The anti Singer

[mickeycrimm]

Good call MisterV.

Look everyone. The person that posts as Rob Singer is an internet troll. He is a degenerate losing gambler. He has trolled the gambling and AP community for going on two decades now, simply because he could not be a winner player as he wanted. His troll consists of claims of huge gambling wins that can't be (because he is doing nothing to make his play +EV), along with silly claims of expensive assets, RV's, homes, a safe full of money that aren't real or aren't his.

He gets a thrill out of wasting people's time. Most recently he proved this with both the MaxPen and Dan Druff meetups that he proposed and didn't show. There is no longer any reason to even discuss this person at this forum anymore. And anyone saying otherwise or defending him (mickeycrimm) is someone that has just decided to be part of Singer's long running troll. Period! End of story!

No, it's not the end of the story. You are over at Gambling Forums hanging on Rob's every post and responding to them. Hypocrite.

Hardly, Mickeycrimm. I haven't posted at GF in 3 weeks now. Rob is seeking a new audience to sell his BS claims to at GF's. I don't think he will find much of one there. But when he starts spouting off his alternative reality about how Dan Druff didn't show up and Maxpen didn't show up, I am going to correct the record and try to remind him of how things played out in the real world.

If you are so against guys that defy the math then why haven't you posted even once in the roulette threads at Gambling Forums? Spike/Evenbob claims to beat roulette everyday. Not a peed from you.

[mickeycrimm]

No, it's not the end of the story. You are over at Gambling Forums hanging on Rob's every post and responding to them. Hypocrite.

Bullshit.

It's the end of the possibility that he and I will meet at the Oregon coast.

What part of that don't you understand?

Why are you braying that my blowiing him off is "not the end of the story?"

LOL. My comment was made to KJ. Smoke another joint.

[Ozzy]

No, it's not the end of the story. You are over at Gambling Forums hanging on Rob's every post and responding to them. Hypocrite.

Hardly, Mickeycrimm. I haven't posted at GF in 3 weeks now. Rob is seeking a new audience to sell his BS claims to at GF's. I don't think he will find much of one there. But when he starts spouting off his alternative reality about how Dan Druff didn't show up and Maxpen didn't show up, I am going to correct the record and try to remind him of how things played out in the real world.

If you are so against guys that defy the math then why haven't you posted even once in the roulette threads at Gambling Forums? Spike/Evenbob claims to beat roulette everyday. Not a peed from you.

Same can be said with your complete absence from Chrissy Mitchell thread. I don't think you even have one post in that near 1 million views thread. By the way Mickey, you often make the mistake of giving a green rep instead of red( Sloppy Soy in particular) before him Sobchak. I'm going to guesstimate you've done it 30-40 times since you joined.

[redietz]

No, it's not the end of the story. You are over at Gambling Forums hanging on Rob's every post and responding to them. Hypocrite.

Hardly, Mickeycrimm. I haven't posted at GF in 3 weeks now. Rob is seeking a new audience to sell his BS claims to at GF's. I don't think he will find much of one there. But when he starts spouting off his alternative reality about how Dan Druff didn't show up and Maxpen didn't show up, I am going to correct the record and try to remind him of how things played out in the real world.

If you are so against guys that defy the math then why haven't you posted even once in the roulette threads at Gambling Forums? Spike/Evenbob claims to beat roulette everyday. Not a peed from you.

This is one of mickey crimm's more ridiculous arguments. I'll be devoting a couple of blog entries to explaining why mickey's perspective is both self-serving and flat out dumb in obvious ways. The cliff notes version goes a little like this:

1) Debunkers have limited time and energy, so debunking should be aimed at that which they know a bit about. That would include, in gambling, both the subject matter and the individual(s) being debunked.
2) Debunkers have limited time and energy, so debunking should be aimed at topics that are more likely (in the debunker's view) to fool a general or civilian audience. If someone says invisible dragons tell them what to bet on roulette, versus someone claiming a progressive martingale with special plays, the time and energy is best devoted to the martingale and special plays.
3) I repeat, you stay in your lane. If you know nothing about roulette, you don't challenge someone who is challenging the "math of roulette." If you don't play roulette, and you have no practical hands-on experience, a debunker can do more harm than good because he or she can make errors due to no experience with the subject.

