Advantage play / cheating / crime....where is the line?

[mickeycrimm]

Now back to you Ron. Can we go over the time line again. And please correct anything I have incorrect. From either 2003 or 2004 (not sure which, please advise) through 2009 you played this double up glitch play to the tune of 3 million dollars? correct?

Prior to that for 4 years so either 1999 through 2003 or 2000 through 2004, you played the Singer system to the tune of $375k total winnings. Is that correct?

Prior to that for 6 years, so that would be 1994-2000 (or maybe 1993-1999), you attempted to AP, playing video poker but lost somewhere around 500k (going by memory, please correct). But you claim that was no big deal as that 500k was less than a years salary to you. Is this correct?

And finally, when did you stop working the job that paid you over 500k a year?

I will proceed with my point after you respond and correct any errors.

You didn't get anything right....again. You're asking these questions because you're frustrated at not being able to simply dismiss what I've done. If I could only watch you bite your fingernails.....

The DU "glitch" was played from Feb. 2004 to mid 2009. About 5-1/2 years. My profit was about $2.8million.

From Jan. 2000 through Jan. 2004 (4 yrs.) I played only my strategy, winning $375k.

From sometime in 1990 until sometime in 1996, I was a vp ap, losing about $45k/year on avg.

From 1996 to Jan. 2000, I did trials in my developing strategy while I worked. This took so long because I was out of the country 75% of the time.

I did not earn greater than $500k/yr. What I said was I set my win goal with the DU play at $10k/week because it was greater than I earned in my best earning year of work.

I didn't get anything right? Looks to me like I got the years of this latest claim correct. I mean you originally said 6 years and now are backing down to 5 1/2. And you originally said you won more than 3 million dollars, numerous times. I won't embarrass you by posting those quotes. We'll just let that go for now, but this is exactly the kind of thing that plays into credibility. Your numbers ALWAYS change.

Also looks like I had the years of the Singer system and amount $375k correct. So what are you saying I got nothing correct?

Ok, so I did not know the losing VP, AP years were not immediately preceding the Singer System years. Thank you for that correction. I am very curious to know exactly what you were doing for 6 years as a VP AP that resulted in 45k a year loss, but I don't want to get to side tracked right now.

So you have no winnings until 2000? In the decade of the 1990's you were a losing player, for 6 years 45k/year and worked for 4 years.

Where I was going with this was your financial history that is now known. And that is probably unfair that it is. That was someone else that uncovered that, but I did look into it as well. To quote you "it is what it is". So anyway I was trying to figure out why such a successful player and person (employment) filed for bankruptcy in the 1990's and had evictions and judgements against them, because that just doesn't seem to jive with such a successful player and person that you have painted. And you have sort of answered that. That was your losing gambler period.

KJ, your zeal to punish Rob is causing you to misrepresent to many facts. He never said he made more than 3 million and you can't, repeat, can't find a quote of that. And he said five and a half. Quit making up your own facts. You are literally clutching at straws.

[kewlJ]

What the fuck is wrong with you mickey? I posted Mickey's F***ing quote! For anyone who wants to read it, it is in the Question for Mickeycrimm thread, post #52, 4th paragraph.

As per Robs Singer strategy, he is even a bigger favorite to hit his goal than 80%. It is probably like 95%. He will hit his small goal $2500 roughly 20 times for every time he loses the entire bankroll. But that one loss will wipe out all those wins plus some.

So in 150 trials he busted out ZERO times when expectation would be 1 in 20. That is getting into some pretty high odds against happening.

But even if it somehow did. That is no system. It is not a mathematical winner and besides that he intentionally mislead people , he is still insisting even today that it is a mathematical winner. He said he could have gone on winning.

And finally, I don't know where the 3 million number came from. I certainly didn't pull it out of the air. You said it at some point Rob. I'll find it if you insist. Except I don't feel like doing so right now. I am tired and going to bed early.

[kewlJ]

You're such a nervous little twit kew, worrying about this like a crazy mixed up old lady would.

You've as usual got you math wrong. I made $375k playing my strategy for 4 years, then just under $3million on this play over 5-1/2 years.

If you're gonna get all jumpy and bothered over this, at least get your numbers straight.

[mickeycrimm]

What the fuck is wrong with you mickey? I posted Mickey's F***ing quote! For anyone who wants to read it, it is in the Question for Mickeycrimm thread, post #52, 4th paragraph.

As per Robs Singer strategy, he is even a bigger favorite to hit his goal than 80%. It is probably like 95%. He will hit his small goal $2500 roughly 20 times for every time he loses the entire bankroll. But that one loss will wipe out all those wins plus some.

So in 150 trials he busted out ZERO times when expectation would be 1 in 20. That is getting into some pretty high odds against happening.

