Rob Singer -- Discuss

Recently quite a bit of discussion about Rob Singer has erupted in the Suspension List thread, starting with this post. I would split those posts off, but that thread is too long and dis-functional to be split off. That is what happens when people don't close off tags.

Please take the discussion about him here. Forum rules prohibit passing on messages from banned members, which he is, and I do not want to see quoting or linking to other forums. My apologies to those who already posted in the Suspension List thread. You are welcome to copy and paste your posts here.

The question for the poll is what do you think of Rob Singer?

Interview with him:

I heard they were really successful releasing the troll movie straight to the internet. Was he in the movie?

Thank you Wizard. I'm simply going to copy and paste what I posted on my website with no links so that all of the content is here for discussion:

AN UPDATE ON VIDEO POKER PLAYER ROB SINGER

Update April 28, 2020 On this website I have multiple pages and many articles and videos about video poker player Rob Singer. These articles and videos cover a period of about ten years. While I never endorsed his casino play and activities I believed what he told me -- that over a period of ten years he beat the casinos for more than a million dollars with his unique system. Now I have something that I must reveal to you. Rob Singer has confessed to me that his controversial system did not deliver what he told me. He admitted to me that he manipulated video poker machines to produce wins and payoffs and this might have been illegal. He told me that what he presented to me was a cover for what might have been illegal activities. I was lied to and I was fooled. He did say that the system he presented to me did produce profits of about $300,000 over three years, but that doesn't excuse his misrepresentation. He also has never presented independent proof of his claims despite repeated requests. The articles and videos can still be found on the Internet. Make your own decisions. I regret that I didn't push harder for proof of his early claims.

What are we talking about here anyway?

The Blog
Rob Singer: His Controversial Video Poker Strategy
Chat with Rob Singer
https://wizardofodds.com/blog/chat-with-rob-singer/


Sounds like something I would do. ~~~~~
Briefly, Singer ridicules the mathematically based strategies that skilled players like me employ. Instead, he follows a progressive betting system, setting a small winning goal each day and ramping up the denomination of his bets until he hits his winning goal. He does not detail a holding strategy but advocates playing more conservatively than skilled strategies in some situations.

I hear he recently admitted that his decades of preaching that video poker machines do not deal cards randomly was all an act and his real angle was exploiting a double-or-nothing bug. Personally, I haven't seen any evidence either way, so take no side on that.

In the unlikely event Rob Singer should read this and have something worth saying, I am open to doing a second interview. He can reach me through the "contact" form at Wizard of Odds.

A liar in gambling circles. Color me surprised.

Cue eye roll.

Okay, time for me to add context. I am a sports handicapper. Have been for 40 years. Let's get that out of the way. My first 2500 posts or thereabouts at VCT, I did not mention that.

Anybody know who Uri Geller is? Or James Randi? One of my lifelong hobbies has been debunking paranormal claims. So I am familiar with CSICOP and the JREF, and I was even a card-carrying investigator/writer for the SSDPE (Society for the Scientific Documentation of Paranormal Experiments). The SSDPE, unfortunately, lasted about two years. Anyway, what Singer was pulling with Alan was, I thought, very similar to what Geller had pulled off with the SRI (Stanford Research Institute). Geller had fooled a bunch of physicists, which helped make him famous. I thought Singer was using Alan the same way. So I actually signed up at VCT to follow this relationship. Singer, in a sense, has always been claiming "paranormal abilities," although he would argue against that framing.

It took Randi and other debunkers to expose Geller. At the time, there were few WoVers at VCT (I suppose the banishment hammer was wielded more lightly back then). The only folks at VCT qualified to take on Singer back then were a guy named Arcimede$ and a few others. I was not qualified as I am no video poker expert (I play about 40-50 hours a year). But I did point out when there were obvious egregious logical or mathematical errors that even I could catch.