Mickey is basically arguing that everyone should have unlimited energy to devote to debunking and everyone should have unlimited expertise, so it is indicative of boas when a debunker sticks to particular plays and people as debunking subjects. That argument is prima facie ridiculous.

I'm halfway not surprised mickey crimm would make this argument, but it does suggest he considers himself a jack of all trades master, which is very, very debatable in its own right.

[mickeycrimm]

Hardly, Mickeycrimm. I haven't posted at GF in 3 weeks now. Rob is seeking a new audience to sell his BS claims to at GF's. I don't think he will find much of one there. But when he starts spouting off his alternative reality about how Dan Druff didn't show up and Maxpen didn't show up, I am going to correct the record and try to remind him of how things played out in the real world.

If you are so against guys that defy the math then why haven't you posted even once in the roulette threads at Gambling Forums? Spike/Evenbob claims to beat roulette everyday. Not a peed from you.

Same can be said with your complete absence from Chrissy Mitchell thread. I don't think you even have one post in that near 1 million views thread. By the way Mickey, you often make the mistake of giving a green rep instead of red( Sloppy Soy in particular) before him Sobchak. I'm going to guesstimate you've done it 30-40 times since you joined.

Not a mistake. Druff has me limited to two negative reps a day. Not fair at all when you consider how many of them dumb fucks gang up on me. I go with the green rep just so I can put a derogatory comment in their post---like they do me. That rep shit don't mean anything anyway.

Mitchell has a gillion fucks harassing his ass on PFA. I'm not needed. I've harangued Spike on GF but hardly anyone else has. More people need to. KJ won't put in an appearance there. He's a hypocrite.

[mickeycrimm]

This is one of mickey crimm's more ridiculous arguments. I'll be devoting a couple of blog entries to explaining why mickey's perspective is both self-serving and flat out dumb in obvious ways. The cliff notes version goes a little like this:

1) Debunkers have limited time and energy, so debunking should be aimed at that which they know a bit about. That would include, in gambling, both the subject matter and the individual(s) being debunked.
2) Debunkers have limited time and energy, so debunking should be aimed at topics that are more likely (in the debunker's view) to fool a general or civilian audience. If someone says invisible dragons tell them what to bet on roulette, versus someone claiming a progressive martingale with special plays, the time and energy is best devoted to the martingale and special plays.
3) I repeat, you stay in your lane. If you know nothing about roulette, you don't challenge someone who is challenging the "math of roulette." If you don't play roulette, and you have no practical hands-on experience, a debunker can do more harm than good because he or she can make errors due to no experience with the subject.

Mickey is basically arguing that everyone should have unlimited energy to devote to debunking and everyone should have unlimited expertise, so it is indicative of boas when a debunker sticks to particular plays and people as debunking subjects. That argument is prima facie ridiculous.

I'm halfway not surprised mickey crimm would make this argument, but it does suggest he considers himself a jack of all trades master, which is very, very debatable in its own right.

What fucking expertise in Roulette? There isn't any. A 3rd grader can do the math.You bet a number on a double zero wheel the chance is 1 in 38 but you only get paid 36 for 1, 5.26% house edge. Single zero it's 1 in 37, same payoff, 2.63% house edge.

If you and KJ can't do that easy math then neither of you should be in gambling.

IT DON'T TAKE NO FUCKING EXPERT TO DEBUNK ROULETTE.

PS: You, KJ, and maxpigpen have devoted thousands of hours to trying to debunk Rob Singer. Shut the fuck up about people don't have time.

[redietz]

Mickey presumes nobody falls for roulette's versions of "special plays" or martingales. Interesting assumptions on his part. He also presumes nobody resorts to faulty explanations of biased wheels or operator biases or operator collusion with certain players. More interesting assumptions.

Mickey presumes he's a roulette expert. He presumes many things that aren't correct.

Mickey, your arguments are all self-serving and generally quite faulty on even a cursory examination. It does not speak well for your mental acuity.

[mickeycrimm]

Mickey presumes nobody falls for roulette's versions of "special plays" or martingales. Interesting assumptions on his part. He also presumes nobody resorts to faulty explanations of biased wheels or operator biases or operator collusion with certain players. More interesting assumptions.

