Kj, this is a good point. I’ve noticed it too. I don’t know if it’s so much “mudding the waters” or “deflection”, as just saying something irrelevant to the point. I guess this is all saying the same thing.Originally Posted by kewlJ
I guess "deflection" is another term for what I call muddying the waters. That is what you do when you don't have an answer that is supported by math. And Rob Singer (person or persona) is a master of it.
When I saw Rob say he looked for the “bug” or something that looks like a bug, this sounds technical but it’s meaningless. What’s looking like a bug mean? A bug is a bug.
Also, he tried to make a point that this was brought on by losing for four years and being upset at the machine and casinos. When you’re looking for bugs, it’s irrelevant if you’re losing or winning in the past. Bugs have to be present otherwise you aren’t going to find them.
If you follow Rob’s timeline, he had been looking for this bug (or something that looks like a bug, lol) for four years. Since the bug had only been in the game with the new update in 2003, that means Rob had been looking for the bug for 2 and half years when the game had no bug (or something that looked liked bugs, lol).
Most people wouldn’t keep looking for bugs (or things that look like bugs) after not finding one for four years. I’m still unclear why Rob would think a bug was in this machine when he hadn’t found one for four years.
So after four years looking for bugs or things that look like bugs, he finally found one. Personally, this is hard for me to believe.
Here’s the thing we all know: The wired article gave anybody who wants to a way to make up a story like Rob’s. It clearly stated this bug had been in the machine for 7 years before Kane and Nestor exploited in a drunken push bottom stupor, or that’s the story, which I’m starting to believe the more I read the article because neither one is very smart.
To compete Rob’s story, the only other thing someone would need to know is the right sequence of buttons to push, which apparently is incorrect in the article. Personally, I don’t think there was any intent on getting that wrong in the article. I mean the play is long gone so who cares. They didn’t do it protect anything or anybody. There would be no security reason to not reveal it in the article. And since so many people knew about this play anyway, as I’ve previously pointed out, I don’t think it’d be too hard to know what it was, as if anybody really cares.
Again, it doesn’t matter to me, other than I like a good detective story and this is a good one. I have no stake in the game.
One more think about math I was thinking about. As most know, I’m somewhat new on these forums, although I know I have my share of detractors (and a couple people like Mickey who have put me on ignore because he doesn’t like opinions different than his). It appears that Rob has been on these forums for 20 years or so and has his own system which most don’t agree with, even before this bug play or story was discovered.
From a math standpoint, it just doesn’t add up that the person who has a system most don’t think makes sense is also the same person who discovered a bug 5 and 1/2 years before anybody else. This is just looking at it from a math (statistical) standpoint.
All in all, an interesting thread. Good to see both sides and the way Rob comes back at his detractors.
Now it’s time for me to enjoy my Memorial weekend. A shout out to everyone who has served in our military or who has kids who served. I have the upmost respect for these people. They allow us the freedom to express our views in this great nation of ours!!! And Dan stays true to the principles of our country by allowing free speech and not censoring people on this site for differing opinions. Best site on the internet!!!
Reply With Quote