Request For Mickeycrimm

[Keystone]

Everyone’s premise is that Rob doesn’t believe in his system but teaches it anyway. Before Rob and I called a truce I said I thought Rob really believes in his system. If he believes in it he can be correct or incorrect but not a fraud.

Wow, Mickey better zip Rob back up before he gets lock jaw

[unowme]

God bless you if you believe what's written on Mendelson's site.

You don't have to tell me about Singer. I've known him since he posted on the LVA Forums. Alan Mendelson (MoneyLA) too. I always thought Rob was an asshole. And a crackpot. And his system was a long term loser. But that doesn't mean he couldn't have won what he claimed.

The problem isn't that he claims he won, playing a long-term losing (-EV) system.

The problem is that he claims it is a "winning" system and promotes and encourages other to play it...on forums, books and a gambling advice column. And continues to do so even today as evident of what he had Alan post.

When someone does this...intentionally misleading players and members, I believe it is the responsibility of others to call out and challenge such claims.

Yeah...OK I get it. I think this is much ado about absolutely nothing and it's now just a pissing and trolling contest. Does Rob still train people? I thought he retired. So this is all about his past claims...but not really

How many people do you honestly think ever really tried Rob's system in all these years? How many use it today? I doubt anyone ever really used Robs system with the 6 figure bankroll except maybe Rob himself and he probably makes it up as he goes along. It's all self-puffery. And his detractors just give him a platform to troll them...but hell what do I know. You still think I'm that Coach Belly guy anyway. So carry on. I'm sure you'll find it a rewarding life's work to debunk Rob Singer's System that no one uses or perhaps has ever used....as he continues to troll you to infinity.

[Rob.Singer]

First, you're incorrect about the 25-year old. He had video of what Kane was doing. That's why he found it so quickly. If he was a vp player he'd have found the sequence much sooner.

I already responded to your issue about why I looked for four years. I'd still be looking today if I hadn't found anything back then....if I were still playing regularly. Its how I am--I don't give up even if I fail. And why did I originally suspect there was something to find? My work experience. There's been many glitches found in commercial and military coding. That means there could be in the vp business also.

I spent maybe 30 minutes to an hour per week after my session was over.

Okay, here’s another question I know you’ve answered before, but not to most people’s satisfaction, except that is Mickey.

It’s about how little you made with this incredibly strong play. It home to me again how strong this play was when I read the wire.com article again. Quoting from that article:

“You had complete control” Nester said “You could win $500,000 in a day.” A did a quick calculation and this means using the out-of-control Nester style of play, you could have won 182.5 million in a year, or close to a billion in 5 years. That’s a lot of money and a far cry from the little you earned from this play.

Now I get this approach wouldn’t have worked because casinos aren’t that dumb. They aren’t going to let it happen. But the discrepancy between what you made per year and what was possible seems like such a huge gulf it’s hard to believe that you wouldn’t have tried harder to make at least a million a year. That would have still kept you under their radar.

Anyway, I’m still struggling with why you made so little with such a strong play. It doesn’t take much intelligence to see how someone could have easily made 5 to 10 fold more than you claimed to have made and still stayed under the casino’s radar.

Your problem Bob is that you're giving too much credence to the words of Nestor--not exactly citizen of the year. "You had complete control" was 100% false. "You could win $500,000 in a day" was just as false. He said that nonsense to get attention, and he got yours. If this play was capable of netting $500k a day you can bet an undisciplined bozo such as him would have been doing that. To have even the slightest chance it would require multi-denominational $100 top-limit machines, and there are very few of those. And even then, they all start at $25, and you do not bother with this play at a 4:1 ratio.

Complete control? Not in the least....and BOTH these clowns found that truth out the hard way. Yes I probably could have safely doubled my take from the play, but I chose a very conservative approach to minimize the Kane/Nestor errors you seem to be so enamored with. And I'm not somebody who didn't already provide for our financial future.

[PIGGY BANKER]

Singer, be honest, you've been full of complete shit for decades on end.

[Tasha]

Singer, be honest, you've been full of complete shit for decades on end.

Piggy Banker, I was just about to publicly give you the benefit of the doubt when Posters were calling you a Troll, but with posts like these it really makes me wonder if you aren't a Troll and not as innocent as you seemed at first.