Mickey presumes he's a roulette expert. He presumes many things that aren't correct.

Mickey, your arguments are all self-serving and generally quite faulty on even a cursory examination. It does not speak well for your mental acuity.

I just told you it don't take an expert to debunk roulette. What part of that statement did you not comprehend, Dumb Bob Dietz?

If you are going to back up your words then shut the fuck up about video poker, of which, you know nothing.

You said roulette, not martingales, not cheating. You're playing games but you can't win. Stupid can't be fixed, Dumb Bob Dietz.

[redietz]

Mickey presumes nobody falls for roulette's versions of "special plays" or martingales. Interesting assumptions on his part. He also presumes nobody resorts to faulty explanations of biased wheels or operator biases or operator collusion with certain players. More interesting assumptions.

Mickey presumes he's a roulette expert. He presumes many things that aren't correct.

Mickey, your arguments are all self-serving and generally quite faulty on even a cursory examination. It does not speak well for your mental acuity.

I just told you it don't take an expert to debunk roulette. What part of that statement did you not comprehend, Dumb Bob Dietz?

If you are going to back up your words then shut the fuck up about video poker, of which, you know nothing.

You said roulette, not martingales, not cheating. You're playing games but you can't win. Stupid can't be fixed, Dumb Bob Dietz.

Mickey, you're having acuity issues. I'm referring to the application of martingale and "special play" principles to roulette. People do it. People apply their own alleged special plays and martingale principles to roulette all the time.

Again, you're having problems. I'm not going to argue with someone having serious acuity problems. You should probably hire somebody to edit your posts. You're clearly struggling. Instead of appreciating the fact that I'm pointing out your slips, you're just getting angrier and more obviously wrong. That's how these things usually progress.

Let me give you a quick example of your faulty reasoning. You say, "You said roulette, not martingales, not cheating." Martingales can clearly be applied to roulette. In what universe can they NOT be applied to roulette?

Get yourself an editor, my friend.

[kewlJ]

If you are so against guys that defy the math then why haven't you posted even once in the roulette threads at Gambling Forums? Spike/Evenbob claims to beat roulette everyday. Not a peed from you.

Very simple reason: I don't play roulette. I don't believe I have ever placed a single wager on roulette. So why would I have any comment about roulette? Similarly, I don't play, nor have never even bet a single bet on craps, so you don't see me commenting on Craps or the many dice control discussions.

It so happens that GF unlike here or WoV breaks its gambling topics into different sub sections for each game. So I don't even read the sections for games I don't play or know.

What a strange argument you are making Crimm, that because I have called out Singer's BS, as you did for over a decade, that I should be running around to every forum, calling out everyone. Mickey, I take you at your word that you no longer drink. But maybe you should take it up again. You made a hell of a lot more sense when you were drinking than you do these days.

[mickeycrimm]

Mickey presumes nobody falls for roulette's versions of "special plays" or martingales. Interesting assumptions on his part. He also presumes nobody resorts to faulty explanations of biased wheels or operator biases or operator collusion with certain players. More interesting assumptions.

Mickey presumes he's a roulette expert. He presumes many things that aren't correct.

Mickey, your arguments are all self-serving and generally quite faulty on even a cursory examination. It does not speak well for your mental acuity.

I just told you it don't take an expert to debunk roulette. What part of that statement did you not comprehend, Dumb Bob Dietz?

If you are going to back up your words then shut the fuck up about video poker, of which, you know nothing.

You said roulette, not martingales, not cheating. You're playing games but you can't win. Stupid can't be fixed, Dumb Bob Dietz.

Mickey, you're having acuity issues. I'm referring to the application of martingale and "special play" principles to roulette. People do it. People apply their own alleged special plays and martingale principles to roulette all the time.

Again, you're having problems. I'm not going to argue with someone having serious acuity problems. You should probably hire somebody to edit your posts. You're clearly struggling. Instead of appreciating the fact that I'm pointing out your slips, you're just getting angrier and more obviously wrong. That's how these things usually progress.

Let me give you a quick example of your faulty reasoning. You say, "You said roulette, not martingales, not cheating." Martingales can clearly be applied to roulette. In what universe can they NOT be applied to roulette?

Get yourself an editor, my friend.