I was flummoxed that Alan bought into the whole Singer schtick, as I had been concurrent with Singer in Las Vegas in the 90's, when he had his Gaming Today column, which usually riffed on his bizarro systems. I was spending 100 days a year in LV back then, and GT put Singer on the front page half the time. GT's decisions regarding him were curious, to say the least, and I have some longshot theories on that. But save them for another day.

Anyway, a handful of us tried to steer Alan away from Singer for years, but were unable to do so. Singer had glommed onto Alan to ramp up his notoriety. And we wound up with those videos of Singer explaining (but not really) his systems while wearing horrible Hawaiian shirts. Sorry -- I have a fixation on what lecturers should wear, and Hawaiian shirts are a terrible distraction to an audience.

Singer got into tax debates as to what he had done and so on, and there was a period of time he was supposed to send Alan tax returns and never did. One of Alan's problems was that Alan didn't have much respect at the time for the "little players" like Arcimede$ or others who made small amounts of money every year. Singer's claims of annual windfalls were splashier and had more PR volume to them.

Eventually, Singer (considering himself a master of everything -- LOL), made a few comments about sports gambling, which demonstrated that he knew very little. He was giving bad advice -- which, by the way, is not rare. This forum gives some really bad advice. I then stepped up after 2500 posts and said, "I do this for a living and you don't know what you're talking about," and that's when Singer started making garbage up about me and posting the garbage at VCT. Really vile things regarding my late wife (who he said committed suicide; don't know where he got that). And then claiming I had been soliciting him to "buy picks." But of course he lost my phone number, the texts, etc.

Oh yeah, Singer started off acknowledging there was a "Robert Dietz -- Sports Handicapping Pro," but then decided the dude posting as redietz at VCT wasn't me. I offered to prove I was me with the infamous "package to Alan," but Alan didn't want to read it after I mailed it. That's a whole 'nother story.

Singer decided to go with the double up bug story, which makes halfway sense in explaining some things. If he was involved in that, however, he did not "discover it." He would have been an errand boy, a kind of video poker equivalent of a "runner" in sports betting terminology.

I did want to add this. I didn't suddenly become pro-Alan because he's anti-Singer. Debunking the paranormal is filled with stories of reasonably intelligent people who went off the rails supporting this or that wild claim to ability. Psychics have a lot of followers (that's how they wind up with their own shows). But there are also many epiphany moments when people figure out that they've been the victim of hokum. You have to welcome those people back into the realm of science and math and reality without holding too big a grudge.

Any questions?
Last edited by: redietz on Apr 29, 2020
"You can't breathe dead hippo waking, sleeping, and eating, and at the same time keep your precarious grip on existence."

Why are we talking about this? Is it because he did something to you Alan or is it because he is saying things about you?

Quote: onenickelmiracle

Why are we talking about this? Is it because he did something to you Alan or is it because he is saying things about you?

For about a year I've been struggling with how to deal with Rob's confession to me.

For years I provided Rob an outlet to show his controversial strategies and beliefs.

When he said to me that he wasn't accurate in what he told me I had to report that. Please see my post above from my own website.

Also over the years I asked for proof of his various claims. Rob provided explanations about why he could not or would not supply proof. As I posted above and on my website I leave it to others to decide what they want to believe.

But I have an obligation to make this clear: Rob had claimed ten years and a million dollars of winnings from a system he said he could teach to anyone. Then he changed that. He said he won about $300,000 over three years from that system, and he won $2.8-million from something that was secret and may have been illegal.

I had to report that. I also had to report that he told me he had no proof of the new claim.

If I interviewed Company X that told me 90% of profits came from popcorn sales, but later said only 20% of profits came from popcorn and 70% of profits came from selling DVDs that may have been bootlegged,, I'd have to report that change too.

So now we have two threads where this guy is telling us Singer won $300,000 over three years.

So now we have two threads where this guy is telling us Singer won $300,000 over three years. It's a good thing you no longer provide an outlet for his nonsense.