But even if it somehow did. That is no system. It is not a mathematical winner and besides that he intentionally mislead people , he is still insisting even today that it is a mathematical winner. He said he could have gone on winning.

And finally, I don't know where the 3 million number came from. I certainly didn't pull it out of the air. You said it at some point Rob. I'll find it if you insist. Except I don't feel like doing so right now. I am tired and going to bed early.

You've literally gone off the deep end. Why?

Are you certain of your math here. Did you get it from someone else. I've admitted I don't know how long a system like that could hold up. You talk like you know for sure it will fail by the 20th session.

[kewlJ]

You've literally gone off the deep end. Why?

Are you certain of your math here. Did you get it from someone else. I've admitted I don't know how long a system like that could hold up. You talk like you know for sure it will fail by the 20th session.

Come on Mickey, YOU know how progression betting systems work. It is always the same principal. Many small wins and then the big loss that wipes out all those wins and more. Progressive betting can not over come negative expected value. This is a mathematical fact. You know this.

I don't know what you are doing. You seem to have accepted Rob's cease fire and somehow now flipped to where you are supporting everything he says.

It is one thing if you find Rob credible on his double-up claim, ignoring his many past credibility issues. That is your right. But to now be refusing to discredit his Singer system, which just flat out goes against the mathematics. I am at a loss I really don't know what you doing. But have fun.

[redietz]

Go to your local university. Call up a math professor. Pay him a consultant's fee, like dinner at Outback. Ask him the odds against a 5% probability event going 0 for 150.

Or ask tableplay. But buy him TWO dinners at Outback.

[kewlJ]

You've literally gone off the deep end. Why?

Are you certain of your math here. Did you get it from someone else. I've admitted I don't know how long a system like that could hold up. You talk like you know for sure it will fail by the 20th session.

Come on Mickey, YOU know how progression betting systems work. It is always the same principal. Many small wins and then the big loss that wipes out all those wins and more. Progressive betting can not over come negative expected value. This is a mathematical fact. You know this.

I don't know what you are doing. You seem to have accepted Rob's cease fire and somehow now flipped to where you are supporting everything he says.

It is one thing if you find Rob credible on his double-up claim, ignoring his many past credibility issues. That is your right. But to now be refusing to discredit his Singer system, which just flat out goes against the mathematics. I am at a loss I really don't know what you doing. But have fun.

You know what?? Easy solution Mickey. YOU play Rob's progressive wagering system, playing -EV video poker, using stop limits. Play 100's of trials and get back to us with results.

[mickeycrimm]

[QUOTE=kewlJ;88305]What the fuck is wrong with you mickey? I posted Mickey's F***ing quote! For anyone who wants to read it, it is in the Question for Mickeycrimm thread, post #52, 4th paragraph.

You fucking little nit. When you get it in for someone you don't give a fuck who you insult. You're a crybaby little punk. This is exactly what I said in post #52 of the "Request for Mickey Crimm" thread, not "Question for Mickey Crimm." Do you even know you make mistakes like that?

"It will be one of the biggest stories to ever hit the professional video poker world." You changed that to "Biggest story ever." There's a big difference between the two statements. Then you quoted me saying "bombshell" which I never said. In your lust to get Singer you don't give a rat's ass who you fuck over to do it. Kiss off, bitch.

[kewlJ]

Go to your local university. Call up a math professor. Pay him a consultant's fee, like dinner at Outback. Ask him the odds against a 5% probability event going 0 for 150.

Or ask tableplay. But buy him TWO dinners at Outback.

Actually the number Singer first posted was that he had played 150-200 sessions without losing the 57K. I know exactly where that quote is, if there is any question. I guess we have just dropped to the lower end. But still the point is it will be outrageously long odds against.

[tableplay]

he knew an employee there. The guy brought out the worldwide memo that IGT sent around telling everyone to disable the double ups and not turn them on.

I remember mistakenly thinking back then in 2009, that the casinos were disabling double-up to make hand-turn over quicker - that is, with double-up enabled,the players would waste time deliberating over whether to double up or not, instead of playing hands.

[mickeycrimm]

Go to your local university. Call up a math professor. Pay him a consultant's fee, like dinner at Outback. Ask him the odds against a 5% probability event going 0 for 150.

Or ask tableplay. But buy him TWO dinners at Outback.

Actually the number Singer first posted was that he had played 150-200 sessions without losing the 57K. I know exactly where that quote is, if there is any question. I guess we have just dropped to the lower end. But still the point is it will be outrageously long odds against.

Just one problem with this. Singer never said he won every session so it wouldn't be 0 for 150.