Ditz, I know I piss you off but you really need to quit clutching at straws to put me down. You are embarrassing yourself. It's a given that "Special plays" and martingaling hold no water. Those subjects have been beaten to death, not worth talking about anymore. WTF? That shit was debunked back when Millard Fillmore was President.

But Ditz, if you want to give the world a dissertation on special plays and martingaling, go right ahead. I won't be reading that shit though. It's a fucking waste of time to somebody that already knows all that shit.

And pissed off? Getting angrier and angrier? Dude....I can't quit laughing at your ignorant ass trying to appear erudite. You fail miserably and its funnier than shit

[redietz]

Mickey's posts don't even make internal sense any more. For example, he's arguing that I should be debunking roulette, but he says the math is so simplistic that any civilian should know that you can't beat roulette. Well, that makes no sense. Why debunk something everyone (according to mickey) should know cannot be beaten?

Mickey argues that I should be debunking roulette because people post about it despite the fact that (outside of coupon use) I have never played roulette. I know nothing about the history of biased wheels or how to spot one. I know nothing about operator collusion or effects. I don't even know the jargon for what numbers are referred to in groups and such. I don't know the posters who are arguing that they can beat roulette. I don't know their history. I don't know their arguments or their counter arguments. But in mickey's mind, I should be debunking roulette.

Mickey has issues. There's no point in engaging him.

[kewlJ]

Now since you brought up GF mickeycrimm, this morning after again reading Singer's alternative reality account of how Dan Druff and Maxpen refused to meet him , I see where Singer is now offering MrV, a stack of crisp 100's bills ($10,000) to meet him. THAT should entice MrV! I mean who couldn't use a stack of play money, or movie money? And considering you can buy 10 stacks at Amazon for $10, $15 bucks, he is offering a value of about a dollar fifty to meet him, and even THAT is way overpriced.

[redietz]

I don't understand mickey's issues with me. I offered to do a video about Singer winning the 1.5 million. I was even willing to do the video and pay the videographer while operating under the premise that Singer won the money. The conditions I set from the beginning were that I had to interview two of Singer's relatives for the video, and I needed to clear that with them and confirm that in advance while providing a (partial) list of questions I would ask them during the interviews. Those questions would include things like,

"How did Rob break the news about the win?"
"Did the big win change your plans for the summer?"
"What will you spend the money on?"
"Did you hire a financial advisor after the big win or do you have one familiar with big gambling wins?"

Doing a few family questions would be standard procedure for any "big win" interview. Any editor would recommend them. Plus it's standard procedure to break up an interview with just one or two talking heads with other people.

[mickeycrimm]

Mickey's posts don't even make internal sense any more. For example, he's arguing that I should be debunking roulette, but he says the math is so simplistic that any civilian should know that you can't beat roulette. Well, that makes no sense. Why debunk something everyone (according to mickey) should know cannot be beaten?

Mickey argues that I should be debunking roulette because people post about it despite the fact that (outside of coupon use) I have never played roulette. I know nothing about the history of biased wheels or how to spot one. I know nothing about operator collusion or effects. I don't even know the jargon for what numbers are referred to in groups and such. I don't know the posters who are arguing that they can beat roulette. I don't know their history. I don't know their arguments or their counter arguments. But in mickey's mind, I should be debunking roulette.

Mickey has issues. There's no point in engaging him.

Once again Ditz embarrasses himself. Dude just can't let it go. And he's having delusions. I never said he should be debunking roulette. He clearly doesn't have the intelligence. But he likes to pass himself off as educated on any subject.

You see, his 3rd cousin's uncle by marriage knew a guy that had an aunt whose brother-in-law was married to someone that knows all about that shit. If someone else is an expert on something that means Ditz is too. He's an expert because of obscure association with the real experts.

[kewlJ]

Oh wow, I said a few minutes ago that I don't think I ever placed a wager at roulette. Redietz mentioning "coupon use" reminds me that I have. One summer about 8, 9 years ago, Palms sent out coupon books in the mail which contained 4 match play coupons, 2 for blackjack only and 2 for roulette only. I collected about 100 of these books and started or ended (sometimes both) every day with a visit to Palms which was close to where I lived at the time, where I played one session of blackjack using a coupon, and one single spin of roulette, daily.