Quote: billryan

So now we have two threads where this guy is telling us Singer won $300,000 over three years. It's a good thing you no longer provide an outlet for his nonsense.

The Wizard started this new thread for the discussion.

Quote: billryan

So now we have two threads where this guy is telling us Singer won $300,000 over three years. It's a good thing you no longer provide an outlet for his nonsense.

I think sometimes when people are duped they can't embrace the fact wholly, so they apply some partial acknowledgement. "Singer didn't make a million, he only made $300,000".

Years ago there was some whackjob who went by the handle Cipher on some questionable forums who swore he could beat online blackjack by some voodoo. A lot of idiots bought into his crap. Eventually it came crashing down when one of them sent him $10,000 as an "investment", had it stolen, and then "exposed" the scammer. Why it took someone losing 10k to expose him is beyond me. But regardless, the guy who lost 10k still wasn't willing to acknowledge that Cipher was a scammer who didn't have any system to beat blackjack. He decided that he could have used his 10k using his super blackjack voodoo, but instead blew it all on sportsbetting. He couldn't just admit that this Cipher was a liar, he had to come up with some convoluted explanation that acknowledged that he was scammed, but somehow wasn't totally wrong at the same time.

Same with those duped by Singer.

Sabre, I don't know if you are familiar with cognitive dissonance theory, but it started with a book called "When Prophecy Fails," by Leon Festinger. It's a great read if you like to read about people failing to change their minds when presented with conflicting evidence, even overwhelming conflicting evidence.

The first thing I thought when "Singer" went on his initial double up confession at VCT was, "I bet Mendelson is thrilled to read this." I'm pretty sure that was my first comment over there.

I do not see the point of this. Was someone somehow damaged or was this lie used to gain something other than attention? Cliff notes please. From what I've read, I'm not seeing any accusations anyone was hurt rather than being dragged into time wasted reading nonsense.

Quote: sabre

I think sometimes when people are duped they can't embrace the fact wholly, so they apply some partial acknowledgement. "Singer didn't make a million, he only made $300,000".

Believe me, Sabre, I embrace, embrace, embrace the fact that I was duped and I embrace it wholly.

When Rob confessed to me that he didn't tell me the truth HE made the statement that he won about $300,000 over three years. I'm simply reporting what he told me. I have NO PROOF that is true either. I have NO PROOF that he discovered or even used the double up bug.

I have NO PROOF of any of his claims and unfortunately HE DOESN'T EITHER.

I hope that when/if Wizard meets with Singer he gets the proof.

I don't have it. I'm sorry. I blew it as a reporter.

Quote: onenickelmiracle

I do not see the point of this. Was someone somehow damaged or was this lie used to gain something other than attention? Cliff notes please. From what I've read, I'm not seeing any accusations anyone was hurt rather than being dragged into time wasted reading nonsense.

It's questionable whether I was damaged. Yes, I was highly criticized for reporting on Singer's strategies and claims. Yes, I defended many of his statements. Was I damaged? That's debatable, but I did suffer a lot of personal attacks.

Yes, he gained a lot of publicity from me by giving me incorrect information. But did I suffer a loss of money or reputation? That would be hard to define.

The bottom line for me is that I want to get all the details known. Then you decide what you want to decide.

Quote: AlanMendelson

It's questionable whether I was damaged. Yes, I was highly criticized for reporting on Singer's strategies and claims. Yes, I defended many of his statements. Was I damaged? That's debatable, but I did suffer a lot of personal attacks.

Yes, he gained a lot of publicity from me by giving me incorrect information. But did I suffer a loss of money or reputation? That would be hard to define.

The bottom line for me is that I want to get all the details known. Then you decide what you want to decide.

Who has he damaged? Is this my dream or your dream? Has that dreamlike feel in how it all leads nowhere but in circles.

Why does he have to damage anyone?

Isn't it enough that misinformation was spread around about a gaming system that didn't deliver one million of profits over ten years?

