you're wrong. First, the bell curve exists for a reason. Your limited knowledge tells you "if it's positive you win and if it's negative you lose". But in advanced mathematics class you learn that is not true, because it isn't ALWAYS true. That "other side" of the curve does in fact get populated at times. Otherwise, it would not exist.

In a strictly mathematical world your above hypothesis is absolutely always true. But there is much more to this world we live in than a "strictly mathematical" environment. Follow this example and it will lead to your enlightenment, which in turn should put your very troubled mind at ease.

I'll provide an example from MY working world prior to my gambling career began. In the Aerospace industry, issues such as systems tolerances and material stress levels are precisely mathematically calculated in order to safely operate manufactured equipment at the highest performances known. But does every similar piece of equipment (ie, machines, tools, fighter jets, radios etc.) operate the same? You would think so and expect them to, right?

But that would be the wrong assumption. Why? Because as important as disciplines like software programming, developmental processes, and quality control are, every manufactured item or system is equally subject to the ramifications of Human Factors Engineering. And while a great majority of the time operational specs fall within the range of expectations, there infrequently are times that they don't, even as they are in the hands of seemingly similar experts.

Thus, you have what's called "deviation from the norm" ie, the "other side" of that bell curve. Sometimes the results are far better than expected/sometimes they are far worse. But this area of mathematics does exist. And it could not be better exemplified than in gambling.

You claim over and over again the very simple and safe statement that "+ means win and - means lose". Most people who gamble do fall within those parameters. But not all. Very few have been able to utilize something very unique to them via the mighty computer attached to their necks, called a human factor, that others may never begin to comprehend. So assuming no one's punking anyone--and I know I havent--then if a person says they win on negative games over time then it is entirely possible. Not likely, but possible. So your assertion that such claims "hurt" others is blatantly out of line.

You also have limited number of occurrences where you can remain outside the range of expected results.

You said more in that statement than kew did in his entire essay.

It would take a week to discuss all the variables in how and when those variables could occur, of course mainly based on any specific example. But you're right--occurrences would in fact be limited. But a person can somewhat control that by choice.

In my play strategy for a quick example, I'm not flipping a coin with a 50-50 opportunity or looking for red or black to appear with just under a 50% opportunity. My choice was to play a strategy that has an 80%-85% chance of winning every single session played--if played correctly. That in and of itself expands the number of positive outcomes. You also have to know how to walk. That's one of the more important human inputs in playing casino games.

[Rob.Singer]

Oh PLEASE, Singer! Is that what you are now claiming...that you were on the extreme end of the bell curve?

Look first you told us that for 10 years you played a negative EV game and won millions of dollars. Then when you attempted to steal the double-up bug claim from news stories, you shortened your progression system claim to 4 years, 375k, to make room for this new double-up claim you were stealing. So both when you were claiming 10 years and later shortened to 4 years, you repeatedly told us you were able to win and over come negative expectation because of progression wagering combined with "special plays" and I guess the machines telepathing you information. Now all of the sudden, all that phantom winning was just because you got lucky? Because you were on the extreme end of the bell curve? Give me a break old man.

Now let's look at this Mdawg. Basically the same situation. Beginning last March thru current he claims has basically lived in Las Vegas for a solid year, playing everyday. I guess there were a couple short breaks that he says he returned to California for a couple days, but basically a solid year of playing everyday and winning everyday playing negative expectation games. Now if he had said "I don't know why I am ahead after 300 days of play when the math says I should be behind. I must be lucky and on the extreme end of the bell curve", People might have given him the benefit of doubt.

BUT that is not what he said or claimed. What he claims is that he has a way to win. He calls it betting up into streaks. Whatever you want to call it, it is progression wagering and it changes nothing long-term. It simply can NOT overcome negative expectation. Furthermore, had he given that "bell curve" explanation for why he is ahead when he should be behind, you can use that for an excuse for over-all results that defy expectation, but it in no way explains the winning every day or 98% of days.

So Fuck You Singer to your "bell curve" revisionist crap! Doesn't fly. It is you pissing on people's legs and telling them it is raining.

You don't know the entirety of how or what MDawg does when. When you calm down emotionally then give it another try.

[Rob.Singer]

KewlJ, while Rob.Singer's post #124 superficially appears to be an appeal to his purported results being possibly explained by "the far end of the bell curve," that's not really what a careful read suggests.

The key line is, "Very few have been able to utilize something very unique to them via the mighty computer attached to their necks, called a human factor, that others may never be able to comprehend."

That line is clearly implying that by somehow using human thought processes, those thought processes have some direct impact on results. Otherwise, what does the line mean? And why include the line? So somehow "the human factor," which is not at all defined, is supposed to DO something.