The other interesting thing is that mickey says Singer's special plays and progressive wagering theories have long ago been debunked. But the funny thing is someone posting at WoV recently started a thread about winning video poker play using "special plays" (meaning less optimal) to target quads instead of royals and increasing wagers after so many rounds played several times (multi level progression system). This person even went as far as to praise Singer.

So while most of us believe this is yet another Singer sock puppet, if it isn't (highly unlikely) then there is another moron buying into Singer's nonsense that mickey says was debunked during the Fillmore era. Either way, Singer will never let this die as long as he is alive. He keeps reappearing and pushing the same BS. That is why it is important to have some pushback from at least a couple members, particularly a couple players recognized as real players.

[mickeycrimm]

Now since you brought up GF mickeycrimm, this morning after again reading Singer's alternative reality account of how Dan Druff and Maxpen refused to meet him , I see where Singer is now offering MrV, a stack of crisp 100's bills ($10,000) to meet him. THAT should entice MrV! I mean who couldn't use a stack of play money, or movie money? And considering you can buy 10 stacks at Amazon for $10, $15 bucks, he is offering a value of about a dollar fifty to meet him, and even THAT is way overpriced.

Funnier than shit how you guys didn't even know prop cash existed until Boz posted about it. Then you idiots became overnight experts on prop cash. Well, Ditz is the real expert on it because his great uncle's third wife had a first husband whose 2nd cousin had a brother-in-law that knew all about it.

[mickeycrimm]

I don't understand mickey's issues with me. I offered to do a video about Singer winning the 1.5 million. I was even willing to do the video and pay the videographer while operating under the premise that Singer won the money. The conditions I set from the beginning were that I had to interview two of Singer's relatives for the video, and I needed to clear that with them and confirm that in advance while providing a (partial) list of questions I would ask them during the interviews. Those questions would include things like,

"How did Rob break the news about the win?"
"Did the big win change your plans for the summer?"
"What will you spend the money on?"
"Did you hire a financial advisor after the big win or do you have one familiar with big gambling wins?"

Doing a few family questions would be standard procedure for any "big win" interview. Any editor would recommend them. Plus it's standard procedure to break up an interview with just one or two talking heads with other people.

Take your own advice. You don't know anything about video poker so give it up.

[kewlJ]

Now since you brought up GF mickeycrimm, this morning after again reading Singer's alternative reality account of how Dan Druff and Maxpen refused to meet him , I see where Singer is now offering MrV, a stack of crisp 100's bills ($10,000) to meet him. THAT should entice MrV! I mean who couldn't use a stack of play money, or movie money? And considering you can buy 10 stacks at Amazon for $10, $15 bucks, he is offering a value of about a dollar fifty to meet him, and even THAT is way overpriced.

Funnier than shit how you guys didn't even know prop cash existed until Boz posted about it. Then you idiots became overnight experts on prop cash.

I am not going to speak for anyone else, but you are absolutely correct with that assumption about me. I had no idea prop or fake money could be purchased like that. I had and still have absolutely no reason to care about such a thing.

Since you are defending Singer by attacking those that called him out, would you like to take this opportunity to go on record that you believe Singer's photo of "prop" money was real? Let's see just how far you are willing to go Crimm.

[MaxPen]

Mickey's posts don't even make internal sense any more. For example, he's arguing that I should be debunking roulette, but he says the math is so simplistic that any civilian should know that you can't beat roulette. Well, that makes no sense. Why debunk something everyone (according to mickey) should know cannot be beaten?

Mickey argues that I should be debunking roulette because people post about it despite the fact that (outside of coupon use) I have never played roulette. I know nothing about the history of biased wheels or how to spot one. I know nothing about operator collusion or effects. I don't even know the jargon for what numbers are referred to in groups and such. I don't know the posters who are arguing that they can beat roulette. I don't know their history. I don't know their arguments or their counter arguments. But in mickey's mind, I should be debunking roulette.

Mickey has issues. There's no point in engaging him.

Mickey has gone full tard. He's now a legitimate laughing stock. If I had a hundo for every person that has brought up his stupidity to me in person I could buy a decent car with it. He has completely embarrassed himself in the process of performing his man servant duties to Singer.