[smurgerburger]

I must have missed something. If the machines have been fixed and you can't test it how could you know Robs detailed account of how to exploit the double up bug is correct? Mickey?

Alan pointed out on twitter that Rob's double up sequence has not been verified. But no one has disputed it either. That is true either way. But so far he's the only one that has put up what he says is the actual sequence of events to get to the big jackpot. What I have done is contacted the author of the Wired article, Kevin Paulson, and made him aware of Rob's claim plus also giving him the link to Rob's explanation of it on Alan's site. Let's see what he has to say about it.

I've also put the story up on twitter and it's getting activity. The more the story spreads, the more people know about it, the bigger the chance, if there is any, of someone coming forward and saying they taught Rob the strategy. I'll be getting around to posting up the 1K reward on twitter. Right now I'm busier than shit between vulturing, genealogy and dealing with this story so everything is not going to get done all at once. But I'm doing my part to spread the story.

So the bottom line is it's the correct sequence because Singer say's it's the correct sequence.....Uh.... OK, I guess.

I find Rob's version of the DU bug very believable and I believe Axel has verified that it's correct.

I think if you read his description with an open mind you'll conclude it's either correct (though he still may have learned it from a third party), or it's a very ingenious invention. Was it even publicly known that the WIRED story was inaccurate? If not, why wouldn't Rob just repeat the version from the story?

[Half Smoke]

Quote Unowme referring to KJ:



"I'm sure you'll find it a rewarding life's work to debunk Rob Singer's System that no one uses or perhaps has ever used....as he continues to troll you to infinity."


it's kind of like Detective Javert spending his entire career chasing the criminal Jean Valjean for stealing a loaf of bread and 40 francs in Victor Hugo's classic "Les Miserables"


- -

[quahaug]

Alan pointed out on twitter that Rob's double up sequence has not been verified. But no one has disputed it either. That is true either way. But so far he's the only one that has put up what he says is the actual sequence of events to get to the big jackpot. What I have done is contacted the author of the Wired article, Kevin Paulson, and made him aware of Rob's claim plus also giving him the link to Rob's explanation of it on Alan's site. Let's see what he has to say about it.

I've also put the story up on twitter and it's getting activity. The more the story spreads, the more people know about it, the bigger the chance, if there is any, of someone coming forward and saying they taught Rob the strategy. I'll be getting around to posting up the 1K reward on twitter. Right now I'm busier than shit between vulturing, genealogy and dealing with this story so everything is not going to get done all at once. But I'm doing my part to spread the story.

So the bottom line is it's the correct sequence because Singer say's it's the correct sequence.....Uh.... OK, I guess.

I find Rob's version of the DU bug very believable and I believe Axel has verified that it's correct.

I think if you read his description with an open mind you'll conclude it's either correct (though he still may have learned it from a third party), or it's a very ingenious invention. Was it even publicly known that the WIRED story was inaccurate? If not, why wouldn't Rob just repeat the version from the story?

I think Rob might be holding back a little bit of info. My sources tell me that on Thursday through Sunday you must be wearing your Patriots cap, the rest of the time a Celtics or Red Sox cap will do fine. It's your call.

[Bob21]

Alan pointed out on twitter that Rob's double up sequence has not been verified. But no one has disputed it either. That is true either way. But so far he's the only one that has put up what he says is the actual sequence of events to get to the big jackpot. What I have done is contacted the author of the Wired article, Kevin Paulson, and made him aware of Rob's claim plus also giving him the link to Rob's explanation of it on Alan's site. Let's see what he has to say about it.

I've also put the story up on twitter and it's getting activity. The more the story spreads, the more people know about it, the bigger the chance, if there is any, of someone coming forward and saying they taught Rob the strategy. I'll be getting around to posting up the 1K reward on twitter. Right now I'm busier than shit between vulturing, genealogy and dealing with this story so everything is not going to get done all at once. But I'm doing my part to spread the story.

So the bottom line is it's the correct sequence because Singer say's it's the correct sequence.....Uh.... OK, I guess.

I find Rob's version of the DU bug very believable and I believe Axel has verified that it's correct.

