Originally Posted by
redietz
Mickey is using a narrow American legal definition of "fraud." A key part of fraud is gain, period. That gain can be non-material as well as material. Non-material resources tend to be overlooked in the hardcore capitalist countries. For the majority of human existence and across all cultures, non-material resources have been extremely important. Things such as prestige, reputation, placement in hierarchies of expertise that result in access to leadership positions, ability to influence others, all of these result from non-material resources. Rob was using fraud to gain all of these. If I claimed to win 80% of my games ATS, but didn't get any direct financial benefits, I'd be doing the same. Pretty clear cut.
I'm sure if you had examples of me formally debunking video poker, you'd include them here. But you didn't. Regarding video poker, you haven't seen posts from me regarding specifics of anything. That is formal debunking. What I bring up are the contextual questions regarding Rob's video poker claims, questions that any journalist or police investigator would immediately ask. For example, in Rob's initial narrative regarding the double up bug on Alan's site, there were no time/place details. No details of when and where or how often. No specifics. Those are enormous red flags. Is that debunking? No, it's pointing out the obvious problems that anyone who has read a basic police interrogator book or taken Journalism 101 would immediately point out. It was remindful of when Rob claimed he was accosted by someone while having dinner. He didn't report on the person's age or details of the person's appearance, what the person was wearing, and so on. Very strange post from a journalistic perspective, and Rob is a public writer with lots of experience. What I did in these instances was not formal debunking. I was pointing out the obvious.
Formal debunking has to do with the specifics, including the math and history of something, and I know the math and history of sports betting. When I was a member of the SSDPE (Society for the Scientific Documentation of Paranormal Experiments), I was considered a lead scout -- read the claims, eyeball the situation, conduct a first interview. I was not the guy doing any formal debunking, which required both an expert in laboratory protocol and the math of the experiments.
Now Dan, as an investigator of poker fraud, is much better positioned to formally debunk Rob. I suggest you and Rob get together and ask Dan to place him on a Poker Fraud Alert show or two to field adversarial questions. That would be true formal debunking. Specific questions, interviews, public consequences if questions go unanswered.
Mickey, you're all about truth. LOL. Why don't you suggest Rob go on Poker Fraud Alert? See, it even has the word "fraud" in the title.