Is it okay to claim discovery of a bug in a machine owned by IGT and to claim he got $2.8-million from casinos? I think IGT might have been damaged here. What if IGT lost sales but Singer has no proof of his claims?

AlanMendelson: Let me ask you a tough question and give some criticism here.

99% of this forum didn't/ doesn't believe that Rob Singers video poker system worked whatsoever(I hope that's the case)). Why is it that you wanted to believe? You're an intelligent person, a gambler who knows more than the average person about gambling, and a reporter... so If anyone should have known better.... IT WAS YOU.

For a long time now you have been an Advantage Player/math guy antagonist, did that play a part in your decision making when it came to promoting his claims? Be honest, what was your motivation?

Like seriously, what's so hard for people to understand SYSTEMS DON'T WORK unless the math adds up to + numbers. Will you ever get it through your head that actual advantage play works and all this other nonsense doesn't?

When you run a business( I know you have) don't you count on the math to determine if you're going to make a profit or not? If it's costing you more to provide a service or item than they're paying you, do you trust the math that it's not going to make money or do you ignore the math and hope it all works out? Why do people suddenly want to ignore the math when it comes to gambling?

Valid questions, Axel.

Here's why I believed him: First, I read his newspaper column for years and I trusted the editorial process and that his reports were correct.

Then I followed his website for years when he had it.

Then I spoke with him and we spent hours talking.

Then I did several on camera interviews.

What was missing was the proof of his claims but I trusted him and his explanations. The first time I did a video shoot with him at the Hard Rock I saw how he was treated and how he interacted with the manager there. Rob also arranged the logistics of the shoot there. That impressed me and also made me believe and trust him otherwise he wouldn't have been treated the way he was.

This continued for about ten years until his confession. That made me reexamine the big missing link: no proof. Always an explanation but never proof.

Now regarding Singer's math. I said this before and I'll say it again. There is nothing about Singer's system that goes against the math. He plays negative expectation games. His system says get lucky and quit when ahead. He has a $170,000 bankroll but will quit with a gain of even $1,000. He plays high limit VP. Any quad at $5 Bonus Poker pays half of his win goal.

Either you accept that or you don't. Every grandma in a casino who cashes out after a winner and goes to the buffet understands that concept.

Rob should have stuck to that concept. Had he never brought up the double-up bug or made his claims, this new chapter would never have started.

Everything about Singer's system goes against the math.

Quote: sabre

Everything about Singer's system goes against the math.

I don't want to put myself in a position to defend him but I'm going to ask: what part of his system goes against the math? Be specific.

Be specific.

I'll say two things. One explaining how he went against the math, the other explaining how his "systems" could have worked in his favor.

He plays negative expectation games, first of all. Now, some will argue that all that's now available are negative expectation games. True dat, for the most part, but (1) Singer would go out of his way to NOT play 99.54% 9/6 JoB if inferior-paying quads games were available, and (2) it doesn't amount to much difference, but he did employ some sub-optimal holds. These differences don't seem like much, but they are sub-optimal. You play a couple thousand hours of video poker, and there is a significant difference in results.

Now, his martingale style would lead most hosts to classify him as very impulsive. He'd start at what, dollars, and go up as high as needed until he'd blow through 30k or whatever. That would probably get him a classification and more comps than somebody pumping the same dollar volume through in a non-martingale style fashion. Many casinos probably dangled inflated free play in his direction if he did one of his stints where he went from dollars to $25 games in a sitting as he lost. So I could possibly see him having gotten more bang for his buck comp-wise.

The problem with his "systems" wasn't that he used them, perhaps even profitably in the short term of his playing experience. The problem is that he presented them as something that would win going forward. In other words, he presented them as winning systems period, not systems that he happened to be using while winning. Crucial difference.