[tableplay]

How does anyone know the correct method of executing the play if it's gone? You can't go and try it out anywhere. Rob or anyone else could say any sequence was the correct one. Am I missing something?

https://www.gamekingslots.com/igt-game-king-5-0.html

[kewlJ]

Go to your local university. Call up a math professor. Pay him a consultant's fee, like dinner at Outback. Ask him the odds against a 5% probability event going 0 for 150.

Or ask tableplay. But buy him TWO dinners at Outback.

Actually the number Singer first posted was that he had played 150-200 sessions without losing the 57K. I know exactly where that quote is, if there is any question. I guess we have just dropped to the lower end. But still the point is it will be outrageously long odds against.

Just one problem with this. Singer never said he won every session so it wouldn't be 0 for 150.

You just did what you are accusing me of doing. I didn't say he won every session did I? I said he said he played 150-200 sessions without experiencing that 57k loss that will occur every so often wiping out all those smaller winning sessions. Are you seriously endorsing progressive betting systems as a way to win against -EV games.

[tableplay]

I'd imagine then they'd have to accept you into the HOF. Who knew there was actually such a thing as a VPHOF?

Right along with Kane and Nestor - j/k bro.

[tableplay]

Go to your local university. Call up a math professor. Pay him a consultant's fee, like dinner at Outback. Ask him the odds against a 5% probability event going 0 for 150.

Or ask tableplay. But buy him TWO dinners at Outback.

Drich or Mission or RS_ can chime in if they want Redietz, but I believe the chance of this happening is about 0.046% (probability an event with a 5% chance of occurring does not occur in 150 attempts of the event).

[RS__]

[RS__]

Go to your local university. Call up a math professor. Pay him a consultant's fee, like dinner at Outback. Ask him the odds against a 5% probability event going 0 for 150.

Or ask tableplay. But buy him TWO dinners at Outback.

Drich or Mission or RS_ can chime in if they want Redietz, but I believe the chance of this happening is about 0.046% (probability an event with a 5% chance of occurring does not occur in 150 attempts of the event).

Agreed with that figure.

[Bob21]

"It will be one of the biggest stories to ever hit the professional video poker world." You changed that to "Biggest story ever." There's a big difference between the two statements. Then you quoted me saying "bombshell" which I never said. In your lust to get Singer you don't give a rat's ass who you fuck over to do it. Kiss off, bitch.

Since I know everybody is waiting for me to chime in on this and I’m an impartial observer, I thought I would give my opinion. Mickey, KJ has NOT misrepresented what you said. There is not a BIG difference between these two statements. Even when KJ used the word “bombshell” this was NOT misrepresenting the tone of what you’re saying. It’s clear you think this is the biggest thing to hit the gambling world since casinos were legalized in United States.

[mickeycrimm]

Actually the number Singer first posted was that he had played 150-200 sessions without losing the 57K. I know exactly where that quote is, if there is any question. I guess we have just dropped to the lower end. But still the point is it will be outrageously long odds against.

Just one problem with this. Singer never said he won every session so it wouldn't be 0 for 150.

You just did what you are accusing me of doing. I didn't say he won every session did I? I said he said he played 150-200 sessions without experiencing that 57k loss that will occur every so often wiping out all those smaller winning sessions. Are you seriously endorsing progressive betting systems as a way to win against -EV games.

You say it is impossible to win. That's a blanket statement. I say it depends on the sample size. For one session he's a big favorite to win. Now about that 150 sessions without the 57K loss. You again are either forgetting or omitting facts. He said he had losses just not as big as 57K because he would pull out way before the loss got that big. I think he said his biggest loss was 33K. Please just quit with the bogus numbers and quotes.

[mickeycrimm]

You've literally gone off the deep end. Why?

Are you certain of your math here. Did you get it from someone else. I've admitted I don't know how long a system like that could hold up. You talk like you know for sure it will fail by the 20th session.

Come on Mickey, YOU know how progression betting systems work. It is always the same principal. Many small wins and then the big loss that wipes out all those wins and more. Progressive betting can not over come negative expected value. This is a mathematical fact. You know this.

I don't know what you are doing. You seem to have accepted Rob's cease fire and somehow now flipped to where you are supporting everything he says.

It is one thing if you find Rob credible on his double-up claim, ignoring his many past credibility issues. That is your right. But to now be refusing to discredit his Singer system, which just flat out goes against the mathematics. I am at a loss I really don't know what you doing. But have fun.

You know what?? Easy solution Mickey. YOU play Rob's progressive wagering system, playing -EV video poker, using stop limits. Play 100's of trials and get back to us with results.

Now I'm really going to mess with your mind. If I wanted to I think I could make money with Rob's system. AP's have been doing similar for a long time. Now, I'm going out for the day so you can steam on it all day.