I think if you read his description with an open mind you'll conclude it's either correct (though he still may have learned it from a third party), or it's a very ingenious invention. Was it even publicly known that the WIRED story was inaccurate? If not, why wouldn't Rob just repeat the version from the story?

Smurgerbuger, regardless if you believe Rob or not, the answer to your question is pretty obvious. If the wired article was correct and Rob repeated it, but said he found it first, then I think most people wouldn’t believe him. This wouldn’t have evolved into much of a story. Rob is smarter than that.

The only way this story has any legs is because the wired article is incorrect, and Rob knows the correct play. Since there were so many people who knew this play in several states it’s not difficult to come up with a scenario where Rob learned about the correct play. I mean everybody agrees Nestor and Kane were idiots with lose lips, so why would anybody think the correct play was kept a secret?

[MaxPen]

And even then, they all start at $25, and you do not bother with this play at a 4:1 ratio.

That is a pretty rediculous statement. I probably would have only played quarter to dollars and I would have made over 3 million the first year with very few taxables.

[Rob.Singer]

And even then, they all start at $25, and you do not bother with this play at a 4:1 ratio.

That is a pretty rediculous statement. I probably would have only played quarter to dollars and I would have made over 3 million the first year with very few taxables.

And you may have a better way by doing that. I think that's how axel said he would approach something like this. It's a little easier to strategize over when you're not right smack in the middle of the unknown and find a dream-come-true play. I looked at the opportunity as a weekly visitor to casinos who wanted as little exposure as possible. Maybe that wasn't the best way, I don't know. But I did well enough for my purposes.

[Rob.Singer]

So the bottom line is it's the correct sequence because Singer say's it's the correct sequence.....Uh.... OK, I guess.

I find Rob's version of the DU bug very believable and I believe Axel has verified that it's correct.

I think if you read his description with an open mind you'll conclude it's either correct (though he still may have learned it from a third party), or it's a very ingenious invention. Was it even publicly known that the WIRED story was inaccurate? If not, why wouldn't Rob just repeat the version from the story?

Smurgerbuger, regardless if you believe Rob or not, the answer to your question is pretty obvious. If the wired article was correct and Rob repeated it, but said he found it first, then I think most people wouldn’t believe him. This wouldn’t have evolved into much of a story. Rob is smarter than that.

The only way this story has any legs is because the wired article is incorrect, and Rob knows the correct play. Since there were so many people who knew this play in several states it’s not difficult to come up with a scenario where Rob learned about the correct play. I mean everybody agrees Nestor and Kane were idiots with lose lips, so why would anybody think the correct play was kept a secret?

Who are these "people in several states" that know this play?

[unowme]

Quote Unowme referring to KJ:



"I'm sure you'll find it a rewarding life's work to debunk Rob Singer's System that no one uses or perhaps has ever used....as he continues to troll you to infinity."


it's kind of like Detective Javert spending his entire career chasing the criminal Jean Valjean for stealing a loaf of bread and 40 francs in Victor Hugo's classic "Les Miserables"


- -

Or perhaps KJ is the Obsessed Captain Ahab and Singer is none other than Moby Dick. Kind of seems appropriate since there's so much Dick talk around here.

"to the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee".

[Rob.Singer]

And even then, they all start at $25, and you do not bother with this play at a 4:1 ratio.

That is a pretty rediculous statement. I probably would have only played quarter to dollars and I would have made over 3 million the first year with very few taxables.

Also about this: it would probably be far safer and less noticeable constantly upping a 25c winning hand into a dollars winning hand than moving $25 winners into $100 taxables.

[mickeycrimm]

And even then, they all start at $25, and you do not bother with this play at a 4:1 ratio.

That is a pretty rediculous statement. I probably would have only played quarter to dollars and I would have made over 3 million the first year with very few taxables.

Maybe a good way of staying under the radar just dealing with accumulated credits but I don't know about 3 mil in a year. That would be a lot of play.

[MaxPen]

And even then, they all start at $25, and you do not bother with this play at a 4:1 ratio.

That is a pretty rediculous statement. I probably would have only played quarter to dollars and I would have made over 3 million the first year with very few taxables.