This kind of writing is both common and classic when one investigates the paranormal. The entirety of post #124 can be read as an argument that people can wind up at the far end of a bell curve. I mean, no kidding, people win lotteries, for example. Who doesn't know that? However, the paranormal claimants seem to always slip in a couple of public lines that imply something quite different, that there is some "human factor" that transcends mathematics somehow. Usually that "human factor" mention is an appeal to some kind of wish-fulfillment that there is more to it than math.

On one hand, post #124 argues for recognition of bell curves, but then slips in the line suggesting a transcendent mental ability. Also implied, but not clearly stated, is whether the author of post #124 himself thinks that he has such abilities.

So the proper response is to ask the author of post #124 if he believes he can, in advance of events, place himself at the far end of a bell curve through his "human factor." Simply ask him if he can do that.

If he answers "yes," then ask if he's willing to be tested. I notice that an author at The Skeptic has started his own fund for people who think they can do such things via their "human factor." I think the prize is $250,000. I will look up the author and post his contact info here later today.

And you're worried about ME hurting your reputation because I reported on who said what to me in a few calls and texts?

If you want to discuss the properties of my post without all the gobbledegook, I'll be happy to do that over the next several days.

[Rob.Singer]

Red, I'll give you a little head start if you're interested.

I'll use the roulette example kew and I briefly discussed on GF. He began by stating that if you play 3 spins and pick all black, you have a decent chance to win 2 out of 3 of them. But, as he says, you do that every day for a year and the player will almost assuredly end up in the hole.

Where human factors comes into play is not via some "paranormal" nonsense, but in how he has a CHOICE to not bet on the same color every day.

You do not know how that will likely affect the long term outcome in such a case, vs. how you can be nearly 100% certain that he will lose after a year by betting the same color every single time. Luck is the ultimate key in this gambling example. All the player had to do is give luck a more realistic chance of it working for him.

[kewlJ]

KewlJ, while Rob.Singer's post #124 superficially appears to be an appeal to his purported results being possibly explained by "the far end of the bell curve," that's not really what a careful read suggests.

The key line is, "Very few have been able to utilize something very unique to them via the mighty computer attached to their necks, called a human factor, that others may never be able to comprehend."

I don't think it is as complicated or complex as all that Redietz. These guys that make claims that can't be, that defy either the math or reality or both, as fewer and fewer people accept or believe their claims, they have to go back and change timelines and aspects of their claims, trying to make them more believable. And the only people you ever see do that are people who's claims don't meet the low bar of math anyway. And Singer's story, storyline and claims have changed more times than anyone. He is just throwing shit at the wall hoping something sticks.

Mdawg is now doing the same thing, altering his previous claims. And Moses, be burst onto the blackjack scene on another forum claiming to be a professional BJ player and/slash sportsbettor. His claims are now that he has played blackjack parttime for 10 years earning an average of 10k a year. I mean really, does anyone think I would have bothered with anyone claiming that originally?

You can spot these stories that don't make sense, don't meet the low threshold of the math almost immediately. But it is confirmed when these guys start changing stories and timelines. Real AP's and real stories, I have never seen any changes like that.

Singer has always had this thing where because he can't explain what he claims, he tries to play it off as he is smarter than everyone else, is doing things that others players, not only can't do, but can't even understand. It is just bullshit. Singer tried to be a video poker AP and failed....by his own admission. Everything after that is complete nonsense made up by a guy bitter that he couldn't succeed at APing and winning money from casinos like other have been able to. God knows what he will come up with tomorrow or next week.

[kewlJ]

Red, I'll give you a little head start if you're interested.

I'll use the roulette example kew and I briefly discussed on GF. He began by stating that if you play 3 spins and pick all black, you have a decent chance to win 2 out of 3 of them. But, as he says, you do that every day for a year and the player will almost assuredly end up in the hole.

Where human factors comes into play is not via some "paranormal" nonsense, but in how he has a CHOICE to not bet on the same color every day.

You do not know how that will likely affect the long term outcome in such a case, vs. how you can be nearly 100% certain that he will lose after a year by betting the same color every single time. Luck is the ultimate key in this gambling example. All the player had to do is give luck a more realistic chance of it working for him.

OMG! Rob are YOU really arguing this?

Yesterday MisterV posted the definition of insanity in the ZenKing thread. The definition is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.

Rob is now arguing a long ago disproven theory over again, expecting a different outcome. I am at a lost for words and as most know....that rarely happens.

[jdaewoo]

Red, I'll give you a little head start if you're interested.

I'll use the roulette example kew and I briefly discussed on GF. He began by stating that if you play 3 spins and pick all black, you have a decent chance to win 2 out of 3 of them. But, as he says, you do that every day for a year and the player will almost assuredly end up in the hole.

Where human factors comes into play is not via some "paranormal" nonsense, but in how he has a CHOICE to not bet on the same color every day.