He never addressed the math in discussion. In other words, you never had him saying he played x number of hands and made y for a year or years, having hit this number of royals or that number of quads. It was always anecdotal stuff with tales of big wins. It wasn't like he said he played a certain number of hours and did this or that in a particular year with an exact number of royals and quads. So anybody asking about how he hit that many quads or royals in a number of hands never received any sort of answer. The problem, of course, is that kind of precision would lead to people being able to say he was so many standard deviations above where he should have been.

Also, whenever asked at what payback points his systems would fail (turn negative), he never had an answer. So he wouldn't say, "Yeah, at 97.3% payback, even my magic doesn't work." You never got anything like that from him, which is beyond a red flag. It's a cacophony of red alerts, really.

This discussion is going to get sidetracked and instead of asking for proof from Singer that he really won the money and found the double-up bug we're going to focus on the same nonsense of the past ten years.

Example:

The only time he made non optimal holds was when he wanted to increase his chances for a session ending big win. That happened less than five percent of the time.

Keep attacking Rob's system and he will slide by you once again. He has an explanation for every point you make... and I have an explanation too.

But you can't fool me anymore. There is only ONE issue to discuss: where is his proof.

If he sidetracks you from the proof he will win again. You can't fight his system. He has an answer for every objection.

The glitch origin story he told on your Best Buys site was without evidence, also. Without details of any kind that could be verified.

Finding a Video Poker Bug Made These Guys Rich—Then Vegas Made Them Pay | WIRED https://www.wired.com/2014/10/cheating-video-poker/

Quote: redietz

The glitch origin story he told on your Best Buys site was without evidence, also. Without details of any kind that could be verified.

That is correct. And when he told me about the glitch story at Red Rock which was before he told anyone else, I asked him for his proof. He said he had none.

In HIS article on my website there is a note from me about his lack of proof: no machine, no docs, no recordings, no W2Gs, nothing.

And that is when everything started to unwind in my mind.

Quote: ChumpChange

Finding a Video Poker Bug Made These Guys Rich—Then Vegas Made Them Pay | WIRED https://www.wired.com/2014/10/cheating-video-poker/

Rob Singer claimed he found it first.

Getting the picture???

People in high places always claiming credit for things other people did, even with the FBI hot on the other people's tails.

Poker: A short-term strategy that works - By Rob Singer - Mar 5, 2008 https://www.gamingtoday.com/poker/article/311-A_short_term_strategy_that_works

I'm gonna have to call this a tie.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Valid questions, Axel.

Here's why I believed him: First, I read his newspaper column for years and I trusted the editorial process and that his reports were correct.

Then I followed his website for years when he had it.

Then I spoke with him and we spent hours talking.

Then I did several on camera interviews.

What was missing was the proof of his claims but I trusted him and his explanations. The first time I did a video shoot with him at the Hard Rock I saw how he was treated and how he interacted with the manager there. Rob also arranged the logistics of the shoot there. That impressed me and also made me believe and trust him otherwise he wouldn't have been treated the way he was.

This continued for about ten years until his confession. That made me reexamine the big missing link: no proof. Always an explanation but never proof.

Now regarding Singer's math. I said this before and I'll say it again. There is nothing about Singer's system that goes against the math. He plays negative expectation games. His system says get lucky and quit when ahead. He has a $170,000 bankroll but will quit with a gain of even $1,000. He plays high limit VP. Any quad at $5 Bonus Poker pays half of his win goal.

Either you accept that or you don't. Every grandma in a casino who cashes out after a winner and goes to the buffet understands that concept.

Rob should have stuck to that concept. Had he never brought up the double-up bug or made his claims, this new chapter would never have started.

Anytime you're playing and negative EV game it's all about getting lucky.
Why don't/ didn't you just interview everyone who gambles?

The system was being promoted that it would work for you as well(work meaning... if you followed his system you would Make money). His whole premise was based on how to make money by not being an Advantage Player. I.E. F**k the math.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Here's why I believed him: First, I read his newspaper column for years and I trusted the editorial process and that his reports were correct.