Maybe a good way of staying under the radar just dealing with accumulated credits but I don't know about 3 mil in a year. That would be a lot of play.

My understanding is you are not limited to one collection. Get a 4oak on quarter BPD. Switch to $1 and collect a few times and move on to another place. I could do 10k+ a day and still wonder what to do with all my spare time.
With .25-$1 I would never even hit a taxable. I'd much prefer .50-$2 though.

[Rob.Singer]

That is a pretty rediculous statement. I probably would have only played quarter to dollars and I would have made over 3 million the first year with very few taxables.

Maybe a good way of staying under the radar just dealing with accumulated credits but I don't know about 3 mil in a year. That would be a lot of play.

My understanding is you are not limited to one collection. Get a 4oak on quarter BPD. Switch to $1 and collect a few times and move on to another place. I could do 10k+ a day and still wonder what to do with all my spare time.
With .25-$1 I would never even hit a taxable. I'd much prefer .50-$2 though.

What you're meaning is collecting on the same winner more than once, which is possible and which I didn't consider because I chose not to do that. But there are a LOT of 25c-$2 machines that would require fewer wins to reach your goal and then still be able to watch the fools on CNN make even bigger idiots of themselves. 50c-$2 isn't common out here.

[AxelWolf]

In a way that search for someone that may have taught or shared the info with Rob, is not fair to Rob, in that finding someone could disprove his claim, but not finding someone does not prove his claim.

Only Rob can prove his claim or offer supporting evidence/documentation and he chose not to do that even though he admits he knew there would be skeptics.

Personally I don't think someone taught or showed Rob the sequence. I think he figured it out on his own, probably after the story broke, by locating machines that had not yet been 'fixed' and trying different sequences until one worked. He plays a lot of smaller venues in Arizona, rural Nevada and other places that might have been slow to fix the "bug".

But these are both just two possibilities other than Rob's "he searched for and found a bug or defect that there was no reason to believe existed".

It just comes back to numerous possibilities. And with Rob offering no proof or supporting evidence....

I'm not saying this happen or I think it happen, but one could find and old machine for sale that never had the update. IIRC Rob has claimed to have bought machines before. If I was really looking for the bug and wanted to peruse this, that's exactly what I would do. The bug has appeared in casinos in the last few years or so, and not just in some small obscure location.

[Rob.Singer]

Here's a question for those on the negative side of this ledger:

Why would an "anti-AP" vp expert (and yes, I am an all-around expert at the game whether I choose to strictly follow the math or not) who had already made as many enemies in the gambling world as possible by being a world-class online insulter--and who had established a 10-year or more story of winning with a strategy few if any understand or believe--wait TEN WHOLE YEARS to unleash a made-up story such as this, when I could have been making hay with it years ago since I would have known I'd never get in legal trouble because it was fake news anyway?

Because I wanted the proof of my tax returns to disappear? Hogwash. Who shows ANYBODY their tax returns anyway?

Kew, you're good at fabricating all kinds of stories about me. Help us out here.

[smurgerburger]

In a way that search for someone that may have taught or shared the info with Rob, is not fair to Rob, in that finding someone could disprove his claim, but not finding someone does not prove his claim.

Only Rob can prove his claim or offer supporting evidence/documentation and he chose not to do that even though he admits he knew there would be skeptics.

Personally I don't think someone taught or showed Rob the sequence. I think he figured it out on his own, probably after the story broke, by locating machines that had not yet been 'fixed' and trying different sequences until one worked. He plays a lot of smaller venues in Arizona, rural Nevada and other places that might have been slow to fix the "bug".

But these are both just two possibilities other than Rob's "he searched for and found a bug or defect that there was no reason to believe existed".

It just comes back to numerous possibilities. And with Rob offering no proof or supporting evidence....

I'm not saying this happen or I think it happen, but one could find and old machine for sale that never had the update. IIRC Rob has claimed to have bought machines before. If I was really looking for the bug and wanted to peruse this, that's exactly what I would do. The bug has appeared in casinos in the last few years or so, and not just in some small obscure location.

Both of these possibilities are much more plausible than what the doubters have expressed so far.

Has KJ or anyone else specified what supporting evidence should or could exist, the absence of which weakens Rob's claims?