You do not know how that will likely affect the long term outcome in such a case, vs. how you can be nearly 100% certain that he will lose after a year by betting the same color every single time. Luck is the ultimate key in this gambling example. All the player had to do is give luck a more realistic chance of it working for him.

You are so fucking stupid.

Cunt.

[redietz]

Red, I'll give you a little head start if you're interested.

I'll use the roulette example kew and I briefly discussed on GF. He began by stating that if you play 3 spins and pick all black, you have a decent chance to win 2 out of 3 of them. But, as he says, you do that every day for a year and the player will almost assuredly end up in the hole.

Where human factors comes into play is not via some "paranormal" nonsense, but in how he has a CHOICE to not bet on the same color every day.

You do not know how that will likely affect the long term outcome in such a case, vs. how you can be nearly 100% certain that he will lose after a year by betting the same color every single time. Luck is the ultimate key in this gambling example. All the player had to do is give luck a more realistic chance of it working for him.

You are so fucking stupid.

Cunt.

I can't add much beyond what Rob.Singer posted. It speaks eloquently for itself. I just wish he hadn't let the mathematical cat out of the bag. Now casinos will only allow you to bet red.

[Ozzy]

Red, I'll give you a little head start if you're interested.

I'll use the roulette example kew and I briefly discussed on GF. He began by stating that if you play 3 spins and pick all black, you have a decent chance to win 2 out of 3 of them. But, as he says, you do that every day for a year and the player will almost assuredly end up in the hole.

Where human factors comes into play is not via some "paranormal" nonsense, but in how he has a CHOICE to not bet on the same color every day.

You do not know how that will likely affect the long term outcome in such a case, vs. how you can be nearly 100% certain that he will lose after a year by betting the same color every single time. Luck is the ultimate key in this gambling example. All the player had to do is give luck a more realistic chance of it working for him.

You are so fucking stupid.

Cunt.

I can't add much beyond what Rob.Singer posted. It speaks eloquently for itself. I just wish he hadn't let the mathematical cat out of the bag. Now casinos will only allow you to bet red.

I'm really disappointed in you Comrade. I was expecting much bigger things from a cool Lambo owner such as yourself. 6 posts lead by Kew, is now INSURMOUNTABLE...............Unless of course UNKOOL1 decides to stop posting after saying so over 3 dozen times...................NAH IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

[redietz]

You are so fucking stupid.

Cunt.

I can't add much beyond what Rob.Singer posted. It speaks eloquently for itself. I just wish he hadn't let the mathematical cat out of the bag. Now casinos will only allow you to bet red.

I'm really disappointed in you Comrade. I was expecting much bigger things from a cool Lambo owner such as yourself. 6 posts lead by Kew, is now INSURMOUNTABLE...............Unless of course UNKOOL1 decides to stop posting after saying so over 3 dozen times...................NAH IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

I don't own a Lamborghini. I can just borrow that particular custom model, like Thomas Magnum. The owner used to have a Maserati, a Ferrari, and some others, but he's scaled back since retiring.

That particular car was used in a photo spread at the Playboy mansion, by the way.

[Rob.Singer]

KewlJ, while Rob.Singer's post #124 superficially appears to be an appeal to his purported results being possibly explained by "the far end of the bell curve," that's not really what a careful read suggests.

The key line is, "Very few have been able to utilize something very unique to them via the mighty computer attached to their necks, called a human factor, that others may never be able to comprehend."

I don't think it is as complicated or complex as all that Redietz. These guys that make claims that can't be, that defy either the math or reality or both, as fewer and fewer people accept or believe their claims, they have to go back and change timelines and aspects of their claims, trying to make them more believable. And the only people you ever see do that are people who's claims don't meet the low bar of math anyway. And Singer's story, storyline and claims have changed more times than anyone. He is just throwing shit at the wall hoping something sticks.

Mdawg is now doing the same thing, altering his previous claims. And Moses, be burst onto the blackjack scene on another forum claiming to be a professional BJ player and/slash sportsbettor. His claims are now that he has played blackjack parttime for 10 years earning an average of 10k a year. I mean really, does anyone think I would have bothered with anyone claiming that originally?

You can spot these stories that don't make sense, don't meet the low threshold of the math almost immediately. But it is confirmed when these guys start changing stories and timelines. Real AP's and real stories, I have never seen any changes like that.

Singer has always had this thing where because he can't explain what he claims, he tries to play it off as he is smarter than everyone else, is doing things that others players, not only can't do, but can't even understand. It is just bullshit. Singer tried to be a video poker AP and failed....by his own admission. Everything after that is complete nonsense made up by a guy bitter that he couldn't succeed at APing and winning money from casinos like other have been able to. God knows what he will come up with tomorrow or next week.

Translation: you have no idea how to respond without making yourself look like a total foll....so you do it anyway!!