The first time I read one of his GT columns I knew he was a charlatan

Quote: AlanMendelson

That is correct. And when he told me about the glitch story at Red Rock which was before he told anyone else, I asked him for his proof. He said he had none.

In HIS article on my website there is a note from me about his lack of proof: no machine, no docs, no recordings, no W2Gs, nothing.

And that is when everything started to unwind in my mind.

Three things:

1) Even without W2Gs, there should be evidence of his "Rumblin' and Stumblin' While Doublin'." He was traveling all over Nevada, right? Well, certainly he would have credit card receipts, gas bills, and hotel bills paralleling his routes as he went. Those would be retrievable.

2) Family members should be able to verify the glitch story with details. Singer claims he lost hundreds of thousands as an AP player before he started all of this systems and glitch stuff. If he claims all of his family members were kept in the dark regarding the glitch, well, that is an enormous red flag. You mean all of his family members, every single one, were okay with his running all over the place playing negative expectation games because they expected him to win after he had already lost hundreds of thousands? Think about it. He allegedly lost a boatload while playing video poker as an AP, which preceded this, right? Why would his family then be on board with his running around playing for years afterwards unless they knew about the glitch? So if any of his family members are employed by the government where publicly lying about this would be more of a cost than a benefit, I would ask them if they could verify it. I would be very curious to see if his children would be willing to go on camera to verify the story.

3) Outside of the family, someone, somewhere should be able to verify the story. Singer said he called Gaming Today to apologize for lying to them all of those years. Well, who did he call? Would that person be willing to go on camera? Gaming Today, I imagine, would be furious with him. Singer lied in front page articles for years, misguiding readers? If Alan Mendelson comes forward with the story that Singer was lying to readers, then that means Gaming Today was also lying to readers. Gaming Today would then be forced to explain how/why they provided cover for Singer's lies.

If there is no evidence, there is no story. May as well be interviewed about your internship with Santa 15 years ago.

Quote: redietz

Three things:

1) Even without W2Gs, there should be evidence of his "Rumblin' and Stumblin' While Doublin'." He was traveling all over Nevada, right? Well, certainly he would have credit card receipts, gas bills, and hotel bills paralleling his routes as he went. Those would be retrievable.

2) Family members should be able to verify the glitch story with details. Singer claims he lost hundreds of thousands as an AP player before he started all of this systems and glitch stuff. If he claims all of his family members were kept in the dark regarding the glitch, well, that is an enormous red flag. You mean all of his family members, every single one, were okay with his running all over the place playing negative expectation games because they expected him to win after he had already lost hundreds of thousands? Think about it. He allegedly lost a boatload while playing video poker as an AP, which preceded this, right? Why would his family then be on board with his running around playing for years afterwards unless they knew about the glitch? So if any of his family members are employed by the government where publicly lying about this would be more of a cost than a benefit, I would ask them if they could verify it. I would be very curious to see if his children would be willing to go on camera to verify the story.

3) Outside of the family, someone, somewhere should be able to verify the story. Singer said he called Gaming Today to apologize for lying to them all of those years. Well, who did he call? Would that person be willing to go on camera? Gaming Today, I imagine, would be furious with him. Singer lied in front page articles for years, misguiding readers? If Alan Mendelson comes forward with the story that Singer was lying to readers, then that means Gaming Today was also lying to readers. Gaming Today would then be forced to explain how/why they provided cover for Singer's lies.

If there is no evidence, there is no story. May as well be interviewed about your internship with Santa 15 years ago.

if somebody attempted using a Singer's strategy under the assumption it was a legitimate winning strategy due to all the Articles they read at GT and ended up losing a significant amount of money, is there a fair chance they could sue GT and Singer for damages and recover anything?

I don't know anything about the legal aspects. Gaming Today was pretty strange in that they ran columns about math-optimal video poker strategies concurrent with Singer's systems columns.

There isn't a legal issue here except casinos that might want their money back from the double-up bug and if Singer is wrong about the statute of limitations.

But Singer's got the perfect defense. All he has to say is, I didn't win anything. Did I show any proof that I did?

LOL

So the Pulitzer prize scoop is the guy who is saying he wins by being a degenerate is a degenerate? Anyone with half a brain if they see him, they walk the other way. This is nothing new. If someone fell victim to him, they were a degenerate themselves, so I'd not feel sorry for them. Losing is what they want and have to do.

Rob made contact with me and we're early in the process about discussing an interview.

Quote: Wizard

Rob made contact with me and we're early in the process about discussing an interview.

If you're going to livestream it, you might want to consider vetoing Hawaiian shirts. Rough on the eyes.

Quote: Wizard

Rob made contact with me and we're early in the process about discussing an interview.

I don't see the point. "So all that other stuff I said was a lie. But now I'm going to tell the truth. Honestly, you can trust me."

Quote: Wizard

Rob made contact with me and we're early in the process about discussing an interview.

Why would you give an admitted con man, liar, and thief a forum?

Quote: billryan

Why would you give an admitted con man, liar, and thief a forum?

Quote: billryan

Why would you give an admitted con man, liar, and thief a forum?

It's May 1st. We gotta open up the forum economy. LOL. Bill's question was a great set-up, but all of my best sarcastic answers had political references, so I had to stifle them.

Honestly, part of me is all for it, as it should be a hoot. But I have to admit, I never really asked the question bill asked above. It stopped me in my tracks. I'm a little dumbfounded that I never thought to ask it. I'm usually at least trying to think about the public good and all that.

It puts Wizard in the position of trying to thread a needle here. If "Singer" is convincing vis-à-vis the glitch, then you have to hope that the forum audience is mathematically sophisticated enough to not buy into the "systems" stuff. Or maybe "Singer" will come completely clean about the "systems" being hooey. It's possible. That would, in fact, be his overall most convincing route.

Once and for all... ask him for proof and don't accept explanations about why there is no proof.

Singer claims he discovered the double up bug FIVE YEARS before Nestor and Kane and Singer says he profited $2.8-million from the bug.

He is yet to show any proof. He says he had the formula to trigger the bug but who has confirmed it? I mean actually confirmed it.

Look... if I said Singer left out "tapping on the screen three times" you wouldn't know if Singer's formula is correct or if my formula is correct.

Any update on the interview and will he finally present proof of his claims?

Now, Alan, you know that storage locker in Arizona is probably loaded with virus.

I just looked over at VCT, and of course there is the classic post by "Singer" that highlights the problem with giving him any pulpit. Check out Post #380 in the "Alan Mendelson is Going for the Jugular" thread, where he discusses the wife and son of a successful AP video poker player who went by the handle of Arcimede$.

This is the kind of stuff that has made "Singer" more well known than his Rube Goldberg systems. He was canned from his Gaming Today column when he famously commented on the death of a well known, published AP by saying "eat dirt." That was because the AP had explained that "Singer's" systems were voodoo.

I was trained in journalism and interviewing, and the questions you have to address are something like -- If the person behaves one way in 15,000 posts and in most interactions, and that is the persona experienced by tens of thousands of his readers, then if I do an interview and his presentation is completely different, but I have spent a couple of hours or days with the person, am I doing a disservice to MY readers by only presenting that which I've experienced for those couple of hours/days?

In math terms, am I getting enough of a sample that I'm comfortable presenting this "slice" of the person I'm interviewing? My readers may presume that slice is the whole pie. Do I ask about the bad stuff that's gone on with others, or does that blow the interview?

I have no answers. But I do take the 15,000 posts here and there, and public "eat dirt" as more of a sample than anything I'd garner in a couple of hours or days.

And, in fact, Alan, who has spent a lifetime in high profile journalism, is best suited to discuss these questions and problems with "Singer." I think Alan gave too much weight to his couple of hours/days with "Singer," even though those were spread over years.